what is the difference between socialism and communism?

[ken6346]

Hi guys!

Sorry if this is a commonly asked question, or if it's in any FAQs that I missed, but I haven't been able to see a clear distinction between socialism and communism. Are they more or less the same, or are there some subtle (or less subtle) differences that I'm unaware of?

Cheers!

[ArrowLance]

It depends on the context we are talking about. Commonly socialism describes a political and economic system involving central ownership and economic planning often with emphasis on the ownership being in the hands of the masses.

In Marxism socialism denotes as stage in 'historical evolution'. That of superseding capitalism which utilizes economic planning to maximize efficiency in production and make monetary relations and wages obsolete, paving the way for communism.

Communism is of course the apex of socialism and democracy in which persons share in the wealth of society equally.

[Widerstand]

They were used as synonyms up until around Stalin era, afaik, then the understanding of socialism as a transitional stage was introduced to explain (and justify) the absence of communism in the USSR.

Nowadays it really depends on whom you ask.

[William Howe]

Socialism is the basic idea of redistributing wealth and making the industries more efficient in a society. Communism is the apex, 'Socialism paves the way to Communism' is what Lenin and Marx said. Communism however has further ideals into it, including the ideas of revolutions and Proletariat importance above all.

[ken6346]

Thanks for all your replies guys; sorry for not getting back to this thread until now. They cleared a lot of things up; cheers!

[Thirsty Crow]

They were used as synonyms up until around Stalin era, afaik, then the understanding of socialism as a transitional stage was introduced to explain (and justify) the absence of communism in the USSR.

Nowadays it really depends on whom you ask.
I would add that nowadays the insistence on "socialism" as a separate socio-economic period, yet still a period of transition towards communsim, is an ideologically charged revision of the older Marxist approach to the notion of what will replace capitalism as a global and historical mode of production. Just as it was an ideological gimmick in the 1930s, it is also an ideological tool now, one that would seek to justify the practices of "Official Communism".

[Revolutionair]

In my dictionary, socialism means worker control over the means of production. Others might include complete state control over the means of production and then workers' influence through the soviets or whatever.
Communism is a classless stateless society.

In my version of socialism you still have some 'property rights'. They are not respected as much as in capitalism, but in theory if you make a cake at home in your oven, that cake belongs to you (yey). In communism there are no rights or laws, it is the complete abolition of the feeling of property.

[robbo203]

They were used as synonyms up until around Stalin era, afaik, then the understanding of socialism as a transitional stage was introduced to explain (and justify) the absence of communism in the USSR.
.


Not quite. Lenin himself conspicuously departed from traditional marxian usage by declaring in The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It, "socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. Or, in other words, socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly". He also maintained that "big banks" would not only continue to exist in socialism but would be vital to its existence:
"Without big banks socialism would be impossible. The big banks are the "state apparatus" which we need to bring about socialism, and which we take ready-made from capitalism;..A single State Bank, the biggest of the big, with branches in every rural district, in every factory, will constitute as much as nine-tenths of the socialist apparatus" (Can the Bolsheviks Retain State Power? October 1, 1917 Collected Works, Progress Publishers, Moscow, Volume 26, 1972, pp. 87-136).

For anyone used to the traditional maxian meaning of socialism as a synoym for communism, Lenin's rematks come across as utterly absurd

[ken6346]

In my dictionary, socialism means worker control over the means of production. Others might include complete state control over the means of production and then workers' influence through the soviets or whatever.
Communism is a classless stateless society.

In my version of socialism you still have some 'property rights'. They are not respected as much as in capitalism, but in theory if you make a cake at home in your oven, that cake belongs to you (yey). In communism there are no rights or laws, it is the complete abolition of the feeling of property.
Did Marx or any other theorists differentiate between private property and personal property? I've got at least one anarcho-communist friend who believes that the distinction is important and that a degree of personal property (the cloths on my back, physical literature and printed material, musical instruments) would be not so much necessary as desirable in such a society as long as these "belongings" didn't correspond to any kind of class distinction (wearing a gold ring to signify importance over one who doesn't have a gold ring; such a case wouldn't be in this society AFAIK, but just as an example).

[Manic Impressive]

Well your personal property would be private from me, that doesn't mean I want them or that anyone will demand usage of them. I think language would evolve to the new structure instead of placing a possessive term like "my clothes" we would say "these clothes", instead of "your clothes" we would say "those clothes". So there would be a degree of personal property in that no one will take them away from you as they could easily go get some exactly the same but we would not think of them in the same way we do now. just my two cents

[Thirsty Crow]

Did Marx or any other theorists differentiate between private property and personal property? I believe that the distinction you're after is "possession" (private things like shirts, tv etc etc; those which a person uses) vs. "property" (as in means of production of value).

It is clear that your shirt or your cooking pan would not be socialized.

[Tablo]

Socialism is a general term for democratic economic control of the economy and/or workplace by the workers. That is why Anarchists are also considered to be socialists.

Communism is a stateless classless society operating under a socialist gift economy.

[NGNM85]

Socialism is the idea of a society with public ownership and management of the means of production. There's more to it than that, and it's that area that tends to be the most common point of contention, but that is true across the board. As I like to say; 'All Communists are Socialists, but not all Socialists are Communists.'

[ken6346]

I believe that the distinction you're after is "possession" (private things like shirts, tv etc etc; those which a person uses) vs. "property" (as in means of production of value).

It is clear that your shirt or your cooking pan would not be socialized.
Ah okay. I would've thought so; initially I interpreted "private property" as simply any property which you own in one form or another (be it land, a wristwatch, cutlery, a house, machinery and means to production, etc.), so the idea of abolition of private property completely seems a bit strange and honestly daunting. But thanks for clearing that up. Did I use the term "personal property" incorrectly by the way? - are "possession" and "personal property" basically the same?