US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3387

To understand the difference, you must first understand the basis of Marx's theory of history, the concept of dialectical materialism. To start, Marx and later communist/socialist thinkers base their long-view of history upon the Hegelian (well, really Kantian but I digress) method of "thesis, antithesis, synthesis". That is to say, a proposition or status quo is inevitably challenged by a critique of it (and it's flaws), and the conflict between the two would eventually give birth to a new synthesis (which would become the new thesis, and thus restart the cycle).

Applying this to history, Marx viewed the evolution of human society as one of constant struggle and change, as wealth grew and human society grew more complex, as prior modes of governance and wealth distribution were challenged in major epochal upheavals. He thus categorized human history and social development into several phases. In prehistory, when humans were hunter-gatherers, we were in a "primitive communist" system. As agriculture developed and private property formed, we moved towards a slave-holding society, and later towards a feudal social order. Eventually, The old feudal order would itself give way towards a rising capitalistic middle class, the bourgeoisie, as capitalism developed, and the French Revolution happened (this is a seminal event that is still widely studied and analyzed by Marxists and critical scholars [for good reason, the French Revolution is without a doubt the most important historical event of the last 500 years, without which modern society would be utterly alien to us]).

Communism and socialism are by in large similar: a communist is a socialist, but not every socialist is a communist. They both have the same ideological roots, and although the umbrella of "socialism" is extremely wide. Both, essentially, seek a post-capitalist state where wealth and the means of production are distributed among the population as a whole, with equality as the core tenet of their beliefs, but, in the traditional Marxian dialectic (and later elucidated by Leninist thought), a "socialist" state is to eventually give way to the "communist" state. The socialist state is, in Marx's work, the transitory step towards achieving the communist utopia, where the capitalist state and economy, borne down by it's flaws (of which Marx has written on extensively, and remain a highly relevant topic), would eventually collapse (brought down by a "crisis of abundance"), or be overthrown by a revolution of the proletariat. This was usually depicted as violent: Marx was writing during the 19th century after all: the French Revolution was fresh on his mind, as were the myriad other revolutionary struggles between the forces of liberalism and reaction during the period.

As Marx saw it, the socialist state would see the redistribution of wealth and the means of production (capital) to the working classes, who would gain ownership of their own livelihoods from the capitalist class. "To each according to his contribution." Eventually, Marx posits, this revolution would spread globally, creating a global "dictatorship of the proletariat" (which in the original sense can be seen as a global direct democracy), after production reaches "post-scarcity" levels (that is to say, everyone would have whatever they need, and be able to do whatever work or leisure they found engaging or driven towards). This has generally mischaracterized as being a society where everyone is entirely equal in capital and pay (it isn't: it is largely about the fulfillment of all human needs). It's ultimately a Utopian fantasy, but it is a powerful one, as the late 19th and 20th centuries have shown.

Now, Marx and Engels were generally vague as to how a "socialist" state would be organized, and how in practice such a transition to a "communist" state would occur. Which has led to the countless, and bitter, divides within the umbrella of international socialism itself. Does the transition from a capitalist society to socialist society require violent revolution? Can it be done within the system (i.e. can the capitalist system be torn down through democracy as opposed to revolution)? Must it be top down (done by an authoritarian vanguard party, as posited by Lenin?), or from the grassroots (a true "anarchist" revolution). Really, outside of a common goal of transitioning to a post-capitalist system, there's basically no agreement whatsoever.

Thus what constitutes a socialist in the traditional sense can really be defined as most anything provided they seek the end of the capitalist system and the establishment of a collectivist system of economy and political power, of one form or another (the anarchists will disagree with the Marxist-Leninists who disagree with the democratic socialists, etc). They may see no need to push forward towards the "communist" state, or they may still see the need for it. Either way.

Now, what is a communist? Mostly it refers to those socialists who adhere to the doctrines of Lenin. Principally, that in order to achieve and push forward a proletariat revolution, there must be a professional "vanguard" party of the politically-conscious working class in order to organize, lead, and spread a mass-action revolution for socialist movements to succeed. After a successful revolution, the vanguard party would take over the apparatuses of state, and, following this truncated form of a "dictatorship of the proletariat", by necessity to manage the state and economy for a transition towards a communist society, after which the state would simply "wither away". Or so they posit. There were significant doctrinal and ideological divides following the Russian Revolution between the Leninists and the rest of the socialist -isms (which had already been deeply divided over World War One), which lead to a major schism and the Marxist-Leninist parties adopting the "communist" label.

...and that's the difference, really.

Note, I am also not a socialist. I remain an avowed social liberal, which is entirely different altogether. I to however prefer to know the tenets of the ideologies that I'm disagreeing with however.