Skip to main content

How do communists differ from socialists?

The "so-called socialists" are divided into three categories.

Reactionary Socialists

This category consists of adherents of a feudal and patriarchal society which has already been destroyed, and is still daily being destroyed, by big industry and world trade and their creation, bourgeois society. 
This category concludes, from the evils of existing society, that feudal and patriarchal society must be restored because it was free of such evils. In one way or another, all their proposals are directed to this end. 
This category of reactionary socialists, for all their seeming partisanship and their scalding tears for the misery of the proletariat, is nevertheless energetically opposed by the communists for the following reasons: 
• It strives for something which is entirely impossible.

• It seeks to establish the rule of the aristocracy, the guildmasters, the small producers, and their retinue of absolute or feudal monarchs, officials, soldiers, and priests – 
a society which was, to be sure, free of the evils of present-day society but which brought it at least as many evils without even offering to the oppressed workers the prospect of liberation through a communist revolution. 
• As soon as the proletariat becomes revolutionary and communist, these reactionary socialists show their true colors by immediately making common cause with the bourgeoisie against the proletarians. 
Bourgeois Socialists

This category consists of adherents of present-day society who have been frightened for its future by the evils to which it necessarily gives rise. What they want, is to maintain this society while getting rid of the evils which are an inherent part of it. 
To this end, some propose mere welfare measures – while others come forward with grandiose systems of reform which, under the pretense of re-organizing society, are in fact intended to preserve the foundations, and hence the life, of existing society. 
Communists must unremittingly struggle against these bourgeois socialists because they work for the enemies of communists and protect the society which communists aim to overthrow. 
Democratic Socialists

Democratic socialists are either proletarians who are not yet sufficiently clear about the conditions of the liberation of their class, or they are representatives of the petty bourgeoisie, a class which, 
prior to the achievement of democracy and the socialist measures to which it gives rise, has many interests in common with the proletariat.

It follows that, in moments of action, the communists will have to come to an understanding with these democratic socialists, 
and in general to follow as far as possible a common policy with them – provided that these socialists do not enter into the service of the ruling bourgeoisie and attack the communists. 
It is clear that this form of co-operation in action does not exclude the discussion of differences.

For further reference, i recommend 'The Principles of Communism' (1847) by Frederick Engels. 
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Marx’s Theory of Alienation

Capitalist alienation is a Marxist notion that refers to individuals' estrangement or separation from their work, the output of their labour, and each other within the capitalist mode of production. This phenomena arises from capitalism's fundamental contradictions, which result in a system in which labour is commodified and employees are reduced to mere appendages of the means of production. Capitalist alienation happens when labour is converted into a commodity that can be bought and sold on the market just like any other commodity. As a result, the labour of the worker is separated from the product, and the worker is alienated from the outcome of their labour. Furthermore, workers are cut off from their own creative potential because their job is dictated by the necessities of the capitalist system rather than their own aspirations and interests. "The alienation of man thus appeared as the fundamental evil of capitalist society.”   ―   Karl Marx , Selected Writings in...
Post a Comment
Read more

Karl Marx: On The Great Indian Revolt of 1857

Marx's observations on the Revolt of 1857 are a distinctive component to the study of modern Indian history. Marx was almost the very first to grasp the true nature of the revolt. Karl Marx wrote 31 articles about the 1857 Indian revolt from July to Oct 1857 for the American newspaper 'New York Daily Tribune (NYDT)’. Although the British called it a mutiny/uprising, Marx called 1857 'a national revolt' . When Marx began writing articles about India in the New York Times in 1853, he saw the British as India's saviours. He regarded British colonialism as a necessary evil to break Asia's sluggish economy by investing in the forces required for capitalist expansion. Marx characterized British colonization in India as the "Double Mission of the British". In the puberty, they were contributing positively by breaking down India's Asiatic mode of production, which was hampering its path to capitalism. Second, they were rejuvenating the economy in order t...
Post a Comment
Read more

On "Why I am an Atheist", an essay by Bhagat Singh

Bhagat Singh wrote "Why I Am An Atheist" in 1930 while he was a prisoner in the Lahore Central Jail. "The People", a weekly publication by Lala Lajpat Rai, published this book in 1931. To be clear, this is a 24-page essay rather than a book. This essay opens with a question whether vanity was the cause of Bhagat Singh’s atheism. Obviously, so many people had blamed him of being an atheist and he responded to this accusation clearly through this essay. He claimed that neither arrogance nor vanity prevented him from keeping his belief. He rejects the existence of the omnipotent supreme entity; vanity is not the cause of his denial.  Bhagat Singh has been atheist since he was a young, ordinary man. He comes from a pretty religious household. He used to spend hours reciting the Gayatri Mantra in class, in fact. But ultimately he started questioning his belief, and he began to think on disbelief. When he joined the revolutionary party and when he came to know his comrade...
Post a Comment
Read more