Socialism & Communism

[Omar-forever]

I have been studying about Socialism and Communism for some time now yet I have not been able to understand the fundamental difference between the two.
I read somewhere that Socialism is a phase in the march towards communism.
I figured that socialism was only an economic system by which all the industry and farmland is in the hands of the state which are elected by the people.
The people receive several incentives under such a system.
To develop as a socialist I need the answer to this particular query.

[Xanthus]

Communism is the classless, statless, moneyless, gift-economy oriented, final stage of revolution.

Socialism, could be loosely defined as somewhere inbetween that and capitalism, though generally it can be loosely defined as follows:

1. Classes still exist and the class-mentality has yet to fall away from society, therefore a dictatorship of the lower classes (that is, dictatorship by the class in general, not one man or group, see point #4) is required to balence the society so that a classless society can emerge. So socialism has a state, unlike communism.

2. Production and consumption have not reached a balence, and people are not yet able to have everything they want. This necessitates some form of exchange, or money, which will not feature in communism.

I've talked about distinctions of socialism vs communism, but the primary distinctions of socialism vs capitalism are as follows:

3. Ownership of the means of production by the people at large. No bosses, no landlords, workers run their shops (and workings of the city) and peasents manage their land.

4. Fitting in with #3, complete participatory democracy. Every worker and every peasent has a role to fill in the running of their workplace and society. Tasks which by necessity must be delegated to a smaller group are delegated to representatives democratically elected and fully recallable (at ANY time) out of councils made up of the people at large.

[More Fire for the People]

Socialism is the negation of capitalism, or more specifically the negation of private property. Above all, it [socialism] will have to take the control of industry and of all branches of production out of the hands of mutually competing individuals, and instead institute a system in which all these branches of production are operated by society as a whole – that is, for the common account, according to a common plan, and with the participation of all members of society.
— Principles of Communism

The Commune was formed of the municipal councillors, chosen by universal suffrage in the various wards of the town, responsible and revocable at short terms. The majority of its members were naturally working men, or acknowledged representatives of the working class. The Commune was to be a working, not a parliamentary body, executive and legislative at the same time.
[...]
From the members of the Commune downwards, the public service had to be done at workman's wage. The vested interests and the representation allowances of the high dignitaries of state disappeared along with the high dignitaries themselves. Public functions ceased to be the private property of the tools of the Central Government.
[...]
Having once got rid of the standing army and the police — the physical force elements of the old government — the Commune was anxious to break the spiritual force of repression, the "parson-power", by the disestablishment and disendowment of all churches as proprietary bodies. The priests were sent back to the recesses of private life, there to feed upon the alms of the faithful in imitation of their predecessors, the apostles.
— The Civil War in France (http://marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1871/civil-war-france/ch05.htm)Communism is the negation of class society and thus the state. In this sense communism is a stateless and classless society.

[KC]

Originally posted by Principles of Communism
How do communists differ from socialists?

The so-called socialists are divided into three categories.

[ Reactionary Socialists: ]

The first category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end.

This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons:

(i) It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

(ii) It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution.

(iii) As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians.

[ Bourgeois Socialists: ]

The second category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, therefore, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it.

To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society.

Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow.

[ Democractic Socialists: ]

Finally, 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.

[Floyce White]

Omar-forever: "I have been studying about Socialism and Communism for some time now yet I have not been able to understand the fundamental difference between the two."

I have been a political activist for 27 years. Until the early '90s, I called myself a "socialist" and a "Marxist." Only after being a working-class activist for almost 20 years did I really start to understand it. It took a lot of reading, discussion, and action to get to that point. I had to admit being wrong about a lot of things. I had to reverse-engineer all the socialist ideas that I had previously taken for granted. When I was 40, I started writing a series of eleven leaflets about communist struggle.

To answer your question, socialism is a form of capitalism characterized by nationalization of big business, and by a strong central government that can manage big business. Its opposite, anarchism, is a form of capitalism characterized by the privatization of government properties and the ransacking of big business, and by a rapid succession of weak governments in a dual-power situation. Both socialism and anarchism are petty-capitalist movements because they benefit small capitalists at the expense of the big-capitalist families.

The other form of radical leftism is radical liberalism. It may make some nationalizations and privatizations, but does not force a major shift to one or the other. All three forms of radical leftism are liberal oriented, since liberalism is the core of all leftism.

Communism is the natural, cooperative relation between people. Communism is not a form of leftism. The communist world society of the future will have no property violence, and no states (police and military) to inflict violence against the dispossessed lower class for the benefit of the propertied upper class.

Following are two quotes from my Antiproperty essays:

"For many years, the goal of the movement against capitalism was called 'socialism.' Socialists adopted the idea of maximizing state (public) property while retaining most forms of family (private) property. The reality of so-called 'socialist countries' or 'workers' states"--such as the USSR or China--was rule by petty-capitalist clans that individually were not big enough to control heavy industry. They exploited the working class directly through small business, and indirectly through government-owned big business with a hired bureaucracy of privileged management workers--many of who were from petty-bourgeois families. As soon as these families accumulated enough power to wrest control of heavy industry, they dropped their fiction of being pro-worker.

"Nationalization is part of the ordinary organization of capital. How could it be otherwise? The nation-state is the form of territorial rule specific to capitalism, just as the kingdom was specific to feudalism. 'Nation-alized' means in the hands of one nation of capitalist families."

(Against Socialism--For Communism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A11), September 29, 2001.)

"'Marxism' promotes the idea that there must be a prolonged 'lower phase' of post-revolutionary society. Lenin merely applied the term 'socialism' to the 'Marxist' lower phase, and defined 'communism' as the final goal. Just as 'Marxism-Leninism' must be roundly criticized, so must 'Marxist-Leninist' definitions.

"Class society is the society of classes of property ownership. Property classes cannot exist without property. The abolition of property in every form is the abolition of class society. Support for a 'lower phase' called 'socialism' that continues property relations is merely another way to defend class society and its exploitation of the working class."

(What Is Communism and How Can We Achieve It? (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A13) December 1, 2001.)

[KC]

As of late, I have been hearing a lot of confusion regarding socialism and what it means to communists. There are many minsunderstandings in this area, as socialism is such an ambiguous word. In this article I will attempt to describe what socialism is to Marxists, how it happens, and what it isn't.

Socialism is basically the "phasing out" of the state. After material conditions are ripe for revolution, the proletariat will revolt. Once the proletariat are successful in their revolution, and have successfully revolted against the bourgeoisie, they are in the position of power of society; they are in the position that the bourgeoisie was once in before the revolution happened. Since the bourgeois class is an extreme minority of society in general, the majority of society - the proletariat - are in control of society.

The major problems of past societies have generally been caused by the minority ruling the whole of society. This is prevalent throughout history and can be traced all the way back to the 1200's BC, and perhaps farther. This rule by the minority is prevalent in all societies except those that are deemed "primitive communism".

The difference, in rule by the minority and rule by the majority, is the fact that whoever is in power manipulates society to meet their needs. This is the problem with rule by minority. The minority manipulates society to fit their needs regardless of what the consequences on the majority are. Majority rule is therefore much more beneficial, as the majority will manipulate society to their needs, and many will benefit, as opposed to a few. This, of course, is also not the best option, as the minority is still being exploited by the majority. This isn't a problem for communists, though, as the proletariat will not be exploiting the bourgeoisie, as they have no reason or means to do so.

This can degenerate back into capitalism if and only if a new minority arises to take power. The proletariat as a class has all of the "power". The "power" is distributed evenly amongst the entire proletarian class. No one proletarian has more power than another, because of the democratic nature of the process. The proletarian class obviously won't use its powers against itself. The bourgeoisie will be suppressed if they oppose the proletarian rule and attempt to take power from the proletariat. Eventually, the bourgeois class will cease to be, and since there is no other class in existence, the proletariat will phase out the state and classes (and states) will cease to be.

Dictatorship, in contemporary usage, refers to absolute rule by a leadership (usually one dictator) unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state. Of course, we aren't talking about one dictator, but the class as a whole being the dictator. This means absolute rule by the proletarian class unrestricted by law, constitutions or other social and political factors within the "state" (state is in quotes because it doesn't really apply to the usage of dicator in "dicatorship of the proletariat"). The ruler is actually the whole proletarian class. The proletariat will constitute a ruling class. The ruling class - the proletariat - will most certainly manipulate power to its own ends, which would be the abolition of the state and classes.
Source - My Blog (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?act=blog&id=10051&entry=301&action2=perma)