Difference between communism and socialism?

[loverussia24]

I really do not see a difference between the two, is there a difference? If you know, could you tell me?

[Creative Destruction]

There is no difference.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

There are multiple answers to this question. According to classical marxism there is no difference, the terms are synonyms (the same goes for communist/socialist anarchism). The transitional period is refered to as dictatorship of the proletariat. In leninist theory the term socialism describes a supposed lower-stage of communism, i.e. a stage where the transition from capitalism to communism is still taking place.
According to liberalism, socialism is a benevolently paternalistic welfare state while communism refers to an economy primarily based upon forced- labour camps who is sternly governed by an absolutist monarchy of sorts.

[Tim Cornelis]

They're not synonyms in Classical Marxism. Communism represents one branch of socialism, but there's utopian socialism, bourgeois socialism, reactionary socialism, an democratic socialism as well.

[Blake's Baby]

But those things aren't considered real in that they're not viable routes to a socialist society.

What we call 'Marxism' is referred to as 'scientific socialism', to distinguish it from those other socialist theories/ideologies. It's not that 'communism' is a sort of socialism. It's that Marxism is the only real communism/socialism.

To the reformers dreaming up schemes to make the world better, their utopian blueprints or plans to influence statesmen were 'socialist' because they improved the lot of the working class. But to Marx, only the real movement of the working class itself was capable of bringing about socialist society.

[Tim Cornelis]

But those things aren't considered real in that they're not viable routes to a socialist society.

What we call 'Marxism' is referred to as 'scientific socialism', to distinguish it from those other socialist theories/ideologies. It's not that 'communism' is a sort of socialism. It's that Marxism is the only real communism/socialism.

To the reformers dreaming up schemes to make the world better, their utopian blueprints or plans to influence statesmen were 'socialist' because they improved the lot of the working class. But to Marx, only the real movement of the working class itself was capable of bringing about socialist society.

Leaving aside some questionable arguments, none of this changes that socialism and communism are verifiably not synonyms.

[Blake's Baby]

I don't think the argument is questionable, and I think the non-questionable nature of the argument demonstrates that they are synonyms. Everything which would make them non-synonymous is not real.

You can believe that petitioning Bismarck was 'socialism' if you like. I don't. Therefore, I don't have to write it into my definition. Nor do I have to take into the 'communism' of ancient Sparta, 'National Socialism', the French Socialist Party, or whatever. People can call themselves 'socialists' for sure, but that doesn't mean that what they espouse is 'socialism'.

[Tim Cornelis]

You can define socialism in whatever way you like, but the argument is, "According to classical marxism there is no difference, the terms are synonyms". Classical Marxism is the writings of Marx and Engels. Marx and Engels did not use them synonymously, and this is factually verifiable. They differentiated between scientific socialism (this being the theoretical expression of communism), reactionary (feudal and petty bourgeois) socialism, democratic socialism, bourgeois socialism, and utopian socialism. 'Reactionary communism' or 'bourgeois communism' would be contradictions in terms, whereas 'reactionary socialism' or 'bourgeois socialism' aren't (at least in classical Marxism).

[TheLonelyCommunist]

Yes! The difference is quite considerable, in Communism there is no class, no poverty, and freedom for everyone. It is the Marxist Utopia of human beings. Pretty much it is what occurs after the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Socialism is what happens after Capitalism is removed, it has government, classes, and some issues from left over from Capitalism. It IS the Dictatorship of The Proletariat, and popular examples of Socialism are The Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China. Does that clear it up?

[Zanthorus]

"..in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it." (Engels)

The choice to call themselves alternately communists or socialists was basically a polemical decision for Marx and Engels and not one of any great theoretical import. There is certainly no difference made by them between socialism and communism as unique social forms.

[RedMaterialist]

Yes! The difference is quite considerable, in Communism there is no class, no poverty, and freedom for everyone. It is the Marxist Utopia of human beings. Pretty much it is what occurs after the Dictatorship of the Proletariat

Socialism is what happens after Capitalism is removed, it has government, classes, and some issues from left over from Capitalism. It IS the Dictatorship of The Proletariat, and popular examples of Socialism are The Soviet Union and The People's Republic of China. Does that clear it up?

If the Soviet Union was a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, how do you explain the collapse of the Soviet Union?

[Blake's Baby]

Capitalism won. What else is there to explain?

[The Idler]

They're not synonyms in Classical Marxism. Communism represents one branch of socialism, but there's utopian socialism, bourgeois socialism, reactionary socialism, an democratic socialism as well.
Classical Marxism/Communism wasn't distinguished from 'democratic socialism' in its time.

[Tim Cornelis]

Classical Marxism/Communism wasn't distinguished from 'democratic socialism' in its time.

What do you mean? Engels certainly distinguished between them.

"the third category consists of democratic socialists who favor some of the same measures the communists advocate, as described in Question 18, not as part of the transition to communism, however, but as measures which they believe will be sufficient to abolish the misery and evils of present-day society.

These democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists.

It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences."

https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm

[TheLonelyCommunist]

If the Soviet Union was a Dictatorship of the Proletariat, how do you explain the collapse of the Soviet Union?

Because the West beat the USSR in the Cold War... I'm not following the contradiction you are discussing...

[The Idler]

I stand corrected.