Distinction between being a socialist and being a communist

[Diello]

In brief, what is the distinction between what it means to call oneself a socialist and what it means to call oneself a communist?

Do self-identified socialists reject the idea that a socialist society will/should transition into a communist society as Marx said? If not, and the establishment of communism is the ultimate goal to which socialism is only a waypoint, why call oneself "socialist" rather than "communist"?

[Zanthorus]

In brief, what is the distinction between what it means to call oneself a socialist and what it means to call oneself a communist?

Basically, nothing. Historically I suppose, 'Communist' might refer more to an allegiance to the politics of the Communist International at some point in it's history, while 'Socialist' might refer to allegiance to the politics of the Socialist ('Second') International. But that would exclude various kinds of Anarchists and socialists who aren't interested in/don't identify with the history of the workers' internationals.


Do self-identified socialists reject the idea that a socialist society will/should transition into a communist society as Marx said?

I would be interested in someone pointing out exactly where Marx said anything about any kind of 'socialist society' as distinct from 'communist society', and that the former should transition into the latter.

[Diello]

Basically, nothing. Historically I suppose, 'Communist' might refer more to an allegiance to the politics of the Communist International at some point in it's history, while 'Socialist' might refer to allegiance to the politics of the Socialist ('Second') International. But that would exclude various kinds of Anarchists and socialists who aren't interested in/don't identify with the history of the workers' internationals.

In that case, I suppose I should ask: Communists, why do you choose to call yourself communist rather than socialist? Socialists, why do you choose to call yourself socialist rather than communist?


I would be interested in someone pointing out exactly where Marx said anything about any kind of 'socialist society' as distinct from 'communist society', and that the former should transition into the latter.

Well, I gathered that Marx presented a model in which a socialist society would precede a communist one.

My expertise is quite limited; Right now I'm just muddling my way through Das Kapital for the first time, so, you know, I could easily just be mixing things up.

[Zanthorus]

In that case, I suppose I should ask: Communists, why do you choose to call yourself communist rather than socialist?

Because my particular tendency has historically been referred to as 'Left-Communism' or 'the Communist Left', and I don't really see much point in changing it.


Well, I gathered that Marx presented a model in which a socialist society would precede a communist one.

Well, this is false. Marx's idea was that Communism proper begins immediately after the abolition of capitalism. The idea of a 'socialist' stage between capitalism and communism was an ideological product of the Second International to justify the postponement of the achievment of communism to years in the future. Later it also played an ideological role in the justification of the actions of the Soviet Union. As such, this idea is usually rejected by those who don't believe that any kind of "workers' state" (Wether degenerated or not) existed in Russia.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I am a self-identified Socialist.

I use the label of Socialist because it is non-doctrinaire (to an extent, obviously we all have personal bias) and does not align me to a certain tendency, because I am not of a particular tendency. My views, at this time, do not belong to a specific existing tendency. They simply achieve agreement with Socialist principles of equality and revolution, and Socialist (eventual) aims of a classless society and the ownership of the means of production by the workers, with the abolishment of class differentials and eventually the state.

I choose not to use the label Communist, especially the capitalised form. Communism, in its capitalised form, tends to be attached to Marxism-Leninism and in particular the societies established in the former USSR, with which I do not subscribe to as an avowed supporter, so I choose not to use that label. There is also the issue of 'Communism', in its capitalised form, having negative connotations with the wider populace, including many workers who are class-unconscious.

[el_chavista]

In brief, what is the distinction between what it means to call oneself a socialist and what it means to call oneself a communist?All Communists are committed to the overthrowing of the ruling bourgeois class (no class-conciliation).


Do self-identified socialists reject the idea that a socialist society will/should transition into a communist society as Marx said? If not, and the establishment of communism is the ultimate goal to which socialism is only a waypoint, why call oneself "socialist" rather than "communist"?
After the defeat of the 1848 revolution, the Communist Party broke up with its leading activists forced into exile. As time passed, a new workers movement came into existence, but this time, instead of calling themselves Communist they adopted the label ’Social Democrat’, probably because they feared the repression that the earlier name would have brought. Under the government of Bismark, even socialism was outlawed, so they had an underground existence until the 1890s, to the point that Engels wrote in a letter to Karl Kautsky, 13 February 1894 (Marx-Engels Collected Works, Volume 50, p. 269):


"I do not consider the term ‘communism’ suitable for general use today; rather it should be reserved for cases in which a more exact description is required and even then it would call for an explanatory note having virtually fallen out of use for the past thirty years." Now a day, in the 21st century, after the failure of the historical socialist tests of the 20th century, under the overwhelming cultural hegemony and ideological dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, Engel's idea seems to be valid again.

[Victus Mortuum]

The problem with using socialist and communist is: whose definition?

The definitions that were used pre-Marx? The definitions that were used during Marx's time? The definitions that were used in Kautsky's time? The definitions in the legacy of Lenin? The definitions currently used in the U.S. (or wherever you are)? Everyone wants to use whatever definition works best for them, and tries to convince everyone that their definition is the best. All the definitions work fine if you clarify, just be aware of what the general public believes those words to mean, and how that affects their perception of you.

[noble brown]

The problem with using socialist and communist is: whose definition?

The definitions that were used pre-Marx? The definitions that were used during Marx's time? The definitions that were used in Kautsky's time? The definitions in the legacy of Lenin? The definitions currently used in the U.S. (or wherever you are)? Everyone wants to use whatever definition works best for them, and tries to convince everyone that their definition is the best. All the definitions work fine if you clarify, just be aware of what the general public believes those words to mean, and how that affects their perception of you.


i agree w/ you here completely. terms must be defined before any usful argument or discussion can continue. so many times i here ppl arguing and thinkig that they are really disagreeing on some deep fundamental level but they are only disagreeing about the terms and how they define them. that being said i consider myself a communist. i reject the contemporary perverted definition and go old skool w it. the stateless classless society. socialism is the MLM-esque workers state that the socialists feel must preceed the communist society. but there is no justification (in my eyes) for socialism if communism isn't the end goal. so all socialists ought to be communists but not all communists would be socialists i.e. u could be an anarchist. if u chose not to refer to yourself as a communist cause of the contemporary stigma attached then thats up to you. it will be less objectionable to the average person and you wont have to explain yourself much. you may have to explain yourself to the educated class-conscious though. besides when i tell someone i'm communist and i get that "look" i see it as an oppurtunity to educate. thats what its about right? each one teach one.

there of course is another tactic altogether. reject all those silly terms as muddled and unnecessarily complicated (in communicating w/ the average person) and go for a wholly ambiguous and contemporary term like "progressive". i have no problem w/ this and often use it. i still gotta tell you what it means to me though.

[Nolan]

I use them both.

[Red Commissar]

They are interchangable. Some Communist parties retained "Socialist" in their party names, like the Socialist Unity Party of the DDR. USSR had "socialist" in its name. Marxism is in itself a socialist ideology, one that sees socialism as a path to go into communism.

The problem arises out of political convention. Socialism entails many things, and while Marxism (and all the numerous offshoots) is arguably the most major one, it is not the only one. There are people who could refer to themselves as "socialists" depending on their definition of socialism, but are not Marxists.

Most of it came down to the splits between revolutionary Marxists and more reformist ones. The former chose to refer to themselves as "Communists" to indicate their ultimate political goal and adherence to Marxist thought. The term "Socialist" was left more to the domain of the reformist social democratic parties who had largely abandoned, or were beginning to, concepts of class struggle and the goal of a proletarian revolution. Using "Communist" would ultimately differentiate themselves from the social democrats and other groups who referred to themselves as "socialist", but were more or less advocating class collaboration and becoming part of the bourgeois political machine.

That being said the term "socialist" was not abandoned. It just was convenient to use "Communist" as a way to differentiate the thought in modern times.

I guess in some ways you could see the divisions in political thoughts similar to that of the divisions within many religions, who while sharing a common root, have different interpretations and practices.

[Zanthorus]

Marxism is in itself a socialist ideology, one that sees socialism as a path to go into communism.

I would consider myself a Marxist, and I do not see "socialism as a path to go into communism". There are other Marxists who agree with me.

[Red Commissar]

I would consider myself a Marxist, and I do not see "socialism as a path to go into communism". There are other Marxists who agree with me.

Bravo for you. Want a cookie?

I'm just saying what political convention arose out of. The theoretical matters do not really factor into this as much as it was a declaration of Revolutionary Marxists against reformists to show what their goal was, not merely reform of the existing system but a new one all together. Further more this mantra was adopted and and carried on by parties that were either ML's or Trot in nature. While there were opposing views to the former two's beliefs, those two had more of an effect on political ideology and identification on account of their size and influence. Particularly with ML's due to the Soviet Union. Whether they were following a correct interpretation of Marxist thought doesn't factor in here, they set political definitions and conventions in their favor.

[scarletghoul]

Technically there's no difference in the meanings of the terms. However, with the rising of the communist movement and especially during the cold war, "communist" came to be more associated with the Marxism-Leninist movement. At the same time, bourgeois reformists called themselves 'socialist', so socialism came to have much broader and milder connotations.

[Zanthorus]

Whether they were following a correct interpretation of Marxist thought doesn't factor in here.

Yes, I think it does. You claimed that Marxism is an ideology which sees socialism as a path to Communism. Even if there are groups which agree with this, there are other groups which disagree. Therefore the statement was clearly false.

[Red Commissar]

Yes, I think it does. You claimed that Marxism is an ideology which sees socialism as a path to Communism. Even if there are groups which agree with this, there are other groups which disagree. Therefore the statement was clearly false.

i sorry i doubted yur big brain massa

[Fulanito de Tal]

A layperson in Cuba told me that in socialism, people receive resources based on the amount of labor they put in. In communism, people receive based on their need.

I consider socialism as when we start to produced for use-values through a planned economy. Communism is when classes have eroded after socialism has been enacted for a while. Hence, why communism was in the horizon in the USSR (part of a joke).

I never call myself socialist or a communist. That would be a lie. I live in the US, so I fall under the proletariat class. I'm a human before anything.

[mikelepore]

The idea of a 'socialist' stage between capitalism and communism was an ideological product of the Second International ..........

If anyone knows of a link to a written document, please post it. The earliest source I knew about that describes socialism as a stage was Lenin's "State and Revolution."

[Invincible Summer]

I call myself a communist most of the time because "socialism" seems to imply authoritarian (or not) state capitalism to most people, and I'd rather justify my positions on the USSR/PRC than have people assume I'm just a state-capitalist; I've gotten more questions about being "communist" than "socialist."

Or, if I feel lazy, I'll just say I'm of "the far left persuasion." Once someone thought I meant I was gay, but that's another story.

[ZeroNowhere]

i sorry i doubted yur big brain massa
What a devastating argument.

Anyhow, I tend to refer to myself as a 'libertarian communist' when talking to people unfamiliar with it, as this has a pronounced tendency to make them think, "Wait, what?" This is to some degree pragmatic, inasmuch as there are a few liberals around here who view socialism as just meaning higher taxes, whereas communism is some all-controlling government or something of the sort, so that 'libertarian socialist' would probably just make them think, "Higher taxes + marijuana." 'Libertarian communist', on the other hand, seems more generally effective.

[Red Commissar]

I call myself a communist most of the time because "socialism" seems to imply authoritarian (or not) state capitalism to most people, and I'd rather justify my positions on the USSR/PRC than have people assume I'm just a state-capitalist; I've gotten more questions about being "communist" than "socialist."

Or, if I feel lazy, I'll just say I'm of "the far left persuasion." Once someone thought I meant I was gay, but that's another story.

I think it requires convincing both with the term "Communism" and "Socialism", at least it does for me here. Both are pejorative in American politics. Like Upton Sinclair said, they succeeded in spreading the big lie.

[Diello]

I think it requires convincing both with the term "Communism" and "Socialism", at least it does for me here. Both are pejorative in American politics. Like Upton Sinclair said, they succeeded in spreading the big lie.

I agree with this observation. Note the way that "socialist" and "communist" are both used to smear Barack Obama. Perhaps this sort of all-consuming phobia isn't common in the more liberal parts of the U.S., but there are certainly a lot of people who consider calling him a "socialist" to be just about the worst thing they can say about him.

[Invincible Summer]

I think it requires convincing both with the term "Communism" and "Socialism", at least it does for me here. Both are pejorative in American politics. Like Upton Sinclair said, they succeeded in spreading the big lie.


I agree with this observation. Note the way that "socialist" and "communist" are both used to smear Barack Obama. Perhaps this sort of all-consuming phobia isn't common in the more liberal parts of the U.S., but there are certainly a lot of people who consider calling him a "socialist" to be just about the worst thing they can say about him.

Yeah here (at least where I'm from), saying "socialist" means like... Scandinavian welfare state countries. And I think most Canadians are pretty okay with that, at least there isn't such blatant reaction like in the US

[Comrade_Stalin]

In brief, what is the distinction between what it means to call oneself a socialist and what it means to call oneself a communist?

Do self-identified socialists reject the idea that a socialist society will/should transition into a communist society as Marx said? If not, and the establishment of communism is the ultimate goal to which socialism is only a waypoint, why call oneself "socialist" rather than "communist"?

The difference between Communism and Socialism start with a split in the thinking of how to make a new world. The utopian socialist wished to work inside the system that we have today. Getting there people elected and then having them nationalize the means of production. The Scientific socialist said that we would never get voted into power as only the rich can run for offices. This means that we needed to take over the government by the point of the sword, and then nationalize the means of production. But like everything we short hand it, and today we call Scientific socialist… communist, and utopian socialist… socialist

[Imposter Marxist]

My best friend is a Socialist, the main diffrence in his ideology is that his socialism is more or less a form of State Socialism. He doesn't believe in a stateless society, and rather a permanent workers socialist state. I may have just butched his beliefs though.

[GPDP]

To me, there really isn't any distinction. How I describe myself just depends on who I'm talking to. If I'm talking to a fellow socialist, I'll say I'm a communist (gotta let them know exactly where you stand, you know). If I'm talking to someone who knows about politics but is not a communist, I'll say I'm a socialist. If I'm talking to someone who only knows very little about politics, or if I'm talking to someone (usually a family member) who doesn't know I'm a dirty commie and I don't feel like getting into an argument, I'll just say I'm a leftist.

[ZeroNowhere]

The difference between Communism and Socialism start with a split in the thinking of how to make a new world. The utopian socialist wished to work inside the system that we have today. Getting there people elected and then having them nationalize the means of production. The Scientific socialist said that we would never get voted into power as only the rich can run for offices. This means that we needed to take over the government by the point of the sword, and then nationalize the means of production. But like everything we short hand it, and today we call Scientific socialist… communist, and utopian socialist… socialist
This has absolutely nothing to do with history, or the actual usage of 'utopian' and 'scientific' socialism by Marx and Engels. Just saying.

[Comrade_Stalin]

This has absolutely nothing to do with history, or the actual usage of 'utopian' and 'scientific' socialism by Marx and Engels. Just saying.

Let me wiki it to you then.

Definition from wiki


The utopian socialist thinkers did not use the term utopian to refer to their ideas. Karl Marx (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Karl_Marx) and Friedrich Engels (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Friedrich_Engels) referred to all socialist ideas that were simply a vision and distant goal for society as utopian. Utopian socialists were likened to scientists who drew up elaborate designs and concepts for creating a rational and more equal society. They were contrasted by scientific socialists, likened to engineers, who were defined as an integrated conception of the goal, the means to producing it, and the way that those means will inevitably be produced through examining social and economic phenomena.

This distinction was made clear in Engels' work Socialism: Utopian and Scientific (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Socialism:_Utopian_and_Scientific) (1892, part of an earlier publication, the Anti-Dühring (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Anti-D%C3%BChring) from 1878). Utopian socialists were seen as wanting to expand the principles of the French revolution in order to create a more rational society and economic system, and despite being labeled as utopian by later socialists, their aims were not always utopian with their values often included rigid support for the scientific method and creating a society based upon such.[2] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-1)

One key difference between "utopian socialists" and other socialists (including most anarchists (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Anarchists)) is that utopian socialists generally don't feel class struggle or political revolutions are necessary to implement their ideas. They feel their form of cooperative socialism can be established among like-minded people within the existing society.

Development
Utopian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Utopia) socialists never actually used this name to describe themselves; the term "Utopian socialism" was introduced by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels (in The Communist Manifesto (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_Communist_Manifesto) in 1848, although Marx shortly before the publication of this pamphlet already attacked the ideas of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Pierre-Joseph_Proudhon) in Das Elend der Philosophie (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_poverty_of_philosophy) (originally written in French, 1847) and used by later socialist thinkers to describe early socialist or quasi-socialist intellectuals who created hypothetical visions of egalitarian (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Egalitarian), communalist (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Communalist), meritocratic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Meritocratic) or other notions of "perfect" societies without actually concerning themselves with the manner in which these societies could be created or sustained.

In Das Elend der Philosophie, English title The Poverty of Philosophy, Marx criticized the economic (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Economics) and philosophical (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Philosophy) arguments of Proudhon set forth in The System of Economic Contradictions, or The Philosophy of Poverty (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/The_System_of_Economic_Contradictions,_or_The_Phil osophy_of_Poverty). Marx accused Proudhon of wanting to rise above the bourgeoisie (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Bourgeoisie). In the history of Marx' thought and marxism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Marxism), this work is pivotal in the distinction between the concepts of utopian socialism and what Marx and the marxists claimed as scientific socialism.

Although the utopian socialists did not share many common political, social, or economic perspectives, Marx and Engels argued that certain intellectual characteristics of the Utopian socialists unified the disparate thinkers. In The Communist Manifesto[3] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-2), Marx and Engels wrote, "The undeveloped state of the class struggle, as well as their own surroundings, causes Socialists of this kind to consider themselves far superior to all class antagonisms. They want to improve the condition of every member of society, even that of the most favored. Hence, they habitually appeal to society at large, without distinction of class; nay, by preference, to the ruling class. For how can people, when once they understand their system, fail to see it in the best possible plan of the best possible state of society? Hence, they reject all political, and especially all revolutionary, action; they wish to attain their ends by peaceful means, and endeavor, by small experiments, necessarily doomed to failure, and by the force of example, to pave the way for the new social Gospel."

Marx and Engels used the term "scientific socialism (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Scientific_socialism)" to describe the type of socialism they saw themselves developing. According to Engels, socialism was not "an accidental discovery of this or that ingenious brain, but the necessary outcome of the struggle between two historically developed classes – the proletariat and the bourgeoisie. Its task was no longer to manufacture a system of society as perfect as possible, but to examine the historical-economic succession of events from which these classes and their antagonism had of necessity sprung, and to discover in the economic conditions thus created the means of ending the conflict."

Critics have argued that Utopian socialists who established experimental communities were in fact trying to apply the scientific method (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Scientific_method) to human social organization, and were therefore not Utopian. For instance, Joshua Muravchik (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Joshua_Muravchik), on the basis of Karl Popper (http://www.revleft.com/wiki/Karl_Popper)'s definition of science as "the practice of experimentation, of hypothesis and test," argued that "Owen and Fourier and their followers were the real ‘scientific socialists.’ They hit upon the idea of socialism, and they tested it by attempting to form socialist communities." Muravchik further argued that, in contrast, Marx made untestable predictions about the future, and that Marx's view that socialism would be created by impersonal historical forces may lead one to conclude that it is unnecessary to strive for socialism, because it will happen anyway.[4] (http://www.revleft.com/vb/#cite_note-3)


I myself asked the same question that was posted here and this is that answer I found after some time. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels came up with the terms, but like everthing we short hand it. Look at the army for example, they call a squad automatic weapon a SAW. Same thing happed here.

[Red Monroy]

In brief, what is the distinction between what it means to call oneself a socialist and what it means to call oneself a communist?

Do self-identified socialists reject the idea that a socialist society will/should transition into a communist society as Marx said? If not, and the establishment of communism is the ultimate goal to which socialism is only a waypoint, why call oneself "socialist" rather than "communist"?

Despite Zanthorus' plea to Marx, he is in fact mistaken. Marx very much used a distinction between, what he called, the "lower and higher phase" of communism. Around the start of the 20th century, terminology shifted somewhat to call the lower phase "socialism" and the higher phase "communism". The content however remained the same: After the working class seizes power we will enter a period of transition from a society which is "still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges", to fully fledged communism which is run by the idea of “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”.

I very much recommend the following article called "phases of communism" in which a guy called Jack Conrad explains the historical context of the idea and why this is necessary. He also delves into some confusion around the matter, be it from a different angle, where he responds to people who claim there are not two, but three stages of communism (adding the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a separate phase).

The article also offers an answer to your other questions, such as why some communists shy away from calling themselves a "communist".

You can read it here (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099), but I'll just quote it in full for your convenience:


The phases of communism

Jack Conrad concludes his discussion of the CPGB’s Draft programme by looking at socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat

http://cpgb.org.uk/images/1004099.jpg

Nick Rogers is to be congratulated for producing two double page articles outlining his criticisms of the CPGB’s Draft programme.[1] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#1) On balance, I think the second is the better. His first contribution contains not a few annoying misreadings which show a surprising failure to grasp what I consider to be standard Marxist concepts: eg, capitalist decline, surplus working population and subsistence.[2] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#2) Then there is his nitpicking complaint that we do not call for a people’s militia in the minimum programme. True, we do not use that exact phrase comrade - but, we unmistakably encourage workers to develop their “own militia”, we also uphold that great democratic principle of the American revolution: “the people have the right to bear arms and defend themselves” (section 3.10).

Sticking to the Goldilocks formula of keeping things as long as necessary and short as possible, I would not favour changing this or any other passages in the Draft programme in the futile attempt to assuage every pedant, every quibbler, every factional blockhead.

Words

As I have just said above, though, the comrade’s second contribution is much more interesting, much more challenging. In essence it concerns the phases of communism and their relationship to what we call socialism and the dictatorship of the proletariat.

In terms of this discussion it ought to be appreciated that while the CPGB’s Provisional Central Committee has agreed the text of the Draft programme, there exist differences, albeit those of nuance, over the use of particular words and phrases. Certainly that is the case with ‘socialism’.

This writer experiences no problem with the expression ‘socialism’ - if we show what is meant by it (and we do exactly that in the Draft programme). On the other hand, Mike Macnair thinks CPGBers should more or less expunge ‘socialism’ from their vocabulary because using the word just thickens the fog of confusion. Instead comrade Macnair proposes the “dictatorship of the proletariat” or “transitional period of working class rule” as a substitute. He considers, such terminology “scientifically superior”.[3] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#3) In my turn, I think abandoning ‘socialism’ as a term is unnecessary (especially given his proposed alternatives). Such formulations do nothing whatsoever to lessen confusion. Nothing to bring about clarity.

As comrade Rogers points out, in the attempt to establish moral distance from Stalinism, sections of the left, eg, the Socialist Workers Party, retreated from using ‘communism’ because the word had accumulated so many negative connotations: being associated with Stalin, the purges, the gulag, censorship and poverty in the popular mind.

Without doubt reactionaries of every stripe used ‘communism’ pejoratively - eg, “get back to Russia you commie bastards.” To avoid such unkind attacks the SWP, or I should say its antecedents, repackaged their traditions, principles and aims as ‘socialism’. In Britain this had the surely intended effect of blurring the distinctions separating Marxism from Labourism. Not that this makeover stopped press hacks, rightwing bureaucrats and religious bigots from haranguing the comrades and telling all and sundry that Trotskyism was the same as Stalinism and that all attempts to tamper with the natural order inevitably leads to a denial of freedom, forced labour and minority rule.

Predictably then, this defensive stance had the unintended effect of generating considerable bewilderment. After all, Marx and Engels called themselves communists, authored the Communist manifesto for the Communist League and wrote in this world famous programmatic document of the “spectre of communism” haunting Europe, and about how the “communists” want to abolish private property and usher in a “communist” society.[4] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#4)

Though SWP tops habitually write of ‘socialism’ in those terms, so-called ordinary people do come across the Communist manifesto and other such examples of Marxist literature - sold and frequently quoted by SWPers and other such comrades. And, needless to say, although the Soviet Union associated itself with ‘communism’ through its massive propaganda machine, the same can be said of ‘socialism’. The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics should be a give away. Not surprisingly then, substituting ‘socialism’ for ‘communism’ did not defog matters.

Our approach is altogether different: engage in an unremitting fight over ideas, including the fight over language (and thus meaning). Communists should certainly reappropriate what is ours. The vocabulary of Marxism, stolen, misused, fouled and discredited by Stalinism, must be taken back and cleansed. Examples of reverse discourse can usefully be cited here from the politics of sex, race and religion: ‘dyke’, ‘queer’, ‘nigga’, ‘Teague’, ‘Mormon’ and ‘Quaker’.

The CPGB is determined to restore the liberatory, thoroughly rational, democratic and inspiring meaning given to the term ‘communism’ by classical Marxism. And, albeit with rather less identification, I would, on balance, continue to use the term ‘socialism’. We have every interest in re-establishing the Marxist content of both words. Until we have convincingly won that battle in the popular mind, not least through the formation of a mass Communist Party, there can be little doubt: confusion will remain.

Transition

However, myself and comrade Macnair are agreed. We envisage the uninterrupted growing of the successful workers’ revolution, the main salient being Europe, into full communism. Beginning with working class rule over capitalism, the class struggle continues, albeit under altered circumstances, till classes and the hierarchical division of labour wither away with the realisation of general freedom.

Here is how section five of the Draft programme, dealing with the “transition to communism” reads:

“Socialism is not a mode of production. It is the transition from capitalism to communism. Socialism is communism which emerges from capitalist society. It begins as capitalism with a workers’ state. Socialism therefore bears the moral, economic and intellectual imprint of capitalism.

“In general socialism is defined as the rule of the working class.

“The division of labour cannot be abolished overnight. It manifests itself under socialism in the contradictions between mental and manual labour, town and country, men and women, as well as social, regional and national differences.

“Classes and social strata exist under socialism because of different positions occupied in relation to the means of production, the roles played in society and the way they receive their income.

“Class and social contradictions necessitate the continuation of the class struggle. However, this struggle is reshaped by the overthrow of the capitalist state and the transition towards communism.

“The class struggle can, in the last analysis, go in two directions depending on the global balance of forces. It can go backwards or it can advance towards communism.

“While socialism creates the objective basis for solving social contradictions, these contradictions need to be solved with a correct political line and the development of mass, active democracy. This is essential, as communism is not a spontaneous development.

“Social strata will only finally disappear with full communism.”

Comrade Rogers raises the stock objection to this passage. Placing an “equals sign between workers’ political power and socialism” is “not correct”, he emphatically states. “Otherwise”, he continues, “we are left with the nonsense of suggesting that the two months of the Paris commune were socialism. Or that socialism began in Russia in October 1917.”

Instead of treating socialism as the transitionary phase, spanning the entire period from where working class rule first begins to the realisation of full communism, comrade Rogers proposes three phases. The first is the dictatorship of the proletariat; only after this comes socialism, or the first phase of communism, and then, full communism.

The comrade worries that our formulation carries the danger of “spreading a degree of confusion in the ranks of the Marxist left.” But as I have already amply illustrated, there is enormous confusion already. Nonetheless, in an implicit defence of existing confusion, the comrade is concerned that our Draft programme “differs substantively from the conceptual framework most Marxists will bring to any discussion of these issues.” Absolutely right. Where there is darkness, we in the CPGB seek to bring light.

Naturally, comrade Rogers cites not only Marx’s Critique of the Gotha programme (1875), but Lenin’s State and revolution (1917). In these landmark, though very quickly written, works, one certainly finds the perspective of an evolution of “communist society” from a “first” to a “higher” phase.

And, let me add, whatever exact words we finally adopt, it is obligatory for present-day Marxists to treat the writings of classical Marxism, above all those of Marx and Engels, with the greatest respect. Of course, no one is obliged to agree, let alone blindly copy - but where there is a change it needs to be honestly accounted for.

Comrade Rogers confidently maintains that both Marx and Lenin “clearly distinguish” all the phases of communism from the dictatorship of the proletariat and that this is what the “majority of Marxists have understood by ‘socialism’ ever since.” In my opinion, this is to erroneously dress up the “majority of Marxists” as if they were orthodox in their Marxism. Unfortunately, they are not. For at least a century the authentic Marxist tradition has been obscured, buried under a mountain of adaptations, deceptions and out and out claptrap. Only with the greatest effort can the authentic Marxist tradition be rediscovered - and doubtless, as I would readily admit, there is still some way for us to go in the CPGB as a body of Marxist partisans.

Nonetheless, comrade Rogers is right in the sense that many who call themselves Marxists today consider it axiomatic that there must be an entirely separate phase before the lower phase of communism commences. A phase which they call the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’. Overwhelmingly, this so-called first of three phases is understood in the anti-Marxist sense of violent methods, oppression, repudiating democracy, one party rule, etc.

But then we in the CPGB do not agree with the ‘majority of Marxists’. Our Draft programme stands four square with Marx and Engels themselves - not the epigones. For good reason, comrade Rogers mentions Hal Draper. His painstaking and stunningly illuminating intellectual labours comprehensively proved that by the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ the Marx-Engels team wanted to denote winning the battle for democracy, the democratic republic and majoritarian rule by the working class. Nothing autocratic here. Nothing sinister. Nothing underhand. Nothing elitist.[5] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#5)

Since the death of Marx and Engels, the “majority” of Marxists have spectacularly got the dictatorship of the proletariat wrong. Plekhanov, Martov, Kautsky, Trotsky and Lenin too. Amongst the greats, Rosa Luxemburg provides the only consistent exception, at least to my knowledge.

Critique

Okay, now we must turn to Marx himself and see what he has to say about communism. For me that means examining his Critique of the Gotha programme. After all, here Marx gave his fullest, though far too brief, exposition on the subject. Readers will probably know this celebrated little passage backwards:

“What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousand-fold combination of the word people with the word state.”

Marx goes on: “between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.”[6] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#6)

I take the dictatorship of the proletariat to be the state form that corresponds to the “transition period”. Self-evidently, this is a period which begins with the working class assuming state power and ends when the working class state, the division of labour, the compulsion to work, and other capitalist hangovers, give way to freedom and the real beginning of human history (ie, full communism).

Note, in the above passage Marx is writing about the state. To repeat, he says this state, ie, the dictatorship of the proletariat, corresponds to the “political transition period” - two distinct though related categories.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is, for Marxists, a specific form of the state. To employ a well established metaphor, the workers’ state constitutes part of society’s superstructure, as does the slave owning state, the feudal state, the bourgeois state. Each form corresponds to a particular society, ie, the ancient, slave, mode of production, the feudal mode of production, the capitalist mode of production, etc.

Methodologically it would be an elementary mistake to conflate state and society. The dictatorship of the proletariat is distinguished, of course, from other forms of the state for two main reasons. Firstly, this (semi) state is the oppressive apparatus in the hands of the majority of the population. Secondly, this majority positively seeks to wind down, to minimise, state functions. It really is the ideal ‘cheap state’. Nevertheless, though itself a carryover from the past and slowly withering away in the first phase of communism, the workers’ state is a necessary feature of the transitionary society.

The dictatorship of the proletariat is needed in order to resist and overcome capitalist power nationally and internationally. Simultaneously the workers’ state persists so as to keep the petty bourgeoisie and middle classes in line. Though slowly being absorbed into the working class, these intermediate classes must not be allowed to rebel. Nor should we forget the role of the workers’ state in maintaining discipline over the working class itself. In other words even once capitalism has been superseded globally and the petty bourgeoisie and middle classes entirely absorbed into the working class, the workers’ state, though much diminished, remains an unavoidable necessity.

Need

For the benefit of his German comrades, who had been sprinkling their draft programme with empty Lassallian catchphrases about equality, Marx explains how the “bourgeois” form of inequality continues under the “first phase of communism”; ie, you receive back from society according to what labour you contribute. Such “defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth-pangs from capitalist society”, admits Marx. Only in the “higher phase of communist society”, after the “enslaving” subordination of the individual to the division of labour, and with that also the “antithesis between mental and physical labour”, has vanished; after labour has become not only a means of life but life’s prime want; after the cultural level of the population has been qualitatively raised - only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs”[7] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#7).

Till then, when it comes to consumption, while there exists the principle of need, it is constantly checked by the “bourgeois” principle of work done. Marx once again remarks that what he is “dealing with here” is a “communist society”, but, and this needs to be emphasised, “not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society, which is thus in every respect, economically, morally, and intellectually, still stamped with the birth-marks of the old society from whose womb it emerges.”

He goes on to discuss labour certificates (which I agree with once we have the global rule of the working class and the absorption the middle classes into the working class). But that is not the subject I wish to pursue here. From the above quotations one thing is, or should be, perfectly clear, however. Marx considers that “communist society” emerges not from the dictatorship of the proletariat (a form of the state) - but from capitalist society itself. He specifically writes of “communist society” as it “emerges from capitalist society”, and of “the first phase of communist society” as it has “just emerged” “after prolonged birth-pangs from capitalist society”.

So, albeit with due qualification, I would, yes, describe both the Paris Commune and the October Revolution as aborted instances of communism. Not nonsense, but surely an inescapable conclusion from the formulations provided by Marx. In and of themselves both revolutions were dreadfully premature. Neither in France nor in Russia was the working class anywhere near a majority; and in 1871 that was true across the whole of Europe - Britain alone excepted.

Working class rule in Paris lasted a mere matter of months. Politically it was dominated by the forces of utopian socialism and therefore suffered from severe drawbacks when it came to consistent democracy and aggressively pursuing the revolution nationally. Nevertheless we all know the radical measures agreed: suppression of the standing army and the police, arming of the people, election and limitation of the pay of all officials to that of a skilled worker, removal of religion from public education, clerical estates declared public property, recallability of delegates, etc. The logic of the revolution, had it been allowed to continue, was unmistakable: expropriation of the expropriators and social ownership of the means of production.

The Russian Revolution carried on the tradition of the Commune, but took it to a higher, national, level. However, the Soviet regime suffered defeat too. Not through counterrevolutionary armies and mass butchery by bloodthirsty generals. Rather the Russian Revolution, having been quarantined by imperialism, having failed to spread to Europe, crucially to Germany, having being forced to concede the Brest Litovsk treaty and the New Economic Policy, turned in on itself. Stalin’s doctrine of socialism in one country was a nationalist adaptation to isolation. His first five year plan unmistakably marked the horrendous counterrevolution within the revolution. After that reform, even a political revolution became an impossibility.

Socialism

I believe it was the Second International, most likely following the lead of August Bebel and Wilhelm Liebknecht, which was responsible for relabeling the first phase of communism” as socialism. Maybe this was linked to Marxists adopting the social democratic moniker and thus leaving the word ‘communism’ to the anarchists (something not to the liking of Marx and Engels - in private correspondence they agreed, social democracy was a “pig of a name”).

Frankly, I have very little idea of the ins and outs of this linguistic shift. Though extensively asking around, that includes consulting an encyclopaedic Lars Lih, I have not received anything approaching a satisfactory answer.

Suffice to say, when Lenin came to write his State and revolution he considered it entirely unproblematic to describe the “first phase of communism”, albeit in parenthesis, as “usually called socialism” (though there are a few examples of inconsistent usage - but that need not concern us here).[8] (http://cpgb.org.uk/article.php?article_id=1004099#8) Obviously, the die had been cast.

Given the famished reality of Soviet Russia, the overwhelming peasant majority, the extraordinarily low level of general culture, the growth of bureaucracy, the hollowing out of the soviets, etc, it should not surprise us that communists in Russia found justification for some of the highly dubious things they subsequently did through their (mis)understanding of the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’.

Nor should we be surprised that their leaders wrote of aspiring to achieve socialism. The Bolsheviks inherited primitive material conditions compared to western Europe and the United States. That is an undeniable fact. So although the official description of October 1917 was of a “socialist” revolution and the Soviet republics were given the grand title Union of Soviet Socialist Republics in 1922, the ‘socialism’ was never thought of as an established reality (well not till 1936 - but that is another story).

Hence, perhaps, here, in Russian backwardness, isolation, civil war and famine, we find the source of the three phases that are now considered axiomatic by the “majority” of contemporary Marxists: the dictatorship of the proletariat, socialism, communism.

In the CPGB’s Draft programme we have, following Lenin and the Second International, used the word ‘socialism’ to signify the first phase of communism. We have also, following Marx, used the dictatorship, or rule, of the working class, to name the state form that corresponds to the transitionary society that emerges out of capitalism and finally withers away with the higher phase of communism.

I would not particularly object to changing ‘socialism’ to the ‘lower phase of communism’ in our Draft programme. But I would object to programmatically enshrining a separate phase, the dictatorship of the proletariat (a form of the state) before the transition to socialism or the lower phase of communism begins. To me, such a construction is indeed nonsense.

Notes


Weekly Worker April 8 and August 26 2010.
Eg, subsistence, a question I left out of my first two responses. Comrade Rogers takes our formulation as a equating to a poverty wage. We consider subsistence to be culturally determined and equating to what is required to culturally reproduce an average unskilled worker (and one replacement child). Under present conditions that would surely amount in money terms to something like a wage of £600-700 per week. This is the sort of level we would envisage setting unemployment, sickness and other such benefits.
Weekly Worker June 24 2010.
K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 6, New York 1976, pp477-517.
See H Draper Karl Marx’s theory of revolution Vol 3, New York 1986, and The ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ from Marx and Engels New York 1987.
K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 24, London 1989, p95.
K Marx and F Engels CW Vol 24, London 1989, pp85-87.
VI Lenin CW Vol 25, Moscow 1977, p472.

[thriller]

Yeah here (at least where I'm from), saying "socialist" means like... Scandinavian welfare state countries. And I think most Canadians are pretty okay with that, at least there isn't such blatant reaction like in the US

Same here. If I say I'm a socialist, most people in my area think I'm a reformist and really love Europe. When I say I'm a communist, they know I am against private property and classism. Some people think socialism means fusing capitalism and communism together, which I am very against. When I say I'm a communist, it turns more heads than if I say I'm a socialist, which makes me more noticeable. Although I see socialism and communism as one in the same, it's what the "outsiders" think that make us create a distinction.

[chegitz guevara]

I use both terms interchangeably to describe myself.

[Myrdal]

I was under the impression that socialism was an umbrella term used to denote any system where there is common ownership of recourses and cooperation in allocating them.
And it can be used to really describe any number of systems operating on any number of levels, from family to state.

Where as communism is more specific and is really used to describe a society.

[EvilRedGuy]

As i got informed off in another thread, both Socialism and Communism are names used interchangeable to the same meaning, different peoples uses it for different meanings though, so thats something you should be careful about.
I use Socialism to describe a phase before Communism(A phase inbetween Capitalism and Communism).

[Rusty Shackleford]

I use the terms interchangeably, but primarily, i say socialist if i am meaning i support the notion of the dictatorship of the proletariat, and communist if i support the end goal of a classless and stateless society.


i am mildly surprised when i introduce myself as a socialist and then go farther and say i am a communist and i get sort of shocked reaction.

'real' socialists are communists. i think its almost unanimous on here that everyone supports the notion of a classless and stateless society.


'socialist' is well recieved in american society to those who dont have a visceral reaction to it. im assuming its because socialism to most people is something like sweden. to most americans, communism means a huge state and an army of russian(or russian accented) speaking KGB agents. ironically, their swedish "socialism," and the bourgeois states are more akin to having oppressive intelligence agencies and so on.

also, socialism to them means a mixture of capitalism and communism. whereas a socialist (of the marxist-leninist and other tendencies) sees socialism as a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. not a dead end stop.

[penguinfoot]

In historical terms there is a distinction because Communism first emerged in the form of egalitarian currents in the aftermath of the French Revolution like the Conspiracy of the Equals, whereas, at the risk of making a generalization, the currents and thinkers who are most associated with the early history of socialism were often more technocratically-minded and had a much more positive attitude towards the values of rationalism and positivism, as they criticized capitalism on the basis that it involves an inefficient utilization of resources rather than because it was a system based on material and political equality as such - Saint-Simon being the most obvious example of this kind of thinking.

[RotStern]

Communism, is the full realization of the dictatorship of the prols, no state, no capitalism, Socialism is the stage between Communism and Capitalism.

[Rusty Shackleford]

Communism, is the full realization of the dictatorship of the prols, no state, no capitalism, Socialism is the stage between Communism and Capitalism.
maybe im being a nitpicker but the dictatorship of the proletariat is the period of socialist construction and implementation. communism is classless and therefore without any feature of class dictatorship by virtue of no class existing to dominate or be dominated.

[Jimmie Higgins]

"Socialist" and "communist" are basically interchangeable - Marx used both but called himself communist to emphasize the ultimate aim of a classless and stateless society which the other socialists at that time were not necessarily in agreement with. I use both terms. Often I'll use "revolutionary socialist" if I think people are confusing "socialism" with "democratic-socialism".


If anyone knows of a link to a written document, please post it. The earliest source I knew about that describes socialism as a stage was Lenin's "State and Revolution."I'm foggy on this, but I'm pretty sure that Marx did talk about some kind of transition, but it was later that this concept was formalized by some radical schools of thought. Also to my knowledge, the German SWP and the 2nd Internationalists who talked about a transition were not really saying there would be a "worker's state" which leads to communism, but that the capitalist state would become increasingly socialist as the labor movement and socialist electoral parties won increasing reforms - some even thought that capitalism would just naturally reach a phase where it transitioned into socialism.