What do socialists mean by ‘communism’?

Workers on a barricade in the Paris Commune of 1871 (Pic: Picryl)

There are lots of different versions of socialism knocking around. Democratic socialists are giving Donald Trump headaches in the US. And if you read the Daily Mail newspaper, foreign secretary Ed Miliband is a “hardline socialist”.

The term socialism covers a broad range of ideas, from moderate to militant. But communism means something different. 

The label communist was dropped by those revolted by Stalinist atrocities committed in the name of communism. 

But people dreamt of a world of equality long before the stain of Stalinism spread.

The leader of the Peasants’ Revolt back in 1381 believed that all goods should be held in common.

All the great revolutionary movements incubated ideas of equality with the poor finding ways to demand an equal share of the earth’s bounty.

When capitalism emerged, revulsion at competition and exploitation prompted thousands of working class people to embrace communist ideas and join in with the great experiment of setting up communes. 

Karl Marx and Frederick Engels shared the dream of an equal society. Their distinct contribution was to establish how to achieve it.

Their idea of communism was not handed down by an enlightened group on behalf of the masses. It grew out the struggles of workers.

Marx predicted that after a successful revolution, the working class would take control of production.

Modern ways of producing can’t be divided up among individuals—it can only be run collectively.

Under capitalism, individuals don’t control what they produce. They are subjected to the market, which puts profit over need.

They exchange their labour power for a wage, which gives them limited access to a tiny proportion of what is produced.

Under socialism, people would collectively control what they produce.

After a revolution, workers would need their own state to run society. This would not be a coercive body ruling in the interests of the minority. It would be a democratic state capable of defending, deepening and spreading the revolution.

Revolutions can erupt suddenly. Old regimes can fall quickly. But moving from a world shaped by capitalism to a communist world will take time.

Marx wrote, “What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, just as it emerges from capitalist society.”

Consequently, some of the old relationships would persist, particularly when it comes to individual right to share in society’s products.

The individual would contribute their labour and get back in exchange enough to satisfy their needs.

No one would “earn” some inflated “salary” that reflected, not their labour, but their ability to exploit. There would be a fair distribution of the social product to every individual.

But this would only be a start. As production developed in line with social and individual need, abundance would abolish competition between individuals.

The division of labour and the stultifying opposition between mental and physical labour would come to an end.

With the achievement of real equality would come the necessity to respond to the fact that individuals are unequal in their capacities and needs.

The workers’ state itself would begin to wither away. In all previous class societies, the minority exploited the majority and could only guarantee its domination through the state.

Without exploitation, and the majority class in control, the need for the state disappears.

The workers’ state dissolves as society ceases to be a class society and becomes the associated power of the producers.

The higher form of communism would emerge.

This society, Marx predicted, might be organised along the principle, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”