What’s the Difference Between Communism and Socialism? Nothing Really

I recently came across this meme of Bernie Sanders. “Wants to give you free college, so you can learn the difference between socialism and communism.” At first I laughed, and then I became very sad. This picture explains just how little Americans actually understand Socialism. So let’s dispel this misconception, without having to go to college. What is the difference between Socialism and Communism?

So Who’s Communist Again? Who’s Socialist?

Americans condemned Soviet Russia as one of the Communist capitals of the world. That’s funny, because the Soviets called themselves, “The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics” and they preached Bolshevik Socialism.

In Maoist China, (one of the worst time periods to live in), Mao Zedong was the Leader of the Communist Party of China, and preached to the people, “the power of Socialism!”

We condemn North Korea by labelling them a Communist nation, but what does North Korea call itself? A self-sustaining Socialist state. Obviously the self-sustaining part is laughable; their main source of income is throwing a nuclear, temper-tantrum and begging for money.

But there seems to be a misunderstanding in definitions here. We seem to condemn Communism, yet, so far, Socialism, which has seen a revival in recent years, doesn’t seem to be much different. Maybe there’s more to it, maybe these countries label themselves Socialist just to sound morally superior. We’ll have to look at the definitions and the economics.

Definitions and Economics

From Dictionary.com:

Communism- A theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

Socialism- A theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

I was actually very surprised to find that their definitions were strikingly similar. I figured I would have to dig through political language, but the definitions are almost identical. However, Socialism’s definition doesn’t specify that the state will control the means of production. It states that the community will control production. So how can the community control production? Although it’s possible for socialism to exist in an anarchy, (the economical definition of anarchy), there’s never been such a society to exist. The only practical way for the community to own the means of production is if it is owned by a government that represents the community. So even though the definition of Socialism doesn’t specify state ownership, in practical terms, that’s exactly what it means.

Communism’s definition, also doesn’t specify that the state owns the means of production. However, the Communist definition implies that the state owns all property, meaning that the state must also own the property needed to produce; hence the means of production. The state owns all existing property and all property that will be produced, which also means that it controls the distribution of that property.

Even though they’re not word for word, these definitions are exactly the same.

So do the countries I listed above, Soviet Union, Maoist China, and North Korea, match the above definitions?

• All of the countries listed above practice a system in which all, or almost all of the means of production are controlled by the state. This means that the state has control of what is produced, how it is produced, and how it’s distributed.
• All of the countries listed above practice a system in which the collective is valued more than the individual.
• All of the countries listed above revere a Marxist- Leninism philosophy. These two philosophers formed the basic reasoning behind modern Socialism and Communism.

I think we’ve shown just how different Communism and Socialism really are. Not much different at all. These terms are, in fact, interchangeable.

To be fair, we could imply one difference, that being the level of tyranny seen in each system. We seem to want to label tyrannical, collective governments as Communist and less tyrannical ones as Socialist. Since we’ve already established that there is no real difference between the two labels, obviously both can be tyrannical. Often this is exactly what happens, these systems of government are designed in a way that the only acceptable solution to any problem is more government regulation.

If the citizens living in a Socialist-style government experience civil unrest, as they ultimately will (i.e. Economic Calculation Problem), the agreed upon solution to that problem will most likely be more government regulation. It would be contradictory to their beliefs to revert to market principles as a solution to any problem. More government inherently removes more rights. This process tends to continue until the citizens find themselves in a George Orwell novel.

As Ludwig von Mises wrote in 1950:

“The world is split today between two camps fighting each other with the up most fearments: the Communists and Anti-Communists. The magniloquent rhetoric to which these factions resort in their feud, obscures the fact that they both perfectly agree in the ultimate end of their program for mankind’s social and economical organization. They both aim at the abolition of private enterprise and private ownership of the means of production, and at the establishment of Socialism.”

-Preface to “Socialism, An Economical and Sociological Analysis,” New York, 1950.