What are the differences between socialism, communism, and Marxism?

Pure Marxism had three main characteristics. First of all, there was to be no government, no central controlling body allocating resources. If something needed doing then some person or group of people would just do it for the good of all. Second there was to be no private ownership of anything. All things were to be held in common. If you needed something you would just take it. ("From each according to his abilities; to each according to his need.") Finally, there would be no religion. Religion was created by the rich and the powerful to keep the lower classes down by pacifying them with the promise of a better existence in the fictional next life if they accepted their lot in this life. ("Religion is the opiate of the masses.")

Marxism appeals to an innate sense of fairness in people. Nobody has more than anyone else. Everyone works for the good of everyone else. The problem was that Marx could not describe a mechanism by which we get to his utopian society beyond the masses violently overthrowing their oppressors nor did he really understand human nature.

Various attempts to get to this Marxist ideal have been made over the decades. These usually start with the creation of a socialist government. People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form. The government owns everything and directs the allocation of all resources. Since the people own nothing they theoretically should learn to do everything for the good of the whole. Eventually, when the people have been properly trained, the government is disbanded and the Marxist utopia is achieved.

The problem is that human nature gets in the way. The people in power grow to like having the power. So, they start do things to ensure that they stay in power. ("Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Additionally, there is a very broad lazy streak that runs through much of humanity. People only do as much work as they have to in order to survive. If the government is going to take from Joe and give it to me, then why should I work for a living. Joe then sees his industry going to support me, a lazy bum who doesn't contribute anything myself, and thinks why should I bother. This mentality means that the people never reach a state where the government, even if it were inclined to do so, can step aside. So, the corruption just continues to fester.

So, this then is the difference between the three social organizations. Marxism and communism were initially the same thing. However as people tried to institute them, Marxism became the ideal that can never be achieved and communism came to be synonymous with the failed, corrupt, transitional, utrasocialist governments. Socialism is any form of government that takes control of various industries away from the private sector. All governments have some elements of socialism in the mix because there are just some things that the private sector cannot do. The debate is over just how much the government should do.

There are two answers on this page that adequately describe Marxism and communism. The belong to Glenn Blaylock, dated Sept. 11, 04 and Bob Blaylock, dated Feb. 22, 04.

However, in the answer dated Sept. 11, 04, Glenn Blaylock states: “People aren't psychologically ready to live Marxism, so they need a government to take everything away from them and train them to work for the good of all. This is socialism in its purest form.” This statement is woefully incorrect, and contributes to the ongoing misunderstanding associated with the use of the term “socialism”.

In its purest form, socialism is the process of consensus among a group of people, especially as it concerns society in general. For example: “Do WE need to hire a cop for our small town? If so, how are WE going to fund the salary and expenses for this cop?” The effort to reach a consensus within the group of townsfolk represents socialism in its purest form.

To research different ways townsfolk have resolved issues like the one in the example above is something a sociologist would do.

In this context, there are many forms of socialism – some of which I list here:

Marxist socialism
communist socialism
democratic socialism
republican socialism
libertarian socialism
egalitarian socialism
monarchic socialism
dictatorial socialism
fascist socialism
ideological socialism

The phrase “We the People” drips with socialism. The term “government” is a socialist expression. Anyone who votes is technically a socialist.

The antithesis of socialism is apathy, or true-to-the-core anarchy.

The general misuse of the terms “socialist” and “socialism” serves only to obscure issues and contexts in which these terms are used. As a consequence, these terms are most frequently used to belittle and discredit the ideas of others as well as being employed by certain political groups principally as a scare tactic.

Therefore, to answer the original question, Marxism and communism are both one of many forms of socialism. Other than the issue regarding "socialism in its purest form", I find no fault with the answers regarding Marxism and communism given by Glenn Blaylock and Bob Blaylock.

As I understand it, the term “socialism” refers to a principle wherein property is not owned by individuals, but is collectively owned by everyone, or not owned at all. I've seen depictions of primitive, tribal societies which understand no concept of ownership; if there is something available for use, and you have a need to use it, you use it. This, I think, would be socialism in its purest form.

In more advanced societies, socialism takes the form of some government taking resources from those who it deems not to be in greatest need of them, and giving them to those deemed to be most in need of them. “To each according to his needs; from each according to his ability.”


Communism, also called Marxism, is a complex system of societal structure defined in the Communist Manifesto written in 1848 by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels. Communism specifies a socialist economic structure, but there is much, much more to Communism than this one point.


[Response to poliscimajor, added 02 December 2004 ?20:05]
Yes, Marxism is “…the ideology supporting the beliefs of Karl Marx…”. The Communist Manifesto, is the expression of Marx's beliefs. It is also the document which defines true Communism. Thus, I was correct in stating that Communism and Marxism are the same thing.

Nothing in your statement contradicts anything in my answer, yet you rated me as incorrect.

Communism is the extreme form of socialism. In socialism there is still some private (industrial) property allowed and not everything is ordered by the state. In communism the state dictates everything and all companies are owned or directed by the state. Marx described the way how to grow from socialism to communism, in general that is called Marxism I believe.

Communism: You have two cows. You give them to the Government, and the Government then sells you some milk.

Socialism: You have two cows. You give one to your neighbor.

Pure Marxism: No one has two cows. But Marx sponges off his rich friends anyways.

There are many differences between these three governments, but the biggest differences are:

1. In socialism, people are allowed to own businesses, but when the government decides that the business is to rich, then the government takes the business from you.

Communism and Marxism used to mean the same thing, but Communism has changed.

2. In Marxism, everyone works for the greater good for everyone else. Everyone gets equal amounts of everything(food, clothes,electronics,etc). And although the government owns everything, the people still get equal everything. This government has never been used by any country.

3. In communism, everyone works for the greater good for the government. The government owns everything and they get the most and best of everything.

Communism was transformed to what it is today by Joseph Stalin. Marxism was created by a man named Marx. He lived in London, in the slums and wanted a better life for everyone.


Factoid #12- The Roman Catholic Church helped to save some Nazi's from persacution. They did this so that if communism ever got so big, there would be some government who could stop them. The Roman Catholic Church wanted Nazism over communism.

excellent discussion. in the end i believe we should follow gods law as i find it much more efficient and foolproof so far

Morphius you are partially incorrect concerning marxism.

Marxism is, as u mention, when everyone works for the greater good and shuffle aside own personal greed and issues. Equality and humanity is the marxist core, but this is merely theory and a unforfilled dream of karl marx... Still the governemnt does not exist. The people are good, the state is evil. therefore your statement "And although the government owns everything, the people still get equal everything." is incorrect since the governemnt does not exist.

i apologize if my english is bad. my only defence is the fact that im neither from UK or the states.

The term "Communism" is a western term is describe marxism and left ideologies. Everywhere else in the world calls it Marxism or socialism

Another reason Marx was unsuccessful (referring to Blaylock's response above) was because Marx had not planned what to do with those who did not cooperate. People did not want to do more work than they had to.

Communism: An economic system where the government controls all manufacturing and industrial enterprise.

Socialism: An economic system in which the government controls the means of production and distribution of goods and services.

Capitalism: An economic system in which free enterprise controls the market, which controls the economy with almost no governmental interference whatsoever.

Marxism: The act of following and acting upon the ideologies and beliefs of Karl Marx.

The term 'socialism' - as one can see from all the above responses - has been as hotly contested and as subject to variable definitions as have, for instance, 'freedom' and 'democracy'. I think the best and simplest answer, which comes out of the Marxist tradition, is that under socialism, the ultimate motive of economic production has been changed from profit to use.

What this means, for better or worse, is that real socialism has not yet existed anywhere. The Communist experiments in Russia and China during the 20th century were indeed self-conscious attempts to establish fully socialist societies, but they failed to do so. Instead, they produced a form of bureaucratic collectivism that oppressed precisely the workers it claimed to be liberating.

On the other hand, the (decreasingly) well-funded welfare states of Western Europe are also often called socialism. I believe this to be an incorrect use of the term, since most economic production in Western Europe is still for private profit, and under individual private ownership. European social democracy is certainly closer to socialism than is American liberal capitalism - that is, it in fact provides many vital services to the public for use, rather than for profit - but ultimately the difference is one of degree, not of kind. At heart, what exists in Europe is still capitalism, just watered down a bit.

Of course, it may be true, as the conventional wisdom holds, that socialism of any sort is bound to fail due to the impossibility of changing human nature. Perhaps, though I think there is ample evidence that 'human nature' is to a great extent culturally and historically variable. There is thus good reason to suppose that a different and more democratic form of socialism, established by different means and under different conditions, would produce different, and better, results. The most important lesson for future socialist experiments, I warrant, is to emphasize democratic forms of government, and perhaps to consider replacing private property with cooperative (worker-owned) property, rather than state property.

It is clear that the phrase socialism differs greatly between the UK and the US.
In the US socialism is seen by many as a threat to the Ameircan way of life and evil, where as
in the UK all main political parties are in support of socialism in some form and also the use of the capitalist
market system.
In the UK socialism is about supporting those in society who are in need by redistributing wealth through higher
taxation of the rich, who do not value £1 as much as those who are in extreme poverty, to make a fairer and more equal society.
Socialism is all about the redistribution of wealth to create a better society for all, meaning less crime, lower prison levels, and greater
happiness for all.
In the US this can be seen as the government stealing money, and giving it to those who don't work, or don't work as hard,
but in the UK many think that if two people work just as hard and as many hours at each other, someone earning £100,000 a year in a bank
should support the person who earns £10,000 as a cleaner and is unable to feed thier family as they have had different chances in life. Whether it be through grants for heating, supporting a decent healthcare system which means no citizen should ever fear that being unwell will lead to financial ruin or being financially penilised for being disabled and free education systems which moves towards children from different backgrounds being given support to make something of their lives.
Even the conservative (right wing) party of the UK believes that supporting those poorest in society will not only bring them greater happiness and health, but make society as a whole a nicer place to live.
Anyone who disagrees with this is generally seen as very right wing, selfish and only looking our for themselves in the UK, whereas in the US it seems that this selfish thoughtless behaviour is completely acceptable, a stance many europeans find shocking.

This however is completely different than communism where everything is owned by the government. A communist regime would make the world alot happier, but is not practical, and throught history attempts at true communism has led to a very unhappy societies and is very very different to socialism. The links in the US between socialism and communism is very odd and makes inspirational progressive people in the US like Obama who mentions the word socialism, look like Marxists, which, if you didn't gather, he's not.

Sundex -

That is the most dumbest answer I have ever read. If you want to argue for an additional, broader usage for the word "socialism", go ahead. But socialism, to 99% of the people who use it and historically have used it, means public ownership of the means of production. It is achievable tomorrow, the question is whether it is desirable.

Communism is often thought of as a stage beyond socialism, sort of a complete gift economy with no money. Whether it is achievable is in question.

Marxism is primarily a theory of social change. It says that the progressive immiseration of the working class will lead to a working class revolution that will establish socialism (which will eventually give way to communism). This is often called "scientific socialism", and by teaching that socialism is the inevitable end result of social-historical laws now in motion, it is in contrast to previous forms of socialism, which sought to create socialism through ideology and argument rather than material conditions. It's a handy theory; but it's also flawed. It might have happened, except that the capitalists got wise to it, so now they placate the working class with reforms in order to stop them short of a revolution. In places like America and Europe, the working class has sufficient political power to force a livable minimum wage and at least decent working conditions. Well, the non-immigrant working force anyway. But in developing countries, capitalist firms like Nike literally do keep the working class on a razor's edge of existence, only paying them what they need in order to keep working and to reproduce and make more workers. In these countries, working class revolution is suppressed partially by government violence and partially by the most *minimal* imaginable concessions. In places where the working class is not organized into unions yet, there are no concessions, because there's no danger of a revolution or other working class political action.

Different authors define the terms differently.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marxism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism