Socialism seems to contradict communism

[Riveraxis]

Well this idea has been bothering me for awhile.

I get the gist of the "socialism is just a stepping stone to actual communism" idea. But it seems to me that socialism blatantly contradicts much of what communism stands for.

In America you hear a lot about Obama and other "leftists" as masquerading socialists. Now, that's obviously a load of garbage, but that makes me think about what America would look like if it actually did become a socialist state.
I don't think it would look very good. And I don't think that any process would emerge to return any power to the people, it would just concentrate and centralize forever.
And furthermore why would any revolutionary hand their successful revolution over to a new bureaucracy?

Shifting from capitalism directly to communism would result in a lot of disorder and probably ruin any chance of revolution there could have been. So I agree that some transition is necessary, but it seems to me that socialism is on the opposite side of the spectrum than we're (or at least I'm) aiming at.

I've heard no compelling argument that makes me think any bureaucratic force would ever relinquish it's power. Even if they got their popularity on the grounds of that exact idea- many rules have stepped forward on the platform of revolution, change, whatever that were unfaithful to their people. Well, most of them, as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something here? Socialism strikes me as a state that regulates workers as according to it's own sense of fairness, rather than a state regulated by the workers themselves.

[radical_subjectivity]

This is indeed a persistent problem in conceptualizing the people's dictatorship. The process is incredibly complex and demanding and requires constant vigilance from everyone involved. China was performing that process admirably until Mao weakened in his old age and his successors betrayed his thought.

But you should also aggressively try to understand how it was theorized by Lenin and how it was actually attempted by the numerous revolutions that have indeed taken place. Only that process of investigation can address our overarching misconceptualizations.

[subcp]

Socialism and communism are terms that are used interchangeably by Marx. It wasn't until the Bolsheviks came around that a distinction was made between them; that when talking of the 'lower phase of communism' (the real movement of the proletariat to abolish the present state of things) and 'higher phase of communism' (everything free according to need or desire) that the term 'socialism' is used to mean specifically the transition (real movement) to communism, and communism as the final state after all classes, law of value, all states, etc had been abolished or dissolved everywhere on Earth.

You're right that what was paraded around in the 20th century as 'real existing socialism' was not that, and is the opposite of communism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

State Socialism is a lie.

[The Jay]

I don't hold Socialism to be different from Communism.

[tuwix]

IMHO, there is a slight difference between socialism and communism. The both terms are much more older than Marxism. The word 'socialism' has originated a from Latin word 'societas' that means society. The word 'communism' has originated from a Latin word 'communis' that means common. The word 'capitalism' has originated from a word 'capital' and it is newest one of those all words. IMHO, capitalism is a system ruled by capital, socialism is a system ruled by society and communism is a system when (almost) everything is common.

If we mean these word thusly, socialism can be a direct democracy but direct democracy may not be a communism.

[Don't Swallow The Cap]

I don't think it would look very good. And I don't think that any process would emerge to return any power to the people, it would just concentrate and centralize forever.
We should not be worried about the "people" in general, but the working class. There needs to be democracy, but among the proletariat, instead of the current ruling class. As well, even if the US managed to go "socialist" that would mean nothing without the prospect of a world revolution.

[Jimmie Higgins]

Well this idea has been bothering me for awhile.

I get the gist of the "socialism is just a stepping stone to actual communism" idea. But it seems to me that socialism blatantly contradicts much of what communism stands for.

In America you hear a lot about Obama and other "leftists" as masquerading socialists. Now, that's obviously a load of garbage, but that makes me think about what America would look like if it actually did become a socialist state.
I don't think it would look very good. And I don't think that any process would emerge to return any power to the people, it would just concentrate and centralize forever.
And furthermore why would any revolutionary hand their successful revolution over to a new bureaucracy?

Shifting from capitalism directly to communism would result in a lot of disorder and probably ruin any chance of revolution there could have been. So I agree that some transition is necessary, but it seems to me that socialism is on the opposite side of the spectrum than we're (or at least I'm) aiming at.

I've heard no compelling argument that makes me think any bureaucratic force would ever relinquish it's power. Even if they got their popularity on the grounds of that exact idea- many rules have stepped forward on the platform of revolution, change, whatever that were unfaithful to their people. Well, most of them, as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something here? Socialism strikes me as a state that regulates workers as according to it's own sense of fairness, rather than a state regulated by the workers themselves.


I think it might be useful to define what you mean by these terms.

For example I think of "socialism" as worker's rule over a still transitioning society; workers hold power and reshape how things are done along cooperative and democratic means and this creates the ability to have a society where everyone's relationship to power is the same and there are no classes: communism.

Is this contradictory? Yes it is in an abstract way: power used over the ruling class in order to do away with people who can hold power over others. Or class war in order to end wars between nations.

[redblood_blackflag]

Well this idea has been bothering me for awhile.

I get the gist of the "socialism is just a stepping stone to actual communism" idea. But it seems to me that socialism blatantly contradicts much of what communism stands for.

In America you hear a lot about Obama and other "leftists" as masquerading socialists. Now, that's obviously a load of garbage, but that makes me think about what America would look like if it actually did become a socialist state.
I don't think it would look very good. And I don't think that any process would emerge to return any power to the people, it would just concentrate and centralize forever.
And furthermore why would any revolutionary hand their successful revolution over to a new bureaucracy?

Shifting from capitalism directly to communism would result in a lot of disorder and probably ruin any chance of revolution there could have been. So I agree that some transition is necessary, but it seems to me that socialism is on the opposite side of the spectrum than we're (or at least I'm) aiming at.

I've heard no compelling argument that makes me think any bureaucratic force would ever relinquish it's power. Even if they got their popularity on the grounds of that exact idea- many rules have stepped forward on the platform of revolution, change, whatever that were unfaithful to their people. Well, most of them, as far as I can tell.

Am I missing something here? Socialism strikes me as a state that regulates workers as according to it's own sense of fairness, rather than a state regulated by the workers themselves.

I would say you're spot on. "if," and there are a few of them,
socialism requires a state, and if communism is a classless statless society,
then yes, socialism contradicts the entire essence or proclaimed goal of communism.
if communism is, in ones theory, dependent on the socialist state, then i suppose to them it wouldnt be contradictory, but as you said a "stepping stone," which is a common belief, it seems.

"I've heard no compelling argument that makes me think any bureaucratic force would ever relinquish it's power"
I'd say you're spot on. Neither have I, and I have yet to come across any perceived "rulers," or ruling class, which willingly reliquished it's "power."
The entire thing at that point amounts to blind faith and hope that the state will be used to rule in a 'good' way, and then give up it's power after it makes everyone equal, by first claiming a status of superiority over everyone and regulating society.
"Put me in power so I can get rid of my power-" that is what they are hoping for it seems.

[Oswy]

...

Am I missing something here? Socialism strikes me as a state that regulates workers as according to it's own sense of fairness, rather than a state regulated by the workers themselves.

A socialist state is, or should be, democratically accountable, so any reference to it having 'its own sense of fairness' misses the point. What we have right now under liberal-capitalist 'democracy' is a system in which the capitalist class rule and regulate society according to their own sensibilities, and those sensibilities aren't governed by any interest in 'fairness'.

[Riveraxis]

A socialist state is, or should be, democratically accountable, so any reference to it having 'its own sense of fairness' misses the point.

Agreed. But for that to be realistic, a socialist revolution couldn't happen politically.. Because to get anywhere in capitalist politics, you've got to be a dirty globalist-favoring liar.
The kind of sabotage and discrimination you'd face as an honest socialist politician would be enormous, probably even from other "leftist" groups.
Not to mention you wouldn't have many allies.
In the same way that the libertarians don't get any support from the republicans.

Don't mean to be pessimistic, it just seems to me that socialism is a waste of time that's going to drain the revolution out of those who are still relying on the political system to do them justice.

[Let's Get Free]

What's all this talk of a difference between "socialism" and "communism". They used to mean the same till Lenin came along and introduced a false distinction for his immediate political ends.

[Oswy]

Agreed. But for that to be realistic, a socialist revolution couldn't happen politically.. Because to get anywhere in capitalist politics, you've got to be a dirty globalist-favoring liar.
The kind of sabotage and discrimination you'd face as an honest socialist politician would be enormous, probably even from other "leftist" groups.
Not to mention you wouldn't have many allies.
In the same way that the libertarians don't get any support from the republicans.

Don't mean to be pessimistic, it just seems to me that socialism is a waste of time that's going to drain the revolution out of those who are still relying on the political system to do them justice.

Past slave-based civilisations couldn't imagine a future in which slavery and slave-owners were not the central force in political and economic life. Likewise not very long ago in Europe monarchs and aristocrats ruled their territories of surfdom equally incapable of imagining their grip would crumble under the advance of capitalism. We are today living in the era of capitalism, no doubt about that. But it's a mistake to think that capitalism, and the domination of its ideology, is here forever, just as it was for slave societies and surf societies before it to think they were here forever. No one could deny, not even the supporters of capitalism, that it is a highly transformative mode of production, transformative of human civilisation and of its own operations. When we appreciate that capitalism is going through change faster than any mode of production before it, we can begin to imagine something else, something on its way, something that may not be perfect but which builds upon the advances the previous mode of production has provided and which resolves some of the conflicts and contradictions it has generated.

[Riveraxis]

I hadn't realized that "socialism" was the same thing as communism before Lenin.

Well that adds some perspective.

I thought that communism, by intention, was supposed to result in a libertarian type arrangement. Slim to no government involvement, all arranged by the workers. Socialism just seems like the government arranging the workers. Perhaps it even does it fairly, in some cases. Which is definitely better than market forces and private interests doing so, for the time being at least, it just doesn't seem like the kind of thing a communist would ultimately aspire for.

[Yuppie Grinder]

There aren't any workers under communism.