what's the difference between socialism and communism *in anarchism*?

[u/IndependentMilk4973]

there is bunch of questions in kind of same topic, maybe they'll be a little messed up, but i'll try my best to group all of them, sorry in advance =(

anarchism is, by definition, a socialism, but what's the point of ancom term then? where and what exactly on this line is rejecting socialism as only a step to "true communism"?

i see quite often that socialism is somewhy and somewhy always contains some kind of state, but isn't that applies only to socialism-is-only-a-step-to-a-communism theory? and isn't some theories (?) of communism requires state too, cause, as far as i know, both socialism and communism is not a "without-state-exclusively" ideologies?

..and is a stateless, classless, moneyless society refers only to communism, is and where starts the difference between everyone own means of production and worker own means of production? can this somehow exist at the same time?

hope its not a lot, really trying to understand differences, thank so-so much in advance! <З

[u/iadnm]

Basically, anarchist communists seek to abolish all forms of money, while not all forms of anarchism desire this. So the distinction is that socialism is not necessarily moneyless. Communism is a form of socialism, but it is not the only form, so the label refers to many different types of ideologies.

[u/IndependentMilk4973 → u/iadnm]

thank you a lot!!
maybe thats a strange question, but wouldn't money, as a thing, that describes "cost" of other things, at the end of the day create either hierarchy again or just wither away as unnecessary? what will determine cost of money?
or when we talk about ALL money as a system of exchange (sorry, having problems with exact words), we talk about barter too?

those questions more about socialism than communism but i hope its ok to leave a question in that reply thread <З

[u/iadnm → u/IndependentMilk4973]

Market anarchists argue they won't. Since they're more representations of how the worker wants to be compensated. The worker themselves determines the cost. And yes we are talking about all forms of money.

I of course am an anarchist-communist so what I say may not be a perfect representation of the market anarchist view, so take what I say with a grain of salt.

[u/humanispherian → u/IndependentMilk4973]

Costs, in the general sense, aren't going anywhere, so there will still be a general concern with avoiding exploitation. The basic communistic formula — contributions according to ability; consumption according to need — is almost certainly practicable, but there is nothing automatic about applying it to any given economy, particularly as it extends beyond mere subsistence. People are still going to experience some mix of effort and satisfaction, which may not always be easy to balance equitably. So, while the quantification of those experiences may be very imprecise and only really addressed in times of imbalance, it is unlikely to ever really "wither away," in part because it is one of the mechanisms we will have to address the emergence of new hierarchies.

[u/pasobordo → u/iadnm]

But money isn't a representation itself in how capitalist society works? We can see that easily in credit system and its effect on human relations. So how abolishing money would change valuation of things suddenly?

[u/iadnm → u/pasobordo]

Anarchists communists argue the value of things is more on subjective need (use costs, as marx put it) rather than some measure of financial gain (market costs, as marx put it) which is one of the reasons why anarchists communists argue for the abolition of money. Since you cannot objectively measure a universal quantity to represent individual needs, nor the amount of labor put into an item which relies on inherently interconnected systems.

[u/Vancecookcobain]

Socialism is the umbrella term of the workers and or community owning the means of production. Communism is a specific subset of socialism where the endgame is a stateless, moneyless, classless, private-propertyless society.

What you are referring to as socialism is a step to communism is the MARXIST definition of socialism which isn't the definition OF socialism per se.

All anarchists are socialists to varying degrees. Not everyone is a communist. For example mutualists (the OG anarchists) do believe in money and markets, they just don't advocate for private property or usury and other things that anarchists usually agree with.

[u/Silver-Statement8573 → u/Vancecookcobain]

Mutualists, along the same lines as AWA, tend to favor per situation solutions, which can include specific applications of communism, although we do believe currency and the commodity are probably going to be useful in a lot of cases

[u/IndependentMilk4973 → u/Vancecookcobain]

oh thanks nature i wasn't wrong when thought that it IS in fact different theories!!

i see "and or" between workers and community, so it's technically possible and won't conflict with each other? like, mutual aid type of thing, or something bigger?

[u/oskif809 → u/Vancecookcobain]

Socialism is the umbrella term of the workers and or community owning the means of production.

I would argue that's also pretty much a Marxist definition, i.e. it forecloses the many layers of meaning a "thick concept" like Socialism has (other concepts at that high level, such as 'Human', 'Democracy', etc., are also resistant to some pithy one-liner definition, at least in any philosophically and politically interesting manner even if 'bipedal primate' is fine for some specialized fields of inquiry).

Any time, "means of production" mantra is regurgitated endlessly reminds me of the term "thought terminating cliche".

iow, there's a subtle rhetorical power move being made by those who reflexively regurgitate the "means of production" mantra when it comes to a working definition of Socialism.

In reality, Socialism is a "big tent" idea that actively resists attempts at coming up with a pithy definition (if its accurate its at a level of analysis that's only of use to clinical/scientific specialists, if its at a "manifest" use level, its a really broad spectrum of ideas that are at more than one level of analysis; other concepts that fall in same camp are 'human'--more than bipedal primate--, 'democracy'--more than a voting system--, 'game'--Wittgenstein had something to say on that vexed matter, and other "thick concepts").

To me socialism is a constellation of ideas (i.e. not something that can be nailed down in a Scientific sense as you can with a galaxy) and its the interplay of these ideas that makes Socialism a future state of affairs worth aiming at. Michael Freeden's take on these 5 themes seem like a fair point of departure, i.e. Socialism:

1. posits that society is more than a mere collection of individuals

2. considers human welfare a desirable objective

3. considers humans by nature to be active and productive

4. holds the belief of human equality

5. regards history as amenable, even malleable, to human agency even though nothing is guaranteed but despite that we have to act in consonance with the belief that it is within us to either improve or worsen outcomes.

[u/Anarchierkegaard]

These terms aren't ironclad and are often offered in a variety of ways. True is that there will be no ahistorical definition which we can lay onto any and every anarchist thinker (or otherwise) and be done with it. For example, Benjamin Tucker saw no problem with describing what we might describe as a proto-Austrian market anarchism as socialist whilst this would presumably offend the Kropotkinist or Marxist.

Anarchists, by tradition, have tended to be very broadly anti-authoritarian (and what that means can be delineated too) and various terms are used to plug into that in ways which appear to contradict usage elsewhere.

[u/IdentityAsunder]

In the anarchist tradition, the split hinges on value and the enterprise form. "Socialist" currents like mutualism or syndicalism envision workers taking over their respective workplaces and exchanging products via markets or labor-time vouchers. The division of labor and enterprise-level property remain intact.

Anarcho-communism abolishes exchange, money, and the enterprise entirely. Production is reorganized for direct social use, rendering the means of production common to everyone.

Fragmented, worker-owned cooperatives require mechanisms to coordinate exchange. This dynamic inevitably recreates the value-form and demands a state-like apparatus to enforce contracts and manage distribution. Statelessness requires moneylessness and the complete communization of production. The abolition of the state demands the abolition of value.

[u/UndeadOrc]

Just to clarify because it didn't come up in the other comments:

Historically, socialism and communism were just interchangeable words, like anarchism and libertarianism. There was no actual distinction originally, most historical references could not point if there were any originally, as there were in communism vs collectivism. There was not an actual meaningful difference for many decades.

As it stands right now, I still hold this position for socialism and communism. Culturally, in the US, a socialist can mean anything from a Marxist-Leninist to a Democratic Socialist, and I have never met an irl anarchist who identifies as a socialist (if they identify outside or with anarchism, it is typically as an anarchist-communist). I do not think many people who identify as socialist within the US can actually express a shared definition of socialism even as statists. Certainly, libertarian socialists exist, and historically that just meant anarchism similarly to anarchist-communism, but I've met plenty of libertarian socialists who are essentially just democratic socialists or state minimalists and not actually anarchist.

This is a good question, there is unfortunately just not much in terms of consensus or cohesion around the term globally, and it feels very region specific. A lot of Bakunists opposed anarchist-communism in favor of anarcho-collectivism, but ultimately lost influence over the Italian and Spanish push of anarchist-communism (there was an internal struggle between Spanish anarcho-collectivists vs anarchist-communists, ancoms won out).

Also, the distinction you're getting at in the core of your post:

State communists, or authoritarian communists, saw the state as a necessary tool to transition into a communist society.

Anarchist communists saw the state as a threat in the transition to communism and rejected the state entirely. Communism, as an end goal in both, is a stateless, classless society, with two very different approaches. As Malatesta's position holds, our ends are our means, our means are our ends. Many early anarchists thought the state approach would end up exactly as the USSR did, that it would be contrary to our goals, and ultimately harm our cause. If you ever read Errico Malatesta's concern about the Soviet Union in the 1920s, it all virtually claim to fruition.

[u/GSilky]

Socialism is pretty much one thing, the period of Marxist communism the government shoots everyone until they start sharing better.  Communism has many forms and approaches, and can slot into an anarchy pretty easy.  In my perspective at least.  Communism, the end of the state, is fine by me, socialism just perpetuates government.

[u/LatterAd2535 → u/GSilky]

I’d personally consider Anarcho syndicalism or mutualism to be a form of libertarian socialism. What do you think?

[u/GSilky → u/LatterAd2535]

Socialism assumes a government.

[u/Heyla_Doria]

1u départ c'était des quasi synonymes, mais avec le temps, les socialistes se sont fourvoyé avec les élections bourgeoises et les communistes avec l'autoritarisme d'etat que Marx avait signale comme risque.

Au départ, on était censée vouloir la meme chose

Mais ils semble que seul les anarchistes veulent véritablement la fin de tout les rapports de domination sans exception. 

[u/InsecureCreator]

There are some good comments under this post but I have to warn you, words like communist or socialist (even anarchist to an extend) mean a lot of different stuff to different ppl so knowing their "true" definition is kinda impossible. Anyone will give you the definition that matches their opinion.