Socialism and Communism

[RedStaredRevolution]

Ok, this is my first post and I have question ive been dying to get answered. I know socialism is supposed to be the transition between capitalism and communism but I dont know the specific differences between communism and socialism. I tried to research it some but everywhere I go usually says the exact opposite of what another source told me.

So what exactly are the differences between them?

[MrDoom]

Transitional socialism has a state and all of its hierarchy and self-acting organizations (aka, army, police, etc.).

Communism has no state, since it has no differentiated classes or class antagonisms which create need for a state. The people are self-acting and self-armed.

That's the most basic contrast I can think of, at any rate.

[More Fire for the People]

Socialism is a society that economically operates under the credo of 'from each according to his labor-power, to each according to his need!' This means that workers are remunerated with their basic needs for their work. Those who go 'above and beyond' the necessary amount of work will receive their wants faster and more readily than those that do not.

Communism is a post-scarcity society and the whole question of working for wants is no longer relevant. Under communism, each person will receive their needs regardless of their work input.

[blueeyedboy]

Hi, RedStaredRevolution, all the other people on here will just tell you to do a search, but that's not democratic is it as they're telling you what to do, which is too authoratarian.

Right, the main difference between socialism and communism is that under socialism, there is a 'dictatorship of the proletariat'. This implies that a socialist party gets into power, through a revolution, and imposes the socialist ideology on us. The idea is that this dictatorship 'withers away' into communism. This would be done in different ways depending on who your talking to. I would set about establishing workers councils which are democratically run, whereby all decisions that are made are made where everyone agrees with them. Once authority is no more, because the state is no longer needed, society becomes communist.

If your an anarchist, then you would want communism without the transition period of socialism getting in the way because anarchists beleive socialism is too authoratarian and likely to be another USSR.

Personally, I wouldn't be bothered who gets into power, as both strive towards a better society, just in different ways of going about it.

[Ol' Dirty]

I know socialism is supposed to be the transition between capitalism and communism but I dont know the specific differences between communism and socialism.

Socialism is a phase in which the Proletariat represses the bourgoise, centralizes the means of production, communication and transportation. There is still a state in this period, which would be run by the people.

Communism is the latter stage, in which the state has been done away with, and everything is done based on communal action.

[RedStaredRevolution]

In a socialist state would the means of production be owned by the people or by the state?

[violencia.Proletariat]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 08:12 pm
In a socialist state would the means of production be owned by the people or by the state?
According to those who support the state the state is run by the people. Therefore,if the means or production are owned by the state then they are owned by the people. In reality I would suggest thats not true.

Socialism (in general, not the specific marxist stage of society) is the democratic ownership of the means of production by the working class. Production is based on common need.

[Redmau5]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 09:39 pm
This implies that a socialist party gets into power, through a revolution, and imposes the socialist ideology on us.
The DoP implies that the working-class gets into power, not just a some party.

[More Fire for the People]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 06:12 pm
In a socialist state would the means of production be owned by the people or by the state?
The state cannot own things, it is a tool of the ruling class. A workers’ state would not own the means of production but merely safeguard the interests of those who do — the working class.

[Floyce White]

Socialism is a form of capitalism characterized by maximum state ownership. Socialism is not a method to get to communism. Petty capitalists such as Marx and Lenin tried to sell workers on the idea that small-scale capitalism "isn't important" alongside state business, and tried to sell the idea that state business "isn't capitalism" but that it's a "lower stage of communism." It's not.

I explained this in detail in my Antiproperty (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html) series. The very first essay is Against Socialism--For Communism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A11). In later essays I explain what is communism and who fights for it.

[Q]

Originally posted by Floyce [email protected] 05, 2006 07:26 am
Socialism is a form of capitalism characterized by maximum state ownership. Socialism is not a method to get to communism. Petty capitalists such as Marx and Lenin tried to sell workers on the idea that small-scale capitalism "isn't important" alongside state business, and tried to sell the idea that state business "isn't capitalism" but that it's a "lower stage of communism." It's not.

I explained this in detail in my Antiproperty (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html) series. The very first essay is Against Socialism--For Communism (http://www.geocities.com/antiproperty/index.html#A11). In later essays I explain what is communism and who fights for it.
Laughing out loud.

You're basically saying "stalinism == socialism" and are reversing the theory of "state capitalism". Which is a silly theory to start with.

Socialism is the transition stage between capitalism and communism; it is the stage where:
1. The economy is democratically planned to grow to accompas the needs of the many, not the needs of a few.
2. The state is dieing away, because with the revolution the state becomes decentralised and democratised (soviet democracy). The only function is to suppres the former bourgeois elements as long as they still have a material basis in society. As soon as that base is gone (completion of ending capitalistic economic relations), the function of the state is gone and dies off.
3. The people are culturally taken to a higher stage. Capitalism comes with a certain state of mind, it takes time to see changes to that.
4. Ecology and society gets in a new balance which is better for everyone (for example: cities tend to get smaller, because there is no need (jobs) to have overcrowded cities anymore (because of economic planning).

And more...

Vital to this ofcourse is that the revolution doesn't get isolated and that the economy gets developed swiftly. The temporary character of socialism is an important notion.

But you're basically saying "forget socialism, lets get straight to communism". This is the anarchist point of view, which want to skip the withering of the state and money and just want to abolish them. Which is a silly thing imho, but hey.

[ern]

Hi hopscotch anthill

you say
The state cannot own things, it is a tool of the ruling class. A workers’ state would not own the means of production but merely safeguard the interests of those who do — the working class.
The state is an essential conservative social organ which seeks to defend the status quo, the re will certainly be a state in the period of transition due to the need not only to repress the counter-revolution, but also to enable the other non-exploiting classes to participate in the organising of society. However, that does not make it working class or a workers' state. One of the main lessons of the Russian Revolution was the terrible danger of the working class identifying itself with the state. Even if he defend the idea of a workers' state Lenin also called for the workers to use the unions to defend their interests against the encroachment of the state. This is a very important point. The proletariat cannot identify itself with the state, rather it has to constantly struggle against the efforts of the state to maintain 'stability'. The state will try to defend the present needs of society, against those of the future. As the social force struggling for the future of communism the proletariat will constantly come up against the state.
In many ways the revolutionary struggle to overthrow the ruling class world-wide will be the easy bit, whereas the struggle to go from this to Communism will only succeed if the proletariat is able to maintain and develop its determined effort to push forwards the process of building communism.

[Delta]

Originally posted by Q-[email protected] 13, 2006 03:14 pm
But you're basically saying "forget socialism, lets get straight to communism". This is the anarchist point of view, which want to skip the withering of the state and money and just want to abolish them. Which is a silly thing imho, but hey.
You don't have to skip directly to a moneyless society, but creating a new ruling class (the political class) is not going to bring freedom to anyone.

[Q]

Originally posted by Delta+December 14, 2006 01:03 am--> (Delta @ December 14, 2006 01:03 am)
Q-[email protected] 13, 2006 03:14 pm
But you're basically saying "forget socialism, lets get straight to communism". This is the anarchist point of view, which want to skip the withering of the state and money and just want to abolish them. Which is a silly thing imho, but hey.
You don't have to skip directly to a moneyless society, but creating a new ruling class (the political class) is not going to bring freedom to anyone. [/b]
Sigh, please see this post (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=60044&view=findpost&p=1292228997) (especially the part about the vanguard and why the SU degenerated) on why I disagree with your notion of creating a new political elite.

[Human-o-matic]

In reference to socialism, wouldn't "community" be a more correct term to use in place of "proletariat" when talking about the ownership of the means of production?

And...look what i found at wikipedia : "Indeed, to Marx, the notion of a socialist state would have seemed oxymoronical, as he defined socialism as the phase reached when class society and the state had already been abolished"
I could just say then that socialism has* a state while marxist socialism is stateless?

[Mario_Terán]

What are you going to do to all the people that refuse to work? And refuse to change over to Communism?
What happens when a group of men form and take over a town and run it as a warlord which would then following necessarily a state like Somalia in which everyone quickly tried to run and grab territory?
Your Communist "paradise" would degenerate down into a Somalia remake so fast it's not even funny.

[Cryotank Screams]

What are you going to do to all the people that refuse to work?

The refusal to work in a post-revolutionary only hurts them in the long run, because what happens to everyone else happens to you, and take into consideration the vast improvements of working conditions which would make working less arduous, people would generally want to work and or see the beneficiary and necessary attributes of work, and would thus work.


And refuse to change over to Communism?

Revolution usually implies a majority, popular, or mass agreement.


What happens when a group of men form and take over a town and run it as a warlord which would then following necessarily a state like Somalia in which everyone quickly tried to run and grab territory?

Do you honestly think, that a few men, can over through the majority of the collective or that the collective would allow such actions to happen? No, the people in question would be put on trial, and if convicted, certain actions would be deiced.


Your Communist "paradise" would degenerate down into a Somalia remake so fast it's not even funny.

If by Communist paradise, you mean a post-revolutionary Anarchist-Communist society, or in other words the final evolutionary stage, it would not degenerate into anything of which you speak, and only shows that you know nothing of Anarchism, Marxism, or Leftism, and judging from your argument points, you seem like a capitalist.

[Mario_Terán]

The refusal to work in a post-revolutionary only hurts them in the long run, because what happens to everyone else happens to you, and take into consideration the vast improvements of working conditions which would make working less arduous, people would generally want to work and or see the beneficiary and necessary attributes of work, and would thus work.
Way to dodge the entire question.
What would you do with people who would refuse to work?



Revolution usually implies a majority, popular, or mass agreement.

Once again, way to dodge the entire question.
What would you do with the people who would refuse to change to Communism?



Do you honestly think, that a few men, can over through the majority of the collective or that the collective would allow such actions to happen? No, the people in question would be put on trial, and if convicted, certain actions would be deiced.
Uhm....yes?
Look at Somalia, it degenerated into a huge piece of shit due to the actions of a few men.
It would just need to take a group of men who would forcibly take over a town seize all the arms and resources and start recruiting people from all over the place. It wouldn't be hard as plenty of people would be more than ready to escape your piece of shit society, and we all know there are plenty of "opportunists" who would jump at the chance of money and glory.



If by Communist paradise, you mean a post-revolutionary Anarchist-Communist society, or in other words the final evolutionary stage, it would not degenerate into anything of which you speak, and only shows that you know nothing of Anarchism, Marxism, or Leftism, and judging from your argument points, you seem like a capitalist.

Saying "it would not degenerate into..." is not an argument.
If we are going to debate like that I'll just say, the revolution will never happen, oh look at that! It will not happen because I have just said it was to be so without any evidence whatsoever.

[Cryotank Screams]

Way to dodge the entire question.
What would you do with people who would refuse to work?

I didn't dodge anything, I simply illustrated that they have no reason to refuse to work, and therefore would work for their own benefit, and well-being, so why do you continue to think people would refuse to work?


Once again, way to dodge the entire question.
What would you do with the people who would refuse to change to Communism?

Didn't dodge anything fuckwad, counter-revolutionaries, and reactionaries generally I would assume would be at large executed during the revolution.



Uhm....yes?
Look at Somalia, it degenerated into a huge piece of shit due to the actions of a few men.
It would just need to take a group of men who would forcibly take over a town seize all the arms and resources and start recruiting people from all over the place. It wouldn't be hard as plenty of people would be more than ready to escape your piece of shit society, and we all know there are plenty of "opportunists" who would jump at the chance of money and glory.

I see, the one example argument eh? Really is a poor one, because somalia is one case, and it should be seen as situational, and the conditions in which it happened, and the history leading up said event, and the society would not be a piece of shit society, if anything they would fight all out to protect such a society.

Therefore your argument is stupid.


If we are going to debate like that I'll just say, the revolution will never happen, oh look at that! It will not happen because I have just said it was to be so without any evidence whatsoever.

I said it would not degenerate into another somalia because practically, and theoretically speaking it seems highly unlikely, and quite frankly and impossibility, hence me saying it would not degenerate into a somalia.

[Comandante Dos Estrellas]

[QUOTE]Do you honestly think, that a few men, can over through the majority of the collective or that the collective would allow such actions to happen? No, the people in question would be put on trial, and if convicted, certain actions would be deiced. [QUOTE]

You know what is funny about this? This is what we are trying to do, isn't it? We are a small band of revolutionaries trying to overthrow our current system. And yes... most likely we would lose and be killed or arrested. Lets not put the cart before the horse... we should all be trying to figure out how we are going to carry out the revolution before we start arguing over post-revolution politics.

[Red October]

ill explain this to you tommorow at school, redstarevolution

[phoenixoftime]

What are you going to do to all the people that refuse to work?
Most Western democratic capitalist states don't force people to work, they offer social security benefits which are intended to provide enough funds to survive without any luxuries. This is often set as low as possible, and sometimes subject to harsh criteria, to try and starve the person into working.

The simplest reason why someone might not want to work is because they don't enjoy the job they are given. This could be due to a combination of reasons - they might be forced to do a particular job due to socio-economic barriers; working conditions might be poor; the division of labour may have created an occupation of dull, dreamy, meaningless, mechanical work.

Another reason could be the work they really enjoy is not sufficiently rewarded by society. Think of a musician who is just starting his career, struggling to survive on the scraps thrown at him on the few gigs he manages to secure. Or an artist who can barely afford the materials to create more artwork to sell. There are many things I would love to be doing, but aren't because it isn't economically viable.

As mentioned earlier, once communism is reached, people would receive their needs even if they didn't work. Then they would be free to fill their days with things they enjoy, which can often be more productive than 'I do my job because I need the cash'. If you are predicting that everyone is going to sleep all day and do nothing but eat, something must have happened to make everyone severely depressed.


And refuse to change over to Communism?

I would give people a choice - give up their personal property, or get out of the country. If you have a socialist state you can still have police, so simply arrest the people who won't give up their property.


What happens when a group of men form and take over a town and run it as a warlord which would then following necessarily a state like Somalia in which everyone quickly tried to run and grab territory?

There isn't anything to stop that from happening in a Capitalist country, provided you have enough weapons, popular support and money. A soclialist state would work to cull any counter-revolution, whilst once you have reached communism, if you have democratic, transparent systems in place, and there are abundanant resources, I find it difficult to see why such an uprising might occur - if the majority are comfortable then why would they bother supporting such a movement?

[robbo203]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 08:31 pm
Ok, this is my first post and I have question ive been dying to get answered. I know socialism is supposed to be the transition between capitalism and communism but I dont know the specific differences between communism and socialism. I tried to research it some but everywhere I go usually says the exact opposite of what another source told me.

So what exactly are the differences between them?
[QUOTE]

Hi Redstaredrevolution

Traditionally, socialism and communism meant the same thing - a moneyless wageless stateless society based on free access to goods and services and volunteer production. Marx and Engels explained in one of the prefaces to the Communist Manifesto (I think it was the preface to the German edition if I recall correctly) why they preferred the word communism to socialism becuase of certain associations which the latter conveyed. Neverthelss to all intents and purposes, they regarded these terms as synonmous

It is a complete myth that Marx suggested socialism was a transitional stage to communism. This was invented by Lenin. Marx spoke only of a lower and higher stage of communism in which the former had a system of labour vouchers and the latter, free access to goods and services. Lenin did a great disservice to the socialist movement when he deliberately distorted the meaning of the term as it has been understood up to then by equating it with state ownership (an idea ridiculed by Engels in Socialism Utopian and Scientific). State ownership is actually state capitalism (ironically Lenin once admitted that "state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia")

There is some good stuff on the www.worldsocialism.org site about all this if you are interested

Cheers

Robin
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/worldincommon/

[Comandante Dos Estrellas]

Thats what I thought...

[Aurora]

It is a complete myth that Marx suggested socialism was a transitional stage to communism. This was invented by Lenin. Marx spoke only of a lower and higher stage of communism
They are the same thing,socialism is the lower stage of communism.


Lenin did a great disservice to the socialist movement when he deliberately distorted the meaning of the term as it has been understood up to then by equating it with state ownership (an idea ridiculed by Engels in Socialism Utopian and Scientific)
Lenin did nothing of the sort.
Engels,Socialism:Utopian&Scientific "The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property"

state ownership is actually state capitalism (ironically Lenin once admitted that "state capitalism would be a step forward for Russia")
Lol,state-capitalism is bullshit.Severian made a good post about it Here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=59121&view=findpost&p=1292231004)

Ive heard that Lenin quote before,but ive yet to see a source.Please enlighten me

[robbo203]

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2007 04:57 am


Ive heard that Lenin quote before,but ive yet to see a source.Please enlighten me
[QUOTE]


Hi Anarion


You asked about the quote from Lenin. Here it is

'Reality says that State Capitalism would be a step forward for us; if we were able to bring about State Capitalism in a short time it would be a victory for us. How could they be so blind as not to see that our enemy is the small capitalist, the small owner? How could they see the chief enemy in State Capitalism? In the transition from Capitalism to Socialism our chief enemy is the small bourgeoisie, with its economic customs, habits and positions' (The Chief Tasks of Our Times, p. 11).


You go on to claim that socialism is the lower stage of communism. Marx and Engels certainly didn't characterise socialism in this way, still less did they characterise as a transition between capitalism and communism as the Lenin did by which he meant nationalisation of the means of production. You quote Engels from Socialism Utopian and Scientific but you need to go on and read the full quote in context. Nationalisation does not mean socialism and if it were then Bismark would count as a socialist as Engels points out. What Engels was suggesting was that nationalisation was the appropriate route by which to centralise the productive forces to facilitate the change to socialism. I think Engels was sorely mistaken but that does not alter the fact that he did not regard nationalisation as socialism

Robin
www.worldincommon.org

[Aurora]

You asked about the quote from Lenin. Here it is
I cant find that piece of writing,but there is one called The Chief Task of Our Day (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/mar/11.htm) but it makes no reference at all to state-capitalism

You go on to claim that socialism is the lower stage of communism. Marx and Engels certainly didn't characterise socialism in this way
Because Socialism meant something diferent then.Lenin says Socialism,Marx says the lower stage of communism,they mean the same thing.

still less did they characterise as a transition between capitalism and communism as the Lenin did by which he meant nationalisation of the means of production.
Lenin didnt say that Socialism was nationalisation,that would be ridiculus,but if the means of production were nationalised by the proletariat,under a proletarian state("the proletariat organised as the ruling class") then yes that is Socialism("the lower stage of communism")

Nationalisation does not mean socialism and if it were then Bismark would count as a socialist as Engels points out.Lenin never said that nationalisation was socialism.

What Engels was suggesting was that nationalisation was the appropriate route by which to centralise the productive forces to facilitate the change to socialism.
I dont think so,Engels was saying that "The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property." the proletariat must seize political power and nationalise the means of production.Therefore nationalisation is only a socialistic act,when it is done by the proletariat organised as the ruling class.

[robbo203]

Originally posted by [email protected] 05, 2007 12:26 am



What Engels was suggesting was that nationalisation was the appropriate route by which to centralise the productive forces to facilitate the change to socialism.
I dont think so,Engels was saying that "The proletariat seizes political power and turns the means of production into State property." the proletariat must seize political power and nationalise the means of production.Therefore nationalisation is only a socialistic act,when it is done by the proletariat organised as the ruling class.
Regarding the Lenin quote on state capitalism you are confusing the article by the same name and the pamphlet which includes also "Left wing childishness and petty bourgeois mentality" . The reference to state capitalism being a step forward is in the PAMPHLET not the short artricle

Socialism did NOT mean the lower stage of communism for Marx. Socialism was a synonym for communism. The lower stage of communism would therefore be the lower stage of socialism

You say "Lenin didnt say that Socialism was nationalisation,that would be ridiculus,"
but then you immediately contradict yourself by saying "but if the means of production were nationalised by the proletariat,under a proletarian state("the proletariat organised as the ruling class") then yes that is Socialism("the lower stage of communism". Lenin did actually say quite specifically that socialism was "state ownership plus electrification" as I recall from one text. I will get the reference

[QUOTE]

Im not sure if we are saying anything different except of course that I disagree with the notion of the proletariat organised as a ruling class. The conquest of political power by the proletariat is tantamount to its own abolition as a class along with the capitalist class. By definition the exploited class cannot be the ruling class - the idea is incoherent. By taking power the exploited class abolishes class divisions completely and at the same time as the this power is taken. there can be no other sensible interpretation

Robin
www.worldincommon.org