"I'll switch names in a heartbeat."
—Danny Katch,
democratic socialist author
Except for a telling period
in the twentieth century,
knowledgeable socialists have considered
"socialism" and "communism"
interchangeable terms.
"Socialism," "communism." We know they're related words, but the distinctions are unclear.
Many who are not socialists think of communism as the authoritarian version of socialism. And they think of socialism as a humanitarian version of communism—one without the state power that made Stalin and Mao terrors to their people.
Socialists are glad to let us make these assumptions. But this isn't how they see these terms.
For the great majority of today's knowledgeable socialists, the meaning of "socialism" is identical to "communism." They view these terms as synonymous.
Why? Because that's how Karl Marx, the most important socialist of all time, saw them.
There's been one important exception to this rule. For much of the twentieth century, socialists used the terms "socialism" and "communism" as labels for two different phases of socialist society. However, these were two theoretical stages of the same society, not—as in the misconception—two competing versions of the philosophy.
The primary goal of this paper is to clarify the similarities and differences between "socialism" and "communism." But doing so has an added benefit.
Examining how socialists use these terms also provides an opportunity to demonstrate that, despite their constant criticism of sales and marketing in our capitalist society, socialists are salespeople themselves. We'll see a vivid illustration of how socialists engage in the same marketing-driven decision-making that other salespeople do.
"Indistinguishable Terms …. Completely Interchangeable"
When it comes to understanding any aspect of socialism, the best place to start is always with the thinking of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels.
Karl Marx is the most important socialist thinker of all time. His thinking has defined socialism for 150 years. It still does today.
Marx is without question socialist superstar number one. And his colleague Friedrich Engels is the undisputed runner-up, socialist superstar number two.
So how did Marx and Engels distinguish socialism from communism?
They didn't. They used these terms interchangeably. Communism meant socialism. Socialism meant communism.
This fact is confirmed by socialist thinker Peter Hudis, who says that for Marx, socialism and communism were
indistinguishable terms
and
completely interchangeable.[1]
And Paul Burkett (another socialist thinker, as is everyone quoted in this paper) says socialism and communism were for Marx
two terms that he used interchangeably.[2]
Similarly, David Adams says Marx
did not differentiate between the concept of socialist society and communist society.[3]
One more example comes from Binay Sakar and Adam Buck, writing jointly. They explain that
for Marx and Engels socialism and communism were synonymous.[4]
Marx and Engels often used "communism" when referring to Marx's specific version of socialism and to distinguish his ideas from other ideas being labeled socialism at the time. But even in this they were inconsistent.
For example, their most famous jointly authored work is The Communist Manifesto—a work that detailed Marx's specific version of socialism/communism.[5]
And the second most successful work by either Marx or Engels is Engel's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, in which the "scientific" socialism Engels speaks of is, again, Marx's vision of socialism/communism.[6]
Over time, Marx's version of the philosophy became a black hole: a source of such intense gravitational pull that it sucked in and destroyed all its competitors. From that point on, the "indistinguishable terms" "socialism" and "communism" were effectively Marxism.
Even today's "democratic socialism" is fundamentally the socialism/communism created by Marx—in other words, Marxism.
Despite Marx's thinking being tightly linked with history's authoritarian socialist disasters, Michael Harrington, the founder of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA), doesn't distance today's democratic socialism from Marx in any way. Instead, Harrington links democratic socialism to Marx and his beliefs.
Harrington repeatedly labels Marx a democratic socialist.[7] And he states that the objective of today's socialism remains achieving the goal Marx established for his philosophy, the same goal that has defined socialism/communism for the past 150 years: a society based on the axiom "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need."[8]
It's impossible to overstate Marx's impact on socialist beliefs. The vast majority of knowledgeable socialists are followers of Marx and see the world from his perspective. His vision is their vision.
For the vast majority of today's socialists, therefore, socialism and communism are synonyms. They treat these two terms as interchangeable just as Marx did and because Marx did.
For example, Paula Allman in Revolutionary Social Transformation and co-authors Binkay Satayr and Adam Buck in Marxism, Leninism—Worlds Apart both employ the same "socialism/communism" construction used in this paper, demonstrating they see these terms as indistinguishable.[9]
"In a Higher Phase"
There's been one significant exception to the rule that socialists since Marx use "socialism" and "communism" interchangeably. For a chunk of the twentieth century, they used these terms as the names of two distinct stages of a post-capitalist society.
One of Marx's most important pronouncements about the nature of the post-capitalist society he envisioned is that it would have two stages.
There would be a first stage following capitalism, a phase that would still be "stamped with the birthmarks" of capitalism.[10] This first phase would eventually be followed by what he called a "higher phase,"[11] a perfected phase in which all residual aspects of capitalism had been stamped out.
Marx's two-phase idea has been socialist gospel since his pronouncement made it so. As knowledgeable socialists are well aware, Marx said the "higher phase" would commence when a society based on his philosophy could
inscribe on its banners: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs![12]
The "from each according to their ability" portion of the saying is socialism's mandatory duty to give our abilities—our time and talents—to society.[13]
The "to each according to their needs" portion is what socialism promises to give us in return for performing our socialist duty.
Marx didn't refer to his two stages by different names. He simply used the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" standard as the benchmark that defined the second phase.
The promise of a world based on socialism's most famous credo remains the centerpiece of today's socialist sales pitch. But rarely do socialists make it clear this standard is one that would never apply in the first phase of socialist society, but only if Marx's higher phase could be achieved.
The first phase of Marx's two-stage plan is based on an alternate version of the socialist motto—one today's socialists rarely mention when selling their philosophy. This alternate version is "from each according to their ability, to each according to their work."
The alternate version requires the exact same duty of "from each according to their ability." But the clause that defines the basis for what we receive ends in "work," not "needs."
During the first (and very likely only[14]) phase of socialist society, we would still be under compulsory duty to those running society. But we would not receive according to our needs.
(To learn more about the little-known alternate version of socialism's most famous saying, see our paper "Doubling Down on Duty.")
"To Each According
to His Needs (Communism)"
Marx didn't use different names for his two phases. But in 1917, another socialist icon, Vladimir Lenin, took a new approach.
Lenin began using "socialism" as the label for Marx's first phase and "communism" as the name of the second. Here Lenin puts this new system to work:
From capitalism, mankind can pass directly only to socialism, i.e., to the social ownership of the means of production and the distribution of products according to the amount of work performed by each individual. Our Party looks farther ahead: socialism must inevitably evolve gradually into communism, upon the banner of which is inscribed the motto, "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs."[15]
The practice Lenin started remained the socialist norm until the collapse of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) in the 1990s.
In The ABC of Socialism, published in 1953, noted American socialists Leo Huberman and Sybil May ask and answer the question, "What is the difference between socialism and communism?" Their answer reflects the naming convention Lenin began:
Socialism grows directly out of capitalism; it is the first form of the new society. Communism is a further development or "higher stage" of socialism. From each according to his ability, to each according to his deeds (socialism). From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).[16]
Using Lenin's paradigm, they call the first phase "socialism" and the second phase "communism." They also explicitly link the terms "socialism" and "communism" in parentheses to the different standards that socialists say apply in each phase.
Here, in a speech he gave in 1973, Fidel Castro also employs the twentieth-century socialist standard:
That everyone contribute according to his ability, that each one receive according to his work is a principle, an inexorable law in the construction of socialism. When we learn to understand this principle … we learn to distinguished it from another principle of the communist society established by Karl Marx: from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs. This is precisely what distinguishes the socialist phase from the communist phase of the revolutionary process.[17]
Socialism and communism were not used to describe two different philosophies. They were used as labels for two different phases in the implementation of the very same philosophy—phases that were based on the identical standard of duty but on different plans for what one would receive for performing that duty.
THE WORD "Communism" Disappears
When the USSR and its European socialist/communist allies collapsed in the early 1990s, the practice of using "socialism" and "communism" as labels for Marx's two phases all but ended. This was a byproduct of a more general move to eliminate the terms "communism" and "communist" from the socialist vocabulary.
Why? Because the results of socialist/communist authoritarianism had made "communism" even more toxic to the general public than "socialism."
Today's socialists still believe in the two-phase process that Marx prophesied. But today very few use the term "communism" as a name for Marx's second phase.
Instead, they only use the term "socialism" and distinguish the second phase as Marx did: by referencing the "to each according to their needs" standard.[18]
The fact that the expression "to each according to their needs" indicates Marx's second phase (what for most of the twentieth-century socialists called "communism") likely comes as news to you. But this is most definitely not news to any knowledgeable socialist. It's gospel.
(Among socialists, the expression "to each according to their needs" is a dog whistle—a phrase that communicates many things to socialist insiders that non-socialists don't hear.[19])
Today's socialists have returned to treating socialism and communism as synonyms, no longer as distinct labels for Marx's two phases. And the great majority of socialists have also standardized on "socialism" and dropped "communism" from their vocabulary.
Why? To make their product easier to sell.
"Because It Has
a Less Tainted Reputation"
Most socialists simply ceased using "communism" and "communist" without articulating their marketing-driven reasons for doing so. But in his recent (2015) book Socialism … Seriously, Danny Katch isn't so circumspect.
Katch explains:
I tend to use socialism because it has a less tainted reputation.[20]
He continues, saying that if future socialists revert to using "communist,"
I'll switch names in a heartbeat.[21]
As his willingness to switch labels makes clear, Katch considers the terms "socialist" and "communist" to be interchangeable. As we've discussed, that's hardly surprising. The socialist messiah Karl Marx considered these terms to be indistinguishable. So, that's how the socialist faithful see things too.
What else is true of Katch's decision to call himself a "socialist" instead of a "communist"? His selection of labels is driven entirely by sales considerations.
Katch chooses to describe himself as a socialist and not a communist (a label he would switch to "in a heartbeat") due to his concern that the word "communist" is "tainted." Of the two interchangeable terms, he picks the one that's better for sales.
What makes this particularly humorous is that true to socialist norm, Katch's book includes attacks on sales and marketing in capitalist society.[22] Apparently, it's fine for socialists to make choices motivated by sales considerations but unethical when non-socialists do the same.
Given the appalling results of earlier socialist/communist experiments, it's hardly surprising today's socialists have stopped using "communist," the more "tainted" of the two terms. And it's not really unethical for them to do so—or at least it isn't so long as they don't try to peddle the notion that communism means something different than socialism.
But let's recognize this for what it is: it's sales-driven behavior from those who claim to disdain sales and marketing. And let's hold socialists to the same standards of ethical selling we have a right to expect from all salespeople.
"The Goal of Socialism" — What Was Called "Communism"
Following the collapse of the USSR in the 1990s, the majority of socialists adopted the sales tactic Danny Katch discloses above: ceasing to use the terms "communism" and "communist" because of their tainted connotations.
Socialists have authored an untold number of new books and articles since the 1990s, but it's now unusual for "communism" to appear, even as the name for Marx's higher phase.[23]
However, even though most socialists no longer use "communism" as its label, achieving Marx's higher phase remains socialism's prime objective. For example, what does DSA founder Michael Harrington say remains "clearly" the goal of socialism? He explains,
the goal of socialism, clearly, is to overcome greed and act on the basis of "to each according to his/her need, from each according to his/her ability."[24]
Harrington has flipped the order of the clauses that make up "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need." But it's obviously the same saying Marx used as the benchmark for his higher phase.
The expression Harrington defines as "the goal of socialism, clearly" is the same one that for much of the twentieth century was called "communism."
Examples from Leo Huberman and Sybil May (writing jointly) and Fidel Castro respectively demonstrate this reality:
From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs (communism).[25]
In communism, each one contributes according to his capacity and receives according to his need.[26]
That Harrington says the goal of socialism is what he's fully aware had been called communism does not mean he should be labeled a communist. It's the right of socialists to change the terms they use when they sell, just as it's the right of salespeople selling other products to do likewise.
But we shouldn't be fooled into thinking that eliminating "communism" from the socialist vocabulary is anything more than sales shenanigans at work.
Even though it's now rare to use the term "communism," socialists still consider socialism and communism interchangeable terms. And disappearing "communism" from view doesn't mean the 150-year-old goal of socialism/communism has changed one iota.
"I'll Switch Names
in a Heartbeat"
To recap, as socialist thinkers tell us, "for Marx and Engels socialism and communism were synonymous."[27] These are "two terms that he [Marx] used interchangeably."[28]
Given the dominant role Karl Marx ("democratic socialist"Marx) continues to play in socialist thought, the fact he considered "socialism" and "communism" to be "indistinguishable terms"[29] tells us that this is how today's knowledgeable socialists also view these words.
That's why Danny Katch says that, were "communist" to lose its stigma, he would "switch names in a heartbeat."[30] That's why most socialists would likely do the same.
There was an exception to the socialism = communism rule during the twentieth century when socialists used the terms to distinguish Marx's two phases. But this practice largely ended when earlier socialist/communist experiments crashed and burned leading socialists to purge "communism" from their vocabulary.
However, ceasing to use the word "communism" doesn't mean socialists have given up on achieving Marx's second phase, which was called communism in the twentieth century.
DSA founder Harrington explains that "the goal of socialism, clearly"[31] remains to create a society based on "from each according to their ability, to each according to their need," the standard every knowledgeable socialist realizes was called communism.
Our brief tour of how socialists think of the word "communism" relative to "socialism" also shows that socialists make choices based on sales considerations. Given the socialist love of attacking sales and marketing as intrinsically unethical, this is a telling hypocrisy.
Once we come to grips with the fact that socialists are salespeople, our need to take personal responsibility to learn more about socialist philosophy becomes clear.
It doesn't matter whether what's being sold is a diet elixir or socialism/communism, we cannot rely on salespeople to properly inform us of the risks of their product. Let the buyer beware!
Thank you for reading "Socialism? Communism? What's the Difference?"