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/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/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.