 Thank you for clicking this video. I assure you you have not made the worst mistake of your life. This video explains the definitions of Communism and Socialism, the ways they are similar and the ways they are different. And it discusses the controversy about their definitions, because people just can't seem to agree on what these things mean. Socialism and Communism are terms that create a lot of confusion. Different people define these words in very different ways. To give you just a little idea of how complicated things are, the 1924 book Dictionary of Socialism contains 40 definitions of Socialism. It might seem like the best way to find the truth is to find out the definition that is used by Socialists. But that's part of the problem. Even the people who call themselves Socialists don't agree on how to define Socialism. Even Socialists have multiple definitions of Socialism. Well damn, now we're really in a pickle. But don't worry, this video is a pickle destroyer. It will make sense of the confusion, explain the competing definitions, and clarify what these terms actually mean. And if you'd like to check my sources, I've put them in the video description. Part 1, Defining Communism Let's say you ask a random person to define Communism. We'll call this random person Norm. You say to Norm, Norm, what is Communism? Well that's obvious, says Norm. Communism is a society with a centrally planned economy that's controlled by the state, and a state that's controlled by a dictatorship of a single political party. And also, Communist regimes don't allow most civil liberties and are quick to silence and punish those who express dissent and opposition. Alright, thank you Norm for explaining to us what the average random person on the street thinks. But what if you ask a Communist to define Communism? You will get a very different answer. If you want the Communist definition of Communism, one of the best descriptions comes not from a Communist, but from Star Trek, the next generation. Economics or the future is somewhat different. You see, money doesn't exist in the 24th century. No money. You mean you don't get paid? The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force in our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity. There it is folks, proof that Star Trek is Communist propaganda. Communists define Communism as a society that is stateless, moneyless, and classless, where everyone owns the means of production and workers control production. This idea of Communism is extremely different from the system that existed in the Soviet Union and in other countries governed by a Communist Party. In other words, it's extremely different from Norm's definition of Communism. Most people think of Communism as the highly authoritarian society, but Communists define Communism as exactly the opposite. A free society with no state apparatus, no authoritarian control. A society of freedom. Well, that's strange. Like, what the hell is up with that? How can it be that the way Communists define Communism is so very, very different from how most people define it? I'll explain why soon, but first let's explain the meaning of each aspect of the Communist definition of Communism, starting with the term stateless. Stateless means there is no state. People often use the word state as a synonym for government, and it's not necessarily wrong to do this, but there is some distinction. The state is the set of institutions that enables government to rule by force. It enables a small fraction of the population to rule over society with the power of armies, police, and prisons to force the population into submission. In other words, the state is that which enables the few to rule over the many. In the Communist definition of Communism, this no longer exists. Instead of people being ruled by a state, people govern themselves. Everyone is free to participate in making decisions on issues that affect them, and no group is given the power to force others to obey its will. Not too long ago I was having a conversation with someone about all this shit, and they said to me, I don't think Communism is necessarily stateless because anarcho-communists and libertarian communists are anti-state, so if Communism is always stateless, then anarcho-communism and libertarian communism would be redundant, right? Well, I'll tell you what I told this person. All Communists agree that Communism is stateless, but anarcho-communists and libertarian communists believe the process of creating Communism must be done without a state, while other types of Communists believe the state is needed as a tool for creating Communism. In other words, some Communists think the state will help us create Communism, but others don't. They think it will actually hurt the process of trying to create Communism. Okay, so I hope that made sense. Now let's look at the next feature of Communism. Communism is moneyless. Moneyless means there is no such thing as money. No money also means no profit motive and no market economy. Goods and services are no longer sold for financial gain. Instead, goods and services are distributed based on people's needs, as the slogan goes, to each according to their needs. And the word needs is defined more broadly than just the things you need to survive. It includes things you need for a high quality of life, what you need to survive and to thrive. When Communism is fully developed, all products and services are free, and people work without being paid. People work because they want to. All work becomes voluntary. The next feature of Communism is that it is classless. The word classless has more than one meaning, and one of those meanings has nothing to do with Communism. Classless can be an insult. That means the opposite of classy. As in, your mama's so classless, she could be a communist utopia. That joke is old and overused. Kind of like your mama. And if I'm being honest, kind of like me. But classless, as it applies to Communism, means that there are no economic classes. For thousands of years, humanity has been divided into separate classes, with a minority ruling class that enriches itself off the work of the majority laboring class. Slave owners enriched themselves off slaves, feudal lords enriched themselves off serfs, and capitalists enriched themselves off workers. All of these are class divisions, and eliminating class means eliminating these divisions, so that humanity is no longer divided between exploiters and exploited. Next feature of Communism, everyone owns the means of production. So, what are the means of production? They're everything we use to produce goods and services, and also distribute them. Factories, mines, farms, power plants, railroads, natural resources, and so on. They're what we use to produce food, housing, chocolate, movies, phones, every damn thing. In Communism, the means of production belong to everyone, which also means they're owned by no one. This is very important, because this is what makes it possible for Communism to be classless. Another feature of Communism is that workers control production. In other words, workers control their own work, and are not under anyone's command. No capitalist bosses, no government bosses, no bosses period. Workers are liberated from command and coercion. So that is a very basic definition of Communism, as it is defined by Communists. Now let's review and summarize both definitions. On the one hand, most people define Communism as a society where one single party controls the state, and the state controls the economy. And on the other hand, Communists define Communism as a society where the state does not exist, class does not exist, money does not exist, private or exclusive ownership of the means of production does not exist because the means of production belong to everyone, and command and coercion over workers does not exist, where workers are free and liberated from that shit. Just look at how extremely different these two definitions are. The most obvious difference is the state. In one definition, the state has supreme control. But in the other definition of Communism, the state has no control because the state does not exist. So how did this happen? How did such radically different definitions come into existence? To answer that, we need to investigate the origins of where each definition comes from. Let's start with a definition of Communism that Communists use. Where does it come from? It comes from the writing and ideas of Communist political philosophers since about the 1840s, with the most influential and well-known among them being Karl Marx. Who looks like this? Or if you're a regular viewer of my channel, he looks like this. Marx was extremely influential in determining the definition of Communism, but other political philosophers had an influence too, like Peter Kropotkin. I mentioned Kropotkin for two reasons. First, and also foremost, because his beard is equally as good as Marx's beard. No question. And also because he's probably the best known anarchist Communist of the 19th century, and anarchist Communism is a branch within the Communist movement that is distinct from Marxism. Anarchists and Marxists have some big disagreements, but they agree on how to define Communism. Here are some quotes from both Marx and Kropotkin, which show you that they both defined Communism as a stateless, classless, moneyless society with common ownership of the means of production. If you want to read it, just go ahead and press pause, and I promise to be here when you get back. I swear that I won't abandon you, my dear viewer. Hello again. See, I told you I'd still be here. So, Communists get their definition of Communism from the writing of Communist philosophers. Makes sense. But what about the definition of Communism that most people use? One party government, state-controlled economy. Why does anyone think this is Communism? Explain your self-norm. Well, it's because it describes the system that existed in countries where the Communist Party was in power, like in the Soviet Union. So it's understandable why a system that has existed in places ruled by a Communist Party would determine how people define Communism. But hold on a minute. If Communists defined Communism as stateless, then why did Communist parties around the world create societies where the state exists and has so much power and control? If Communism is classless and moneyless, then why did Communist parties create societies with classes and money and inequality? Why did they create societies where bosses command and workers obey when Communism is supposed to bring that to an end? Now here's where things get interesting. The leaders of these Communist parties will be the first to admit that the systems they implemented in their countries are not Communism. Lenin and Stalin, for example, were very clear that the Soviet Union was not Communist. And likewise, the Communist Party of China does not call China Communist. The Communist Party of Cuba does not call Cuba Communist. No Communist Party in the world calls the country it governs Communist. Well, that seems weird. Communist parties creating a system that is not Communist? What's going on? If you asked this question to Lenin or Stalin or Mao or Castro, they would tell you. We call ourselves the Communist Party because Communism is our goal, but reaching that goal takes a long time. Our countries are not yet ready for Communism, and our job as rulers of these countries is to create the societal conditions that will eventually make Communism possible. And we believe the way to do that is to take supreme control of the state and then use that state power to mold and shape society in ways that move us towards that goal. The system we created in our countries is not Communism, but it's a system we believe will lead us down the path to eventually create Communism. Now, not all Communists see it this way. There are other Communists, such as Anarchist Communists, Libertarian Communists, Council Communists, and Libertarian Marxists who roll their eyes at this and say, huh, you Communist parties will never create Communism because by having a totalitarian dictatorship or even just by having a state, you sabotage any hope of creating Communism. The leaders of Communist parties have enormous power and privileges, so they have no interest in creating Communism because creating Communism would mean losing their power and privilege. These leaders promise to create Communism someday in the far-off future, but they lie, just like all politicians lie. So as you can see, there are different types of Communists and these different types of Communists disagree about how to create Communism. But Communists agree on the final goal they are working towards. They agree on what Communism is, a stateless, classless, moneyless society, workers are free from command and coercion, and the means of production belong to everyone. This is the true definition of Communism. The other definition, which defines Communism as dictatorship and a state-run economy, is based on the assumption that if a country is governed by a Communist party, then it must have a Communist system. But this assumption is false and Communists agree that these countries are not Communist and never were. Alright, now it's time for Part 2, Defining Socialism Among people who identify as Socialist, there is no agreement on what Socialism means. And that's why defining Socialism is so damn hard. But hey, let's give this hard thing a try. Some Socialists say that Socialism is a transitional phase between Capitalism and Communism. And then another subset of those Socialists say that Socialism is nothing more than this transitional phase and that what the economic system is like during that transition is irrelevant to the definition. I'll discuss this view in my next video, but for now, let's focus on defining Socialism as an economic system. At the start of this video, I mentioned the 1924 book of Socialism, which lists 40 definitions of Socialism. Don't worry, I won't bore you with all these definitions. Thankfully, a professor of politics at Staffordshire University named Peter Lamb has already bored himself by going through all 40 definitions of Socialism and finding the common features. He's already done the work for us. So thank you, Professor Lamb for your sacrifice. He's a sacrificial lamb, you might say, if you were desperately reaching for a joke, which I would never do, of course. So, what common features did Professor Lamb discover in these 40 definitions of Socialism? Professor Lamb writes, Second, there was a general view that the solution to these problems was in some form of collective control, with the degree of control varying among the proponents of Socialism over the means of production, distribution, and exchange. Third, there was agreement that the outcomes of this collective control should be a society that provided social equality and justice, economic protection, and a generally more satisfying life for most people. Okay, so these three features can be summarized in one sentence. Socialism seeks to overcome the harmful effects of Capitalism by bringing the economy under collective control for the collective good. So there you go, a definition of Socialism based on common features found in 40 definitions of Socialism. But let's check out a few more definitions, just to be sure. This one comes from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Socialism can be defined as a type of society in which, at minimum, the bulk of the means of production is under Social Democratic Control. Just a reminder, the means of production are the factories, natural resources, warehouses, and all the other means that we use to produce and distribute the goods and services that we consume. Next, let's turn to Marxist Economist. Uh, holy shit, I'm gonna fuck this name up. Blodzimiers... Bruce? Blodzim... Blodzim... Blodzim... Blodzim... Blodzimiers... Bruce? Who says? Bitch, you just completely fucked my name. Like, five times. And don't even buy it dinner? Rot. Sorry, that's not the quote I was looking for. Um... In the very definition of a socialist economic system, the basic characteristic of such a system is generally reckoned to be the predominance of the social ownership of the means of production. And here's a definition from the academic book Readers' Guide to the Social Sciences. Just as private ownership defines capitalism, social ownership defines socialism. And now, a definition from Democratic Socialism, a global survey, written by Donald F. Buske and published by Prager. Not that Prager. This Prager, an academic publishing company, perhaps founded by Dennis Prager's non-evil twin. Let's hear the definition. Socialism may be defined as movements for social ownership and control of the economy. It is this idea that it's the common element found in the many forms of socialism. So, my dear viewer, we've identified the main feature of socialism. The means of production are socially owned and socially controlled. And there's another feature which appears in definitions of socialism and that is workers' control of production. We can see this in the definition found in the book Readers' Guide to the Social Sciences. It says, And we find this feature again in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Socialism, unlike capitalism, requires that the bulk of the means of production workers used to yield goods and services be under the effective control of workers themselves, rather than in the hands of the members of a different capitalist class under whose direction they must toil. All right, now we've identified two features of socialism. Socialism, unlike capitalism, requires that the bulk now we've identified two features of socialism. One, the means of production are socially owned and controlled. Two, workers' self-managed production. No capitalist bosses, no state bosses. When you encounter definitions of socialism, feature number one is almost always mentioned. Feature number two is not. It comes up pretty often, but in many cases it's forgotten, neglected, left out. Oh, feature number two. Why are you so relatable? The reason the second feature appears less often is because it's actually an interpretation of the first feature. Since the first feature mentions that the means of production are socially controlled, this raises the question of what this means in practice. One way to interpret this is that the workers control production. In other words, feature number one is interpreted in a way that gives us feature number two. But as we will soon see, feature number one can be interpreted. Part three, ambiguity and different interpretations. Okay, so we're now equipped with the information we need to come up with a basic, broad definition of socialism. Socialism is a society where the means of production and the economy in general are socially owned and socially controlled for the common good of everyone. All right, sounds great, but there's a problem. How the hell did you interpret this? This uncertainty has led to different interpretations and different definitions of socialism. And oh boy, there are quite a few. Quite a few. So, what is meant by social ownership of the means of production? Some socialists say it means ownership by the state. Other socialists say the means of production should be divided into workers' cooperatives with each business owned by the people who work there. And some socialists say the means of production should be owned by everyone with no private ownership and no state ownership. And what is meant by social control of the means of production? Some socialists say this means that workers control production. Other socialists say the state or government controls production. Then there are socialists who say that workers control production but do so indirectly by democratically electing managers. Some socialists say that both workers and the state should share control of production. And there's another point of disagreement. How much of the means of production must be socially owned in order for a society to qualify as socialist? Some socialists say all of it must be socially owned. Other socialists say that most of it but not all of it must be socially owned. And some socialists say that only some of it must be socially owned. Public services, major industries and utilities, but that's it. The different answers to these questions lead to yet more disagreements. Can socialism be a market economy? Can production be driven by the profit motive? Some socialists say no, absolutely not. That's not socialism, it's capitalism. Other socialists say yes, socialism can and should be a profit driven market economy. And some socialists say it's okay to have a market and production for profit but these need to be subordinated to economic planning. And socialists also disagree about class and the state. Will class exploitation continue to exist in socialism? What about the state? Some socialists say no, socialism is both classless and stateless. Other socialists say yes, socialism has an exploiting class and the state. And some socialists say that socialism has no exploiting classes but it does have a state. As you can see, there's a lot of exploiting in quite a few definitions of socialism. This brings us back to the question of how socialism and communism are similar and how they're different. Communism is stateless, classless and moneyless. The means of production belong to everyone and workers control production. According to some socialists, all these things that are true of communism are also true of socialism. According to other socialists, socialism has some but not all of these features. And according to other other socialists, socialism has none of these features. Amazing. In other words, because socialists and communists disagree on how to define socialism, they also disagree on what the similarities and differences are between communism and socialism. So the answer to the question of what's the difference between communism and socialism is that there really is no definite answer because it all depends on how you define socialism. It may interest you to know that Karl Marx didn't make any distinction between socialism and communism. Over the course of his life, he used these two words interchangeably to describe the same thing. A stateless, classless, moneyless society. There are some leftists who say that the difference between socialism and communism is that socialism is a society that is in transition from capitalism to communism. Or in other words, communism is the goal and socialism is the journey. The first known person to make this differentiation between socialism and communism was a Russian socialist named Vladimir Lenin, the man who became the first head of state of the Soviet Union. Not all socialists or communists agree with Lenin that socialism should be defined in this way. And those who do agree are usually people whose political views are highly influenced by Lenin. And this brings us to a related point. Each definition of socialism is aligned with a different socialist political philosophy. For example, Orthodox Marxist Leninists say that a socialist economy is planned by the state. But market socialists, as you can tell by the name, say that socialism should be a market economy. While libertarian socialists say no to both, libertarian socialists say that socialism should not be controlled by the state or by markets. Then there are libertarian market socialists who are a subtype of libertarian socialists and also a subtype of market socialists. But while most libertarian socialists are opposed to the market, libertarian market socialists are pro-market. And while most market socialists think the state should exist and play some role in the economy, libertarian market socialists are anti-state. Woof, I'm fucking dizzy just saying all that shit. And then there are other types of socialists that I haven't even mentioned. So yeah, it gets a bit complicated. I'd like to dive into this complicated mess and go over each major definition of socialism, so that we can have a clear understanding of what each one means. But I also don't want to make this video too long. So if you want to dive into this complicated mess with me, you'll have to join me next time in the next video which will come out next week. In the meantime, I have another video you might like about how both a socialist system and a communist system could work in practice. In systems like these, how can we make sure that the work that needs doing gets done? How can we avoid over-consumption? How can goods be produced and distributed with no market, no central planning, no state planning and even no money? I discuss all of this and more in my video, Post Capitalism. A detailed look at how it could work, which you can watch by finding the link down below in the video description. And now, I have an announcement. Hi, I'm Lucky Black Cat. You may remember me from such films as Conquest of Head and Friends of Darudy or Friends of Your Booty. Since 2019, I've been making YouTube videos and never asked for a single gosh darn penny. But now, I finally started a... Patreon! Are you tired of not knowing what to do with your money? Setting it on fire or giving it to a financial dominatrix doesn't satisfy you like it once did? Well, have I gotten news for you? Patreon! Do you not love capitalism? Want videos more often? Want them to be better quality? Want me to eat food so I don't die? I haven't showered in five days. It's all possible with your support. These are my only friends. Go to patreon.com slash one lucky black cat. If you rather give a one-time donation, you can through PayPal or Ko-fi. Links to everything in the video description.