Why Do People Conflate Socialism and Communism? Is It on Purpose?
There are two definitions of socialism in the dictionary. According to one of them, communism and socialism are practically the same thing. In essence, they are two sides of the same coin, with socialism operating at a community level and communism at a state or nation level.
Community vs. State Level
Consider the scenario where I have two electric scooters. If I share one with you, that's socialism. This represents a community-level approach where resources are shared directly among individuals. However, if the government collects my two electric scooters and provides me with a public transportation pass, that's communism. This illustrates a state-level approach where the assets are owned and controlled by the government.
Marxist and Leninist Views
Marcus Marx didn't distinguish between socialism and communism in his writings. It was Friedrich Engels and later Vladimir Lenin who introduced the idea that socialism is the lower stage of communism. Lenin identified socialism with the initial stage of communism, as Marx distinguished them. This usage was followed by Marxist-Leninists and has permeated the discourse to some extent.
It is important to note that social democracy and welfare state capitalism in Western Europe are sometimes referred to as socialism. This usage has evolved from the term's original Marxist meaning in the late 1800s, which was more closely aligned with classical Marxism.
Socialism and Communism: A Comparison
Socialism can be seen as communism on "training wheels." In simpler terms, socialism is to communism what a lump on the breast is to a cancer-riddled breast, as Lenin himself explained. The goal of socialism is communism, as it seeks to eventually develop into a society where all assets and resources are state-owned and the state makes the final decisions in all matters, often leading to a form of authoritarianism.
Compared to socialism, communism involves state ownership of all means of production and the state having the final say in all economic and social matters. This can tie communism closely to authoritarian systems of governance.
Socialism, on the other hand, involves state ownership of certain sectors, such as healthcare, public transportation, and education, while allowing private ownership in other sectors.
Capitalism and Its Relationship to Socialism
It is a common misconception to believe that capitalism is the antonym of socialism. In reality, a combination of both systems is possible. For example, a government may own parts of key industries to ensure fair wages, prices, and revenue generation, while allowing private enterprise to operate in other sectors. The post office is a prime example of this mix. If the United States Postal Service (USPS) were to disappear today, FedEx and UPS would likely significantly reduce their wages and increase their prices.
The Political Sabotage of Public Works
A significant issue with government-owned businesses is political sabotage by those who want only privately owned entities for personal profit. Political interference can undermine the success and efficiency of public works, leading to issues such as underfunding, mismanagement, and subpar service quality.
It's important to recognize that both socialism and communism have their merits and challenges. While some argue that government control can lead to authoritarianism and inefficiencies, others believe in the importance of public ownership and control of certain sectors to ensure fair play and public benefit.
Ultimately, the choice between socialism, communism, and capitalism depends on the socio-economic context and the values of the society in question. Different systems may work better in different regions and at different times, which is why there is ongoing debate and experimentation with different forms of governance and economic policy.