Difference between Socialism and Communism?

[hideinahole]

I have always had the understanding that Socialism was the stage before Communism where you'd follow Marx' 10 Planks (which some people have argued are out of date).

I was reading stuff on the forums when I came across a thread where some people argued the difference between Socialism and Communism. As some have already posted, Engels has explained that they chose the term "Communism" because Socialism would be mistaken for (an)other ideology/ies.

Some also argued that the "Socialism-stage" was invented by Stalin as an explanation(excuse?) to his rule.

So my question is this; What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

Dear RevLefters, please enlighten me, I shall look forward to reading your posts.

[Jalapeno Enema]

Socialism can be used to represent multiple different ideas.

Socialism is often used as the stage before communism in a materialist theory of history.

It can also represent a reformist development advocating a common management of the means of production, such as seen in planned economies. In this usage, a socialist system does not necessarily overthrow the current regimes through revolution, but through politics, leaving the parliamentary systems (governments) in place.

Depending on the context, socialism can cover a number of ideologies ranging from Marxism to social democracy to the far right, even.

[Pavlov's House Party]

Socialism is in Marxist terminology the stage after capitalism has been overthrown by a revolution and where the state is organized in such a way that it eventually is no longer required and ceases to exist.

[Diello]

Here's (http://www.revleft.com/vb/distinction-between-being-t142625/index.html?t=142625) a link to the thread I started asking the same question shortly after I joined.

[robbo203]

Socialism is in Marxist terminology the stage after capitalism has been overthrown by a revolution and where the state is organized in such a way that it eventually is no longer required and ceases to exist.

In traditional marxist terminology there was no distinction between socialism and communism. They were just alternative terms for describing the same thing - a moneyless, wageless, stateless commonwealth in which the means of production are common property.

This was the case right up until the early 20th century. Even among the Russian social democrats prior to their split into Bolsheviks and Mensheviks, this particular usage prevailed. A key text called A Short Course of Economic Science written by Bogdanoff talked of socialism being “the highest stage of society we can conceive”, in which such institutions as taxation and profits will be non-existent and in which “there will not be the market buying and selling, but consciously and systematically organised distribution.”. This book was published in 1897 and a revised edition in August 1919 was used as a textbook in schools and study circles of the Russian Communist Party. http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/etheory/Russia1917to67/index.html

Stalin too in this early period in his book on Anarchism or Socialism (1906)reflected this usage: "Future society will be socialist society. This means also that, with the abolition of exploitation commodity production and buying and selling will also be abolished and, therefore, there will be no room for buyers and sellers of labour power, for employers and employed -- there will be only free workers" In socialism "Where there are no classes, where there are neither rich nor poor, there is no need for a state, there is no need either for political power, which oppresses the poor and protects the rich. Consequently, in socialist society there will be no need for the existence of political power.". This same Stalin in the 1930s claimed that Russia had a established a socialist state in which there was inter alia a working class and a peasant class

However the prime mover (though he was not the only one) behind the radical change in the meaning of "socialism" was Lenin (though he too vacillated between this early usage of the term socialism and his revised definition). In The State and Revolution, (1917)for example, Lenin claimed: "But the scientific distinction between socialism and communism is clear. What is usually called socialism was termed by Marx the "first", or lower, phase of communist society. Insofar as the means of production becomes common property, the word "communism" is also applicable here, providing we do not forget that this is not complete communism." Marx of course never talked of socialism in this way.


It should also be noted that Lenin's depiction of this "lower phase of communism" bore little relation to Marx's own. Where Marx advocated a system of Labour vouchers for this stage, Lenin talked of "all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state". In The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It (1917) Lenin also maintained that "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


So even in this respect Lenin was, as usual, being utterly contradictory and confusing. First, he was claiming socialism was Marx's first phase of communism, then he was claiming that socialism was a form of state capitalist monopoly that bore no relation at all to Marx's first stage of communism!

Unfortunately, most of the Left has uncritically swallowed the dogma that the soviet union established some kind of "socialist society" which is one of the reasons why the Left is such a parlous state that it is today. It has forgotten what socialism is about and has fallen for the myth that state capitalism is somehow organically linked to the socialist objective

[hatzel]

I really feel socialism can mean almost anything. It's also important to consider the time in which it was used. For instance, the pre-WWI Sozialistischer Bund in Germany, which probably wouldn't be called a socialist organisation in the present day, rather an anarchist organisation. Or, let's say, a libertarian socialist organisation. Personally, I just consult a dictionary for a definition of socialism:


1. A theory or policy of social organisation which aims at or advocates the ownership and control of the means of production, capital, land, property, etc., by the community as a whole, and their administration or distribution in the interests of all people.
2. A state of society in which things are held or used in common.

As long as this basic requirement is met, it's socialism in my books. Anything else is just details and tendencies. So the difference would be that socialism is more than just communism, as communism is just one interpretation of the exact details of socialism, how to achieve and maintain it...

[Blake's Baby]

For some of us, socialism and communism are two words for the same thing, the establishment of a classless communal society. For example, the Socialist Party of Great Britain is a Marxist (or 'Marxian') party whose foundation pre-dates Lenin's ideosyncratic use of 'socialism' to mean the transitional phase leading to true communism.

In historical terms the majority of parties from the Second (Socialist) International that followed the Bolsheviks and joined the Third International called themselves 'communist'; the majority of parties that stayed out of the Third International (the Second International and the 'two and a half' International, as well as the SPGB, the SLP in the USA and others who didn't join any of the Internationals) retained the name 'socialist'.

The 'communist' parties were thus made up in the main of the revolutionary wing of the Second International and the 'socialist' parties from the reformist wing, which had capitulated to the ideas of the technocratic administration of national capitalism, after the manner of the Fabians. Hence the modern confusion that thinks 'socialism' means state management of the economy.

Just because parties that call themselves 'socialist' (eg in France, in Germany) stand for this it doesn't mean that's what 'socialism' is, as the continued existence of the SPGB proves - they are still 'socialists' even though they haven't become technocratic managers of national capitalism. Nor does Lenin's usage that was then taken up by Stalin to mean the state management of the economy in the eastern European states mean that's what socialism is. Socialism is still socialism, the post-capitalist state of a classless communal society, without states or money; state management of the economy under whatever colour of flag is not socialism.

[syndicat]

There wasn't any difference between socialism and communism prior to the Marxist-Leninist regime in the Soviet Union, and the needs of the Communist movement for apologetics to defend it.

This was true of both anarchists and Marxists. Anarchists often used "libertarian socialism" and "libertarian communism" interchangeably (Rudolph Rocker is an example).

Kropotkin was an exception as he introduced a very narrow definition of "communism" so that Marx, by his definition, isn't a communist, because Marx advocated equal remuneration per hour of work rather than Kropotkin's proposal of abolition of money.

[hideinahole]

So, the 10 Planks of Marx would not be considered a Socialist stage but instead it would still be considered a Capitalist state that could call itself a Communist "state" after this process. And the Socialist stage was invented by people involved with the Soviet Union, am I correct? And if so, who did invent this stage? :lol:

[Paulappaul]

So, the 10 Planks of Marx would not be considered a Socialist stage but instead it would still be considered a Capitalist state that could call itself a Communist "state" after this process.The 10 Planks were mere reforms building up for the possibility of a proletarian revolution. As far as them ushering in Communism or Socialism, you are mistaken.