The following is a short article pulled from a larger piece planning to be published later this year (2024), exploring the precise language, terminology, and key concepts of Marxist-Leninist theory and praxis
The Crisis
The terms Socialism and Communism are used popularly to describe many things, from the Soviet Union to the Third Reich. In popular American discourse, these terms are used to describe, on the reactionary side, any action by a government or private corporation that is viewed as wielding too much authority—as synonyms for authoritarianism; on the progressive side, as any action by a government or private corporation towards popular interests—as synonyms for progressivism. Within Marxist academic and political circles there are more definite characteristics outlined, but no singular, specific definition, nor analysis of the progression of these definitions, is readily available. While the foundations of such terms were outlined theoretically by Marx and Engels in the 19th century, it appears necessary to “color in the lines” with the experiences and further developments which have occurred in the more-than-century since, and an acute need is felt for providing a more concise framework for modern revolutionary work.
If clearer definitions of the terms Socialism and Communism are not outlined, and the origins and development of these terms not clearly analyzed, then this continued confusion and disorganization—this crisis—around basic terminology and principles will not only hinder the development of the international Communist movement itself, but, even further, will allow the continued distortion of these terms for imperialist and fascist propaganda purposes. Therefore, we must begin with two simple questions: what is Communism, and what is Socialism?
General Characteristics
While often used interchangeably with one-another, the terms Socialism and Communism are not synonymous. Likewise adding to the confusion, both terms encapsulate both noun as well as verb usage, as well as adjective.
Socialism is both the noun, i.e. the state of affairs, as well as the verb, i.e. the process by which that state of affairs is achieved. Likewise with the term Communism. Compounding this confusion, the term Socialism itself is viewed by Communists as the process (verb) and initial stage (noun) necessary for achieving Communism (noun); meaning that Communism (verb) may be conflated with Socialism (verb and noun), as the former necessarily relies on the latter. This simplification of conflating Socialism with Communism, while necessarily making it easier to understand at a basic level, is a false-foundation that quickly compounds if not corrected into an entirely new form of the term in question—like a baker cutting corners when making a cake, resulting in the creation of an entirely different cake than the one in the recipe. Finally, they are likewise used in the adjective form to describe an individual or organization actively involved in furthering the cause of Socialism or Communism respectively.
Here we see some general characteristics emerge:
Socialism:
Verb: The process of establishing a Socialist society
Noun: The state of affairs denoting a Socialist society
Adjective: A person or organization actively involved in furthering the cause of Socialism, i.e. who is/are working in furtherance of the verb, towards the nounCommunism:
Verb: The process of establishing a Communist society
Noun: The state of affairs denoting a Communist society
Adjective: A person or organization actively involved in furthering the cause of Communism, i.e. who is/are working in furtherance of the verb, towards the noun
Essential Qualities
These general characteristics reveal these terms as essentially qualitative. They denote the essential qualities of a process (verb), a state of affairs (noun), or a person/group (adjective).
These terms denoting essential qualities means that they express facets of a thing that are foundational to that thing in some way, intentional by that thing, and arising as both the outcome and genesis of some level of commitment and effort by that thing. Furthermore, to describe them as qualitative attributes is to say that they are both the subject and object of dialectical motion—of both creating material change, and of being materially changed in dialectical motion; as being the outcome of prior material change, and the cause of future material change in some form. As these qualitative aspects are foundational to that thing in some way, it is meant that the thing itself has arisen in such a manner, and shall continue arising through dialectical progression—that, while material, it is progressive and fluid. This in turn gives rise to the quality of intentionality, that, while arising naturally as both outcome and genesis of further development, necessarily requires and encapsulates the material contributions and labor of individual subjects.
In describing these qualities as essential, foundational, and denoted by intentionality, any notions of these qualities as accidental are rejected; both in the contemporary sense of un-intentional actions or outcomes, as well as in the traditional sense denoting a quality that is not primary to the identity or existence of a thing. Just as the maintenance of late-stage Capitalism is not an accidental expression or quality of contemporary global political-economic relations, so too Socialism and Communism are not accidental, nor can they be; it is precisely in the contradiction between these intentionalities as part of the world-historic progression of humanity, that the crises of the present emerge. That is, in the arising of the contradiction between labor and capital. As described in Part 3, Chapter 23 of the Soviet Academy of Social Science’s textbook Political Economy:
There can be no peaceful 'growing' of capitalism into socialism, as preached by the opportunists, because of the opposite natures of the very foundations of bourgeois and socialist society and of the antagonistic interests of labour and capital. The transition from capitalism to socialism is only possible by way of proletarian revolution and the dictatorship of the proletariat.
Specific Characteristics, or
Towards Scientific Socialism
In light of these general characteristics and essential qualities, the verb and adjective forms of Socialism and Communism are clarified in the their descriptive usage, and the specific characteristics of Socialism and Communism as nouns further come into view:
Socialism:
A state of affairs, consisting of multiple stages, wherein ownership of the means of production and State management belongs to the working class.
Communism:
A state of affairs wherein the functions of State management have withered away; a classless, moneyless, borderless society encompassing the whole human race.
Just as Vladimir Lenin described imperialism as the highest stage of Capitalism, Karl Marx described what we here define as Socialism and Communism as themselves being higher and lower stages, or phases, of Communism. Modern distinctions, such as those we have arrived at here, are derived from Lenin’s work in identifying Socialism as the period of transition between Capitalism and Communism, Stalin’s work in elaborating on the nature of dialectical and historical materialism and identifying the Socialist mode of production as remaining constant across later-stage Socialism into the higher stage of Communism, as well as Mao Zedong’s work further elaborating on the nature of dialectical development, the method of material analysis, and the developmental processes for achieving Socialism in a nation which has not undergone full Capitalist development, as well as further contemporary developments derived primarily from the Communist Parties of China, Cuba, and Vietnam, the Lao People’s Revolutionary Party, and the Workers’ Party of Korea. This understanding clarifies that, while leaning more towards the common interpretation of Socialism or Communism as being synonymous with progressivism, both popular understandings of these terms are, at best, inadequate; that adequating Socialism with fascism or authoritarianism reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of both.
As relates to the aforementioned Parties and revolutionaries, the theories and developments ascertained through real-world experiences involving the implementation of Marxist-Leninist theory to actually-existing material conditions gave rise to the term Actually-Existing Socialism (AES). In adopting this terminology, originating from the Soviet Union, the international Communist movement recognized that the movement towards world Socialism, and ultimately Communism, was—and still largely is—in its infancy. Recent speeches and writings remain united in this view, with President and Communist Party of China General Secretary Xi Jinping stating in 2021 that “the development of socialism is not only a long-term historical process, but also a process that needs to be divided into different historical stages.”
In light of these specific characteristics, it is clarified that the emergence of Socialism in its relation to Communism is as the stage that comes first, necessarily preceding it, and preparing the way for its emergence. Their relationship is, in other words, progressive. Therefore, taken in view with the essential qualities of Socialism and Communism as essential rather than accidental, their essential intentionality appears as fundamentally progressive, or positive in nature, as opposed to deriving from simple negation (e.g. apophatic theology). Arising from the synthesis of contradictory factors across the spectrum of human development in progressive, dialectical motion, essential Socialist-ness or Communist-ness neither derives, nor diverges, from a singular factor, nor a singular negation. This further leads us to the question of idealism versus materialism, and the emergence of Scientific Socialism.