History and Defintions

[SeaSpeck]

I'm trying to get my facts straight, so tell me if I'm wrong.

In the beginning socialism and communism were used as interchangeable words. It wasn't until Lenin came along and identified socialism as the "lower stage" in Marx's theory and communism as the "advanced stage."

Now, with that said, speaking strictly in the economic sense, could it be said that communism is the same as socialism, except communism lacks a wage system. The same organization of labor takes place, except people are free to satisfy their needs and contribute as much as they like.

[el_chavista]

Quoting from wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_communism) :

Before Marx all communism was rooted in religious principles like those of the League of the Just in Germany in the 1840's, whose motto was "All Men are Brothers" and whose aim was to establish a new society "based on the ideals of love of one's neighbor, equality and justice". Under the influence of Marx and Engels, the league's communism becomes secular or atheist, it's name was changed to "The League of the Communists", and it's motto was changed to "Workers of all countries, unite!". Marx used the word communism for his scientific socialism so as to making a difference with other previous socialist approaches (enumerated in the Manifesto of the communist Party, the league's programme).
And it was Marx himself who stated that there would have to be a transition society, meanwhile the state and the classes wither away until reaching a real communist society.
Lenin's contribution to the theory of doing a communist revolution referrers to the seizing of power.

[The Vegan Marxist]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there's also the fact that, when we achieve Socialism, at most, we've gained a classless society. But, to achieve both classless & stateless, that's when Communism differs from Socialism.

[ZeroNowhere]

^ I don't think even Lenin held that.


All socialists see anarchy as the following program:
Once the aim of the proletarian movement — i.e., abolition of classes — is attained, the power of the state, which serves to keep the great majority of producers in bondage to a very small exploiter minority, disappears, and the functions of government become simple administrative functions.
Political power, properly so called, is merely the organised power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organise itself as a class, if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.

In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.
Anyhow, to the OP, I'm not sure it would be accurate to say that the two terms were never distinct until Lenin, I believe Lenin himself had referred to the distinction being present already among Russian socialists. Though it was not present in Marx, sure. As regards the lower and higher stages of socialism, both were forms of communist society, and therefore had no wage system as a result of not being, well, capitalist, whereas wage labour, as Marx put it, "presupposes capital". The lower phase did have a system that would generally be referred to as a 'labour credit' system (in which the credits did not circulate, of course). In any case, labour would be directly social, thus also leading to the lack of production of values or of commodity production, and labour power would not be a commodity. Perhaps this (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/ch02.htm) would clarify that matter.

[el_chavista]

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but there's also the fact that, when we achieve Socialism, at most, we've gained a classless society. But, to achieve both classless & stateless, that's when Communism differs from Socialism.
Even Stalin stated that in Socialism there still remain the class struggle.

[SeaSpeck]

Ok, thanks, I think I worded my original post wrong. I should have used something like "remuneration device" instead of "wage system."

[mikelepore]

I don't think "classless" and "stateless" are parallel discussions at all.

"Classless" is very specific. Today we have one population group that owns and controls most of the wealth, but does no productive work, and another population group that produces all of the wealth, but receives and controls very little of it. That arrangement has to go.

"Stateless" is as vague as can be. There is no consensus among Marxists about what features should be retained and what features should be eliminated. The only thing that Marxists agree on regarding the state is that the sort of political power that upholds a ruling class and subjugates a ruled class must be eliminated, but there's no need to indicate that point with a separate word, because the word "classless" has already covered it.