Differences among Communism, Socialism, and Marxism

By Zevi

The word communism has been almost irretrievably damaged by popular misuse. The words Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are
used frequently with varying degrees of interchangeability. Are they the same thing? What are the differences?

Objectively speaking, it is not entirely incorrect to use these terms in place of each other, and many people hold such disdain for the
whole lot of them that any effort to separate them out would be devoting a painful amount of attention to a subject that would seem to
have been better cursed away from the get-go.

This essay will hopefully illustrate the fact that due to the way history and politics unfolded in the twentieth and late nineteenth centuries,
the word “communism” has attracted a whole lot of confusion (as well as negative stigma) to itself that has since become almost
inseparably attached to it. People’s ideas of what the term actually refers to frequently bleeds into socialism, Marxism, and fascism. The
boundaries are often quite muddled. In order to explore this topic, the interesting mess that has been made of this word will first need to
be confronted and then sorted out. The meaning of the word is a lot broader than what people usually think it to be.

To most Americans, this confusion is just fine. A large percentage hate the word, know little to nothing about it, and are perfectly content
to write it off from the vantage point of relative ignorance. Another percentage equate the term “communism” with Marxism, a forgivable
offence, and may dislike it or write it off on this basis. A very small percentage are Marxists who call themselves communists, also
equating the two terms.

However, there are good reasons the word “communism” should be understood as something completely different than a simple synonym
for either socialism or Marxism. Communism in its various forms is in many ways nearly opposite of unbridled Capitalism, sure. Many
types of communism are also entirely separate from socialism of any sort, and completely distinct from Marxism.

Political Marxism has largely gone by the wayside. It is therefore high-time to restore a more evenhanded and accurate definition of the
word communism, if not to the masses, then to those who respect language, thought, and history.

One common “college-kid” definition/distinction between communism and socialism is “communism is a country with a socialist
economy and a totalitarian form of government”, or communism is “an extreme form of socialism”. Of all the definitions available or
used for the word “communism”, either of these mirror and exacerbate the confusion surrounding the term more than most others. The
problem with these definitions is that they exclude many of the things that the word actually defines, like defining an “octagon” as “a
heavy gauge metal sign that is primarily red in color, has a white border, eight sides, and on which the word ‘stop’ is printed in white
capital letters, usually displayed at traffic intersections”. Marxism is indeed an extreme form of socialism, whereas only one specific type
of communism is.

Although Marx used the terms communism and socialism without much distinction, Lenin did lay out pieces of his theories in such a way
that a sensible distinction could be made, at least in some places, between these two “isms”. Other places he equivocated like Marx.
Lenin’s distinctions are important, and are more compatible with both the true breadth and nuance of the two concepts as history has
shaped them.

Communism, according to Lenin, was the future society as predicted by Marx that could be noted by its classless (absence of a significant
gap between rich and poor) social structure, and complete absence of a “state” (anarchy). Socialism according to Lenin, on the other one
of his hands, was the transition period between Capitalism and Communist-anarchy, which often did include a very strong, authoritarian
central government, responsible for the administration of the expropriation of the Capitalists (and other normal government functions)
until such a time as members of society could be “molded” enough to gradually take over the functions of government, thereby creating
organized self-rule among the masses (Communist-Anarchy). Stalin had formally socialized the Soviet economy by the mid-nineteen-
thirties, and made an entry into the Soviet constitution stating as much. Most people have a remote awareness of the brute deeds of Jo
Stalin’s dictatorship, but most people seem to be completely unaware that under Stalin, the Soviet Union practiced socialism, NOT
communism. This is true for all subsequent Soviet administrations as well.

Why then, is it so common for the former Eastern Bloc countries to be referred to as “communist”? This is very simple. All of those
countries owed their forms of government to the writings of Marx and Lenin. They were Marxist. Marx advocated a form of Socialism
that retained a “goal” of communism, at least if you want to stick with Lenin’s semantics. Marx’s most well known work is of course the
“Communist Manifesto”, and Marxists do call themselves “Communists” chiefly to differentiate themselves from other socialists, who are
often less radical.

Marx took the name to differentiate his theory from socialists of his day, which are nothing like what most people regard socialists as
being today. For one thing, the socialists of his day were not working class, they were members of the educated classes. He probably
would have wanted to differentiate himself from the “Marxists” of today, if only for the same demographic reasons.
Socialism, according to Marx and Lenin, was to be forcibly imposed by a “dictatorship” until the strong centralized state had “withered
away”, a.k.a., become unnecessary due to the redemption and self-empowerment/self-rule of the working class. Only after the
disappearance of the State along with its various protections of privilege and the class structure could Lenin’s “communism” have
appeared. Of course, this never happened. None of the eastern-bloc governments ever “withered away” in the Marxist sense. So none of
the eastern bloc countries ever practiced communism. They were called communist because the official party line was that, of course, they
hoped to wither away (had the stated goal of communism) sometime during some future administration, but the promise was eclipsed by
the failure of those states. All Eastern bloc countries were therefore “Socialist”, like the name of the former Soviet Union implies, until
they collapsed along with the Soviet Union.

Marx’s political ideas could best be understood as a group of hypotheses that incorporated socialist, communist, pro-industrial, anti-
privilege, pro-worker, and anarchist sentiments rolled together into one. His writings were very complex and this summary does not do
them justice, nor is it really intended to. For the purposes of this essay, what is important to understand is that orthodox political Marxism
is a belief in an authoritative socialist government that would eventually give way to communist anarchy.

There is a common criticism of Marxism, that once endued with authoritarian power, a ruling class will not likely surrender it. History has
not controverted this criticism. Additionally, it is not unlikely that the populace it is imposed upon will tend to push back at that power,
resenting government intrusion, interfering the transitional flow from socialism to anarchy as government is forced into power-play. Also,
distribution methods utilized by a national government bear little resemblance to distribution methods practiced by smaller groups of
individuals, so it is more likely that as a state “withered away”, the methods for distribution would vanish as well, leaving the people to
fend for themselves in an individualistic environment. This is precisely what happened after the collapse of the former Soviet Union.
Marx’s theories regarding Socialist to Communist transition, in reality, are more akin a communist worm on the end of a socialist hook.
You don’t get to eat the worm, you just get “stuck” with socialism.

Are socialists distinct from Marxists at all? Of course. Marxism is far more socialist than communist, but this does not imply that
Marxism is the equivalent of socialism. All orthodox Marxists could be considered socialists, but the reverse is definitely not true.
Marxism is only one example of socialist thought.

Some characteristics of socialism include a centrally planned economy, centralized social welfarism in various forms/degrees (universal
health care, poverty relief, care for the aged, etc.), stiffly regulated trade, heavy taxation especially for the wealthy (involuntary
redistribution of wealth), and a strong (but not necessarily totalitarian) central government.

Unlike Marxism, there is not necessarily one central authority of socialist dogma. Many socialists are at least influenced, to some or other
degree, by Marx, whether they acknowledge it or not. There are definitely parallels that socialists share with Marxists, but also areas in
which they go completely askew.

Worth noting, the list of characteristics of socialism in the paragraph above contains distinct ideas that can be implemented in different
ways, to different degrees, in different stages, and completely independently of each other. This might be the hallmark difference between
generic socialism and orthodox Marxism. Marxism contained a rigid quasi-scientific predictive formula for how the future would unfold
that is unique.

Marx predicted if not advocated the eventual overthrow of the ruling classes all at once and the implementation of all of the above ideas
or types of ideas all at once and in extreme measures. Hence the somewhat misplaced college kid definition, “extreme form of socialism”.
More moderate socialists can implement their ideas by degrees, through normal democratic legislative processes over time. Marxists
believe in violent overthrow of the ruling classes, while many socialists are content to rise to power through national elections and leftist
legislation. Marx sought the complete material leveling of society, and the complete eradication of inequality and privilege. Socialists just
want to trim the extremes somewhat, lifting up the poor a little at the expense of the rich. Marx spoke of a “dictatorship” of the proletariat,
while socialists might believe in democratic forms of government. They can utilize existing political structures to achieve their ends. It
might even be difficult to draw a clear line of demarcation between a country that could in any way be considered “socialist” and one that
is more “free market”, since most Western nations today are a hybrid between the two to some degree. For that matter, the Far Eastern
“communist” nations like China are just as much a hybrid, following the worst aspects of the Western pattern more and more.

Socialism incorporates economic collectivism, (a fiscal practice that puts the interest of the whole above the interest of the individual) that
is both centralized, and centrally imposed upon the populace. This is the primary commonality between socialism and Marxism. On the
other hand, another distinction is that socialists that are not Marxists do not necessarily believe or hope for society to move beyond
socialism to communist anarchy. Orthodox Marxists consider socialism a means to an end, while many socialists consider it an end in and
of itself.

Also, Marx looked forward to the complete eradication of capitalist relations of property, whereas socialism and capitalism are quite
compatible, and today seem to coexist in the same nations quite comfortably. After all, what kind of consumers do penniless peasants
make? Put them on fixed income and they can afford to become regular contributors to the market economy. Or more, consolidate a
populace into one social class, and you’ve made the market that much more efficient, not having to cater to different income brackets.
Complete consumer conformity! What more could a corporation ask for?
This finally brings us full circle to the subject of communism, and understanding exactly how it can be distinguished from these other
strictly politico-economic philosophies. Communism is defined by the Webster’s Third International Dictionary (Unabridged), as “1a: a
theory advocating elimination of private ownership of property or capital b: a system or condition real or imagined in which goods are
owned commonly rather than privately and are available as needed to each one in a unified group sometimes limited, sometimes
inclusive, and often composed of members living and working together : a similar system preventing the amassing of private goods and
assuring equalitarian returns to those working…”

Of course, definition two, the next definition under the same entry in the same dictionary certainly describes Marxism. The definition
above, however, describes a very large variety of systems of social organization. Most of these are completely unrelated to Marxism.
Most of these are also completely overlooked in the popular consciousness. People use the word “communism” to refer to only one of
many name-brands of communist theory/practice, that is, Marx’s.

Such an indiscretion is unfair and completely intellectually damaging. The harm comes in that there are many schools of thought/practice
that are less well known, and in most cases even less self-aware, that have their own distinct historical and even American significance,
that are swept off of the table and subsequently out of thought and out of discussion.

Now Marxism was by a wide, wide margin, the most popular, well-known, and historically significant version of “communist”
theory/practice. Marxism was important because it was a political phenomenon that massively and overwhelmingly impacted the
historical face of the twentieth century. Maybe even that is an understatement. Many of us still remember the red scare, the cold war, and
the way the earth was divided between two major groups of superpowers for most of a century. So much happened in the twentieth
century as a result of this global divide that its importance could hardly be overstated. The space race, the arms race, nuclear proliferation,
etc.

On the opposing set of digits, perhaps this historical significance is exaggerated by the fact that it all only happened recently. If history
continues to experience an exponentially increasing rate of change due to continued rapid advances in technology and communication, the
twentieth century could become a blip. The tyrants of the not so distant future could dwarf the atrocities of past tyrants, and their deeds
could make the crimes against humanity of the twentieth century look like mere misdemeanors in retrospect. People are generally very
optimistic about the future, trends in history notwithstanding. It is this very optimism that allows them to walk blindly into the same traps
over and over, oblivious like rats in a cage.

Ruling oppressors could arise in centers of power and wealth from which they have never arisen before, and would not be expected.
Society could be vulnerable to new methodologies of authoritarian oppression in ways it never has. We’re all aware of the novelty of the
terrorist threat. Are we not aware of the threat of the level of power being acquired and wielded by the corporate Empire? What if global
corporate rule is to be the fullness of the fourth Reich? Even the classical economist Adam Smith had nothing good to say about
merchant-rule.

Point being, who’s to say we have lived in such a supremely historically important time? Who’s to say important things might happen in
the near future that make Soviet Marxism seem even that much less important than it was in the fifties?

If one were to stretch the period of Marx’s major impacts to the maximum one-hundred and fifty years, that’s still just over two percent of
seven thousand or so years of recorded human history. Pre-Marxist, or non-Marxist communism existed in prehistory, and has in small
but consistent ways throughout history, existed or sprung up in pockets here and there, and continues to exist in significant niches
throughout the globe. It was even, in a twisted and unfortunate way, part of the inspiration for Marxism itself.

There are hundreds of various distinct examples of communism. However, once you eliminate Marxism, all the other types of
communism look amazingly similar. Curiously similar. A small religious group of farmers in North Dakota. Almost all groups of
primitive foragers. Small groups of farmers in the Negev. A small group of Eskimos, sharing rotten seal meat in the North. A small group
of Paleolithic gatherer-hunters, sharing a fire and a fresh kill.

Communism has sprung up in carefully crafted and skillfully led intentional communities among gifted social critics. It has also sprung up
where people lacked any and all sophistication or penchant for social thought. Most of the time, though, it springs up or exists among
small people groups, roughly the same size range a natural tribe could be imagined or expected to be.

The root word of communism is the same as the root word for “community”, and one phrase frequently used to describe non-Marxist
communism is “community of possessions”. Not so long ago, the verb “to communicate”, from the same root word, meant not to transfer
information, but to share. Another related word is “commune”, both the verb and the noun.

The root word of “socialism”, however, is a lot like “society”. Every type of socialism I am aware of except Robert Owen’s addresses
social organization on a national, or nation-state level. Every type of communism I am aware of except Marx’s version addresses social
organization on a tribal or small community level. At the time of writing, Engels said he and Marx “could not have possibly” called their
most well known work the “socialist manifesto”, as in those days socialism was commonly understood to refer to something else,
something more like what Owen described. In hindsight, I believe “socialist manifesto” might have been a much more accurate title for
Marx and Engels’ work.
Apart from the dreamy vision of future fulfillment of the human experience through a siblinghood of humanity, what Marx recommended
and spelled out for the immediate future was definitely socialism, albeit “an extreme form” of socialism, which he carefully explained to
be the only possible pathway towards communism. A possible Achilles’ heel of his theories, however, was that communism had already
been widely attained without such a transitional coup, only, not on a nation-state level.

More often than not, when people say communism can’t work, they are more-or-less talking about Marxism, as per the general confusion
regarding their synonymy. The statement that communism can’t work is immediately falsifiable. The Hutterites of the Northern United
Sates and Canada have maintained a communist economy since 1529, for example.

It should be evident at this point that the actual definition of the word communism is somewhat broader than it is usually held to be.
Communism can refer to things like primitive hunter-gatherers’ well-documented treatment of material goods; it can refer to many of the
hundreds of religious and secular utopian experiments common in America in the eighteen-hundreds, or even found among the very first
American colonies. Again, the Hutterites have lived as communists for almost five-hundred years. Most types of communism are either
voluntary or are a cultural default, such as the type practiced by primitive peoples who know no other way. Only a tiny fraction of
versions of communism are imposed by one people group on another. An even smaller fraction of types are imposed by a central
authority, or involve nation-state politics at all.

If you were an Eskimo, a !Kung bushman, or a cannibal in Papua New Guinea, and you listened to Joe McCarthy’s scathing allegations
against communism (or a translation thereof), you might not have felt personally attacked. Most Americans of that time would probably
not have been pointing their fingers at you. The facts, however, are that although you might not well understand or think too deeply about
your attitudes and practices toward the objects you are surrounded by and interface with and even eat on a daily basis, these attitudes and
practices are technically best described by the very term he derided as the epitome of everything Americans must fear and hate:
Communism!!!

These examples do not entail people groups that have developed radical revolutionary political schemes that threaten the free world. Nor
do they represent submission to the mandates of violent and repressive totalitarian regimes. These people share things not because they
are afraid of government purges and persecution, or even because they put a lot of thought into it, but because it is practical, it works for
them, and perhaps most significantly, it is all they have ever known. People say that communism can’t work, but it does work, and has
worked for thousands of years longer than capitalism has “worked” (or has exploited the work of others).

To outline what is here meant by communism, let us turn once again to the dictionary definition, and break it down piece by piece:

“ a theory advocating elimination of private ownership of property or capital”

The advocacy of doing away with private property has traditionally come in a few flavors. One variety is simply forming a collective, in
which rights to private ownership are voluntarily renounced as a pre-condition of membership. So in this sense, it is a group of people
who wish to eliminate private ownership from within their ranks, or if it is not there to keep it out.

Primitive communists do not advocate the elimination of private property, as private ownership has usually never developed among them,
and is a foreign concept. Isolation from other ways of doing things might prevent them from having much awareness of the significance
of their sharing of things, because they have always done so, know nothing else, and thus have no basis for comparative social analysis or
critique.

Other varieties of communism, including but not limited to Marxism, advocate elimination of the private property rights of others, such as
the type advocated by the antagonist groups in the Peasant Wars of the sixteenth century.

On this basis, we can therefore divide communism into three categories:

1) Primitive communism. This describes the well-documented universal sharing practiced among most hunter-gatherer
communities. Primitive communism has been practiced since pre-history and has been studied quite a bit among primitive
peoples.

2) Voluntary communism. Voluntary communists form or advocate forming groups that practice shared ownership of all their
possessions. This is the form of communism most closely related to our current subject matter. Aspects of voluntary communism
are discussed throughout this book.

3) Forced or imposed communism. Communists-by-imposition such as Marxists advocate sharing among the willing as well as
the unwilling, usually by violent expropriation of the possessors of wealth, and by the subjugation of others for the sake of
incorporating them into such a system.

Historically, the latter type has fared the most poorly. In the case of Marxism, it is a well known case history. The Soviet Union and its
satellite nations imploded, while China and its satellites, though still maintaining a stated goal of future communism, have largely
departed from the path set out by Marx and are increasingly privatizing. It is not so easy to force an unwilling populace to embrace a
collective ideal. In the case of movements like the Peasant Wars, long before Marx, the oppressed class that sought to redeem itself by
forcing wealth and power out of the hand of the oppressor was often crushed by the same fist that held a disproportionate share of wealth
and power firmly to its own breast.

Voluntary communism has fared more successfully than Marxist types, but less successfully on average than primitive types. While some
groups have continued for hundreds of years through the present, others have collapsed, or renounced communism in favor of private
ownership. The success of voluntary communist ventures seems to depend largely on the level of dedication to communist principles,
specifics within the principles themselves, or external circumstances. That being said, some communist groups have thrived and
proliferated despite efforts of the ruling classes or the church to crush them, while some have buckled from the inside even in relatively
easy external conditions.

Primitive communism has been known to be successfully practiced almost indefinitely by primitive peoples, at least until they are infected
by too much contact with the outside world. Primitive communists might have little to no self-awareness of their practice. Western
missionaries are probably one of the most lethal groups of people that infect and destroy primitive communist culture, more often than not
failing to separate between corrupt Western-ism or Americanism and whatever religious concepts they seek to propagate. Primitive
communism is discussed at length in chapter six.

“ b: a system or condition real or imagined in which goods are owned commonly rather than privately and are available as needed to
each one in a unified group sometimes limited, sometimes inclusive”

“Real or imagined” is a noteworthy phrase in this definition. Several authors, such as Plato, Etienne Cabet, and Sir Thomas More have
described imaginary Utopian systems in their works in which community of possessions was a key feature. Imaginary future communism
was a feature of Marx’s works that might have helped “sell” his programme of revolutionary socialism to its adherents.

Voluntary communists organize themselves into groups and freely share most or all of their possessions among themselves. There are
many different types of motivations that seem to inspire people to live this way. They can stem from political, philosophical, religious,
pragmatic, economic and possibly a variety of other reasons. Voluntary communists often practice “limited” forms of communism, simply
meaning that the sharing practiced within the group is not fully extended to those outside the group. This is due largely to the fact that
they often live inside of individualist civilization. It is relatively predictable, that if voluntary communist groups were to be completely
inclusive, they would be exploited by surrounding individualists, who might just cart off their possessions for private consumption,
threatening the group.

Primitive communists are more frequently inclusive, as they exist outside the boundaries of civilization, in a world where possessions
come easily, are not highly valued, accumulation is not desirable, and most strangers they are likely to interact with are also primitive
communists themselves, and would predictably share in return.

“and often composed of members living and working together : a similar system preventing the amassing of private goods and
assuring equalitarian returns to those working”

Communist groups and communal living arrangements are often natural partners. By sharing a house or land, many other communist
practices become almost natural, by degrees. Communal living isn’t for everyone, and it is not necessary for the practice of communism.
It is difficult for Americans, who are socialized to practice extreme individualism, to figure out how to live peacefully with each other.
Some communal living situations are more successful than others. Some have various hang-ups that prevent them from working well.

Also, it is common but not universal for communist groups that exist in free-market countries to commercially interact with the larger
society as a group. This can be part of what is meant by “living and working together”. Some communes run collectively owned
businesses. However, some important differences should be noted between a true communist enterprise and many “co-operatively owned”
or “worker owned” businesses. Worker-owned or co-operatively owned businesses represent an important step toward communist-
enterprise, and are valid in their own right. However, there are distinctions.

In communist enterprise, the “ownership” structure is unique. It is truly collective in nature, and may or may not be divisible. In what
cases it is divisible, the assets, rights, etc., are divisible only in equal portions. Profit is handled uniquely, as well. It is not funneled into
anyone’s pockets, but is often used as future “working capital” or can be distributed outside the group or shared between groups, and the
workers needs are either provided for by the commune, or money/ goods are distributed equally or on a by-need basis. Capital is not
distributed in such a way that anyone is able to accumulate large sums they are privately entitled to. Communism and commercial
interaction are not necessarily opposed, but communist practice and personal wealth or unequal distribution are certainly ideologically
hostile.

Worker-owned “collectives” may hide the fact that there still might be a majority owner, who in some cases gets the lion’s share of profits
from the business, while the portion the workers actually own is comparatively small, sometimes only a fraction. It is a progressive step
toward communist practice, but can be limited in value by various degrees, depending on the amount equality is stressed.
“Living and working” together can also mean, in more cases, that the community is self-sufficient and has little to no commercial
interaction with outsiders. This is true of most primitive communist groups. It is also true for some voluntary communist groups. These
differing ways of “living and working together” are not mutually exclusive. One can be done for the sake of developing the other, or they
could completely overlap.

An alternative definition that also captures some of the actual breadth of the term can be found in the Harper Dictionary of Modern
Thought. There, communism is defined by Bullock and Stallybrass as:

“A term denoting: (1) A set of ideas and the ideological tradition…[sic] connected with them. Historically the point of reference
for communist ideas is the communal ownership of all property. Thus primitive communism refers to non-literate societies, in
which basic economic resources (such as land, boats, etc.) belong to the community as a whole and not to individuals or families.
Religious groups (such as early Christians or medieval monasteries) are referred to as examples of communist organization; so
are historical communities, such as Sparta, the Muenster Anabaptists, or the Jesuit Paraguay republic, as well as theoretical
schemes for ideal societies, such as Plato’s Republic, Sir Thomas Moore’s Utopia, or Campanella’s City of the Sun.” (Def.1,
116)

Thanks again.