The Difference Between Communism and Socialism

[hippiedude94]

I want to know what the difference between communism and socialism is. I know they are similar. I've heard socialism is just a less radical version of communism. Is that right? What's the difference?:confused:

[LeninBalls]

Communism; classless, stateless society where people work for the good off all free from wage labour and bourgeoisie opression.

Socialism; the period before communism in which human minds are supposed to be developed to be more fitting into communism, post revolution. Serves as a "bridge" between capitalism and communism, remaining there until the whole/majority of the world has succumbed to Marxism (or anarchism if it be).

As a note, anarchists are communists that don't want socialism, while Marxist are communists that believe in socialism before communism.

[GPDP]

Socialism is only a transitory stage between capitalism and communism in Leninist theory. Elsewhere, it's basically used interchangeably with communism. Even as an anarchist, I argue for socialism all the time.

However, some use the term socialist as a broad catch-all term for leftist anti-capitalists of all stripes, while communist tends to be a more specific term.

[Agrippa]

The main difference between communism and socialism is that communism is a state of complete social freedom whereas socialism is a form of capitalist control whose proponents sometimes justify as necessary under the pretense of "transitioning to communism". To socialists, communism is just a carrot to dangle on a stick for the masses to follow.

[ZeroNowhere]

Socialism is only a transitory stage between capitalism and communism in Leninist theory. Elsewhere, it's basically used interchangeably with communism. Even as an anarchist, I argue for socialism all the time.
Pretty much this, the distinction between the two terms in reference to a social system originated from Lenin.


However, some use the term socialist as a broad catch-all term for leftist anti-capitalists of all stripes, while communist tends to be a more specific term.Generally, Marx and Engels used 'socialist' to refer to all socialists, including the utopians, whereas 'communist' only referred to non-utopian socialists. They also used it to refer to movements that were called 'socialist' in the time, though they were clear that these were only 'so-called socialists'.

[mikelepore]

The word communist was chosen only as a contrast with ideas that had effectively preempted the word socialist.

"Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France ...." ---- Preface to the 1872 German edition of the Communist Manifesto (link (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm))

[mikelepore]

I notice now that the original post didn't ask about "-ist" (as in movements) -- it asked about "-ism" (as in systems). (If I understood correctly.)

In a letter in 1875 Marx speculated briefly about what he called "the first phase of communist society" and "the higher phase of communist society", with the only difference mentioned between the two phases being the "first phase" is expected to compensate workers hourly with "certificates", and the "higher phase" is expected to eliminate the use of such money-like units. In 1917 Lenin renamed those two phases "socialism" and "communism", respectively, and he also added a new association between the expected dissolution of the political state and his new definition of "communism."

[robbo203]

Pretty much this, the distinction between the two terms in reference to a social system originated from Lenin.
.

True. Though oddly enough Lenin called socialism both 1) the lower phase of communism and 2) state capitalist monopoly run in the interests of workers. The one contradicts the other but then Lenin was not known for his logical consistency or clarity of thought. He further distinguished between the state capitalism of the so called proletarian state and the state capitalism of the capitalist state but then professed a great admiration for the latter referring to the war time economy of the Kaiser and the Prussian Junkers in these glowing terms:

"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27 page 340.)

[ZeroNowhere]

True. Though oddly enough Lenin called socialism both 1) the lower phase of communism and 2) state capitalist monopoly run in the interests of workers.Well, technically, he called it a state capitalist monopoly which had ceased to be a capitalist monopoly, saying, "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.“ The bigger inconsistency here is that he associated it with the initial phase of communism, but apparently it had class rule. So really, he wasn't calling socialism the initial phase of communism, he was only operating with the second definition.

Also, your quote is from this document, (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) and comes from this passage:


To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.

Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation, which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).

At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC. And history (which nobody, except Menshevik blockheads of the first order, ever expected to bring about “complete” socialism smoothly, gently, easily and simply) has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism. In 1918 Germany and Russia have become the most striking embodiment of the material realisation of the economic, the productive and the socio-economic conditions for socialism, on the one hand, and the political conditions, on the other.

A successful proletarian revolution in Germany would immediately and very easily smash any shell of imperialism (which unfortunately is made of the best steel, and hence cannot be broken by the efforts of any . . . chicken) and would bring about the victory of world socialism for certain, without any difficulty, or with slight difficulty—if, of course, by “difficulty” we mean difficult on a world historical scale, and not in the parochial philistine sense.

While the revolution in Germany is still slow in “coming forth”, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it. Our task is to hasten this copying even more than Peter hastened the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, and we must not hesitate to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism. If there are anarchists and Left Socialist-Revolutionaries (I recall off-hand the speeches of Karelin and Ghe at the meeting of the Central Executive Committee) who indulge in Narcissus-like reflections and say that it is unbecoming for us revolutionaries to “take lessons” from German imperialism, there is only one thing we can say in reply: the revolution that took these people seriously would perish irrevocably (and deservedly).

[robbo203]

Well, technically, he called it a state capitalist monopoly which had ceased to be a capitalist monopoly, saying, "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly.“ The bigger inconsistency here is that he associated it with the initial phase of communism, but apparently it had class rule. So really, he wasn't calling socialism the initial phase of communism, he was only operating with the second definition.

Also, your quote is from this document, (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm) and comes from this passage:

Yes I would agree with this although it still needs to be said that a state capitalist monopoly (allegedly) made to serve the interests of the whole people is still capitalism - by definition - and therefore logically inconsistent with the claim that socialism is the lower phase of communism. "Socialism" in this latter sense has class rule because it is actually a state capitalist economy and not a communist economy

Thanks for the link to Lenin's reference to German state capitalism. Quite revealing that...

[robbo203]

Here is another interesting link on this subject http://www.marxists.org/archive/hardcastle/socialist_equality.htm

[ZeroNowhere]

I had read that piece earlier while going through Hardcastle's works, it was decent. Still, on 'equal pay', I don't think his Marx quote actually proves what he intended it to, since Marx was describing the pay given to people fulfilling government functions in the Commune, rather than everybody (if everybody was paid a 'workman's wage', there wouldn't really be any standard for a 'workman's wage'). Also, he discussed 'wages' there, which evidently wouldn't have anything to do with his views on the initial phase of communism (whereas "the majority of the [Paris] Commune was in no sense socialist"). To be fair, it's not quite as bad as Rubel's abuse of the 'I am not a Marxist' quote, and certainly not Lenin's interpretation of the initial phase of communism, but anyways. Also, Marx never used the expression 'to each according to his quantity of work', though to be fair he did support it, though not the whole 'he who does not work, neither shall he eat' crap, though that could have been necessary in Russia due to the shortage in food, but Russia wasn't in any position to set up socialism anyways. Though the part relevant to this thread is accurate. To add to it, De Leon practically never actually used the word 'communism'.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Yes I would agree with this although it still needs to be said that a state capitalist monopoly (allegedly) made to serve the interests of the whole people is still capitalism - by definition - and therefore logically inconsistent with the claim that socialism is the lower phase of communism. "Socialism" in this latter sense has class rule because it is actually a state capitalist economy and not a communist economy

Thanks for the link to Lenin's reference to German state capitalism. Quite revealing that...

I kind of depends on the translation...but I think Lenin's quote is correct. I've also seen it worded as "Socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to run in the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly." which is a bit clearer way of getting his point across. State capitalism can't be run in the interests of the whole people. To do so it would have to be made democratic, and that would leave us with socialism, which is what he was saying. It's democratic state capitalism and as such can not be called state capitalism.

Anyway, concerning the thread topic:

http://www.deleonism.org/text/91092101.htm

[Holger Meins]

Socialism is the worker getting the whole result of his work. Communism is the means of production being owned by the collective.

[ZeroNowhere]

Socialism is the worker getting the whole result of his work. Communism is the means of production being owned by the collective.Yeah, and from Lenin's 'initial phase of communism with a state chucked in there somehow' as socialism, and the higher phase of communism as 'communism', we now get... What the hell.

[sanpal]

True. Though oddly enough Lenin called socialism both 1) the lower phase of communism and 2) state capitalist monopoly run in the interests of workers. The one contradicts the other but then Lenin was not known for his logical consistency or clarity of thought. He further distinguished between the state capitalism of the so called proletarian state and the state capitalism of the capitalist state but then professed a great admiration for the latter referring to the war time economy of the Kaiser and the Prussian Junkers in these glowing terms:

"While the revolution in Germany is still slow in coming forth, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of it (Lenin, Collected Works, Vol. 27 page 340.)

I think Lenin was in one step from the concept of two independent economic sectors but unfortunately he had not done this step and by this he confused many followers-communists. Sure that he understood that transformation of the capitalist mode of production into the communist mode of production is not deal of only one day, that it would demand vast period of time and he stood in front of the same task as modern communists do: how to pass from monetary system of the state capitalist monopoly to moneyless communist society. In the same work Lenin talked about labour notes as attribute of moneyless economy and in the same time, he talked about officials' wages not higher than wages of workers. This duality says to us that Lenin hadn't done this step. What he'd done is he renamed the lower phase of communism into socialism likely to combine the state capitalist monopoly and the communist mode of production into one economically. Instead he had to divide "socialist" mode of production on two independent modes: capitalist in the state capitalist sector of economy (monetary system) and communist in communist sector of economy (moneyless system). This society of transition period with multi-sectors economy fairly has to be named as Socialism, or more exactly as Proletarian Socialism. And quite fairly this transition period could be named as lower stage of communism because its economy consist of communist sector partly. And as I posted earlier there the third economic sector has to be existed - the traditional bourgeois sector of private ownership under workers' control of DotP (the reason for it is there are no places where former capitalists could be exiled, that Stalin's Gulag is closed at present moment ;-) ). Stages of transformation is shown in my picture.

[h9socialist]

The difference between socialism and communism is semantic! It was semantic in the 1840s when Marx labeled himself a "communist" because he thought those who called themselves "socialists" were utopian pewrenters. And it's semantic today as "socialism" seems to be more politically palatable in the West. In truth, there is very little programmatic difference between today's communist and socialist parties. In the U.S. it can be credibly argued that the Socialist Party is further to the left than the Communist Party. I have read Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programme several times, and for the life of me I can't recall him referring to the transitional stage between capitalism and communism as "socialism." Moreover I don't remember a country named the "Union of Soviet
Communist Republics." Both terms refer to a societal arrangement in which the yolk of capitalist commodity production is removed as the great enslaver of human labor. Perhaps that's where we should leave this argument -- and find new ways to overcome the factionalism of the Left.

[h9socialist]

The difference between socialism and communism is semantic! It was semantic in the 1840s when Marx labeled himself a "communist" because he thought those who called themselves "socialists" were utopian pewrenters. And it's semantic today as "socialism" seems to be more politically palatable in the West. In truth, there is very little programmatic difference between today's communist and socialist parties. In the U.S. it can be credibly argued that the Socialist Party is further to the left than the Communist Party. I have read Marx's "Critique of the Gotha Programme several times, and for the life of me I can't recall him referring to the transitional stage between capitalism and communism as "socialism." Moreover I don't remember a country named the "Union of Soviet Communist Republics." Both terms refer to a societal arrangement in which the yolk of capitalist commodity production is removed as the great enslaver of human labor. Perhaps that's where we should leave this argument -- and find new ways to overcome the factionalism of the Left.