Socialism and Communism

[PoliticalNightmare]

I'm seriously confused as to what the differences between these two ideologies are. Both are stateless (unless you count Stalinism or whatever as 'communism', or rather Communism) and both rely upon direct democracy and workers' organisations, etc.

I was under the impression that the differences were that under socialism the case was that reward was democratically measured according to labour value and that under communism reward was 'From each to according to one's needs to each according to one's abilities'. However some posters here assure me that that is not the case with communism. So what the hell is the difference between them, may I ask?

I personally could envision a society where in large cities and towns, workers joined collectives who democratically decided what their labour value was and provided them with vouchers or something so they could get goods or services from other workers in the communes and those genuinely unable to work (the disabled, etc. would be provided for, out of generosity by the communes) but in small villages and rural areas, the sort of places where everyone knows each other, the community may decide to have some sort of system where everyone is trusted to help out with work that needs doing and just take their fair share like everyone else. In these sorts of circumstances everyone usually knows each other and gets along with one another and people normally would keep an eye on what everyone else is doing so most of the village would know if someone was not being fair and taking more than what he was entitled to and being lazy/not helping harvest the fields, not helping to get water from the well, etc. So in smaller communities, I would not be against the idea of 'From each ... etc.'

I suppose that perhaps under communism goods are rationed in communes then and a rough eye is kept on how much work each labourer is doing whereas under socialism goods/services are strictly measured by how much work one does? Like I said, I could see a mixture of the two being the most feasible.

Edit: also does anarcho-syndicalism and mutualism fit under the banner of socialist anarchism with anarcho-communism being, well communist anarchism?

[RED DAVE]

Briefly, socialism is the situation "after the revolution" when the workers have seized control of the economy of the world and run it for the benefit of all.

Communist is the next stage after socialism, when all class, racial, national, sexual oppression has gradually disappeared. Joyful, self-regulated, cooperative work is the pleasure of us all.

RED DAVE

[PoliticalNightmare]

Briefly, socialism is the situation "after the revolution" when the workers have seized control of the economy of the world and run it for the benefit of all.

But not necessarily the working class seizure of the state though, correct?


Communist is the next stage after socialism, when all class, racial, national, sexual oppression has gradually disappeared. Joyful, self-regulated, cooperative work is the pleasure of us all.

With respect then, there still doesn't seem to be a qualifiable difference since communism would just appear to be socialism but in its fullest expression.

[Communist Pear]

But not necessarily the working class seizure of the state though, correct?
Depends who you ask, if you ask a Marxist (excluding Left Communists, I suppose), they will tell you that seizure of the state by the proletariat or rather creation of a new proletarian state is "necessary" for socialism or a characteristic of socialism. Then during socialism the state is step for step abolished and communism is born. Anarchists for one are not a fan of this strategy and rather see the state abolished right away during the revolution as they argue that a state is always oppressive. Now I don't know exactly what every tendency thinks and quite frankly I don't really care.



With respect then, there still doesn't seem to be a qualifiable difference since communism would just appear to be socialism but in its fullest expression.
Errr. Depends on what "communism" and "socialism" you are talking about. Are you talking about the ideologies often called communism and socialism or are you talking about the Marxist stages of society called communism and socialism.

Communism as an ideology usually refers to Marxist-Leninists in the bourgeois media. But it can also refer to Anarcho-Communists, Left Communists and some Trotskyists who call themselves communists (like CPGB).

Socialism as an ideology usually refers to the left of the Social-Democrats in the bourgeois media depending on your country. But it can also refer to a whole bunch of different Marxist tendencies who call themselves socialist and other non-Marxist revolutionaries, like libertarian socialists (which in itself is a group).

Communism as a Marxist stage of society is the "last" stage of society in which there is no state and no classes. It could also be referred to as "Communism because of surplus". Showing the differences between "primitive communism" which could be called "Communism because of need".

Socialism as a Marxist stage of society is the stage of society after capitalism where the proletariat is in control of the state and all the means of production are owned collectively.

Now, I know this is all quite vague as I tried to make it as objective as possible. Still going to get flamed though. :D

If you want to know what I personally think about it as a Marxist-Leninist, just ask. ;)

[PoliticalNightmare]

Errr. Depends on what "communism" and "socialism" you are talking about. Are you talking about the ideologies often called communism and socialism or are you talking about the Marxist stages of society called communism and socialism.

This (not interested in the media's and Glenn Beck's interpretation of it though or what the general public think because I already know that - they think its the same thing, state control - I'm on about what it actually is).


Communism as a Marxist stage of society is the "last" stage of society in which there is no state and no classes. It could also be referred to as "Communism because of surplus". Showing the differences between "primitive communism" which could be called "Communism because of need".

The problem with referring solely to what Marx thought is that one forgets there were many, many leftist authors before and after Marx.


Socialism as a Marxist stage of society is the stage of society after capitalism where the proletariat is in control of the state and all the means of production are owned collectively.

I've heard from forum posters here that Marx did not specifically specify socialism as a transition phase: he specified the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a transition phase. Of course, I could be talking bull - I have no sources to back up my claims.


Now, I know this is all quite vague as I tried to make it as objective as possible. Still going to get flamed though. :D

If you want to know what I personally think about it as a Marxist-Leninist, just ask. ;)

Nah, I'd rather an objective analysis any day, this coming from an anarcho-syndicalist.

I don't know why, I just have a problem with socialism being referred to as the transition phase to communism. It doesn't really explain why Marx thought that the proletariat dictatorship would be the transition phase and went on to describe communism as being the end result and not socialism, etc., etc.

[PoliticalNightmare]

Ok, so this definition (by Kropotkin) would seem contradictory to the statement that socialism is merely the transition phase to communism:

"[Socialism] in its wide, generic, and true sense [I]effort to abolish the exploitation of labour by capital"

Source: http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secG1.html

This definition was invented to include both schools of socialism, both statist and libertarian schools. However it seems to contradict the statement that socialism is merely a transition phase because does communism not strive to achieve this as well? The differences between the two just seem increasingly muddy and vague.

[Communist Pear]

This (not interested in the media's and Glenn Beck's interpretation of it though or what the general public think because I already know that - they think its the same thing, state control - I'm on about what it actually is).
Well, then the answer is simply that there are no "absolute" definitions of socialism or communism as an ideology. Terms like Marxism-Leninism, Trotskyism, Anarcho-Syndicalism, Anarcho-Communism, Left Communism are all much more clear as they represent an ideological direction more or less. All of these in one way or another claim to be socialist or communist. There are however also reformist or even downright reactionary parties that claim the name socialist.


The problem with referring solely to what Marx thought is that one forgets there were many, many leftist authors before and after Marx.
Well Marx his ideas were quite new as he essentially proposed "scientific socialism". The belief that you can't exactly predict how socialism or communism are going to be and what specific policies will be used. Before Marx it was mostly "utopian socialism". Clear definitions of how things would be after the revolution, not tested by reality.


I've heard from forum posters here that Marx did not specifically specify socialism as a transition phase: he specified the "dictatorship of the proletariat" as a transition phase. Of course, I could be talking bull - I have no sources to back up my claims.
That's correct, when I say socialism as a stage of society I actually mean Marx's dictatorship of the proletariat. However the word dictatorship has gotten a different definition over the years so it's often avoided. With dictatorship marx meant that the class rules as one. Just like we live in the "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie" right now. It doesn't mean the rule of an elite of the class, it means the entire class.


Nah, I'd rather an objective analysis any day, this coming from an anarcho-syndicalist.
Same.



I don't know why, I just have a problem with socialism being referred to as the transition phase to communism. It doesn't really explain why Marx thought that the proletariat dictatorship would be the transition phase and went on to describe communism as being the end result and not socialism, etc., etc.
Well if the dictatorship of the proletariat = socialism then it starts making a lot more sense. ;)

This off course being the Marxist viewpoint.

[PoliticalNightmare]

I still just have one quarm. Wasn't Marx the first one to come up with the idea of communism? If not, then I would define socialism as the worker's grasp over the economy and/or the state (this can fit it in nicely with the idea of an anarchist people's revolution and a Marxist revolution) and communism as being that stateless, classless equilibrium.

[Decolonize The Left]

I still just have one quarm. Wasn't Marx the first one to come up with the idea of communism? If not, then I would define socialism as the worker's grasp over the economy and/or the state (this can fit it in nicely with the idea of an anarchist people's revolution and a Marxist revolution) and communism as being that stateless, classless equilibrium.

In short,
Socialism is when the working class is in indirect control of the means of production.
Communism is when the working class is in direct control of the means of production.

- August

[thriller]

Was Marx the first to think of communism? Probably not. Was he the first to theorize and publish his thoughts on it? I'd say yes.

Marx didn't explicitly say "socialism is the transition period between communism and capitalism." Many believe that due to the Second International's (could be wrong) "conclusion"

One can use the terms interchangeably, like many, including myself, on here do.

Although my opinion:
Say there is a factory where cars are made. Under socialism, all the car workers own the cars, the factory, the capital, everything related to that business. They decide how much to sell the cars for, how much to pay themselves and so forth. They may end up with surplus capital that gets put back into the community or factory, but it's not really "profit" because no worker is exploited by another for personal gain.
Under communism, the whole community, every citizen and "business" owns the car factory and everyone benefits from the factory, (say a bakery) because, in turn everyone else owns everything (the bakery is also owned by the car manufactures) as well.

Kinda stoned :P

[PoliticalNightmare]

Say there is a factory where cars are made. Under socialism, all the car workers own the cars, the factory, the capital, everything related to that business. They decide how much to sell the cars for, how much to pay themselves and so forth. They may end up with surplus capital that gets put back into the community or factory, but it's not really "profit" because no worker is exploited by another for personal gain.
Under communism, the whole community, every citizen and "business" owns the car factory and everyone benefits from the factory, (say a bakery) because, in turn everyone else owns everything (the bakery is also owned by the car manufactures) as well.

So what you are saying is that under socialism, the means of production is owned by the workers at said factory whereas under communism, the means of production is owned by society as a whole? What does everyone else think? Reliable definition?

[Oswy]

So what you are saying is that under socialism, the means of production is owned by the workers at said factory whereas under communism, the means of production is owned by society as a whole? What does everyone else think? Reliable definition?

Hi!

I don't know that you'll ever get universally agreed upon definitions.

My view is that Marxist socialism is the immediately post-capitalist society in which the state becomes a primary instrument to effect the socialist aims of providing each according to their need and seeking from each according to their abilities. Marxist communism constitutes some future society built upon the advances made in Marxist socialism and to the extent that the state's role has been successfully abandoned for more localised systems of organisation.

The state is, obviously, a double-edged sword, it has the potential to facilitate and protect socialist goals and it has the potential to obstruct, pervert or even reverse them too. While I have sympathy with anarchists in their suspicion of the state I tend to think that we can't simply do away with all social institutions (here I mean 'institutions' as systems of relationships, not buildings).

Let me type out Robin Hahnel's position in his (recommended) The ABCs of Political Economy (Pluto, 2002):



If we were mind readers, or we had infinite time to consult with one another, human societies might not require mediating institutions. But if there is to be a "division of labor," and if we are neither omniscient nor immortal, people must act on the basis of expectations about other people's behavior...

...So institutions are the necessary consequences of human sociability combined with our lack of omniscience and our mortality - which has important implications for the tendency among some anarchists to conceive of the goal of liberation as the abolition of all institutions. Anarchists correctly note that individuals are not completely "free" as long as institutional constraints exist. Any institutional boundary makes some individual choices easier and others harder, and therefore infringes on individual freedom to some extent. But abolishing social institutions is impossible for the human species. The relevant question about institutions, therefore, should not be whether we want them to exist, but whether any particular institution poses unnecessarily oppressive limitations, or promotes human development and fulfilment to the maximum extent possible.

p.11

[thriller]

So what you are saying is that under socialism, the means of production is owned by the workers at said factory whereas under communism, the means of production is owned by society as a whole? What does everyone else think? Reliable definition?

Yeah that's basically how I view it. It's my belief that socialism is the 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. But under communism there would be no proletariat because all classes are gone, and there would be no way to identify proletariat from bourgeoisie. Then again, that's just me.

[ZeroNowhere]

Marx, Engels, De Leon and so on used the terms more or less interchangeably as regards social systems. Marx and Engels originally used 'communism' in terms of ideology, which Engels explains here:


Thus the history of the Manifesto reflects the history of the modern working-class movement; at present, it is doubtless the most wide spread, the most international production of all socialist literature, the common platform acknowledged by millions of working men from Siberia to California. 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, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take.However, as the utopians and such petered out, Engels began using 'socialist' and 'socialism' far more often, probably more often than he used 'communism'. As such, De Leon went on to mainly use 'socialism', apart from a few occasions where he used 'communism'.

However, since then, its usage has become increasingly nebulous, due to Lenin identifying it with Marx's 'initial phase of communism' (essentially, the stage of communism involving labour-credits, but still communism rather than anything else), but also, through what I would consider a misreading, reading a bourgeois state 'without the bourgeoisie' into this phase of communism, creating an ambiguity which lead to 'socialism' being identified with the dictatorship of the proletariat, which in Marx was distinct from both 'the initial phase of communism' and 'socialism', inasmuch as it rather took place under the capitalist mode of production, during a revolution. Nonetheless, the use of the word 'socialism' was quite correctly not identified with a capitalist mode of production, but problems came when people also tried to equate it to the dictatorship of the proletariat, in which case it had to mean a separate mode of production which is neither capitalist nor communist. This has lead to a view of Marx advocating some 'transitional society' between capitalism and communism, in other words a new mode of production which is neither communist nor capitalist, but what this new mode of production actually is is generally quite nebulous; this makes sense, as usually it is used not to indicate a new mode of production, but rather just a capitalist one advertised as a non-capitalist mode of production. However, this idea is not present in Marx, where the political rule of the producer ('dictatorship of the proletariat') does not indicate a new mode of production, but simply a revolution to change capitalism into communism.

More detail may be found in this work (http://www.marxisthumanistinitiative.org/alternatives-to-capital/karl-marx-the-state.html) on Marx's views on the state.

[Revolution starts with U]

Communism (The world is one autonomous commune) is centuries in the future. Socialism (society is in control) is the natural outgrowth of when labor takes control of ownership.
Just my personal opinion.

[RED DAVE]

In short,
Socialism is when the working class is in indirect control of the means of production.
Communism is when the working class is in direct control of the means of production.

- AugustUh, no.

Socialism is when the working class is in direct control of the means of production.

Communism is when the contradictions left over from capitalism have been eliminated and whatever workers state is necessary to eliminate these contradictions is itself eliminated.

RED DAVE

[syndicat]

since libertarian and state socialists are boths socialists it would be preferable to have a definition that is neutral. direct worker control over production needs to be understood as a necessary condition because there can't be a liberation of the working class from class oppression & exploitation otherwise, and socialism is supposed to be the movement for the self-emancipation of the working class & oppressed. on the other hand there also needs to be some idea of social accountability or social benefit from social production, hence the "social" in "socialism," that it is supposed to be a system run for social benefit.

there's not really a universally accepted distinction between "socialism" and "communism". Marx seems to have used the phrases interchangeably. a similar practice has existed among anarcho-syndicalists, using libertarian socialism and libertarian communism interchangeably at times.