Difference between Communism, Socialism and Marxism

[RedLeaf]

Hello,

After a lot of research I still cannnot say surely what the difference between communism, socialism and marxism is. I would appreciate it if someone could tell me the exact differences.

[Alet]

In classical Marxism, the terms Communism and Socialism refer to the same. It's not really meaningful to make a difference - that is to say, it can be meaningful, depending on the context, considering that, for example, Lenin did this for polemical reasons. But notice how those self-proclaimed communists who don't have the slightest idea of our materialist dialectic or even of Marxism in general, - which is the majority of self-proclaimed communists - say something along the lines of: "By definition, this is not Communism" etc. And this is exactly the problem: They turn these terms into worthless "definitions" and grasp them only at the level of abstract categories with no essential meaning whatsoever. In a word, they formalize these terms. It only obfuscates what is essential to them and it impedes a comprehension of Communism as a process/movement. Marx and Engels provided the authoritative definition of Communism:

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which aufhebt the present state of things." [Note that I substituted the term "abolish" with "aufheben" because, in German philosophy, it has an entirely different or rather: a more complex and most of all unique meaning.]

And that's pretty much it. Of course, it entails many unmentioned implications, but this is the essence: What we refer to as Communism is not an abstract system, but the movement, whose conditions result from the premises now in existence, which seeks to aufheben capitalist society.

Marxism is, simply put, the science of our tradition.

What I forgot to add: The thing is that "Socialism", today, is a worthless term. Every idiot can identify with Socialism and talk utter bullshit. Of course, the same holds true for "Communism". But "Communism" still retains a more or less horrific connotation, it still invokes something in the minds of bourgeois ideologues. Say that you are a Communist and everybody knows where you want to stand. In public, we should prefer this term.

[The Idler]

There is a good A to Z of Marxism at World Socialism
http://www.worldsocialism.org/spgb/education/z-marxism

Essentially, socialism, communism and Marxism ought to be considered the same thing (a democratically controlled society of common ownership) although they're not commonly used that way. Lenin was a deviation from this.

[(A)]

worthless "definitions"

Because the definition of a word is not all all important he says before trying to define the word.

Marx and Engels provided the authoritative definition of Communism

Lol your right about that; they provided the terms for authoritative communism.

They are the authority on Marxism but not communism. There where communists before and after Marx who where not marxists.

I believe Erich Muhsam when he said that "The stateless community of free people, — that is communism, the solidarity of equals in freedom, that is anarchy!”
Anarchy is Communism; a society that is free from the rule of the state and capital; A communal society.

[Full Metal Bolshevik]

"Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which aufhebt the present state of things." [Note that I substituted the term "abolish" with "aufheben" because, in German philosophy, it has an entirely different or rather: a more complex and most of all unique meaning.]

Then primitivists are communists despite being completely reactionary?

[Tankie]

Basically in short communism is the final destination of socialism. Basically the paradise on earth we want to achieve. It's how to get there that is the issue.

[Alet]

Because the definition of a word is not all all important he says before trying to define the word.

First of all, before we engage in the actual controversy at hand, notice how I - indeed, deliberately - put quotation marks around the very word "definition". What I'm trying to imply is obviously that definitions, as the term is colloquially used, do not meet the standards they purport to meet. In more simplifying words, definitions oftentimes, even in academic discourse, do not approach what is essential to that which they are trying to define - for very ideological reasons, that is. To be more clear, it is very common in our postmodern era to fall back upon definitions in a way that is essentially reactionary and an insistence on one's own ignorance (e.g. "Fine, but this is not my definition of morality/religion/capitalism/whatever"). Of course, we are able to define something, we can indeed speak of definitions meaningfully without being ignorant reactionaries. But there is a difference between a scientific assessment, a critical evaluation of a complex phenomenon, and an arbitrary definition in a vacuum, which ultimately formalizes it. In this specific context, I was clearly referring to formal definitions. This is the point.

Frankly, the notion that arbitrary definitions - and for the sake of convenience, I will refer to the postmodern use of the term without using quotation marks - can be imposed on the real world in order to explain processes, which otherwise would require high standards of scientific investigation, is silly and quite naive. What I'm trying to say is: Understanding the essence of real processes, which exist independently of our attempts to formalize them, is not a matter of (seemingly) individual preferences and random qualifications. But this is exactly how definitions are used in our epoch. Take for example neoliberals, who argue that a variety of European countries established (elements of) Socialism, because they equate it with social welfare and state regulations, and capitalism with "free markets". Do they come close to a profound and meaningful understanding of what is essential to capitalism? No, an insistence on "their" definition of capitalism is an insistence on their own ignorance and inability to identify the social antagonism in a non-ideological way.

On the other hand, we inclined Communists - that is, we Marxists - we materialists, recognize that the existence and functioning of those processes are not contingent upon people's attempts to formalize them but on their actual life practice and the logic of their social relations. We relate it to the reproduction of men and women and the social order they are engaged in. This is the only meaningful way to understand the nature of religion, the significance of superstition in general, the practical implications of political movements, or why there is no "free market economy" in its "purest" form. And it allows us to say that it is totally meaningless to insist that "this is not my definition of capitalism": That is because all these definitions revolve around the same phenomenon but at the same time refuse a scientific (i.e. full) understanding of it.

I mean, just think about it for a moment: If we abide by these stupid wordplays, we could easily say that "racism / sexism is by definition [holy shit, this passive-aggressive wording alone is disgusting] harassment or different treatment based on skin color / gender", and then talk about reverse discrimination, backing it with what the dictionary has to say about it. The difference is: We understand that there is meaning behind the use of words, irreducible to formal categorization.

So when I say 'worthless "definitions"', I am referring to the people who formalize these terms and thus remain unaware of the essential meaning of them. Why did everybody understand this while you chose to divorce two fucking words from a wider context in order to completely miss the point? No, the "definition of a word" is not in the least important. What is actually important is the objective meaning of those words, or rather: of what they are referring to. But nevermind, it is no surprise that you of all people are provoked by such statements, since you are known to insist on your arbitrary, totally ridiculous "definitions" of, for example, political movements.

They are the authority on Marxism but not communism. There where communists before and after Marx who where not marxists.

However, the Utopian Socialists lacked insight and knowledge regarding the class antagonism and, generally, regarding what's to be done. This is due to the fact that capitalism was still in an insufficiently developed stage. The post-Marx Communists, on the other hand, do not have an excuse: You are either a Marxist or you aren't a Communist in any meaningful way. That is not because we uncritically insist on Marx's "authority" for no apparent or rational reason whatsoever. However, the point is that Marx laid the foundation of a scientific discipline which allows us to understand what it means to be a practical Communist in relation to our predicament. It allows us to revolutionize our consciousness in order to understand what a revolution means in what Marxists refer to as praxis. In other words, being ready to devote one's life entirely to the revolution, to Communism, is congruent with being a Marxist. This is not so much about Karl Marx as an individual as about the tradition whose originator he happens to be.

It is totally meaningless to point out that there happened to be Communists before and after Marx who were not Marxists for the simple reason that refusing the tradition of Marxism entails a plethora of practical implications which, when push comes to shove, are ultimately reactionary. Politics is not a convenience store. Being a Communist in practice is not dependent on whether or not you pay lip service to certain ideas which happen take your fancy. It is about taking concrete and definite positions which drive the processual movement of Communism, and only Marxism provides the necessary degree of both consistency and radicalism. In order to attain the consciousness of historical change, which is required to radically transform the present state of affairs, you have to go through Marxism. End of story, as Rafiq would say.

Then primitivists are communists despite being completely reactionary?

What are you talking about?

Just as much as the so-called Democratic Socialists of the established left-wing parties in Europe are Communists by these qualifications. Primitivists may actually claim that they are striving to bring an end to what they identify as capitalism. However, any complete moron can say something along the lines of this - the point of ideology is that they themselves are utterly unaware of the reactionary implications of their politics. The point is: You cannot be reactionary and at the same time a part of the movement which is described here by Marx and Engels. That is because being a reactionary or a progressive is not dependent on your words and the arbitrary identity you choose to label yourself with. What makes or breaks it are the actual practical implications, and what it means to identify with a position despite being completely opposed to it IN PRACTICE. Marx does not ever insinuate: "If you choose to identify with the sublation of capitalist society, you are by definition a Communist." Finding out what it means to be a Communist in practice, to genuinely strive for the Aufhebung of capitalist society, beyond worthless identities is a matter not of formal categories, but one of complex and critical evaluation.

[ckaihatsu]

What is actually important is the objective meaning of those words, or rather: of what they are referring to.

To elaborate on this, the crux of the topic at-hand, consider the word 'perfection'.

The knee-jerk reaction to this term is that 'Perfection is impossible' -- but this is interpreting the term *abstractly*, or *ideally*, with no real actual *context* for its usage. The phrase 'Perfection is impossible' is *meaningless*, because both terms, 'perfection' and 'impossible', are posited in a void, ambiguous at best in terms of what's being referred to with this statement. Does the statement refer to 'life' -- ? Or to 'the world' -- ? (Etc.)


Worldview Diagram

What if we say that the context is the binary number system -- ? Then the supplying of just two numbers, '0' and '1', makes that number system *perfect*, because that's all that's required for it.

For any analysis of *social history* I'd proffer the following framework since it shows that there are always *many scales* of social dynamics at-play, directly and indirectly impacting on any given specific, multi-person-scale 'event' (the third 'shelf' from the bottom in the diagram).


[1] History, Macro Micro -- Precision

Also:


History, Macro-Micro -- politics-logistics-lifestyle

[Bolshevik 180]

It varies considerably, you may, at the very least, say that socialism is any system group of people who strongly oppose the exploitations associated with capitalism, it is not enough to say opposes capitalism, as some variants of fascism and reactionary government do this as well.

Socialism is both an economic and social movement, aiming at improving the conditions of the labouring classes in all countries. The distinction between Marxism and socialism in my view, is that Marxism is associated with materialist philosophy and strong political agitation, whereas a socialist might also be a pacifist, trade unionist, and so on. Communism is usually the end goal, but some social democratic movements associated with the socialist movement (notably in the second international) simply aim to improve the conditions of the labouring class, and not establish communism, whereas all Marxists would believe capitalism will make way for communism eventually.

A significant point with Marxism as well is, it is built almost entirely around a thorough scientific analysis of the capitalist mode of production, there are many socialists (such as Oscar Wilde) or say Bakunin, who do not place anywhere near the significance that Marx has on economics.

To me the main difference between Marxism and socialism is the emphasis on economics.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Nietzsche showed great insight when he wrote "it is only that which has no history which can be defined"

[Blake's Baby]

Marxism is a school of socialist/communist thought. The other main school is Anarchsim. They differ mostly over conceptualisation of the state.

To Marxists* socialism and communism are the same thing.

*except Leninists - Bolshevik-Leninists or Trotskyists, and Marxist-Leninists or Stalinists/Maoists - who think 'communism' and 'socialism' are two different stages in social evolution.

[Homo Songun]

Marxism is a school of socialist/communist thought. The other main school is Anarchsim. They differ mostly over conceptualisation of the state.

To Marxists* socialism and communism are the same thing.

*except Leninists - Bolshevik-Leninists or Trotskyists, and Marxist-Leninists or Stalinists/Maoists - who think 'communism' and 'socialism' are two different stages in social evolution.

I think your over-simplifying things here, but OK. Supposing I grant you the above premise just for the sake of argument.

To be clear, 99.99% of all communists ("Leninists") who have ever lived are comfortable with dividing "communism" and "socialism" into two different things. I'd guess this is because it flows from the most natural and plain meaning of Marx's words (in the 'Critique of The Gotha Programme', for example.)

[Homo Songun]

The thing is that "Socialism", today, is a worthless term. Every idiot can identify with Socialism and talk utter bullshit. Of course, the same holds true for "Communism". But "Communism" still retains a more or less horrific connotation, it still invokes something in the minds of bourgeois ideologues. Say that you are a Communist and everybody knows where you want to stand. In public, we should prefer this term.

I very much like the way you put this. In organizational terms - yes. But I don't have any hang-ups about it on the personal level. I imagine calling oneself a socialist would be a good way to establish a rapport with a worker or progressive who is being influenced by the Bernie phenomenon, for example.

[Blake's Baby]

...

To be clear, 99.99% of all communists ("Leninists") who have ever lived are comfortable with dividing "communism" and "socialism" into two different things...

A massive overestimation of the number of 'Leninists' in my opinion.

...
I'd guess this is because it flows from the most natural and plain meaning of Marx's words (in the 'Critique of The Gotha Programme', for example.)

Except it doesn't. Marx never claims 'socialism' and 'communism' (or even, socialist society and communist society) are different things. It's imposing Lenin's definition, which he invents in State and Revolution (and admits that's not what Marx says) and retro-fitting it to Marx. Which means you misinterpret Marx when you attempt to use it as a definition.

But if you like, quote the Critique and then tell me where Marx claims any such thing.

[Homo Songun]

A massive overestimation of the number of 'Leninists' in my opinion.

Today the Communist Party of China has 89 million cadre. The CPSU at the end of its reign had 19 million. Can you credibly claim that the non-Leninist Communist movement ever amounted to more than 0.01% of either of those groups (890,000 or 190,000 respectively) ? No, you cannot. The point stands.

But the main point here is not cock measuring, as fun as that may be. It is that it is a totally uncontroversial, reality-based statement to say that communists generally think of socialism and communism as different things. We shouldn't confuse newbies in Learning otherwise.

(Side note, the left communists probably made their biggest splash size-wise with a left-wing split from the German party in the 1920s, KAPD. They were enormous by left com standards, topping out at 40,000 or so in 1921.)

[(A)]

1: Is the communist party of china Leninist? From what I have read they are not specifically Leninist unless you are using Leninist to mean a totalitarian state capitalism.
2: Are the 89 million actually active socialists or simply citizens/subjects or lackeys of the state?
3: 7 billion people can still be wrong.

[Blake's Baby]

No, Homo Songun is right, if we assume that no-one ever joined the CPSU or CPC because that was a good way to get a better job or anything like that. If the majority of people joining those parties were and are actually communists (not just communists but Leninists), then the 108 million 'Leninists' are vastly more than the non-Leninist communists (whatever that means, are the Italians 'more Leninist than Lenin' or not Leninist enough? I think we should be told).

The point is not, however, how many people in particular parties are not committed to communism, or even 'Leninism'. The point is that the notion that 'socialism' and 'communism' are different things is not found in Marx but comes from Lenin (the OP asked about 'communism', 'socialism' and 'Marxism', not 'communism', 'socialism' and 'Leninism)'. So if they want to know about Marx, they should understand that Lenin's definitions aren't part of Marx's thought.

And Homo Songun was going to quote something from Marx (from the Critique I believe) to prove me wrong.

[Homo Songun]

You are both suggesting we peer into the minds of every Communist to see if they really believe what they say they believe.

OK.

As it happens, I am a mutant with powerful telepathic abilities, so I could theoretically check the very small number of non-Leninists for sincerity before supper. (For example, Blake's Baby at this moment is thinking about his sweet-ass "Magic: The Gathering" playing cards.)

That said, mind reading is awkwardly intimate at best. Do you have any idea how exhausting it is to telepathically transmit "no homo" 89 million times? No thanks!

The only practical solution is to go by the frankly stated positions of the two creeds, Leninism on the one hand and non-Leninism(s) on the other, and proceed as if the great majority of either camp(s) actually adhere to what they say they adhere to. I would have thought it obvious, myself.

And actually... newbies can read the obvious words of the man himself, and see who is closer to the mark!

[Blake's Baby]

Yeah...

The point is that the notion of the separation of 'socialism' and 'communism' as two different stages or forms of organisation is not found in Marx.

Claiming that it is is not helpful in the Learning forum.

Nor is your conception at all the most popular one here on RevLeft. In fact, we did a poll about it - called 'What is Socialism?' - and the largest minority of users here regard socialism and communism as being synonyms. So, while the OP could undoubtedly read something produced by a Stalinist/Maoist or Trotskyist (perhaps the official history of the Communist Party of China or a pamphlet by the British SWP) that treat socialist society and communist society as different stages or social forms, it would be a mistake to think that Impossiblists, Left Communists, Council Communists, the theoreticians of the SPD before WWI (such as Bebel or Kautsky or Luxemburg) or Marx and Engels, as well as many of users of this forum, would also see them as separate. So it is unwise - if not duplicitous - to pretend that they are.

At present the results are:

• A synonym for communism - a classless communal society without money or states 38.21%
• The lower phase of communism - a classless society without money or borders, but not free access 22.76%
• The dictatorship of the proletariat - a class society under a revolutionary administration 27.64%
• Other 11.38%

Marx's definition is the first. As you can see the 'classical Leninist' definition (= to 'the first phase of communist society') is not even the most popular choice of the non-Marxist options - that honour goes to the Maoist revision of Leninist revisionism, that 'socialism' = the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/18...-is-Socialism?

EDIT: but you know all of this because you are Shmuel Katz and I originally set up the poll - 3 years ago - to test a ridiculous claim that you made then that isn't any more true now.

[GLF]

Some of this theory is overly profound and can be a real turn off to people who want change in their lifetimes - action. I am not violating dialectics simply because I refuse to be a wizard locked in his tower pouring over old tomes while the world goes to shit below me. Aufheben doesn't necessarily imply that transition is inevitable or that it is an inherent violation to try and bring about that change ourselves. We can be communists and be on the ground - we can be Marxist and stand among the common rabble rather than intellectuals.

Any communist that's more Chomsky than Che is no friend of the revolution.