What is the differences between Communism and Socialism?

[GodLike1001]

Anyone care to explain for a noob?

bonus points for the easiest explaination + examples

[28350]

Basically,
In socialism, the state owns everything - this can be very good or very bad, depending on who runs the state.
Examples: The best would be the Paris Commune. Most people agree early Soviet Russia was socialist. The Vatican is socialist (not in ideology, but in terms of management - ie. a central authority sets prices for candles and robes and whatever).
In communism, there is no state, and there is no class (socioeconomic distinctions).
Examples: We've had none.

[x371322]

It depends on who you ask. For some, socialism is the stage before communism, also known as the "dictatorship of the proletariat" until the state can fade away and a true communist society with no state, no money, and no classes can develop. Others don't even distinguish between socialism and communism at all, instead saying that socialism is simply the early stages of communism.

[The Ben G]

Well, all Communism is is Stateless Socialism. According to Marx, Socialism is the stepping stone in between Capitalism and Communism. I think Socialism is more of a State Capitalist system where as Communism is managed by the people/workers. Also in Socialism, there are still Classes, but they become more and more of the same over time.

[Ocean Seal]

Socialism involves the state controlling the wealth and acting in the direct benefit of the working class all the while withering away.
In communism there is no state and the workers control the wealth/resources and act in direct benefit of themselves.

[Zanthorus]

Unlike Lenin, some of us follow Marx and don't refer to the transition between capitalism and communism as socialism.

[Bombay]

Unlike Lenin, some of us follow Marx and don't refer to the transition between capitalism and communism as socialism.

Would the production still be controlled by the workers in this definition?

[Aurora]

I think almost all comrades( with the exception of zanthorus) are confusing the dictatorship of the proletariat(workers state) with the lower phase of communism(socialism)

im not even gonna touch the vatican being socialist :lol:


Unlike Lenin, some of us follow Marx and don't refer to the transition between capitalism and communism as socialism.
Does Lenin do this? could you give an example? i know that in the State and Revolution chapter 5 lenin specifically separates the DOTP, the first phase and then the higher phase into diferent sections, 2 3 4 respectively

[Nolan]

Socialism is the DOTP imo, which requires a state.

Communism is statelessness.


The Vatican is socialistWhat are you smoking?

[Zanthorus]

Does Lenin do this? could you give an example? i know that in the State and Revolution chapter 5 lenin specifically separates the DOTP, the first phase and then the higher phase into diferent sections, 2 3 4 respectively

Not explicitly. He sort of gets muddled and telescopes the first two together. He says that under socialism or the "lower phase of communism" a "state" still exists to enforce the scheme of labour time accounting since "bourgeois law" necessarily requires the bourgeois state. He also says that only until "complete communism" (i.e the higher phase of communism) is achieved will the state actually wither away.

Personally I've always found myself a little muddled when read State & Revolution. Although it is an unfinished work.

[28350]

I do not mean the teaching of the Catholic Church, but its economy.

The Vatican, if viewed as a country, operates through a socialist economy. If you say that socialism is the state nationalizing everything, then the Vatican is socialist.

Then again, that is a very flimsy definition (and hardly a marxist one) that I was adopting for simplicity's sake.

EDIT:

What are you smoking?
Teehee.

[mikelepore]

Two people above said that socialism is the dictatorship of the proletariat. Unless they can cite classic literature to support that, I think they are misstating the meanings. I don't agree with the two-stage socialism-then-communism theory in any event, but that's not what I'm talking about here. Even in the socialism-then-communism theory, socialism is NOT considered synonymous with the dictatorship of the proletariat. The DOTP is considered the briefer activity of dispossessing the old ruling class and suppressing any rebellion on the part of the old ruling class. After the DOTP is completed, that is, the former ruling class no longer a problem in any way, the two-stage theory still assumes an additional period that they call socialism, in which the various social conditions requiring the state and money, various habits of thinking and behaving, are believed to be fading away gradually.

[Crusade]

Socialism is just an umbrella term for some forms of economic organization, one of them being communism.

[Tablo]

Socialism is a term referring to democratic control of the economy and the work place. Communism is a stateless classless society. A Communist economy would be Socialist.

[Scary Monster]

Socialism involves the state controlling the wealth and acting in the direct benefit of the working class all the while withering away.
In communism there is no state and the workers control the wealth/resources and act in direct benefit of themselves.

Im pretty sure no real socialist/communist has ever said- nor does anyone here think- that the state controlling wealth "in the interest of" the working class (without directly involving the working class) is what we advocate. The state controlling everything is just another form of capitalism; Unless this is what you meant but you just worded it weird, i hope?

[Die Rote Fahne]

Marx used the terms interchangeably. However, to many modern Marxists 'socialism' is usually used to refer to the 'dictatorship of the proletariat', the transitional stage before 'communism' -- the final stage of Marxism (a society that is stateless, classless and moneyless).

[Sir Comradical]

Socialism: Is the transition stage to Communism.

[Weezer]

Socialism is great, and Communism is even better.

[Crusade]

I pray for the novices who read this thread.

[Crusade]

Socialism is a term referring to democratic control of the economy and the work place. Communism is a stateless classless society. A Communist economy would be Socialist.

Listen to this man. ^

[Atlee]

im not even gonna touch the vatican being socialist :lol:


There has been plenty of debate about, "Jesus was a socialist." But here is the official teaching that some say is close to being the religious version of ideology titled Rerum Novarum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rerum_Novarum) which deals with human dignity, wages, and being fair.

[Atlee]

Anyone care to explain for a noob?

bonus points for the easiest explanation + examples

I to this point have read some great Cartesian examples (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cartesian)of what the differences are; yet, there are over simplified. I will try a different route which requires more adventurous thought.

*Twilight Zone* intro music :)

There is a time and place ever closer to Utopia. :redstar2000: *Sorry, I cannot get the voice to work.* :sneaky:

Anyway, imagine an onion traveling through space (time) as the object. The onion having many layers being slowly peeled back reveal over that time a different idea. On each layer of idea is a location (ever notice that onions have natural lines in them?). Within each location is a different race, faith, culture, language, etc making each unique, but still part of the whole.

The outside layers are more socialistic from the right side of the throw to reveal the left side as the onion peels back towards communism at its inner core become more united with less lines of divide and smaller layers.

[Zanthorus]

Socialism is a term referring to democratic control of the economy and the work place. Communism is a stateless classless society. A Communist economy would be Socialist.

Socialism can and has been used by self-proclaimed socialists to mean state direction of the economy.


Im pretty sure no real socialist/communist has ever said- nor does anyone here think- that the state controlling wealth "in the interest of" the working class (without directly involving the working class) is what we advocate. The state controlling everything is just another form of capitalism; Unless this is what you meant but you just worded it weird, i hope?

Clearly you are unfamiliar with the phenomenon known as "Stalinism".

[ContrarianLemming]

Comunism is stateless and classless..socialism is workers control..

There not even necessarily connected.

[ZeroNowhere]

Comunism is stateless and classless..socialism is workers control..

There not even necessarily connected.
While I can at least understand where the 'transitional stage' idea originated, I am not entirely sure where this one comes from.


The Vatican, if viewed as a country, operates through a socialist economy. If you say that socialism is the state nationalizing everything, then the Vatican is socialist.What was it that Engels had said of Napoleon?

[Zanthorus]

While I can at least understand where the 'transitional stage' idea originated, I am not entirely sure where this one comes from.

I think it came about from co-operative socialists like Proudhon, Louis Blanc etc. Owen's "labour notes" might have been "no more money than a theatre ticket" and he might have proposed associated labour but he also took part in the co-operative movement. And it's not hard to see also how after the Bolshevik party became integrated into capital and began crushing the Soviets that the councillists would've wanted to stress the "workers control" aspect of socialism over everything else.

[28350]

While I can at least understand where the 'transitional stage' idea originated, I am not entirely sure where this one comes from.

What was it that Engels had said of Napoleon?


I admit, that was ridiculous.

[Blake's Baby]

For some of us, there is no difference between 'communism' and 'socialism'. To Marx and many others (such as Bakunin and Kropotkin) they meant the same thing.

Lenin changed the terminology in use; he used 'socialism' to mean what Marx called 'the lower phase of communism' and some that have follwed Lenin have done the same, with the added mix-up between that and what others have already described - the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.

But not everyone follows Lenin.

In short - there's no difference unless you're a Leninist.

[proudcomrade]

To the OP, I would like to add that you can get audiobook MP3s of Marx' Das Kapital and learn straight from the source, conveniently & at your pace. There are recordings in the public domain of excellent quality. This will provide you with more reliable answers than the mishmash of random opinions that you're getting here.

[Red Commissar]

Socialism, like other political ideologies (liberalism, conservatism, christian democracy, etc) is a broad term that encompasses many different interpretations.

The uniting thread of socialism comes in two forms: an opposition to capitalism and advocating for the people to control the means of production. How to achieve the latter is and to what end socialism is meant for is what divides socialists.

"Communism" refers to a stateless, classless society.

How socialism relates to communism depends on your position.

Marxism (and its own sections) is a development of socialism. Marx and Engels, as well as future theorists, developed critiques of capitalism and how socialism can be realistically achieved. To them all prior attempts at socialism were too utopian in nature, such as the followers of the Comte de St. Simon. They believed that proper utilization of socialism would make communism a reality, something that had been derided as being utopian.

As Propaghandi said, Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably. Before the major splits, socialists followed the same line.

At first, there were arguments over the role of the state in socialism. Everyone had different opinions over this- for example the issues between Marx and Bakunin. This led to a rupture towards the end of the First International which eventually solidified the anarchist approach to socialism, versus the Marxist interpretation. Then there were arguments over whether or not socialism could be achieved through political participation in bourgeoisie legislatures, or if it had to be done through revolution. This led to the permanent split with reformists in the Second International, alongside debates over how socialists should be approaching World War I.

Then there were arguments within Marxists themselves which led to a development of groups who followed Lenin and later the Soviet Union (including the various Marxist-Leninist groupings that developed) and Left Communism.

Just to point out, it is not as if these divides never existed until the split. There were always differences. However when these differences became more and more apparent to the point it was impossible for them to continue existing as one when they finally split ideologically.

After World War I, Marxists (of any variety) were set opposed to the reformists. Marxists, the most influential of which were following some line of Marxist-Leninist thought (be it Stalin or Trotsky), began to try and differentiate themselves from the reformists who also maintained clout in the political arena. To this end they referred to themselves as "Communists", to demonstrate their ultimate goal, while reformists stuck with the term "socialist". Afterwards that was what they were referred to in political discussion. They were both "socialists" but followed different views.

I hate to use a religious comparison, but it is similar to the way religions have different denominations and sects. And again, look at similar things in ideologies like liberalism.

To put it simply, all Marxists are socialists, but not all socialists are Marxists. Use of terms (socialism, communism, workers' control, dictatorship of the proletariat, etc) comes down to their ideological position.

[Tablo]

Socialism can and has been used by
self-proclaimed socialists to mean state direction of the economy.
I understand that and recognize that their definition of Socialism has become the norm. I still maintain a different definition of the term in the attempt to hold onto the early terminology used by the workers movement. Also, while what some call "Socialism", I will continue to refer to it as state-capitalism. I do recognize, however, that state-capitalism is an improvement over the regular brand of capitalism we are force fed on a daily basis. I will support fucking Marxist-Leninist over fascists and Capitalists any day, but in the long run they are all simply speed bumps for the liberation of the working class.

[Scary Monster]

Socialism can and has been used by self-proclaimed socialists to mean state direction of the economy.



Clearly you are unfamiliar with the phenomenon known as "Stalinism".

Lol well, thats why i said "no real socialist/communist" :lol: But thats all im gonna say about that, for fear of starting a flame war, or whatever its called

[Atlee]

Lol well, thats why i said "no real socialist/communist" :lol: But thats all im gonna say about that, for fear of starting a flame war, or whatever its called
:laugh:Maybe we should have a Flame War thread where the requirement before typing is drinking a bottle of wine. :thumbup: The second requirement is to cite page and verse so we all can learn more by doing more. Might even be a book of the month club idea?:blink:

[AK]

Deary me. Are we really having a pissing contest to see who can conjure up the best definition for this "transitional period"?

[Zanthorus]

Deary me. Are we really having a pissing contest to see who can conjure up the best definition for this "transitional period"?

This is not an irrelevant debate. Many who have used the term "socialism" to describe the transitional period have envisioned it as a seperate form of society distinct from both capitalism and communism (Ernest Mandel comes immediately to mind).

[4 Leaf Clover]

if this is a place called "learning" , then you should explain things from a scientific point of view , rather then your own , or subjective

article on wiki about socialism , is quite satisfying , and shows what socialism is in "theory" , what it was in practice , and acctually , everything that fits under name "socialism"

[ZeroNowhere]

if this is a place called "learning" , then you should explain things from a scientific point of view , rather then your own , or subjective

article on wiki about socialism , is quite satisfying , and shows what socialism is in "theory" , what it was in practice , and acctually , everything that fits under name "socialism"
I don't think that there is a 'scientific' point of view here, and it seems rather bizarre to bring science into the current debate. As it is, science has nothing to say about whether 'socialism' was historically used synonymously with 'communism', or to denote some separate post-revolutionary mode of production, or the capitalist mode of production in a supposed post-revolutionary transitional period. Science does not have much to say about the fact that the word 'socialism' as distinct from communism has been tied to a conception involving a post-revolutionary transitional period distinct from communism, and often involving, apparently, generalized commodity production, wage labour, or the bourgeois state.

As for the rest, I hardly think that referencing Wikipedia is particularly 'scientific'.