What are the fundamental differences between communism and socialism?

Question

I need good, serious answers...no propaganda please.

Answer 1

Socialism is an economic system, Communism is a political one. All communists believe in socialism, few socialists believe in communism.

Socialism says that society must share the means of production, providing basic needs such as pensions, healthcare, and employment security and promoting equality between the rich and poor through a high progressive tax rate and subsidization of the poor. They believe in state-ownership of industries that are essential and which may be abused by private ownership.

Communism says the only way to achieve socialism is by the violent overthrow of the government and the establishment of a worker's dictatorship to suppress the rich, who will never voluntarily share with the poor. They do this by the abolition of private ownership of the means of production. They believe that eventually, the state will whither away and everyone will share and love each other.

Socialism is democratic, Communism is, in practice, anti-democratic. It has never been achieved democratically except on a very small scale (communes, cooperatives etc.)

Answer 2

Socialism is primarily an economic, not a political system. In that regard, it can be defined as state (government) ownership/control of the means of production and distribution. In practice, even highly socialist countries (e.g. Sweden) do retain a market economy/private sector. There are obvoulsly important political considerations--regulation of the private sector, how distribution (from infrastructure funding to social programs) is carried out, etc. But--given the range of systems we've seen, there doesn't apear to be any one political system that dominates. Looking at history, you see a range--from the highly democratic countries like Sweden or France to the ultra-right wing horrors of Nazi Germany.

Communism is, by contrast, inherently political as well as economic. Under acommunist system, the state assumes ownership of all economic institutions--the market economy is abolished entirely. Production (and distribution) are organized entirely by the state bureaucracies. Politically, communism does not permit competition--the Party has total control of byth the political and the economic spheres. There are no elections. Other social institutions-the press, schools, etc. are aslo under state control. This is inline with Marx's notion that such a "dictatorship of the proletariat" would prepare the way for a utopian era of "true communism" in which the state would "wither away" and an egalitarian society would take its place. In practice, those who have the power in a communist regime have never shown any interest in fufilling Marx's vision. Communist systems have, without exceptions, ended up as totalitarian dictatorshisps. Communist China is not an exception, BTW. First, it's still a dictatorship. Second, strictly speaking, it's no longer communist--the reintroduction of a strong market economy makes China today a form of socialism, not communism.

Answer 3

You can't have Communism without first having Socialism. To put it in biological terms Socialism is the baby when it's in the womb and Communism is the baby when it's born. It's a transition stage. No nation has ever achieved true communism, even the Soviet Union. They were all still in the Socialism stage. In Socialism the government controls the main businesses and financial institutions but not everything. You still have to pay for some things and it retains a little bit of capitalism. In communism, the government truely controls everything and can take care of it's people in every facet of life. The goal of Communism is basically to create a state where everyone has a gaurenteed place to live, healthcare, education, job, food, ect. All provided by the state. A workers paradise.

Answer 4

The big difference is that 'communism' doesn't exist...so-called 'communist countries', of which there are exactly four...N. Korea, China, Cuba and Vietnam...are for the most part a form of thugocracy that probably won't last longer than the bums that now run those countries. 'Socialism', state ownership of the means of production and distribution, can apply to the above countries, but it doesn't exist anywhere else....and even China, the Big Kahuna of 'communism' is changing even that equation. Western Europe has settled for a form of 'social democracy' that includes a thriving democratic political system and a series of essential state controled social services. When people go on about 'communism' and 'socialism' they're talking like the man with the paper @ss.... the world has changed...I wish some of there 'conservatives' would as well...or at least use the dictionary definitions of the words they use.

Answer 5

Communism gets a bad rap because a few lunatics abused the message. Marx was issuing a long-term prediction, not a short-term directive.

This doesn't exactly answer your question, I know, but I like to take every opportunity to make note of this. I suppose what I'm trying to point out is that you've got to be careful when asking about such charged political concepts. For example, just try to ask an honest, objective question *properly* using the word "liberal."

Edit: You've left out the technology component, Bruce. The means to provide for everyone's needs in excess. We're still not even close to the level originally envisioned. Good answer, though. You've got my vote.

Answer 6

According to Marx, socialism is the state of transfering a capitalist/private ownership society into a communist/government run society.

Even Marx admitted that Communists need the Capitalists to build the factories and roads, etc. Socialism is a series of promises resulting in increased government control of private wealth, goods, and services through promises of a better life and rhetoric condemning the greed of capitalists.

Answer 7

Socialism with a human face is attainable through the democratic process. Communism was bent and twisted to the likings of the corrupt and has given socialism a bad name.

Answer 8

Communism, every body works for the good of the state and in return all needs are met by the state.
Socialism, everybody contributes to the good of society through taxes, up to 50%. In return have free health care, retirement fund, child and elder care, rent control etc.
Neither are bad systems, it is who administers them that causes problems.

Answer 9

The "Definition" of the two terms has already been defined, but the underlying truth that has only been touched upon is...

Liberalism -leads to-, Or -aspires to be- Socialism.
Socialism -leads to-, Or -aspires to be- Communism.

Anything else is B.S. or "Smoke & Mirrors".

Both systems are great Ideas, yet inherently flawed, as any system that relies on the "Honesty" or "Purity" of People, to administrate.

Both also dissuade innovation, excellence, achievement. Without which, both are doomed to failure.

Neither system will >ever< work in the "Real World".


T.S.

Answer 10

Communism advocates govt (community) ownership of ALL property.

Socialism advocates govt regulation of social programs and govt ownership of primary industry (fractories, farms, etc.)

So, it's kind of like the difference between getting punched in the face (socialism) and getting shot in the face (communism).

Neither has anything to do with how laws are made or who makes the decisions.