Socialism and Communism the Same?

[Paradox]

Ok, I had read at the WSM site that Socialism was classless, stateless, and moneyless. After reading this I was a bit confused, seeing that everyone else was saying that Socialism was the transition period between capitalism and Communism. I asked NovelGentry about this and he told me that they were probably basing such ideas on Marx's earlier works where Socialism and Communism were reversed. But after posting about this in the WSM forum, I was told that Socialism and Communism are synonomous. They also told me that all talk about Socialism being a transition period stems from Leninism. Then after talking about this with another RL member, I was told that these statements are false; that Socialism and Communism are not synonomous, and that the transition period idea doesn't come from Leninism. WHO THE HELL IS RIGHT!?! Please help!!! Thanks.

[ComradeRed]

Marx did use the term socialism, communism, etc. pretty inter-exchangeably; however, socialism is a class society seeking to end classes, communism is a classless society.

[NovelGentry]

It's not so much they they were "reversed" -- like I said, the roles were somewhat inversed and intertwined. The question is specifically what Marx was talking about with "socialism."


Communism is the position as the negation of the negation, and is hence the actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development in the process of human emancipation and rehabilitation. Communism is the necessary form and the dynamic principle of the immediate future, but communism as such is not the goal of human development, the form of human society.

This is an example of the inverse I was talking about. He says here that it is the "actual phase necessary for the next stage of historical development" and that it is the "necessary form... of the immediate future." and thus it "is not the goal of human development."

Edit: If Marx is being clear here (which I can only assume he's trying to be), it would imply that communism is more of the means to the end. Whether or not it's an end to or from socialism is the question.

There is a preceeding statement about Socialism which implies it is beyond this as a "humanism" of sorts. I don't think it's anything solid. There are plenty of examples where Marx refers to the different "stages" including the transition "from each according to their ability, to each according to their labor power" to "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need."

Paradox, what is important to remember is the context we use it in. Which is of course what will keep you on base here now. I wouldn't worry too much about the subtle abstraction use by Marx in those writings. The way it is commonly seen today is that they are NOT the same, and socialism preceeds communism as the transitional phase.


Edit: whoops, botched a quote, labor time -> labor power
Edit 2: whoops again, if I'm not mistaken it was Lenin's principle for socialism that it would be "to each according to his labor." Wholely different from labour-power (which was Marx's basis for socialist production, last I checked).

[Freidenker]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 02:28 AM
Marx did use the term socialism, communism, etc. pretty inter-exchangeably; however, socialism is a class society seeking to end classes, communism is a classless society.
That's what I always thought it was.

[Raisa]

Communism is stateless, there are no class antagonisms so what was the state to uphold the workers power in socialism is just a thing that counts votes and helps coordinate things in communism.

[Raisa]

I think alot of people would benifit from this in Learning. :)

[Paradox]

Communism is stateless, there are no class antagonisms so what was the state to uphold the workers power in socialism is just a thing that counts votes and helps coordinate things in communism.

:huh: This switching of past and present tenses in the same sentence is a bit confusing: "there are, so what was, is" :huh:

"Socialism is just a thing that counts votes and helps coordinate things IN Communism." :huh:

You mean TOWARDS Communism?

[Raisa]

Originally posted by [email protected] 27 2005, 04:56 AM

Communism is stateless, there are no class antagonisms so what was the state to uphold the workers power in socialism is just a thing that counts votes and helps coordinate things in communism.

:huh: This switching of past and present tenses in the same sentence is a bit confusing: "there are, so what was, is" :huh:

"Socialism is just a thing that counts votes and helps coordinate things IN Communism." :huh:

You mean TOWARDS Communism?
The state had certain things to deal with when there were classes, that are not an issue becasue there are no more classes.

The only things left for it to do are purely administrative things like count votes and help coodinate things.

They have no more class interests to maintain. We are all the same class.

[KuliNeMeL]

I consider Socialism as the main idea.... the idea of equality... care, love, appreciation... which u dont see in Capitalism at all..

a Socialist person can be either a Social-Democrat, a Communist, or mayb an Anarchist... etc.
though a Communist person cant be a Social-Democrat...

[Karl Marx's Camel]

Socialdemocrats are pro-regulated capitalism.

[RABBIT - THE - CUBAN - MILITANT]

why do u guys think so many people are torn between the two ideologies and cant seem to rest on one of them

[Raisa]

It is illogical to be torn between socialism and communism.

Socialism makes communism,
socialism is when the working class is in power and the state works in our interests.

If the WORKING CLASS is in power, what makes you think they are going to allow a class to exist that is based on exploiting them for very long?

[Non-Sectarian Bastard!]

couple of flaws though.

First you would need representatives to fill in the position of the state. Thus giving them more power. Recreating class.

Second. The state is designed and only good for one porpuse only. That is exploiting and supressing the working class. It doesn't do anything else. Anyone who takes control of it, can't do anything else then to do these "tasks".

Third. Those representatives wouldn't give their power away. They would give themselves more power and make themselves and the state permanent. Afterall why wouldn't they? They are better and more knowledgable then the "plebs", thus more fit for control.

Fourth. There are stubborn people who after a century of failed statesocialism still can't see that the concept is inherently wrong.

[Hobo87]

Socialism and Communism both existed well before Marx wrote anything. They have been ideas passed down for quite some time. Marx had popularized them though with his writings, which in my opinion are a bit flawed, but who isnt flawed? In fact, anarchism, socialism, and communism all met peacefully and all in practice against capitalism until the early 1900s. They all wanted one thing syndicalism and the people above the elite. Socialism and communism in my opinion are the exact same thing but given different names due to the rather violent actions some socialists performed. These violent socialists were labeled communists. Even though socialists and anarchists were both communists in a sense. One wanted goverence and the other wanted no goverence at all.

[redstar2000]

What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082900868&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

What is Communism? A Brief Definitio (http://redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082898978&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[Paradox]

I had already read both of your articles, redstar. I had read other pieces saying basically the same thing. That's why when I read what the WSM was calling Socialism, I was like "What the hell?" Despite the confusion though, I was still quite interested in what they have to say. They don't believe in vanguards or leaders, they don't believe in "transition periods," and they want a classless, stateless, and moneyless society. Still, there are a couple of other things about them that puzzled me, one of them being that they make that distinction between private property and "personal" property. NovelGentry had cleared that up for me a while back, so when I read about this distinction in some of the literature they sent me, I was quite puzzled. I'm gonna make a post about it in their forum to see what they say.

[KuliNeMeL]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2005, 11:44 PM
Socialdemocrats are pro-regulated capitalism.
i dont consider Bernstein's writings as capitalism....
for me, Social Democracy means using the state and its democracy (if there is any) to make social rules that will help getting the society ready for somekind of Socialist thought...

[NovelGentry]

Sorry for late response, my internet connection was down

Just to expand on something Raisa was saying earlier and the question of ideological differences between socialism and communism.

I would think that to any true leftist, there is no other valid definition for socialism than that of a state society in protection of the working class which looks to destroy class antagonisms as a whole and thus is constantly progressing towards communism.

Giant welfare states running off capitalism are NOT socialism.