Communism and Socialism

[Eric]

Hello!
I have problem with diffrences between socialism and communism. Is it that communism will be reached through revolution, and socialism will be reached trough democratic powers.
Have I got it all wrong, or am I correct but there are more differences?

[The Idler]

Private property still exists in socialism I think.

[ComradeOm]

In Marxism 'socialism' is the stage following the overthrow of capitalism through revolution. Private property will be abolished and the dictatorship of the proletariat established. Communism is the society that will result from this as the proletarian state 'withers away'


-----

I actually wrote the below thinking that you were asking about the differences between socialist and communist parties. Meh. Maybe it will be of interest. The many meanings of 'socialism', including the socialist stage of production discussed above, continues to vex

This is an issue with terminology. Prior to 1915 it was acceptable to refer to all left currents (social-democratic/communist or reform/radical, etc) as 'socialist'. There was as yet no open distinction between the revolutionaries and reformists within these large socialist parties. After 1915 (and particularly 1918) the communists (ie, those who supported the abolition of private property) broke away to form independent Communist Parties while the social-democrats formally (or informally) renounced such policies

The result is a mess of contradictory terms and labels. For example by their own 19th C standards the current SPD policies are liberal and not socialist, yet they are still called the Social-Democratic Party of Germany, their colour is red, and they are occasionally referred to as 'socialists'. The same is true of Labour and many Scandinavian parties. In contrast the Irish Socialist Party contests national elections but remains Marxist and (nominally at least) committed to public ownership of property and socialist economic planning. So usage really varies with nation, era, and context

With regards your particular query, as a rule of thumb the below tends to hold true but is rarely apparent from a party's name

Social-democratic: Centre-left. Is (nominally) committed to reforming the inequalities of capitalism but does not advocate revolution or public ownership of the means of production. Today is often neo-liberal in character

Democratic-socialist: Is in favour of abolishing private property but only through parliamentary means. Thus renounces revolution. As a political current its practically extinct

Communist: Supports the abolition of private property through armed revolution

[Schrödinger's Cat]

There are two distinct ways one can approach the word "socialism." Originally it was a reference to any theory that opposed wealth collection from private property, either through social development ("utopian" socialists) or changes in the state structure (Proudhon). Socialists did and still do believe that labor is the only source of wealth dependent of the individual.

Marx's theory about the "dictatorship of the proletariat" (rule of workers) is also called socialist, where the workers struggle and succeed in subverting the state away from the capitalists.

Communism is a particular form of socialism. Marx theorized that it would develop after the dictatorship of the proletariat, since class distinctions would become nonexistent as private property turns over to public control. Communism is a stateless association where private possessions - not private property - exist. Presumably no price system (money) would regulate demand.

Some have made the comparison to PvP networks, which I find a legitimate reflection.

[Q]

Socialism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/o.htm#socialism).
Communism (http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#communism).

[Big Red]

Communist: Supports the abolition of private property through armed revolution

what about communist political parties? do they not become reformists based solely on accepting burgoisie political systems or can voting be deemed an exceptable form of revolutionary change in some cases?

[Mindtoaster]

To put it simply: Marxists believe in socialism as a transition stage to communism.

Communism is stateless, socialism is not.

[mikelepore]

Except for one problem. Marx never wrote any such thing. It's one of those things that everyone "knows", or think they know, about Marxism, but Marx never said it. The only distinction between "socialism" and "communism" Marx ever made was that he used the word "socialism" more loosely, occasionally saying "feudal socialism", "utopian socialism", "scientific socialism", and even in sarcasm -- "bourgeois socialism". He reserved the word "communism" for the modern theory of history and economics, scientific socialism, without loose or sarcastic references.

[Black Sheep]

do they not become reformists based solely on accepting burgoisie political systems or can voting be deemed an exceptable form of revolutionary change in some cases?
Nope.Communist Parties that participate in the parliament are well aware that "change" will not come off of it, they simply participate there in order to propagandize their ideas and thesis,and to uncover the capitalist parties' true faces..
And to conquer small benefits for the workers, in some cases.

What i mean is that the reason is merely for propaganda.

The anarchist argument i read somewhere ( i think infoshop),something like: 'the parliament is the stronghold of the capitalist system and the revolutionary left must not enter' sounds ridiculous to me,and i d like someone to explain please.

[Q]

Except for one problem. Marx never wrote any such thing. It's one of those things that everyone "knows", or think they know, about Marxism, but Marx never said it. The only distinction between "socialism" and "communism" Marx ever made was that he used the word "socialism" more loosely, occasionally saying "feudal socialism", "utopian socialism", "scientific socialism", and even in sarcasm -- "bourgeois socialism". He reserved the word "communism" for the modern theory of history and economics, scientific socialism, without loose or sarcastic references.

Marx wrote quite a lot on what he called the "lower stage of communism", we just call that socialism these days.

[JimmyJazz]

Look up the dictionary definitions. Most Americans have crazy ideas of what words like "socialism" and "communism" mean, but the dictionary definitions are quite accurate.



1. a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2. procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3. (in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.



1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.
2. (often initial capital letter) a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party.
3. (initial capital letter) the principles and practices of the Communist party.

The communism entry is missing the "classless, stateless" meaning, but otherwise they're both pretty accurate and complete definitions. (Haha, ok, except for the second one on communism I guess).