OPINION: LETTER TO THE EDITOR: Communism versus socialism

I have read with interest the several Letters to the Editor in which the authors have attempted to compare communism with socialism.

Allow me to weigh in.

In that most economic theories tend, in practice, to become political theories as well, both communism and socialism are both economic and political theories.

However, taken to their end result, there are some ideological differences.

Communism, which Marx and Engels envisioned, would be a classless society with no private property. That makes it diametrically opposed to capitalism.

That is an economic distinction.

Socialism calls for the government ownership or control of certain means of production. It does not call for the abolition of private property. Therefore, it could be argued that socialism is a political theory as well as an economic theory.

There has never been a pure communist state. According to Marx and Engels, an autocratic government would control the gradual takeover of all means of production through heavy taxation, confiscation, the abolition of inheritance, etc.

Marx called this transitional period Marxian Socialism. Over time, when the process is complete and the now classless society (proletariat) becomes sufficiently educated, there would be no need for nation/states or government.

In fact, there would be no need for money. In the words of Karl Marx, "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need" would be the Utopia.

Interestingly, Marx believed it would first occur in England followed by France, Germany and the United States, but not Russia.

Beginning with Vladimir Lenin in Russia, so-called communism became a totally totalitarian state employing some, but not all, the principles of communism.

Lenin's objective was complete control of society and the means of production. Stalin raised it to an art form.

All "communist" governments in the modern world have had no intention of evolving into a classless, government-free, society.

Socialism, in its purest sense, is the government ownership or control of the means of production.

Nowhere does socialism envision a classless, government-free society. People can still own property, run a business, etc.

In today's world the principles of socialism are characterized by the call for the nationalization of some means of production. The rationale is that certain industries or services are best left to government ownership or control. Whether or not that is a viable argument is beyond the scope of this letter. For example, Great Britain has a National Health Service and private enterprise.

In that the principles of socialism, the government ownership of the means production, is the starting point of Marx's communism, many people fear that "creeping socialism" is the slippery slope to eventual total government takeover. Again, that is an argument that is beyond the scope of this letter.

Peter MacRae