What's the difference between socialism and communism?

[Fourth Internationalist]

When someone asks me what I am, like politically, I say socialist because communist is like Nazi to most people. Communism can be described as socialist, right? Is socialism a term to describe a variety of left-wing politics, or is it it's own thing, or can it be both? Is "All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communists" an accurate statement?

[RedMaterialist]

Socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

[#FF0000]

Socialism is a transitional stage between capitalism and communism.

Not everyone uses it like that.

Socialism's basically an umbrella term. There's "Utopian" socialism, yellow socialism (as opposed to red/Marxist Socialism) etc. etc. etc.

[Ostrinski]

You'll see most Marxists use the terms interchangeably.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

To Leninists, Trotskyists, and Marxist-Leninists socialism is the stage where money, class antagonisms, and social discord still exist in noticeable quantities; this is the stage where such vices are being eliminated, worker control is being strengthened and expanded, and where counterrevolutionary forces are a present threat. This period exists after the Dictatorship of the Proletarian yet can only come into being through it. This is in sharp contrast to communism where there exists no nations/countries,money and class antagonisms do not exists, and social discord has been reduced to its lowest possible levels.

edit: there might be some theoretical variations pending on what tendency you ask.

[Камо́ Зэд]

Lenin would use "socialism" to mean the lower phase of communism that, according to Marx and Engels, would still bear the "birthmarks" of capitalist society, while "communism," the higher phase, would not. What exactly these "birthmarks" are varies depending on whom you ask, but, as Comrade Godless explained quite well, class antagonisms, money, and bureaucratic administration and the state still persist during "socialism." Marx and Engels themselves would use the words rather interchangeably, and it isn't incorrect to do this.

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production. Many complain that what has been called Socialism was in reality "State-Capitalism". It is definitely true that there existed a class relation of production in the state owned enterprises USSR, Cuba etc. as the workers did not direct democratically control their surplus, but they were not working for the benefit of any individual owner or even class, but for the requirements of the workers' state. In the situations where revolutions occurred and indeed existed, it always proved unpractical and even dangerous to try to directly jump to more egalitarian, communist modes of production.
Historically the Dictatorship of the Proletariat has always been used interchangeably or indeed replaced by Socialism. What many ultra-leftists call 'socialism' is called by the majority of Marxists 'communism', or 'the lower phase of' communism. I personally use the word "Socialism" to describe worker states that seek (not particularly have, because the conditions might not allow it always) the collective ownership of the means of production in the transition from Capitalism to Communism, the majorly used way during the 20th century.

Once the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat/Socialism (the collective ownership of the means of production) gains a hegemony in the world, once the whole industrialised socialist economies are centralised/socialised, the money that still exists under Socialism will be abolished, replaced for labor credits or the like merely for accounting; the "lower phase" of communism will replace it. In my understanding, the lower phase of communism will still have remnants of capitalist relations, the advance of the productive forces will remove the gap between manual&thinking work (not to mention work hours) creating the social conditions for the state withers away and the "higher stage of" communism emerges.

The question of course is, can a socialist state transition to a "lower phase of" communist state before all capitalist/imperialist states are beaten? Yes. It can because the transition from a socialist economy to a lower communist economy is merely a national economic organisational change. It is, however, sure that the transition to a completely socialised economy depends on the political situation (as we blatantly see in Cuba today, as we saw the leadership of the Soviet Union liberalise many aspects of society, and the bureaucracy in the Soviet Union seek to gain more surplus from workers). As Marx says, the lower stage of communism will inevitably still have remnants of capitalist society (hierarchy, division of labor etc.) precisely because there will still be a workers' state as long as there is a capitalist/imperialist state, which will require a certain amount of non-egalitarianism. 'The State is the mediator between man and human liberty' and i think Marx was very aware that so long a workers' state existed, egalitarian "real Socialism" or direct-democratic communism, would at times be practically impossible.

[Blake's Baby]

Marxist-Leninists (Stalinists) think that socialism is a phase that is the same as the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is also the same as the lower phase of communism.

Marxists (Marxian Socialists, Left Communists) don't. For Marx, the dictatorship of the proletariat preceeds socialism, which is the same as communism, and this is what Marxian Socialists and Left Communists believe.

And then there are a whole bunch of people who consider themselves 'socialists' because they are members or supporters of 'socialist' parties that may have been 'socialist' before World War One but aren't any longer, only the party name hasn't changed.

So 'socialism' can mean 'not-socialism' (as in the French Socialist Party); the dictatorship of the proletariat and/or the lower phase of communism (if you're a Marxist-Leninist) or a synonym for communism in lower or higher phase (if you're a Marxist).

Got to admit I find the Trotskyist use of 'socialism' to be highly inconsistant and confusing (not like the straigghtforward setting-out above) so I've ignored it completely.

[Drosophila]

Neither of the terms are clearly defined, but they don't need to be. Socialism/communism is the embodiment of our class interests. Once the interests of the proletarian class have squelched the interests of the bourgeois class, that will be "socialism" or "communism." Judging from the facets of capitalism that we oppose, we can get a good idea of what this will look like, but we cannot be completely certain.

[Peoples' War]

Depending on who you ask, you'll get different answers:

Ask a Leninist, such as myself, and I will say it is the first, or lower, phase of communism.

Ask a Left Communist comrade, or an anarchist comrade, and they will use it interchangeably with communism.

Ask a liberal, or social democrat, and they will say it's a welfare state like Sweden.

Ask a conservative, and it's the most evil, vile, disgusting system which encompasses fascism, communism and European social democracy.

Some comrades, particularly those of the SPGB -- and many other left communists-- , get uptight about the Leninist usage because they have some weird, substance free hatred of all things Bolshevik. Don't get mad, as some do, when they use it differently. Unless it's being abused by non comrades.

[nihilust]

To Leninists, Trotskyists, and Marxist-Leninists socialism is the stage where money, class antagonisms, and social discord still exist in noticeable quantities; this is the stage where such vices are being eliminated, worker control is being strengthened and expanded, and where counterrevolutionary forces are a present threat. This period exists after the Dictatorship of the Proletarian yet can only come into being through it. This is in sharp contrast to communism where there exists no nations/countries,money and class antagonisms do not exists, and social discord has been reduced to its lowest possible levels.

edit: there might be some theoretical variations pending on what tendency you ask.

i would personally use this definition, allying myself as an ML supporter

[Blake's Baby]

...
Some comrades, particularly those of the SPGB -- and many other left communists-- , get uptight about the Leninist usage because they have some weird, substance free hatred of all things Bolshevik...

First, the SPGB are not Left Communists. Left Communists are those organisations or their political descendents who were expelled from the Communist International in the 1920s, particularly the Dutch, German and Italian Lefts. The SPGB did not join the Third International, they didn't even affiliate to the Second International.

Secondly, Left Communists do not have a 'weird hatred of all things Bolshevik'. In fact, we think that we're continuing the work of the Bolsheviks.