The answer is Nothing. The two terms are interchangeable: both describe the class-free, state-free society of equal producers advocated by the co-founders of scientific socialism, Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Initially they used "communism" to describe the future classless society because of the popular association of "socialism" with the Utopian "socialists" of that time.
As Engels explained in his 1888 preface to the English translation of The Communist Manifesto:
"When
it [the Manifesto] appeared, we could not have called it a socialist
manifesto. Two kinds of people were regarded as socialists in 1847.
On the one hand were the followers of the various Utopian systems,
especially the Owenites [followers of Robert Owen] in England and the
Fourierists [followers of Charles Fourier] in France, both of which
at that time had dwindled to mere sects that were already dying out.
On the other hand were the numerous social quacks who, with their
various panaceas and every type of patchwork, wanted to do away with
social evils without, in the slightest, harming capital and profit.
In both cases they were people outside the labour movement and looked
far more for support from the 'educated' classes.
"On
the other hand, that part of the working class which was convinced of
the inadequacy of a mere political revolution and demanded a
fundamental transformation of society -- that part at the time called
itself communist.... In 1847 socialism signified a bourgeois movement
and communism a working-class movement. Socialism, at least on the
Continent, was respectable enough for the drawing room; communism was
the exact opposite. Since we were already then definitely of the
opinion that 'the emancipation of the workers had to be the task of
the working class itself,' we could not for one moment be in doubt as
to which of the two names to choose. Nor has it ever occurred to us
to renounce it since then."
Subsequently,
as the Utopian "socialists" faded into oblivion and were
largely forgotten, Marx and Engels generally preferred to use the
term "socialism" in their writings.
Today,
both "socialism" and "communism" have been
wrongly associated with false and pernicious definitions. Thanks to
the so-called social democrats, or reformist "socialists"
(for example, the Socialist Party of France, the Labour Party in
Britain, the Democratic Socialists of America, in the United States),
many people have come to equate "socialism" with any
industry or program that is administered by the capitalist political
state, be it a nationalised healthcare system, the postal service or
a welfare program.
"Communism,"
meanwhile, has come to be associated with the system of bureaucratic
despotism, the state-capitalist command economy run by the so-called
“Communist” parties, that unraveled in Eastern Europe and the
Soviet Union, but which still prevails in China and Cuba.
Further
adding to the semantic confusion is the false concept that the
Communist parties and other Leninist organisations have promoted for
many years -- the concept that a post/capitalist society first goes
through a lengthy "socialist" stage, before arriving at the
classless society of "communism."
This
is a distortion of Marxism, invented by Lenin in his work, State and
Revolution. Marx did describe a "first phase" and "higher
phase" of "communist society" in his Critique of the
Gotha Program. But he was not describing a "transitional"
stage in which classes and the state would still exist, and a
"higher" stage in which they would disappear, and he did
not describe the "first phase" as "socialism" and
the "higher phase" as "communism." Rather, he was
describing a development that would occur after the classless
society, based on social ownership and democratic workers' control of
the means of production -- a society that could be described as
either "socialism" or "communism" -- was fully
established. In the "first phase," some measure of labour
time would still be needed to govern the exchange and distribution of
the workers' product; in the "higher phase," distribution
could be conducted according to the principle: "From everyone
according to his faculties, to everyone according to his needs."
Lenin
described Marx's two "phases" as "the scientific
difference between socialism and communism." Subsequently, in
the ideology of the Soviet Communist Party and its progeny,
"socialism" became associated with the state-ruled society
of bureaucratic state despotism, and "communism" with the
classless society that somehow would arrive some day in the distant
future. But these false and confusing definitions of "socialism"
and "communism" have no basis in Marx's writings or in
scientific socialist thought.
Naturally,
the capitalist class and its leading propagandists in the United
States have been all too happy to seize upon any and all of the false
definitions of "socialism" and "communism" in
order to confuse the working class and discredit both words in
workers' minds.
Standing
against such misinformation, the Socialist Party have a well
established history of fighting to uphold the correct, scientific,
Marxist meaning of socialism or communism. In defending and
advocating Marx's and Engels' conception of the future class-free
society, though, we have focused on winning over workers by using the
term that Marx and Engels preferred in their later years --
socialism. You've heard bad
things about socialism. It's because the capitalists who own the
industries don't want people to know that there is a better and
fairer way for society to be organised. They don't want socialism
because socialism would mean that they would have to give back all
the wealth they've made off the backs of working people. So they
spread a lot of lies and confusion about socialism.
If
you want to know what socialism is really about, get in touch with
the Socialist Party. Take a look at what we have to say, learn the
truth about socialism, and give it a fair chance in your mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment