"communism" vs "socialism"

[Lobotomy]

I know this is a very elementary question, but what exactly is the difference between communism and socialism? The reason I ask is because I know that different leftist tendencies have different answers to the question. I know that left communists do not make a significant distinction between the two, but I'm not sure of their reasoning. do left communists reject the idea of a DotP?

[Blake's Baby]

No, we don't reject the DotP - in fact we're very much in favour of it.

Marx used the terms interchangeably. Lenin didn't. We follow Marx's usage, not Lenin's.

Marx's schema (as outlined in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV) was that you a have capitalist society, then you have the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you you have communist society; and that communist society has a lower and a higher phase. Both of those phases can be called 'socialism' or 'communism'.

[Nevsky]

Lenin didn't make an explicit distinction between the term. He adopted Marx's "lower and higher phase of communism"-concept and further developed it. He just happened to call the first phase "socialism".

"And so, in the first phase of communist society (usually called socialism) [...]" (Lenin, The State and Revolution, Chapter 5)

I guess it simply became handy to continue with this terminology in marxist-leninist theory. The important thing is to learn the socio-economic difference between the lower and the higher phase of communism. Just read the fifth chapter of The State and Revolution Lenin to get the right idea: http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm#s3

[Left Turn]

The short answer is that Socialism is the lower phase of the workers revolution, in which the means of production are nationalized in the hands of the state; and that Communism is the higher phase of the workers revolution, in which the state withers away.

The long answer is considerably more complicated. It begins with the acknowledgement that the short answer is a gross oversimplification. A workers revolution does not necessarily lead to the nationalization of the whole means of production in the hands of the state. And nationalization of the means of production does not guarantee that the benefits flow to the workers. It's entirely possible to have a workers state that has degenerated into a bureaucratic dictatorship, as happened in the Soviet Union, or a workers state that is bureaucratically deformed from the outset, as was the case in the eastern Europeans satellites of the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, and Vietnam.

At the same time, I'm not dogmatic about the use of the terms. Though I do ultimately favor the withering away of the state, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. So I tend to promote the nationalization of the means of production under workers control, and to call this socialism, and not refer to communism with most people. I'll also sometimes refer to myself as anti-capitalist in contexts where the wanker definition of socialism that equates it with social democracy prevails. Then there are times when I'll just ditch the labels and call for the nationalization of the means of production.

[cantwealljustgetalong]

To be fair to Lenin, every time he refers to the first phase of communism as "socialism", he adds quotes or distances himself from it. Based on State and Revolution, I am convinced that Lenin had Marx's definition of socialism in mind, even though he was acknowledging the public tendency to define it as the first phase. I can imagine him sort of sighing and cringing as he was calling it socialism. :P
Maybe I'm wrong though. I've yet to see convincing evidence for the contrary position, that Lenin called the first phase of communism "socialism". I was in fact sent to State and Revolution Chapter 5 by someone attempting to back up this claim.

Edit: to answer OP's question, it definitely differs based on the group.
Anarchos, left coms, and most Trots define socialism as Marx did, as a stateless classless society.
Those who favor the Soviet Union and other big-C Communist states tend to identify socialism with the first phase of communism.
There is also equivocation between groups as to just what is the DotP and if it can last into the first phase of communism or not. I'll leave that for someone more qualified.

[Comrade #138672]

No, we don't reject the DotP - in fact we're very much in favour of it.

Marx used the terms interchangeably. Lenin didn't. We follow Marx's usage, not Lenin's.

Marx's schema (as outlined in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV) was that you a have capitalist society, then you have the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you you have communist society; and that communist society has a lower and a higher phase. Both of those phases can be called 'socialism' or 'communism'.I would prefer to call the lower phase Socialism and the higher phase Communism, but in the end it doesn't matter much. Perhaps that is why they were used "interchangeably", even though you could say there is a subtile distinction to be made.

[Lokomotive293]

No, we don't reject the DotP - in fact we're very much in favour of it.

Marx used the terms interchangeably. Lenin didn't. We follow Marx's usage, not Lenin's.

Marx's schema (as outlined in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV) was that you a have capitalist society, then you have the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you you have communist society; and that communist society has a lower and a higher phase. Both of those phases can be called 'socialism' or 'communism'.

There are two ways you can approach this discussion. #1 is to argue about semantics endlessly, which I think is just pointless, #2 is to talk about what the characteristics of those different stages are. That would be a lot more interesting. Imo, there is no difference between Marx and Lenin here, they just used different terms.

[Blake's Baby]

There are two ways you can approach this discussion. #1 is to argue about semantics endlessly, which I think is just pointless, #2 is to talk about what the characteristics of those different stages are. That would be a lot more interesting. Imo, there is no difference between Marx and Lenin here, they just used different terms.

Well, as you quoted my post, I can assume you were addressing this point to me.

So let's look at what was asked:


I know this is a very elementary question, but what exactly is the difference between communism and socialism? The reason I ask is because I know that different leftist tendencies have different answers to the question. I know that left communists do not make a significant distinction between the two, but I'm not sure of their reasoning. do left communists reject the idea of a DotP?

And how I answered it:


No, we don't reject the DotP - in fact we're very much in favour of it.

Marx used the terms interchangeably. Lenin didn't. We follow Marx's usage, not Lenin's.

Marx's schema (as outlined in The Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV) was that you a have capitalist society, then you have the revolutionary transformation of capitalist society under the dictatorship of the proletariat, then you you have communist society; and that communist society has a lower and a higher phase. Both of those phases can be called 'socialism' or 'communism'.

It seems to me that rather than 'argue about semantics endlesly' I instead provided an answer intended to simply answer a couple of direct questions, caused by a confusion of terms. Perhaps you could ellucidate some of what the endless semantic argument is, by for example quoting some of it?

[Fourth Internationalist]

A question for those who use socialism and communism interchangeably: What word do you use to describe an economy where the means of production, distribution, and exchange is owned by the community as a whole, since you don't use socialism to describe such a system? Thanks. :)

[Dear Leader]

Socialism is different from communism by the remnants of "bourgeois right", and inequality. You hear the term "to each according to his ability" to describe socialism, and "to each according to his need" for communism. Marx discusses this in his Critique of the Gotha Programme:


"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement. This equal right is an unequal right for unequal labor. It recognizes no class differences, because everyone is only a worker like everyone else; but it tacitly recognizes unequal individual endowment, and thus productive capacity, as a natural privilege. It is, therefore, a right of inequality, in its content, like every right. Right, by its very nature, can consist only in the application of an equal standard; but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only -- for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal. But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby."

[Lokomotive293]

It seems to me that rather than 'argue about semantics endlesly' I instead provided an answer intended to simply answer a couple of direct questions, caused by a confusion of terms. Perhaps you could ellucidate some of what the endless semantic argument is, by for example quoting some of it?

The problem is that I don't understand why it is so important if you call something "the first stage of communism", or if you call the same thing "socialism". However, it seems to me that this is in fact very important especially to you, but also to others. So, I would like to know why, and also, what you (or others) think are the differences between Marx and Lenin here, besides them using different words.

My first post was, btw, not directed only at you and not in any way supposed to be an attack on you, it was rather directed at the whole thread.

[Blake's Baby]

The problem is that I don't understand why it is so important if you call something "the first stage of communism", or if you call the same thing "socialism". However, it seems to me that this is in fact very important especially to you, but also to others. So, I would like to know why...

The main problem is that use of the same word for different things and different words for the same thing produces confusion.

Take the famous quotation from the Critique of the Gotha Programme, Part IV emphasis is in original):

"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm

Depending on how one defines socialism, one could interpret that as, variously:

Capitalist society --- DotP (still capitalist) --- Communist (also known as socialist) society (lower phase and then higher phase)

or

Capitalist society --- DotP (still capitalist (perhaps?), but under workers' control) --- Socialist society (lower phase of communist society, followed by higher stage 'Communist' society)

or

Capitalist society --- DotP (socialism, lower phase) --- Communist society (higher phase)

The differences between these interpretations are quite important. Not if we just ssubstitute one term for another - if one thinks that the dictatorship of the proletariat is 'socialist' that's not what Marx thought but I can live with it, as long as all that happens is a confusion of terms; but I think it's true that those that change the meaning of terms then apply their own terms reading back into the record, and this produces a confusion of categories. The DotP is not classless and stateless, so to me it can't be socialism; but there's a poster on revLeft who insists that the Soviet Union 'withered away' in 1989 as Engels predicted, because what follows 'socialism' is the withering away of the state. I regard that viewpoint as - well, if I put what I actually regrd it as I'd likely receive an infraction. It will suffice to say I utterly reject the notion.






... and also, what you (or others) think are the differences between Marx and Lenin here, besides them using different words.

My first post was, btw, not directed only at you and not in any way supposed to be an attack on you, it was rather directed at the whole thread.

Lenin, in 'State and Revolution', uses socialism to mean the lower phase of communist society, and also refers to Marx's terminology. So Lenin was aware of it, but chose not to use it consistently. Perhaps he was responding to 'popular usage'. But we know where that ends; with the idea that 'communism' is a state-controlled prison of conformity. It seems to me that it's actually easier to insist that words do have technical meanings and that many of the concepts that people pack into them don't belong there.

I don't think the differences between Lenin and Marx were so significant (outside of different terminology), at least to begin with - or at least,, I don't think that differences between Marx and Lenin were unique to Lenin. Marx never had to administer a 'proletarian state' so it's difficult to know what he would have done and said if he did. But Lenin's role as leader of the Russian state compelled him to do many things for which there was no really reliable guide in Marxist thought. Pretty much the whole of the IInd International thought the point of the Party was that it took power on behalf of the working class, for example. That's not a view from Marx, that's a view from late 19th century social democracy. So I suppose that's a difference. But it isn't so much a difference between Marx and Lenin, as between Marx and those who came after him (including Lenin).