Is Communism/Socialism the same thing?

[Hexen]

Or is it not? If so what are the differences between them?

[Zanthorus]

Depends who you ask. The lines are a lot more blurred than some people think.

A lot of the original "utopian" socialists could probably be described as communists. Saint-Simon was the basis for Marx and Engels whole schtick about replacing the "state" with an "administration of things".

Marx and Engels only distuinguished between "communism" and "socialism" in their early propaganda work in order to put some distance between themselves and all the other utopian and reactionary groups going under the label "socialism". In private conversation they were a lot more loose with the words as well as in later theoretical work.

Leninists like to set up some whole dichotomy between the two where socialism is the economic order that occurs under the dictatorship of the proletariat and which is synonymous with the "lower stage of communism" that Marx talks about (Even though Marx never says anything about the DoP still existing in the lower stage). This stage of "socialism" under the state then gives way to the "higher" stage of communism with no classes, wage-labour etc etc you probably know the drill by now.

Some groups hold that the DoP is just a transition period which gives way immediately to the Marxian "lower stage of communism" with no classes, wage-labour, capital etc but call themselves "socialist" and their system "socialism" in order to distuinguish themselves from Leninism and the various so-called communist regimes of the 20th century. The Socialist Party of Great Britain would be an example of a party that while holding fairly orthodox-Marxist views on what should happen post-capitalism regards itself as "socialist" and not "communist". Although some of their theoretical work I've read tends to put "communist" in brackets when describing those regimes , probably to give a nod to those in the know.

I'd say on the whole those describing themselves as "communists" tend to be more radical than those describing themselves as socialists. Although even this is probably a worthless way of distuinguishing between the two given the various currents such as eurocommunism which are basically social-democracy under a new banner.

So yeah, the difference between the two is largely hard to find and will generally be defined differently depending on the political background and experience of whatever writer you're reading.

[ed miliband]

I use the two interchangeably depending on the company I'm in. I suppose that is quite cowardly :(.

[The Red Next Door]

Someone told me, you will not get as much shit from some people, if you refer to yourself as socialist instead of a communist, which actually works

[Lyev]

You have to be careful sometimes when using the two together. The word "Socialism", and in fact "Communism" means something totally different for right-wingers, than it does for actual socialists. It also depends, I think whether you put a capital letter "C" at the start of communism.

When someone like Glenn Beck mentions Communism, with a capital C, he means a highly authoritarian regime run by a highly centralized government, with a state-planned and owned economy. Countries like the former Soviet Union or maybe Vietnam.

When I, and probably everyone else on this forum, use the word communism (and I always make sure to use it with a small c) I mean a political, economic and social system where the state, money and classes have been abolished, and the general exchange, administration, organisation etc. of things are run through a series of co-operatives or communes.

Also, a lot of parties call themselves socialist (for example mine) because the word "socialism" carries different, less authoritarian connotations to the word communism, because of previous Stalinist regimes. When you say "Communism" a lot of people tend to think of dictatorship.

Lastly, before Lenin came along, socialism and communism meant exactly the same thing, but Marx and Engels decided to use the word communism because it sounded a lot more radical than socialism. There was a lot of utopian socialists around at the time who used the socialism and socialist, like Fourier, St. Simon, Owen etc., and Marx and Engels wanted to distinguish themselves from these theorists. Hence why they called themselves "scientific" socialists. I think everything has been covered.

EDIT: another point that has come to mind is how some people use the word socialist. Quite a lot the mainstream media or different books and political theorists, will refer to countries like Sweden, or Britain under Attlee, as being socialist, because of their penchant for nationalisation and high trade tariffs. Nationalisation most certainly doesn't equate to socialism. Some folks thing it does. I call myself socialist, but I don't uphold these regimes as being "socialist" in the slightest. They're social-democratic; they're reformist. Everyone on this board is a revolutionary socialist. Basically, if there's a government that claims to represent workers, and claims that it has socialist policies, yet it's still in power under a capitalist system, then it's socialist in the slightest.

[Antifa94]

No. Socialism sucks and is a guise for bourgeois semi-capitalism. Socialists have endlessly betrayed proletarian movements. The ideology of social democrats and their parts is the last stance of the bourgeoisie in retaining some private sectors. The electorate though is composed of confused proletarians/ sympathetic bourgeoisie.

oh and lyev didn't engels say that " if all government ownership of business meant socialism, than Metternich and Napolean would be the most shining examples of it"?

[x359594]

Interesting thoughts on the subject from Slavoj Žižek:

First as Tragedy, then as Farce (London: Verso, 2009), pp. 95-97:

As Michael Hardt has put it, if capitalism stands for private property and socialism for state property, communism stands for the overcoming of property as such in the commons. Socialism is what Marx called "vulgar communism," in which we get only what Hegel would have called the abstract negation of property, that is, the negation of property within the field of property--it is "universalized private property." Hence the title of the Newsweek cover story of February 16, 2009: "We are all socialists now," and its subtitle, "In many ways our economy already resembles a European one," is fully justified, if properly understood: even in the US, the bastion of economic liberalism, capitalism is having to re-invent socialism in order to save itself. The irony of the fact that this process of coming to "resemble Europe" is further characterized by the prediction that "we [in the US] will become even more French" cannot but strike the reader. After all, Sarkozy was elected as French president on a platform of finally finishing off the tradition of European welfare-state socialism and rejoining the Anglo-Saxon liberal model--and yet the very model he proposed to imitate is now returning to just what he wanted to move away from: the allegedly discredited path of large-scale state intervention in the economy. The much-maligned European "social model," decried as inefficient and out of date under the conditions of postmodern capitalism, has tasted its revenge. But there is no reason for joy here: socialism is no longer to be conceived as the infamous "lower phase" of communism, it is its true competitor, the greatest threat to it. (Perhaps the time has come to remember that throughout the twentieth century social democracy was an instrument mobilized to counteract the communist threat to capitalism.) Thus the completion of Negri's title should be: Goodbye Mr. Socialism ... and Welcome, Comrade Communism!

[Die Rote Fahne]

Marx used the terms interchangeably.

Many modern day Marxists use the term socialism, however, to refer to the "dictatorship of the proletariat". The transitional phase from capitalism to communism.

[Blake's Baby]

I use the terms interchangeably, and berate people who think 'socialism' means 'state ownership of the means of production' because as I'm very fond of telling them that is actually 'state capitalism'.

[Alf]

I agree with those who are wary of this distinction, above all because it has been used by the Stalinist regimes as a justification for state capitalism. There is some evidence that the distinction was made by genuine revolutionaries in the past - in some of William Morris' writings, and certainly in Lenin's State and Revolution. I am not aware of this use of the term 'socialism', as an equivalent to the lower stage of communism, in Marx or Engels. To talk about socialism as a definite stage on the road to communism carries the danger of making a separate mode of production out of an economic situation which is by nature transitional, and in perpetual movement - either towards integral communism or back towards capitalism.

[Nuvem]

There is a legitimate difference between Communists and Socialists. Socialists propose a different form of government than Communists do; many Communists see Socialism as a stepping stone on the way to Communism, but that's just inaccurate. We Socialists have many of the same goals, but there are crucial differences between us.

Generally I find that the two critical differences between Communists and Socialists is that Socialists use an electoral model for government while Communists use "centralized democracy" and the Socialists generally support the State as an organism while Communists strive for its withering away. Economically, our differences are minimal, but there ARE real differences and Socialism is NOT just a footnote of Communism. In all reality, Socialist theories existed before Communist ones and Communism is indeed one of the many branches of Socialism (which is not to say that it is any less legitimate; I do support my Communist comrades).

[Obrero Rebelde]

The Marxists should lay down the definitions and not leave it to the bourgeois idiots to get the last word at labeling.

We are 21st Century Marxists; hence, socialism IS the transition from capitalism to communism (classless society).

Leave it at that and call the shots already!

[Tablo]

They are not technically the same thing, but in practice Socialism I think is only really possible in Communism. When I say Socialism I mean democratic control of the economy and the workplace, not any welfare state or state-capitalist bs.

[sanpal]

The Marxists should lay down the definitions and not leave it to the bourgeois idiots to get the last word at labeling.

We are 21st Century Marxists; hence, socialism IS the transition from capitalism to communism (classless society).

Leave it at that and call the shots already!

It's the most reasonable decision I could imagine. I tried to tell the same some monthes ago here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/can-we-learn-t128765/index.html?p=1668949#post1668949) (post #43).



Confusion on the definition of the left terminology is giving rise to arising of sectarianism which plays on the side of bourgeois ideologists.

Alf:

To talk about socialism as a definite stage on the road to communism carries the danger of making a separate mode of production out of an economic situation which is by nature transitional, and in perpetual movement - either towards integral communism or back towards capitalism.

May I ask what could mean "integral communism" ?

[ed miliband]

I love the fact that this thread already has multiple definitions of socialism being thrown about.

I think we need a new dictionary.

[Tablo]

I love the fact that this thread already has multiple definitions of socialism being thrown about.

I think we need a new dictionary.
Reason is because Socialism has multiple definitions nowadays even amongst the far left. Very annoying to debate Socialism with someone who has a different definition in mind.