Socialists Communists Questions

[here2learn]

Hello all, I am still quite new to all of this so if I have things mixed up or just completely wrong all together don’t be afraid to explain it to me if its worth the effort to you.

Before I ask my question I just want to state that I have learned there are several different viewpoints on the left and several variations of anarchism Marxism, communism, socialism. So I don’t know if my questions will be to vague or quite frankly dumb or not. Ok what I’m basically wanting to know is

1. What are the main differences between generic socialism and generic communism.
2. Who was if anyone was the person who first developed the idea of stopping at the socialist stage and not continuing to communism.
3. I have read that some people on the far left do not agree with democratic socialism if so why?
4. Finally, In some what relation to number 3 why are some communists and socialist opposed to electoral politics?
　
To the first question I have a idea of the answers (maybe what you'd get from a 7th grader lol) from what I have read but I of course could have misunderstood information or had things mixed up all together.

1. Basically a shorthand answer is I would make is that among other things the ultimate goal of Socialism is to give control to the workers and the working class basically from each according to his ability to each according to his contribution and the market type can vary from state directed, self managed, to market socialism and in general production is socially owned with a surplus going to either the entire citizenry or the workers of the particular enterprise so profit could either be in addition to wage or distributed among all. Equal beginning. Workers have the largest say in there enterprise. Individual effort. Power consolidated with the workers
　
Communism -Basically from what I understand communisms ultimate goal is a communist and/or anarchist society assuming your in favor of eliminating the DOP. From each according to his ability to each according to his need. Free access to articles of consumption. Individual need. Power centrally consolidated with the citizens. Collectivism.

To the last 3 questions I have not figured out yet somewhat n the woods so to speak.

Additionally I know there are more two both ideals but just the things I went over are the things I’m currently concerning myself with to learn. Please don’t turn this into a socialism vs. communism thing as this is not my intent I would appreciate just unbiased factual answers.
　
Anything right ? Everything wrong? Also I know there are different versions of both socialism and communism as I said before and feel free to let me know them as well. And again I’m still in the early stages so forgive me if I have not “got it” yet lol.
Thank you all

[Lee Van Cleef]

1. Your answer to the first question is pretty spot on. Socialism is a society in which the workers are the ruling class, and exploit other classes to their benefit. Hegemony, the notion that the ideas of the ruling class are shoved down our throats through media, education, and cultural norms, would still remain. Socialism still has the conflicts of any class society, but the benefit to the working class, the vast majority of people, is immense.

I'd urge you to erase "market socialism" from your vocabulary. It really has no place in Marxism, and such ideas are obviously a slippery slope. Many consider the USSR's flirting with market-oriented reforms during the Khrushchev years to be one of the main things which led to the collapse of socialism.


2. As far as I know, nobody really supports the dictatorship of the proletariat as a good "final goal" for society. Central to Marxism is the philosophy of dialectical materialism, which holds that all class societies have inherent antagonisms which will lead to the eventual collapse of the social order. Since socialism is a class society, it cannot exist in perpetuity.

People who simply call themselves "socialist" are often using the term as a synonym for Marxist. However, there are various types of non-Marxists who call themselves socialists as well. The current most prominent examples of non-Marxist socialists would probably be Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.


3. "Democratic socialism" as we know it today is the belief that socialism can be achieved through reforms passed by a capitalist government. There are so many refutations of this that it is hard to know where to begin.

Marx and Engels argue that the state, as part of civil society, is dominated by the ruling class, and reflects their class interest and ideology. As such, it is easy to see why a state working in the interests of the capitalist class would never allow for the complete dismantling of capitalism. One important thing to take note of is that they believed the state (along with ideology, morals, media, etc) was part of society's "superstructure," which is built on a material "base" of the mode and relations of production.

Expanding on that point, Lenin says in The State and Revolution that since the state is an organ of ruling class power, it must be completely destroyed in the revolution. Mere political change is not enough to ensure total social and economic revolution. Socialists must not seize the state. We must destroy it completely, and create a whole new state based on the interests of the working class, and the material realities of socialist economy.

When Marx and Engels talked about "social democracy," they were referring to democracy under socialism. Lenin argues that this totally new, socialist state is the harbinger of true social democracy, in opposition to the liberal capitalist democracy which exists today. It should be noted that the early Marxist usage of the term "social democracy" bears no relation to the term as used today (social reforms to capitalism). For an understanding of how this term has changed over time, it would do you well to look at the history of the German Social Democratic Party...


4. ...Which serves as the perfect segue into your final question, regarding opposition to electoral participation. For starters, the above refutation of democratic socialism means that gaining seats in a capitalist government can amount to nothing more than a publicity stunt. For those leftist parties who do field candidates, the publicity is their main reason for doing so.

Aside from the fact that it is not very productive, participation in capitalist politics is a grave threat to the integrity of the party. As history has shown us through the experience of the SPD (among others), there are many who would consider it acceptable to compromise Marxism and the revolutionary struggle if it meant winning a minor victory in capitalist politics. Whether this be something as "big" as a labor reform, or as meaningless as improved performance in the next election.

People who have caved in to the temptations of opportunism have lost sight of what it means to be a revolutionary and a Marxist, and their time in the political arena have led them to believe that reformism can accomplish anything of significance. The best way to avoid inclination towards opportunism is to simply avoid electoral politics at all. There is certainly no harm in doing so, since reformism is nothing but a dead end.

I hope this helps your understanding of these issues.

[Manic Impressive]

1. What are the main differences between generic socialism and generic communism.
There is no difference between socialism and communism according to Marx and Engels. Lenin was the first to change the meaning of one of the words to justify what he was doing in Russia.
2. Who was if anyone was the person who first developed the idea of stopping at the socialist stage and not continuing to communism.
That's a great question. I don't even know the answer. All I can say is that the official position of the Chinese communist party is that they are still working towards communism. But I don't think anyone actually believes that.
3. I have read that some people on the far left do not agree with democratic socialism if so why?
By democratic socialism do you mean social democracy, it's another term which has multiple meanings. I'm guessing you mean reforms to capitalism. We're opposed to reforms because while they may provide some benefit to the working class they don't actually achieve any real change to the relationship between the bourgeois and the proletariat. Any party who commits to reforms will eventually have to compromise with the bourgeoisie. This will ultimately lead to the party having to take up positions which are inherently anti-working class like war and shit like that.
4. Finally, In some what relation to number 3 why are some communists and socialist opposed to electoral politics?
I support using electoral means to organize politically, on one condition, that the party does not engage in reforms to capitalism.
　
To understand why we dislike things like Market socialism you need to get an understanding of the labour theory of value. These videos (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM) are a good introduction.

[daft punk]

1. What are the main differences between generic socialism and generic communism.

Socialism and communism are the same thing, you can use the words interchangeably. The meaning has changed a bit over time. At one time, Marx and Engels just talked of communism, and sort of split it into a lower and higher stage that roughly correspond to the two stages you describe. Lenin and Trotsky tended to use the word socialism instead, or to use the word socialism for the first stage. However before the first stage was a long transition from the semi-feudal Russia of 1917, Lenin said it would take 2 or 3 generations to achieve. Nowadays we just use the word socialism, as communism has got a bad name.



2. Who was if anyone was the person who first developed the idea of stopping at the socialist stage and not continuing to communism.


Nobody has ever said that to my knowledge. Who are you thinking of? Stalin? Russia was never socialist.



3. I have read that some people on the far left do not agree with democratic socialism if so why?

Lenin and Trotsky believed in democratic socialism. They never achieved it and as I say, expected it to take decades. They also said it could not happen without help from advanced countries. Stalin did not believe in socialism.





4. Finally, In some what relation to number 3 why are some communists and socialist opposed to electoral politics?

dunno
　

[daft punk]

4. ...Which serves as the perfect segue into your final question, regarding opposition to electoral participation. For starters, the above refutation of democratic socialism means that gaining seats in a capitalist government can amount to nothing more than a publicity stunt. For those leftist parties who do field candidates, the publicity is their main reason for doing so.

Aside from the fact that it is not very productive, participation in capitalist politics is a grave threat to the integrity of the party. As history has shown us through the experience of the SPD (among others), there are many who would consider it acceptable to compromise Marxism and the revolutionary struggle if it meant winning a minor victory in capitalist politics. Whether this be something as "big" as a labor reform, or as meaningless as improved performance in the next election.

People who have caved in to the temptations of opportunism have lost sight of what it means to be a revolutionary and a Marxist, and their time in the political arena have led them to believe that reformism can accomplish anything of significance. The best way to avoid inclination towards opportunism is to simply avoid electoral politics at all. There is certainly no harm in doing so, since reformism is nothing but a dead end.

I hope this helps your understanding of these issues.

But Marx and Engels believed that socialists should participate in elections.

[here2learn]

2. As far as I know, nobody really supports the dictatorship of the proletariat as a good "final goal" for society. Central to Marxism is the philosophy of dialectical materialism, which holds that all class societies have inherent antagonisms which will lead to the eventual collapse of the social order. Since socialism is a class society, it cannot exist in perpetuity.

People who simply call themselves "socialist" are often using the term as a synonym for Marxist. However, there are various types of non-Marxists who call themselves socialists as well. The current most prominent examples of non-Marxist socialists would probably be Hugo Chavez and Evo Morales.






I see I think I know where I got confused after reading what you posted I went back and connected the dots it was somewhat of a “duh“ moment.
　
　
　
I did indeed find this video informative I have watched the first two and intend to watch the rest when I’m available to do so. Interesting. Thank you.
　
I think where the confusion arose was from the reading I was doing on the situation in Venezuela and Hugo‘s Socialism for the 21st century ideal.
　
My questions have been resolved thank you all.

[Valdyr]

1. What are the main differences between generic socialism and generic communism.

As others have said, Marx and Engels used the terms largely interchangeably. The Bolsheviks sometimes took socialism as being an earlier stage. According to this way of distinguishing, one could think of socialism as the stage of "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work" on the way to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." Regardless of whether you buy this model or not, the end goal is the end of class society though.


2. Who was if anyone was the person who first developed the idea of stopping at the socialist stage and not continuing to communism.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that. Maybe some people in the non-Marxist wings of socialism.


3. I have read that some people on the far left do not agree with democratic socialism if so why?

Democratic socialism these days refers to the idea that socialism can be "handed down" to the people by the state if socialists take over the bourgeois state and reform it into socialism. As others have said, the refutations of this idea are endless.

Even if we took over all elected positions, the structure of the state itself still serves bourgeois interests, and the majority of the government is un-elected and bourgeois (the police, etc.). The only action is to completely smash the bourgeois state.

I suggest reading Lenin's State and Revolution. Ernest Mandel's Marxist Theory of the State and Hal Draper's Two Souls of Socialism are also good.

On another note, socialism as envisioned in Marxism is inherently democratic, as it is democratic control of the economy. There cannot be true democracy without socialism.


4. Finally, In some what relation to number 3 why are some communists and socialist opposed to electoral politics?

They don't see anything good coming from working with bourgeois institutions. They go to an extreme length to avoid the failings of the social democrats. I personally advocate a middle road - participate in parliamentary bodies, but only to provide a platform with which to create visibility to the working class. Whether to participate in electoral politics, however, is always contingent to the specifics of the situation.

In 1905, for example, it was right for the Bolsheviks to boycott the duma, at several points, because they correctly apprehended that they had a revolutionary situation on their hands, and working in/cooperating with the duma would just serve as a channel for the revolutionary energy, helping defuse it. They would participate in the duma at other times though, when the situation merited it. Flexibility is key.

"The alternation of parliamentary and non-parliamentary forms of struggle, of the tactics of boycotting parliament and that of participating in parliament, of legal and illegal forms of struggle, and likewise their interrelations and connections—all this was marked by an extraordinary wealth of content."
-Lenin, in Left-Wing Communism: An Infantile Disorder

[Manic Impressive]

1. What are the main differences between generic socialism and generic communism.
There is no difference between socialism and communism according to Marx and Engels. Lenin was the first to change the meaning of one of the words to justify what he was doing in Russia.

Sorry :blushing: I was wrong and for historical accuracy I should amend my mistake in case I'm accused of being dishonest.

Lenin was not the first to change the meaning of socialism!

That honour goes to the first Labour (UK) Prime Minister (our version of the Democratic party)


"From all according to their ability; to each according to his needs " is a Communist, not a Socialist, formula. The Socialist would insert "services" for "needs." They both agree about the common stock ; they disagree regarding the nature of what should be the effective claim of the individual to share in it. Socialists think of distribution through the channels of personal income ; Communists think of distribution through the channels of human rights to live. Hence Socialism requires some medium of exchange whether it is pounds sterling or labour notes; Communism requires no such medium of exchange."
So really Lenin got his definition of socialism not from Marx but from Ramsay MacDonald (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramsay_Mcdonald) a Labour politician. Which isn't all that surprising really as they both thought that they could make capitalism work for in the interests of the working class, something which we know is impossible. (see the Lenin quote in my sig for proofs)

[Lee Van Cleef]

This last post is obvious flame bait that really doesn't warrant a response. I think trying to group Lenin, early Labour, and the Democrats together might be a new low for Revleft. I will say that Lenin was writing well before 1911, and his conception of socialism and communism have nothing in common with MacDonald's idealist definitions.

To address the point about Lenin "changing" socialism, this is simply not true. Although they never explicitly defined the two terms, Marx and Engels did use both terms separately, to refer to different stages of economic development.

While the use of "socialism" was sometimes ambiguous, its synonym, "social democracy" was used while discussing the early stages of post-capitalist development. As far as usage of the term "communism," this is very obviously used to refer to a full developed classless society.

Marx even described communism in detail, stating that it was a society that allowed for "free intercourse between individuals," in terms of being able to do whatever type of work they desire at any given moment. That certainly doesn't sound like anything Marx would have thought possible under socialism.

All that aside, I'm fairly sure here2learn's question had more to do with how the terms are used today, which makes this all a bit of a moot point.

[Rooster]

To address the point about Lenin "changing" socialism, this is simply not true. Although they never explicitly defined the two terms, Marx and Engels did use both terms separately, to refer to different stages of economic development.

Where? And specifically, where does it say that the lower phase of communism is socialism?

[here2learn]

I have actually came up with some additional questions actually based on some of the responses I got from the previous post.

I now know that socialism is the same as communism however except for when meaning what I have discovered to be non-Marxist socialism like Hugo Chavez’s idea and many modern European countries/parties that have a non-Marxist Socialists platforms.

My questions are
1. Are democratic socialism and no Marxist socialism the same thing?
2.If not could someone please explain what the latter is, I do have a general idea but would appreciate a more in depth explanation of what exactly it is from somebody who has a better understanding.
　
Additionally if they are not the same thing are there any non-Marxist socialists parties in the USA?

I did read on the SPUSA website that there ultimate goal is not authoritarian communism so while I understand that they are democratic socialists would they also be a example of a non-Marxist socialism?

Again I’m not saying I’m adhering to Dem socialism or non-Marxist socialism just curious to learn about them as my knowledge of leftist politics has been basically been zero up until the last few months.

[Lee Van Cleef]

Before I get into my reply to Rooster, I'd like to say that I think that while this debate has some merit, this thread is the wrong place for it. here2learn is trying to learn how most people use the terms "socialism" and "communism." The overwhelming majority of Marxists uphold this distinction (at least, in terms of a simple explanation).

Up until you and Manic Impressive showed up, I didn't know anyone who thought that socialism and communism are the same. Even most anarchists think there is a distinction.

I realize that these are the views of you and some others in your tendency, but I think in this case, all you are doing is confusing things for someone who is trying to understand the broader left in general.

Now, to your point:

Neither one of us are "orthodox Marxists," so the differences in our opinions lay in our interpretations of Marx. I never claimed that Marx explicitly said socialism was the lower stage of communism. As I have already said, Marx describes communism in terms which mean communism is not yet a possibility. From The German Ideology:


abolishes the rule of all classes with the classes themselves, because it is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society, is not recognised as a class, and is in itself the expression of the dissolution of all classes, nationalities, etc. within present societyFor starters, the proletariat are still a class in today's society. The simple fact that they have class consciousness means they will act in their class interests, against remaining classes. Marx agrees that the workers will assert their dominance under a dictatorship of the proletariat. It is only after proletariat hegemony has been established, and workers' power consolidated, that class antagonisms will become less intense. Only in this environment, after the complete abolition of wage labor, can the proletariat "no longer count as a class," and the possibility of classlessness can become a possibility.


Returning to here2learn's questions:

1. Are democratic socialism and no Marxist socialism the same thing? I would say yes. Although some democratic socialists are influenced by Marxism (such as the Mensheviks in Russia), reformism is inherently non-Marxist for reasons already explained.


2.If not could someone please explain what the latter is, I do have a general idea but would appreciate a more in depth explanation of what exactly it is from somebody who has a better understanding. This is an extremely broad category. Most of the time it is just some form of left-wing populism and a buffing up of the welfare state. In Chavez's case, nationalization of industries to combat US interests is a major theme. For Morales, his main selling point was his concern for Indian rights and improving their standard of living.

Chapter 3 of The Communist Manifesto (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch03.htm) deals exclusively with defining other brands of "socialism:" whether they be reactionary, capitalist, or left-utopian in nature.

[Offbeat]

1. Are democratic socialism and no Marxist socialism the same thing?
2.If not could someone please explain what the latter is, I do have a general idea but would appreciate a more in depth explanation of what exactly it is from somebody who has a better understanding.

Non-Marxist socialism could refer to all sorts of things. Maybe democratic socialism and anarchism would fall into that definition, although most anarchists agree with Marxist analysis to some extent. Non-Marxist socialism might also refer to the movements which predated Marx, which aren't relevant today.

[The Idler]

I think here2learn is using democratic socialism as a non-specific broad term to refer to democratic forms of socialism. Democratic socialism is a specific ideology which aims for a state with nationalised industries but also a free market. Roy Hattersley and other Labour members have written about it. The Chartist magazine is a current example of the specific Democratic socialism ideology.

Democracy within socialist parties or societies is separate from (and broader than) the ideology Democratic socialism. Many organisations calling themselves socialist (or communist or Marxist) practice varying levels of democracy internally and seek varying levels of democracy externally. The dividing line is not between Marx and democracy, it is between democracy (Marx, Engels, Toqueville, Paine, original Chartists, Winstanley etc.) and capitalism, property and free markets (Labour, "Democratic socialism", The Chartist magazine etc.).

Socialism and communism are the both moneyless societies for Marx and what was written in the German Ideology was one of the very early works which Engels wrote had been superseded. The preface to the Civil War in France is a good representation of Marx-Engels view on democracy.

[shaneo]

Communists / Socialists are opposed to electoral politics because parliament (backed by the media) is designed to ensure that only capitalist parties have control. These parties act on behalf of the profit interest, and not social need. The only time they will give ground socially, is to avoid outright confrontation with the working class, ie. revolution.

The Media, state run and corporate, assist in this crime.

Some so-called socialist promote the parliamentary system, but only because they support the trade unions, which are aligned to (and even fund!) one of the capitalist parties.

[daft punk]

Up until you [Rooster] and Manic Impressive showed up, I didn't know anyone who thought that socialism and communism are the same. Even most anarchists think there is a distinction.



Of course socialism and communism can mean the same thing, Marx, Engels, Lenin, Trotsky and Luxemburg all used the terms interchangeably at times. Lenin also made a distinction saying that communism was a higher stage of socialism. Marx used the phrase 'lower stage of communism' to apply to that earlier stage. I'm pretty sure none of them thought even the lower stage could happen overnight, Lenin said it would take 2 or 3 generations to even get to socialism. So there is a long transition before socialism/lower stage of communism. He said it was impossible in one country, especially a backward one. Marx also used communism to mean the movement in the present tense.

[The Idler]

Communists / Socialists are opposed to electoral politics because parliament (backed by the media) is designed to ensure that only capitalist parties have control. These parties act on behalf of the profit interest, and not social need. The only time they will give ground socially, is to avoid outright confrontation with the working class, ie. revolution.

The Media, state run and corporate, assist in this crime.

Some so-called socialist promote the parliamentary system, but only because they support the trade unions, which are aligned to (and even fund!) one of the capitalist parties.
Some so-called communists / socialists are opposed to electoral politics but only because they oppose democracy and giving people (including members in their own party) votes on important issues. The members assist in this crime.

Why would supporting trade unions translate into supporting parliament any more than supporting Starbucks translates into supporting coffee bean farmers?

[Rooster]

...

So... no where?

[shaneo]

Firstly, how does having a vote equal democracy? ... What is your favourite colour? Got it?
Right, was it light grey, mid grey, or dark grey? C'mon, this is democracy, you have a choice.
I oppose electoral politics because it is the enemy of democracy, and we will never get democracy until we end electoral politics.

Supporting trade unions is the same as supporting capitalist parties, because the unions support capitalist parties.

[shaneo]

.
Why would supporting trade unions translate into supporting parliament any more than supporting Starbucks translates into supporting coffee bean farmers?

This example doesn't really work. I never suggested that Stabucks backed, verbally and financially, one of its bean growers to be president/prime minister.
The unions certainly do, and you can't, in good concience, back a union (which supports a capitalist party) then complain about capitalism.

[The Idler]

Having a vote on an issue in your trade union, council or parliament is one of the oldest most important features of elective democratic politics. First formulated by Aristotle and expounded in the modern era by Thomas Paine and Alexis Tocqueville. It is imperfect but one of the least worst methods for decision making.

Maybe the Starbucks analogy is a bit wrong, but at work I am a member of a trade union to defend my interests, principally my working conditions and wages. I don't support a capitalist party and of the few trade unions that do, all offer an opt-out for individual members.

[bricolage]

I don't support a capitalist party and of the few trade unions that do, all offer an opt-out for individual members.
'few trade unions that do' is pretty misleading. there are 15 trade unions [url=http://www.labour.org.uk/tulo]affiliated to the labour party and of them seven combined(*) account for 4.1 million of the 7.3 million trade union members in the UK. that's actually quite a lot, despite them offering an opt-out clause.

* unison 1.375 million
GMB 617,000
CWU 215,000
ASLEF 18,500
USDAW 402,000
MU 30,000
Unite 1.5 million

figures generally from wikipedia, I got bored counting after this.