Socialism and Communism Compared

Democratic socialism holds that where there is universal suffrage the working population is a majority and can achieve its ends by winning elections, and that a revolution destroys the constitutional protections that population also needs.

The exchange between them. The communist says that reforms are concessions which stabilise the system and postpone the change; the democratic socialist replies that a century of legislation has delivered the eight hour day, social insurance, public health and universal schooling, while revolutions delivered one-party states.

3. The state

Communism: an instrument of class rule, to be captured, used in the transition, and then to wither away.

Democratic socialism: a machine which can be captured and used permanently for social purposes, and whose constitutional protections are valuable in themselves.

4. Political pluralism

Communism, in its Leninist form: a vanguard party which alone represents the class's real interest, and therefore no room for a competing party claiming to represent it.

Democratic socialism: multi-party competition, opposition, a free press and the acceptance of electoral defeat, which is the single sharpest institutional difference between the two.

5. Attitude to liberal rights

Communism regards them as formal, and as instruments by which the owning class protects itself.

Democratic socialism regards them as genuine gains to be kept and extended, which is why it fought for the franchise rather than dismissing it.

6. Speed and reversibility

Communism seeks a decisive and irreversible transformation.

Democratic socialism proceeds by measures that can be reversed at the next election, which it regards as the price of consent and communists regard as the proof of futility.

7. Internationalism

Communism is internationalist by doctrine, holding that the workers have no country, and organised internationally.

Democratic socialism has operated overwhelmingly through national parties within national parliaments.

The historical split

An answer that gives the history is stronger than one that gives only the doctrine.

One movement until the First World War. European socialist parties contained both tendencies and argued within one organisation.

Bernstein's revisionism, from the late 1890s, argued that Marx's predictions were not being borne out, that the middle class was not disappearing, that workers' conditions were improving through legislation, and that socialism should be pursued by democratic means. This is the intellectual origin of social democracy.

The war and the Russian revolution split it. Parties divided over whether to support their national governments in the war and over whether to follow the Bolshevik model, and the two wings became separate movements.

And the split repeated in India, where communist parties divided over parliamentary participation and armed struggle, and where the Congress Socialist Party and later socialist parties took the democratic route.

The record

MU asks for a comparative study, so it is fair to compare the results, and the comparison should be made carefully.

Democratic socialism's record is the welfare states of Western Europe, labour protection, public health services, universal schooling and pensions, achieved without abolishing markets or elections, and reversible at an election.

Communism's record is rapid industrialisation from a low base and substantial gains in literacy and basic health in several countries, together with the calculation problem, one-party rule, the absence of any mechanism for correcting error, and, in several states, famine and mass repression.

In India specifically, the most substantial land reform was carried out by communist State governments, working through legislation and elections, which is the democratic method used by a communist party.

A worked example

A country decides its steel industry, which is privately owned and highly concentrated, should serve the public interest.

The communist prescription. Expropriate the owners and take the industry into social ownership, as part of a general programme of abolishing private ownership of production. Compensation is not owed, because the property was accumulated from surplus value in the first place.

The democratic socialist prescription. Nationalise the industry by legislation with compensation, or leave it private and regulate prices, safety and employment, tax the profits, and require worker representation on the board. Whichever is chosen must be enacted by a legislature and can be undone by the next one.

The three questions that expose the difference.

Is compensation owed? Communism says no in principle; democratic socialism says yes, because it accepts the legal order it is operating within.

What if the government loses the next election and the industry is privatised again? The democratic socialist accepts it as the price of the method; the communist treats it as proof that the method cannot work.

Who decides that this industry should be taken and not another? In the democratic route, a legislature after public argument. In the revolutionary route, the party.

That third question is the one to end on. It is where the two doctrines part, and it is where the twentieth century's evidence is.

Distinctions that carry marks

What this comparison is NOT

It is not a difference of degree only. On the ordinary usage the difference in method is a difference of kind, and it produced two separate movements that fought each other for a century.

Communism is not simply extreme socialism. It has a distinct analysis, a distinct theory of the state, and a distinct organisational form in the vanguard party.

Democratic socialism is not the same as modern liberalism, though they overlap in policy. Chapter 700's table makes the distinction: the liberal justifies state action by reference to liberty, the socialist by reference to equality and to ownership.

Communist parties are not necessarily revolutionary in practice. Indian communist parties have contested elections since independence, and their most substantial achievement came through legislation.

Quick revision

1. Say first which socialism. In Marxist usage it is communism's lower stage, distributing according to work. In ordinary usage it is a different family, most of whose branches reject revolution.
2. They agree on the diagnosis, on common ownership or control in some degree, on formal freedom being empty without means, on work as fulfilment, and on speaking for the working population.
3. Seven differences: extent of common ownership; method; the state; political pluralism; attitude to liberal rights; reversibility; and internationalism.
4. The decisive one is method: revolution against elections and legislation.
5. The history: one movement until 1914; Bernstein's revisionism from the late 1890s; the split over the war and the Russian revolution; and the same split repeated in India.
6. The record: welfare states, labour protection and public services on one side; rapid industrialisation with one-party rule, no mechanism for correction, and famine and repression in several states on the other.
7. In India the most substantial land reform was achieved by communist State governments through legislation, which is the argument settled by evidence.

Test yourself

1. Why must an answer on this topic begin by distinguishing two senses of socialism? Because in Marxist usage socialism is the lower stage of communism, with social ownership, classes abolished and distribution according to work contributed, so that the comparison is between two stages of one process and the differences are of degree. In ordinary political usage socialism names a wider family of doctrines, most of which reject revolution and accept a mixed economy, so that the comparison is between two ideologies and the differences are fundamental. An answer that does not say which sense it is using is incoherent from the first paragraph.

2. On what do socialism and communism agree? That the great inequalities of a market society are produced by its institutions and particularly by private ownership of the means of production rather than by unequal natural talent. That production should be commonly owned or socially controlled in some degree. That formal freedom without material means is empty. That work should be a source of human fulfilment rather than a commodity. And that the interests of the working population should be the object of policy, both being movements which speak for it.

3. What is the decisive difference, and how do the two sides argue it? Method. Communism holds that the owning class controls the state, the law and the prevailing ideas and will therefore never permit its own expropriation, so that revolution is necessary. Democratic socialism holds that under universal suffrage the working population is a majority and can achieve its ends by winning elections, and that a revolution destroys the constitutional protections that population also needs. The communist replies that reforms are concessions which stabilise the system; the democratic socialist replies that a century of legislation produced the eight hour day, social insurance, public health and universal schooling, while revolutions produced one-party states.

4. What is the sharpest institutional difference between them? Political pluralism. Communism in its Leninist form rests on a vanguard party which alone represents the real interest of the class, so there is no room for a competing party claiming to represent it, and no mechanism by which the party can be removed. Democratic socialism rests on multi-party competition, an opposition, a free press and the acceptance of electoral defeat. That difference is what determines whether a system can correct its own errors, and it is where the twentieth century's evidence lies.

5. What does the Indian experience contribute to this comparison? That the two need not be arranged as doctrine against doctrine. Communist parties in India have contested elections since independence and have formed State governments, and their most substantial achievement, land reform in Kerala and West Bengal, was carried out by legislation within a constitutional democracy. That is a communist party using the democratic socialist method and achieving by it what revolution was said to be necessary for, which makes the Indian record the strongest single piece of evidence in the argument about means.