From Socialism to Communism?

[Rooster]

I'm a little confused as to how this would happen. If socialism is distinct from communism in a Marxist-Leninist sense, then how are they different? Would there have to be a revolution in socialism for a progression onto communism? If so, then what classes would be overthrown or would there rather be a gradual reformism of the system? Where did this concept of socialism as a distinct form come from?

[Broletariat]

Where did this concept of socialism as a distinct form come from?

From a bunch of people who never read/understood Marx.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Under Marxism-Leninism, there is no clear path to 'communism' (as in where society is stateless, classless and moneyless). Really, the Marxist-Leninists are certainly State Socialists more than stateless communists.

That is not to say that they have not made important contributions. It is equally difficult to imagine a transition from Capitalism to a 'communist' state of affairs immediately.

What blocks both the move from a State Socialist state of affairs to communism, and from Capitalism to communism, is the state. The state itself is a fairly neutral arbiter. It is not an organic, breathing entity but a set of institutions whose rules are dependent upon who infiltrates the state. Thus, one can see that the way to advance our politics is not to grab state power, but to eliminate the power of the state as quickly as possible.

The state is, in political terms, akin to a Nuclear weapon. It needs to be defused by having its core - the army, police and its central, national-level institutions neutralised. Obviously, in terms of neutralising institutions (which, as I said earlier, are clearly not living, breathing entities), that is a task that can be accomplished without too much difficulty. You simply (I say simply..!) seize power, abolish the bourgeois Parliament and expropriate the bourgeoisie and set up your own new political institutions. But is this really revolutionary? It simply replaces one set of rules (using the state as enforcer) with another set of rules. In terms of judging against communist standards, it is immaterial whether these new rules are more progressive or not, as the fundamental power relationship in society between those who control the state, and those who are controlled by the state, has not been changed.

The only way that a move to communism is possible is, as I say, to dismantle the state. This must firstly be done by stripping away the power of the state. I've already dealt with dismantling its institutions, as they are merely where the rules are made. The rules are enforced by the security apparatus: the police, the army, security services and an army of red tape-loving bureaucrats. These people cannot be bullied out of power or into a Socialist mindset by a minority. The only way that the security apparatus will be controlled is when such a majority has been reached that Socialist democracy has a critical mass of support that no amount of weapons, bullying, intimidation or harassment will quell.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I don't know about the official "Marxist-Leninist" sense, but from a Bolshevik perspective and what Lenin talked about in "State and Revolution", socialism or the initial phase of communism would still have classes - only the class system would be inverted and the ruling class would be the working class. They would still need repression, except unlike all other existing class societies (including the so-called socialist countries) a minority rules the majority. Socialism would be the rule of the majority over the minority and would necissarilly be mass and small-d democratic in nature (even if people make decisions by consensus, elected representatives, direct mass voting, or, and probably IMO all these in different places depending on what people decide and what works best).

So features of class societies and a state would still exist in the sense of there might be a worker's militia if they felt threatened from counter-revolution, there would still be democratic voting and decision making, still be some kind of laws or guaranteed rights and so on. This would be the way workers re-shape capitalist society along all of our common interests (i.e. no one having economic power over us, no power over our consensual lifestyles or personal moral-code or whatnot, getting rid of structural inequalities by making sure there are enough homes, schools, and medical services). There would still be other non-capitalist classes too like bureaucrats and professionals, small business-people, and peasants in some places. Workers would need specialized professionals and bureaucrats until education could be improved and made more available to teach people some of the more specialized skills (or until these tasks can be de-skilled and automated). It would be unwise to piss off peasants or small business people because we'd want them on our side rather than become counter-revolutionaries... but we'd also want to gradually integrate them into socialized production so that a shop owner sees that he can add some labor if he wants to and it will be easier than running a place by him/herself but they would need to give that extra labor an equal say and rights at the job.

If there was a revolution and then capitalism was simply abolished, well things would still suck (though less) if you lived in underdeveloped areas like Appalachia or a slum in Brazil or Somolia or a reservation in the US. Workers would need to get rid of these inequalities and it would take a lot of coordination and decisions.

But as to the withering away of this worker's democracy, it wouldn't be a revolution in the sense of one class overthrowing another, it would be a gradual process where the tools of (working) class power become less necessary. The easiest example to grasp is a worker's militia... if there is serious threat of counter-revolution, then people would want to have this (the entire radical left agrees on this point at least) but then if the threat is gone entirely or marginalized, then this tool for protecting the gains of the revolution is no longer needed and our time and effort can go to other tasks or just more free-time. It's the same with other decision-making: at first many new hospitals and schools would have to be developed, but once the majority of the structural and regional inequalities of capitalism have been smoothed out and everyone who wants it can get a place to live and medical aid and food and education and so on, then permanent coordinating or voting bodies are no longer needed.

Eventually there would be no need for "rights" at all or bodies to coordinate things because society would be organized along the lines of human needs and wants rather than profit. Communities wouldn't be structured in ways that help developers make profits off of suburban tracts built on cheap land far away from cities, instead, people would probably decide to organize living and work efforts in ways that are easy and efficient and as pleasant as possible. We wouldn't need a decree or "worker bill of rights" to guaranteeing freedom of religion or consensual sex or freedom from racism or sexism, because there would be no possible way for people to hold anything over you. We wouldn't even need democratic decision-making because things could be done on a mutual and selective manner rather on a broad social one. In other words we wouldn't need a state because there would no longer be any class differences or ways for some people to hold power over others.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

If there was a revolution and then capitalism was simply abolished, well things would still suck (though less) if you lived in underdeveloped areas like Appalachia or a slum in Brazil or Somolia or a reservation in the US. Workers would need to get rid of these inequalities and it would take a lot of coordination and decisions.

But as to the withering away of this worker's democracy, it wouldn't be a revolution in the sense of one class overthrowing another, it would be a gradual process where the tools of (working) class power become less necessary. The easiest example to grasp is a worker's militia... if there is serious threat of counter-revolution, then people would want to have this (the entire radical left agrees on this point at least) but then if the threat is gone entirely or marginalized, then this tool for protecting the gains of the revolution is no longer needed and our time and effort can go to other tasks or just more free-time. It's the same with other decision-making: at first many new hospitals and schools would have to be developed, but once the majority of the structural and regional inequalities of capitalism have been smoothed out and everyone who wants it can get a place to live and medical aid and food and education and so on, then permanent coordinating or voting bodies are no longer needed.

Eventually there would be no need for "rights" at all or bodies to coordinate things because society would be organized along the lines of human needs and wants rather than profit. Communities wouldn't be structured in ways that help developers make profits off of suburban tracts built on cheap land far away from cities, instead, people would probably decide to organize living and work efforts in ways that are easy and efficient and as pleasant as possible. We wouldn't need a decree or "worker bill of rights" to guaranteeing freedom of religion or consensual sex or freedom from racism or sexism, because there would be no possible way for people to hold anything over you. We wouldn't even need democratic decision-making because things could be done on a mutual and selective manner rather on a broad social one. In other words we wouldn't need a state because there would no longer be any class differences or ways for some people to hold power over others.

I have a couple of issues here. As you say, the transition from Capitalism to a stateless society is, in the immediate sense, a practical difficulty. There must obviously be an alternative - a stage before. However, if this stage is very well defined (as you have defined well in your above post) and the communist, stateless stage not so well defined (as in your post), then, combined with the Vanguardist appraoch, do we not face the problem that Socialism becomes orthodoxy, orthodoxy becomes conservative and, as in Russia, any move to instigate a stateless, communist society above and beyond the 'real existing Socialist state', is actually portrayed by those in power (The inverted ruling class, as you put it) as counter-revolutionary, and thus any democratic opposition to the inverted ruling class from the left is a potential excuse for this inverted ruling class to keep its hold over the instruments of state repression.

In other words, is the approach you outline not simply a replacement of the bourgeois ruling class with the new bourgeois ruling class that acts 'on behalf of' the new ruling class (The former working class). Does such an approach, in fact, not go further than to invert the power relationships in society, rather than actually abolish them?

A better approach is surely somewhere between your more Statist approach and the instant statelessness advocated by some. We should not aim to ever grab state power at the national level, because realistically the tools of state oppression can never be won over to the ideals of Socialism. At a national level, the army, police and bourgeois political/judicial institutions must be defeated by a critical mass of democratic resistance.

I still believe that 'All power to the Soviets', taken at face value, is in fact the correct path to go; it goes farther to giving direct economic and political emancipation to the working class than vanguardism can ever, and (without going into the political and organisational particulars) actually - unlike the Marxism-Leninism that we saw in the 20th century - makes the possibility of a stateless, moneyless and ultimately communist society a real possibility one day, rather than the utopia (Kruschev's 'communism in 20 years' farce) that it became in the USSR etc.

[thesadmafioso]

There are many different variables which must be accounted for when dealing with this question, though it is not as if there is some sort of master check list which determines the exact point upon which a society moves into the stage of communism. Though difficult to establish any one point, I would say that the most identifiable point in the development of socialism would be the point wherein the need for the state expires and it is allowed to wither away as a result of dissipated or non existent demand for its purpose. When the proletarian state is allowed to wither away due to the completion of the class struggle and the realization of synthesis between the classes, you would find the most likely definition for a full transition to communism.

This point requires a great deal of effort on multiple fronts before it can be reached and it is heavily dependent upon international context and the progress of class struggle throughout the globe, and it is one which is a long term goal which exists only in theory for the time being. But I would say that this is the primary objective of socialism, to arrive at this point in history.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I have a couple of issues here. As you say, the transition from Capitalism to a stateless society is, in the immediate sense, a practical difficulty. There must obviously be an alternative - a stage before. However, if this stage is very well defined (as you have defined well in your above post) and the communist, stateless stage not so well defined (as in your post), then, combined with the Vanguardist appraoch, do we not face the problem that Socialism becomes orthodoxy, orthodoxy becomes conservative and, as in Russia, any move to instigate a stateless, communist society above and beyond the 'real existing Socialist state', is actually portrayed by those in power (The inverted ruling class, as you put it) as counter-revolutionary, and thus any democratic opposition to the inverted ruling class from the left is a potential excuse for this inverted ruling class to keep its hold over the instruments of state repression.I don't see where you are getting this. I think you may be conflating centralization with substitutionism.

First, what does socialism as orthodoxy mean? If workers in one workplace take over their factory, in microchasm they are replacing one form of organized rule for another - one that may be democratic and collective in nature as opposed to the unaccountable top-down hierarchy of most companies. Just the fact of preventing capitalists to do what they want to do is authority and in order for the majority class in the populations to enforce their authority, they will need some kind of organization to do this. Could that organization be top-down, yes, this is the subjective part and I think this is what workers will want to guard against because of the threat of bureaucratic substitutionism in the immediate post-revolution period as well as it being less efficient from a socialist sense at being able to accomplish the task of worker self-management.



In other words, is the approach you outline not simply a replacement of the bourgeois ruling class with the new bourgeois ruling classYes the democratic will of the mass of workers rather than the collective will of the capitalist class as it is now
that acts 'on behalf of' the new ruling class (The former working class).No, I don't see how that logically follows unless there is some kind of other problem which prevents mass working class participation and there is substitutionism or some other degeneration.


Does such an approach, in fact, not go further than to invert the power relationships in society, rather than actually abolish them?Yes, this is why this is the initial stage, a transition. As the old saying goes, there is nothing more authoritarian than revolution... the self-organized working class forcing their will over the will of the capitalist class. This authority (mass and democratic in nature) is only needed as long as there is the oppositional class interests in returning to the old order. Once an even determined counter-revolutionary has no more ability to restore capitalism than an apartment owner today can restore feudalism in France, then that autority is no longer useful or necissary and can be jettisoned - or will wither away.


A better approach is surely somewhere between your more Statist approach and the instant statelessness advocated by some. We should not aim to ever grab state power at the national level, because realistically the tools of state oppression can never be won over to the ideals of Socialism.I'm not arguing for workers to "take over the state" I am only arguing that they will need to dismantle the CAPITALIST STATE but in order to ensure that worker's democracy prevails against either outside capitalist counter-revolution or internal erosion of democracy/bureaucratization, workers will initially need to organize some things to ensure their rule. If there is armed capitalist resistance, then it will need to be a worker's militia, if there is terrorism by individual right-wingers, then workers might need to organize neighborhood patrols.

Just look at Tarhir square and all the organizing done there - they essentially created their own democratic and semi-spontaneous authority - i.e. a proto-"state". Of course that was not a self-consious worker rebellion, but I think it shows (on a very low level) what I'm talking about. Strike comittes in large strikes are also an example - food distribution to striking families are organized, flying pickets, resistance to scabs or hired thugs, etc - a mini-state. This might be organized top-down or bottom-up and I think as radicals we have to argue for the necessity of bottom-up organizing and decision-making because this allows our side to be much stronger and develops the leadership capacity and collective decision making abilities of workers. A top-down strike might fall apart if people feel alienated and in capitalism it might be betrayed by strike-leaders whose interests are connected but not identical to working class interests. Bottom-up power where people feel they have a real say and are really collectively in charge is what our class needs in order to win both strikes and revolution.


At a national level, the army, police and bourgeois political/judicial institutions must be defeated by a critical mass of democratic resistance. Yes, but how? By not organizing defense of ourselves? Not preventing police and right-wing thugs and fascists from beating us up and terrorizing us? No, I think we agree, we'd have to organize some kind of defense - but this defense will be to aid and follow the orders of the majority, not the elite like in feudal or classical or capitalist armies. It's a "state" tool, but it is not just using the existing state or replacing it with a carbon copy with a red veneer.

[Thirsty Crow]

I'm a little confused as to how this would happen. If socialism is distinct from communism in a Marxist-Leninist sense, then how are they different? Would there have to be a revolution in socialism for a progression onto communism? If so, then what classes would be overthrown or would there rather be a gradual reformism of the system? Where did this concept of socialism as a distinct form come from?
For Marxists-Leninists, socialism actually sees a rise in class struggle and consequently the workers' state must be strengthened in order that communism be achieved. Of course, this is predicated upon the existence of capitalism in one part of the world, on the fact that there are two non-antagonistic classes in "socialism" etc.
This load of crap, I believe, is the official "Marxist-Leninist" line (dare I say, Stalinist?).

[robbo203]

I'm a little confused as to how this would happen. If socialism is distinct from communism in a Marxist-Leninist sense, then how are they different? Would there have to be a revolution in socialism for a progression onto communism? If so, then what classes would be overthrown or would there rather be a gradual reformism of the system? Where did this concept of socialism as a distinct form come from?


Socialism traditionally meant the same thing as communism - a classless moneyless wageless and stateless world community. The supposed distinction between socialism and communism primarily (though not exclusively) originated with Lenin. He was the one who popularised it.

Lenin's thinking on the matter was fundamentally confused and incoherent. For instance in The State and Revolution he equated socialism with Marx's first or lower stage of communism and talked of all citizens being transformed into hired employees of the state. This of course was completely different from Marx's own depiction of lower communism as a stateless society characterised by the existence of a labour voucher system rather than wage labour.(http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm))



In the same year that saw publication of The State and Revolution, Lenin contradicted himself by putting forward yet another definition of socialism. In The Impending Catastrophe and How to Combat It,(1917) he now argued 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".

How socialism can be both the lower phase of communism and a state capitalist monopoly (albeit one allegedly made to serve the interests of the whole people) is, to say the least, puzzling.



Then again, in his earlier manifestation as a Russian Social Democrat, Lenin shared with European Social democracy the more traditional marxian conception of socialism as a synonym of communism. Bogdanoff's influential work A Short Course of Economic Science (1897) a key text in the early Russian communist party , 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


Interestingly, towards the end of his life Lenin reverted to this traditional meaning of socialism in an interview with Arthur Ransome in 1922, in which he declared that that socialism was still some way off:

Let us proceed further. Is it possible that we are receding to something in the nature of a "feudal dictatorship"? It is utterly impossible, for although slowly, with interruptions, taking steps backward from time to time, we are still making progress along the path of state capitalism, a path that leads us forward to socialism and communism (which is the highest stage of socialism), and certainly not back to feudalism. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1922/nov/05.htm))

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Jimmie Higgins:

The state isn't Capitalist. The state in itself is not biased in any way. As i've explained previously, I don't see how the state itself can be biased in any way. It's not alive, it's not organic, it doesn't breathe. The state is the collective of institutions and apparatus by which those who control it (of whatever political colour) force their will upon the people. The state is a tool of repression but it in itself is not, and cannot be, biased in who uses it.

So to say that you want to destroy the Capitalist State is an anomoly and undermines your argument.

You correctly identify self-organisation of the working class as key to success, in the form of workers militia's, semi-independence from the state and neighbourhoodism (a la Cuba). That is a very good analysis, so I ask you, where is the need to invert the power relationships in society? I.e. so that the workers control the state apparatus and use it against the previous ruling class. Why not abolish the worst vestiges of state power - the army, police, security apparatus and mass bureaucracy - via the best expression of workers' democracy, the mass strike? Whilst this is being done, a new society based on the absolute power of workers' councils can be set up independent of the state.

My main worry with your approach is that you still seem to believe that it is necessary to take over 'the state', and you seem confused by the role of the state; it is a tool of oppression, not a tool of simply Capitalist oppression. That wouldn't really make sense, since Capitalism is an economic system, mainly.

[UnknownPerson]

From a bunch of people who never read/understood Marx.

Isn't "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" Marx' definition of socialism?

[Jimmie Higgins]

Jimmie Higgins:

The state isn't Capitalist. The state in itself is not biased in any way. As i've explained previously, I don't see how the state itself can be biased in any way. It's not alive, it's not organic, it doesn't breathe.Neither does a stapler but you wouldn't want to use it for ironing your clothes. The state is a specific tool of class society - the way society is organized and the way the ruling class maintains their dominance. Just look at what capitalists states do: regulate trade and financial matters, maintian a military to protect trade routes and "national interests", maintain police and courts to make sure the population stays in line with the (capitalist) program, etc. This is not true of all states - in fact the lack of stable trade and financial laws was one of the reasons that wealthy non-aristocrats began rebelling - they needed standarized laws to make trade easier and didn't want a bunch of princes charging random tariffs and tribune every-time the province needed some cash.

This "neutral-state" argument is put forward by mainstream sociologists and political scientists. They argue this point in the positive, that the state is a neutral body to make sure various social interest groups don't murder each-other. The logic of this kind of thinking leads to reformism: if the state is there to be a referee for society, well the problem is that the balance is off and we just need to pass some laws to make sure that corporations don't have too much power over the state. Some on the left take this formula and invert it, they recognize that our society is fucked up and conclude that a neutral state is still bad because there is something inherently wrong in the structure or any state.

But states arose with class society - why? IMO they are specifically organized tools for propagating a particular classes rule. In order for even capitalism to be established, the order of feudal states had to be radically changed. England had a series of revolutions until capitalism was dominant. States as inanimate structures may not have a will or desire of their own, but the class (the minority ruling class) which set up and maintains the state DOES have very specific class interests and a need to organize society in a specific way to maintain their rule.


The state is the collective of institutions and apparatus by which those who control it (of whatever political colour) force their will upon the people. The state is a tool of repression but it in itself is not, and cannot be, biased in who uses it.That seems contradictory - it's a tool for control by those who use it, but it doesn't matter who uses it?


So to say that you want to destroy the Capitalist State is an anomoly and undermines your argument.How so? Throw out all the laws, fire the officials and professional government bureaucrats, disarm the police and military, and replace them with all new structures suited for democratic worker rule. Congress and Parliament and the courts and so on would be of no use to worker's rule because these institutions are designed to keep popular will at arm's length - workers would need to set up their own structures that allow mass participation and collective decision-making. That ain't the US Congress let alone bullshit like the Supreme Court.


Why not abolish the worst vestiges of state power - the army, police, security apparatus and mass bureaucracy - via the best expression of workers' democracy, the mass strike?Mass strikes, workplace occupations, yeah, these are the best tactics for hitting the capitalists where they are vulnerable while also allowing workers to take direct leadership in society by actually running things themselves.


Whilst this is being done, a new society based on the absolute power of workers' councils can be set up independent of the state. What you are describing is workers setting up their own state aperatus. This is exactly what Lenin talks about in State and Revolution and what I have been trying to describe.


My main worry with your approach is that you still seem to believe that it is necessary to take over 'the state', No I don't.


and you seem confused by the role of the state; it is a tool of oppression, not a tool of simply Capitalist oppression. That wouldn't really make sense, since Capitalism is an economic system, mainly.Oppression for the sake of oppression? Or a tool for class oppression and rule? The capitalists have used it both to shape society around profit-making and private ownership of production (the enclosures, setting up trade laws and economic standardization etc.) and to war with their capitalist competitors and repress attempts by workers to gain more power.

Workers as a non-minority class will not need to use a state to enforce minority rule like all states have done, instead they will have their own apparatus and organizations for reshaping their society - expropriating the expropriators and reshaping a society developed and organized around profits and private property into a society based on democracy and worker's power.

I don't know how you can argue that capitalism is an economic system that doesn't oppress! Capitalism needs a state, don't believe capitalist-libertarian myths.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I'm slightly confused by your change of heart in that last post, or perhaps you are just being clearer in your explanations. I agree with much of what you say, but still take issue with a couple of things:

1) Yes, the state is a specific occurrence in class society. It is the staple of class society. That is not to say that the only form 'class society' can take is that of bourgeois dominance. As we saw in the USSR, it was very easy for the so called working class vanguard to take state power in the name of the workers and use the tools of the state to repress groups that included the working class. I understand now that you are not advocating such a strategy, but feel that you don't truly understand the role and features of the 'state'.

2) I'm not arguing that the state in neutral and I apologise for using the word neutral, it was poorly chosen. What i'm trying to say is that the state in itself, without direction from people, is not a tool specifically for Capitalism nor for any other political creed. It is a tool for control over individuals and over groups that oppose those who control the state. I don't believe the state is a positive neutral arbiter.

3) Whatever Lenin said in State and Revolution, it's clear that in practice he was not truly an advocate of 'all power to the Soviets'. Indeed, as Rosa Luxembourg says in The Russian Revolution, Lenin and the Bolsheviks chose 'proletarian' dictatorship over bourgeois democracy, and painted these two outcomes as the only realistic outcomes facing the Russian people.

[Blake's Baby]

Isn't "From each according to his ability, to each according to his contribution" Marx' definition of socialism?

I don't think so, no.

He mentions it as a slogan used by the utopian socialists, particularly Saint-Simon, I think (though ususally I've seen it translated as 'work' rather than 'contribution'), but he doesn't equate it to 'socialism' as such. He doesn't differentiaite betwee 'socialism' and 'communism'.

[Thirsty Crow]

2) I'm not arguing that the state in neutral and I apologise for using the word neutral, it was poorly chosen. What i'm trying to say is that the state in itself, without direction from people, is not a tool specifically for Capitalism nor for any other political creed. It is a tool for control over individuals and over groups that oppose those who control the state. I don't believe the state is a positive neutral arbiter.

But to define the state in such terms would be to miss the specificity of the organization of the capitalist class and its concentration of power.
In other words, such a definition really does not tell us anything except for the minimum criteria used to differentiate the institutions of a society, of any society.

But the goal should precisely be to dissect capitalist hegemony to the slightest detail in order that a revolutionary strategy might be devised.


I don't think so, no.

He mentions it as a slogan used by the utopian socialists, particularly Saint-Simon, I think (though ususally I've seen it translated as 'work' rather than 'contribution'), but he doesn't equate it to 'socialism' as such. He doesn't differentiaite betwee 'socialism' and 'communism'.
To be preices, in "Critique of the Gotha Program" Marx uses the slogan to differentiate between the stages of classless society with respect to their differences in distribution of the product (renumeration based on labour time and free access), denoting the higher phase as that which could rightfully place "from each...to each..." on its banner.

[Blake's Baby]

...

To be preices, in "Critique of the Gotha Program" Marx uses the slogan to differentiate between the stages of classless society with respect to their differences in distribution of the product (renumeration based on labour time and free access), denoting the higher phase as that which could rightfully place "from each...to each..." on its banner.

But the point is that he specifically calls one a 'socialist' slogan and the other a 'communist' slogan. I don't think that this means that he is talking about a 'socialist phase' equal to the lower stage of communism, and a 'communist phase' equal to the higher stage of communism; I think his point is that the utopian socialists never saw beyond the lower stage of communism, and thus the slogan he associated with it, '...to each according to their work', was a 'socialist' slogan, a slogan of those who called themselves 'socialists', not a 'slogan describing the socialist stage'.