Socialism vs Communism. Left vs Right.

[Meegosh]

Just two questions:
1. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
2. How do you define left-wing and right-wing?

[The Idler]

1. Nothing.
2. Left-wing distributes power as widely as possible, right-wing concentrates it in as few hands as possible.

[Kitty_Paine]

1. Nothing.
2. Left-wing distributes power as widely as possible, right-wing concentrates it in as few hands as possible.

Wouldn't socialism be broader than that though? I've always seen Communism refered to as a socialist "theory". I've always thought a person could be socialist without following Communist theory specifically...

[Caj]

1. Socialism is when the means of production are owned and managed democratically by the workers. Communism is socialism without states, classes, markets, or currency where production and distribution functions according to the maxim "from each according to his or her abilities, to each according his or her needs."

2. The Idler's definition

[Manic Impressive]

According to Marx there is no difference between socialism and communism. The difference was created later by Stalin to justify State Capitalism.

[jake williams]

Just two questions:
Neither of these questions have simple answers and anything someone says in two words or two sentences is basically dishonest in some fundamental way(s).


1. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
At some points they've been seen as meaning basically the same thing. There's a specific usage which sees "socialism" as referring to a period of workers-state-run economy preceding communism (which is stateless), but this isn't universal in any sense. Socialism is used to refer to anything from a society where the means of production are held totally in common and collectively, democratically managed (a typical definition of "communism"), to capitalist societies with very mild state intervention, like Sweden or Canada. This even happens through self-identification, with some right wing social democrats in Canada, people who want very slightly regulated capitalist societies, calling themselves "socialists". Communism, however, is rarely used to refer to such politics or societies.

Other distinctions are often made - with one referring to a theory and the other a practice, with one referring to a mode of production and the other a politics, and so on. But none of these uses are totally consistent. It depends a lot on context.


2. How do you define left-wing and right-wing?
Really very broadly speaking, to be more "left wing" is to be more radical in one's demands and practices, while to be more "right wing" is to be more conservative. Things become complicated, however, since the terms arose in a context where radicals were fighting for fundamental social progress (specifically, the overthrow of European monarchy and eventually of feudalism). The trouble is that quickly they were met with radical reactionaries whose demands were extreme, but whose demands were to roll back social progress. Thus to be more "left wing" is typically associated with fighting for stronger progressive change in some historical sense, while to be more "right wing" is to fight either against progressive social change, or to fight for reactionary social change. It depends. Again, it's mostly context.

Even with context it's not clear. So, for example, one sometimes hears things like "the real feminists are in the Third World". The implication is that since the real struggle for gender equality is more intense outside the advanced capitalist countries, that's where actual feminism is taking place (compared to what's going on here). Is this right wing or left wing? In the circles where one hears this, it's ostensibly "left wing" - it's left wing in the sense of trying to be "inclusive" and to support bigger, stronger struggles for social change than those going on here. It's connected to a certain anti-racism, and to a certain desire for bigger, deeper demands. At the same time, if it's used to undermine the importance of gender struggle in advanced capitalist societies, then it puts forward a much more conservative vision for gender in society which is presumed to have been achieved in advanced capitalist soceities. So, no simple answer.

Or, take peace. In layman's terms it's typically to regard state violence as being right wing while pacifism is left wing. But typically, within left wing and socialist movements, the right wing uses pacifist arguments to attack the more radical demands and tactics of the left.

[tir1944]

The difference was created later by Stalin to justify State Capitalism.
No,it was "created" by Lenin.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s1

[Nuvem]

According to Marx there is no difference between socialism and communism. The difference was created later by Stalin to justify State Capitalism.

Stalin...state capitalism. Connection? Okay bro. Sure.


As for the difference between the two, it's functionally nil. Historically speaking it has proven impossible to establish a socialist economy without first establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat over the bourgeoisie through the operation of a workers' state, which is the first step on the way to the the higher stage of Communism according to Marx, Engels, Lenin, and every other significant Communist theorist. There is no other path to building socialism than the establishment of a workers' state followed by a tremendous and sweeping campaign for its construction. Any other way leads to corporatism, "market" socialism, welfare statism, or a situation in which a socialist sector of the economy exists parallel to a large market.

[Manic Impressive]

No,it was "created" by Lenin.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s1
fair enough that only discredits Lenin further

[Kitty_Paine]

According to Marx there is no difference between socialism and communism. The difference was created later by Stalin to justify State Capitalism.

But even if that is the case there are many different types of socialism. So to group them all up like that would be a gross over generalization and a mistake. Even before Marx there were different types of socialism, Marx created his own theory and it's different than other variants/theories out there. So we can't just say Marx's theory is the only one or covers everything else...

[Rafiq]

2. Left-wing distributes power as widely as possible, right-wing concentrates it in as few hands as possible.

Don't listen to this crap, it's not true at all.

These terms came from the French Revolution, one side of some assembly (the left side) was more socially progressive, while the right side was more conservative.

'Left Wing" can be described as the interests of the 'progressive' class while Right Wing represents the interests of the conservative or reactionary classes or people.

[Rafiq]

No,it was "created" by Lenin.
http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s1

Right, Lenin called Socialism what Marx described as the "Lower phase of Communism".

I don't see the big deal, and I'm not going to attack lenin for doing so, as all he was doing was making Marx's analysis a lot easier to understand.

[Manic Impressive]

Right, Lenin called Socialism what Marx described as the "Lower phase of Communism".

I don't see the big deal, and I'm not going to attack lenin for doing so, as all he was doing was making Marx's analysis a lot easier to understand.
er no Marx did not describe the lower phase of communism as State Capitalism

[Caj]

Historically speaking it has proven impossible to establish a socialist economy without first establishing the dictatorship of the proletariat

:laugh: I think you mean state capitalism, not a socialist economy.

[Manic Impressive]

If in approximately six months’ time State Capitalism became established in our Republic, this would be a great success and a sure guarantee that within a year socialism will have gained a permanently firm hold and will have become invincible in our country.
That's going in my sig

[Rooster]

There is no difference between socialism and communism. Some people describe their selves as socialist or use socialism (people who are generally not well read or not very political) in a way that implies a vague left agenda that could include social democracy or labour movements within a bourgeois state. As marxists, would should recognise that no matter how mixed an economy is, it is still either one or the other (it is still either capitalist or it isn't capitalist in the sense that we are talking). Stalinists use the terms differently with communism being the far off future. And socialism being the big state where the means of production are held by the state for the proletariat. It's a distortion of Marx and is an extremely narrow view on the world. Even though Lenin said that no state shall exist when there are no class antagonisms but whatever, they don't run by logic.

As for 2, left and right can mean anything depending on the spectrum you are using. Either left of capital in a state controlled capital for instance and right wants a free market approach with little state interference. But I prefer to look beyond capitalism so marxism isn't really a left or right ideology anymore.

[Kitty_Paine]

There is no difference between socialism and communism. Some people describe their selves as socialist or use socialism (people who are generally not well read or not very political) in a way that implies a vague left agenda that could include social democracy or labour movements within a bourgeois state. As marxists, would should recognise that no matter how mixed an economy is, it is still either one or the other (it is still either capitalist or it isn't capitalist in the sense that we are talking). Stalinists use the terms differently with communism being the far off future. And socialism being the big state where the means of production are held by the state for the proletariat. It's a distortion of Marx and is an extremely narrow view on the world. Even though Lenin said that no state shall exist when there are no class antagonisms but whatever, they don't run by logic.

As for 2, left and right can mean anything depending on the spectrum you are using. Either left of capital in a state controlled capital for instance and right wants a free market approach with little state interference. But I prefer to look beyond capitalism so marxism isn't really a left or right ideology anymore.

What about all the different types of socialism? Like Utopian, Agrarian, Scientific, Market, Libertarian, etc. Even if some of these don't share all of Communism's ideologies and/or even pre-date Communism would you still group them with Communism?

I'm not necessarily arguing/disagreeing with you I'm just trying to understand...

[Rooster]

What about all the different types of socialism? Like Utopian, Agrarian, Scientific, Market, Libertarian, etc. Even if some of these don't share all of Communism's ideologies and/or even pre-date Communism would you still group them with Communism?

Socialism is just a word. The ideology we use is a Marxist one so we use a Marxist a definition as to what socialism is.

[Kitty_Paine]

Socialism is just a word. The ideology we use is a Marxist one so we use a Marxist a definition as to what socialism is.

What about the socialist ideologies that pre-date Marx?

[Geiseric]

Socialism is when workers in some part(s) of the world own means of production, and probably have some sort of government (a national federation of unions is still a state, anarcho syndicallists :p ) run by the workers in a democratic centraly sense in order to have things administered and organised in order to have the socialist region remain healthy, and to aid revolutions in other regions of the world. Communism is when the revolutions are done world wide and capitalism and all sorts of plutocracy have been dealt with. Mixed Economies are still capitalist, albeit realistic ones.

[Kornilios Sunshine]

1.Socialism is a good system and the first stage for a country to become communist.Communism is the perfect system.Also,in socialism,you have to pass the limit of capitalism for a country to become communist.A country comes socialist by a revolution,not really by elections.
2.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QjGbF6eP_A0/Tguox-3IPGI/AAAAAAAACjw/PBTBSTZygWE/s640/0808-0806-1216-5805.jpg
Definition : This is a left wing.It has left direction.You should follow this.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/right_wing_1.jpg
Definition : This is a right wing.It has right direction.Don't follow that.

P.S. Remember when everything doesn't go right,go left. :)

[Rooster]

What about the socialist ideologies that pre-date Marx?

You have read the Communist Manifesto, right? There's a bit at the back that goes into this.

[Rooster]

1.Socialism is a good system and the first stage for a country to become communist.Communism is the perfect system.Also,in socialism,you have to pass the limit of capitalism for a country to become communist.A country comes socialist by a revolution,not really by elections.

What is the process going on here? Hoe does one move from socialism to communism? What mode of production is going on under socialism and how does that get to communism?


2.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-QjGbF6eP_A0/Tguox-3IPGI/AAAAAAAACjw/PBTBSTZygWE/s640/0808-0806-1216-5805.jpg
Definition : This is a left wing.It has left direction.You should follow this.
http://conservativehome.blogs.com/torydiary/images/right_wing_1.jpg
Definition : This is a right wing.It has right direction.Don't follow that.

P.S. Remember when everything doesn't go right,go left. :)


You have those the wrong way around.

[Kitty_Paine]

You have read the Communist Manifesto, right? There's a bit at the back that goes into this.

Yes, though it's been a minute, figuratively speaking...

I'll give it a re-read and a second look though, Thanks. :)

[Rafiq]

er no Marx did not describe the lower phase of communism as State Capitalism



But even Lenin acknowledged Socialism was not State Capitalism, and saw the NEP as a necessary stage before Socialism.

[Geiseric]

The NEP wouldn't ever bring socialism, it was to make sure russia wouldn't collapse under capitalist pressure... The point of it was to give more time for the german revolution to happen, and to make the peasents live easier. Lenin never said that socialism could happen in Russia, he spoke against it on several occasions.

[Rafiq]

The NEP wouldn't ever bring socialism, it was to make sure russia wouldn't collapse under capitalist pressure... The point of it was to give more time for the german revolution to happen, and to make the peasents live easier. Lenin never said that socialism could happen in Russia, he spoke against it on several occasions.



No, Lenin in his final years, after the failure of the german revolution, accepted Socialism in one country

[Geiseric]

Ok that's a hundred percent false. Where's your proof for this?

[tir1944]

^^Nope and here's the proof.


Uneven economic and political development is an absolute law of capitalism. Hence, the victory of socialism is possible first in several or even in one capitalist country alone. After expropriating the capitalists and organising their own socialist production, the victorious proletariat of that country will arise against the rest of the world—the capitalist world—attracting to its cause the oppressed classes of other countries, stirring uprisings in those countries against the capitalists, and in case of need using even armed force against the exploiting classes and their states.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm


The development of capitalism proceeds extremely unevenly in different countries. It cannot be otherwise under commodity production. From this it follows irrefutably that socialism cannot achieve victory simultaneously in all countries. It will achieve victory first in one or several countries, while the others will for some time remain bourgeois or pre-bourgeois. This is bound to create not only friction, but a direct attempt on the part of the bourgeoisie of other countries to crush the socialist state’s victorious proletariat. In such cases, a war on our part would be a legitimate and just war. It would be a war for socialism, for the liberation of other nations from the bourgeoisie. Engels was perfectly right when, in his letter to Kautsky of September 12, 1882, he clearly stated that it was possible for already victorious socialism to wage “defensive wars”. What he had in mind was defense of the victorious proletariat against the bourgeoisie of other countries.
http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm

[Tim Cornelis]

fair enough that only discredits Lenin further

No it doesn't. It's not like Lenin "created" the dichotomy between socialism and communism out of the blue going against Marx. Marx distinguished between lower-phase communism and higher-phase communism, the latter Lenin called communism the former socialism. How does that discredit Lenin?

[Rafiq]

Ok that's a hundred percent false. Where's your proof for this?

The Hoxhaist guy pointed it out.

Why do you think that Lenin even declared the Soviet Union? 1924 was the date. Lenin would have been just like Stalin, had he lived longer.

[Manic Impressive]

The Hoxhaist guy pointed it out.

Why do you think that Lenin even declared the Soviet Union? 1924 was the date. Lenin would have been just like Stalin, had he lived longer.
This I completely agree with 100% Lenin would have been just as bad as Stalin.

[Aleenik]

I never use the term Socialist to describe what I am. You never know wtf someone is talking about when they call themselves a Socialist. The term Socialism was destroyed long ago in my view, thanks to a state capitalist known as Lenin.

[#FF0000]

Socialism's a broad term that can be used to describe anything. Social Democrats are "socialist", they'll tell you. French Aristocrats from the 18th century who supported Public Schooling were "socialists". Or, socialism could be the "transitional stage" between capitalism and communism, if you ask Lenin.

Since it's so broad I just like to avoid it.

[NewLeft]

Just two questions:
1. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
2. How do you define left-wing and right-wing?

1. Socialism is an economic philosophy, communism is a strategy to achieve socialism.
2. The left wants to create a more egalitarian society, the right wants to preserve the status-quo or return us to an earlier state..

[Geiseric]

He wasn't talking about socialism in one country working in russia, he meant something like germany. He and trotsky said that a socialist REVOLUTION was possible in 3rd world and underdeveloped countries, however in order for the new society to flourish and grow it would need to industrialise naturally, not Stalin's rapid industrialisation, with help from first world socialist countries. you guys call us revisionists, when you're the ones using quotes out of their context and defining things in ways that suit you.

[Lucretia]

^^Nope and here's the proof.


http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1915/aug/23.htm


http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1916/miliprog/i.htm

Oh good lord. These wildly out-of-context quotes have been discussed so many times on this forum, and they clearly do not mean that Lenin envisaged a classless society co-existing alongside capitalism in any kind of long-term way. A simple search through those quotes turn up scores of hits where this idiotic twisting of quotes has been debunked time and time again.

[Nox]

Just two questions:
1. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
2. How do you define left-wing and right-wing?

1.) They are both classless societies in which the means of production are owned by the proletariat, but Communism is stateless. Socialism is just one of the steps that leads on to Communism, all 'Socialists' are Communists.

2.) From an economic perspective, the ultra-left wing would be Communism where the means of production are shared equally, and the ultra-right wing would be neo-liberalism in which the means of production are in the hands of a few.

[Nox]

No, Lenin in his final years, after the failure of the german revolution, accepted Socialism in one country

I don't quite think you understand the concept of 'Socialism in One Country'.

But I do agree that Lenin would have made very similar decisions to Stalin had he lived longer.

[Geiseric]

In matters of comintern, and matters of the industrialisation suggested by the left opposition, Lenin's choices would have been opposite from Stalin's.

[Искра]

Socialism is simply Communism for people without the testosterone to man the barricades. - Gary North

:D

[Yuppie Grinder]

Socialism is common ownership of the means of economic production and distribution.
Communism is classlessness and therefore statelessness.
Leftism is the mindset that inequality in society is unnatural, unjust, and illegitimate and should be reduced or abolished. Social liberals, radical liberals, anarchists, social democrats, socialists, communists, syndicalists are all leftists.
Rightism is the mindset that inequality and hierarchy in society is generally natural and justifiable and should be perserved. Monarchism, Calvinism, nationalism, nazis, fascists, classical liberalism, neo-liberalism, neo-conservatism, conservatism, libertarians and the like are all rightist.

[ZeroNowhere]

Just two questions:
1. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?
You may be interested in this (http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showpost.php?p=34345225&postcount=10).


2. How do you define left-wing and right-wing?
Generally speaking, in its modern usage, the left wing supports capitalism with greater state regulation while the right wing supports capitalism with less state regulation. There is no continuum between these 'wings' and socialism.

[mykittyhasaboner]

er no Marx did not describe the lower phase of communism as State Capitalism

Neither did Lenin. Instead of reading the first few sentences of The Tax In Kind and arrognatly trying "discrediting" Lenin you should keep reading to actually see what he had to say. Lenin thought that since the Soviet republic(s) were not in any kind of economic condition to build socialism, they had to build the conditions first, and that this could only possibly be done by the Soviet state. Hence, "state-capitalism". State-capitalism, is a term that is used in different ways by different people, just like "socialism". Lenin used it in the following way....


Firstly, we must examine the nature of the transition from capitalism to socialism that gives us the right and the grounds to call our country a Socialist Republic of Soviets.


Secondly, we must expose the error of those who fail to see the petty-bourgeois economic conditions and the petty-bourgeois element as the principal enemy of socialism in our country.


Thirdly, we must fully understand the economic implications of the distinction between the Soviet state and the bourgeois state.
Let us examine these three points.


No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.


But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.



Let us enumerate these elements:
(1)patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;


(2)small commodity production (this includcs the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);


(3)private capitalism;


(4)state capitalism;


(5)socialism.


Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific feature of the situation.


The question arises: What elements predominate? Clearly, in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority—those working the land—are small commodity producers. The shell of state capitalism (grain monopoly, state-controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.

In the first place economically state capitalism is immeasurably superior to our present economic system.


In the second place there is nothing terrible in it for the Soviet power, for the Soviet state is a state in which the power of the workers and thc poor is assured. . . .


To make things even clearer, let us first of all take the most concrete example of state capitalism. Everybody knows what this example is. It is Germany. Here we have “the last word” in modern large-scale capitalist engineering and planned organisation, subordinated to Junker-bourgeois imperialism. Cross out the words in italics, and in place of the militarist, Junker, bourgeois, imperialist state put also a state, but of a different social type, of a different class content—a Soviet state, that is, a proletarian state, and you will have the sum total of the conditions necessary for socialism.


Socialism is inconceivable without large-scale capitalist engineering based on the latest discoveries of modern science. It is inconceivable without planned state organisation which keeps tens of millions of people to the strictest observance of a unified standard in production and distribution. We Marxists have always spoken of this, and it is not worth while wasting two seconds talking to people who do not understand even this (anarchists and a good half of the Left Socialist-Revolutionaries).


At the same time socialism is inconceivable unless the proletariat is the ruler of the state. This also is ABC. And history (which nobody, except Menshevik blockheads of the first order, ever expected to bring about “complete” socialism smoothly, gently, easily and simply) has taken such a peculiar course that it has given birth in 1918 to two unconnected halves of socialism existing side by side like two future chickens in the single shell of international imperialism. In 1918, Germany and Russia had become the most striking embodiment of the material realisation of the economic, the productive and the socio-economic conditions for socialism, on the one hand, and the political conditions, on the other.


A victorious proletarian revolution in Germany would immediately and very easily smash any shell of imperialism (which unfortunately is made of the best steel, and hence cannot be broken by the efforts of any chicken) and would bring about the victory of world socialism for certain, without any difficulty, or with only slight difficulty—if, of course, by “difficulty” we mean difficulty on a world historical scale, and not in the parochial philistine sense.


While the revolution in Germany is still slow in “coming forth”, our task is to study the state capitalism of the Germans, to spare no effort in copying it and not shrink from adopting dictatorial methods to hasten the copying of Western culture by barbarian Russia, without hesitating to use barbarous methods in fighting barbarism. If there are anarchists and Left Soeialist-Revolutionaries (I recall offhand the speeches of Karelin and Ghe at the meeting of the Central Executive Committee) who indulge in Karelin-like reflections and say that it is unbecoming for us revolutionaries to “take lessons” from German imperialism, there is only one thing we can say in reply: the revolution that took these people seriously would perish irrevocably (and deservedly).


At present petty-bourgeois capitalism prevails in Russia, and it is one and the same road that leads from it to both large-scale state capitalism and to socialism, through one and the same intermediary station called “national accounting and control of production and distribution”. Those who fail to understand this are committing an un pardonable mistake in economics. Either they do not know the facts of life, do not see what actually exists and are unable to look the truth in the face, or they confine themselves to abstractly comparing “socialism” with “capitalism” and fail to study the concrete forms and stages of the transition that is taking place in our country.


“Try to substitute for the Junker-capitalist state, for the landowner-capitalist state, a revolutionary-democratic state, i.e., a state which in a revolutionary way abolishes all privileges and does not fear to introduce the fullest democracy in a revolutionary way. You will find that, given a really revolutionary-democratic state, state-monopoly capitalism inevitably and unavoidably implies a step . . . towards socialism. . . .


“For socialism is merely the next step forward from state-capitalist monopoly. . . .


“State-monopoly capitalism is a complete material preparation for socialism, the threshold of socialism, a rung on the ladder of history between which and the rung called socialism there are no intermediate rungs” (pp. 27 and 28).


Please note that this was written when Kerensky was in power, that we are discussing not the dictatorship of the proletariat, not the socialist state, but the “revolutionary democratic” state. Is it not clear that the higher we stand on this political ladder, the more completely we incorporate the socialist state and the dictatorship of the proletariat in the Soviets, the less ought we to fear “state capitalism”? Is it not clear that from the material, economic and productive point of view, we are not yet on the “threshold” of socialism? Is it not clear that we cannot pass through the door of socialism without crossing the “threshold” we have not yet reached? . . .