This is my reply to that thread, which I re-post here to get some discussion going:
I
I will start by saying this: Marx and Engels didn't talk much about what communism is. They had an ideology that is called communism, and if you are talking about that ideology, well, as RJ said, there were communists before Marx.
Anyway, my answer to this starts with the question "what is capitalism?"
Capitalism is a social and economic formation characterised by the domination of capital. Capital is goods and money used to make more money. That capital is worked on by workers who use it to produce commodities which are sold for more money than was invested. For the society to be dominated by capital means there must be a class of people who have no capital of their own, nor any means of production to subsist on their own. That is, such a society needs a class of people who own nothing but their ability to work, and who are therefore compelled to sell their ability to work in order to live. These people engage in their life producing goods that they do not own, and which confront them as alien on the marketplace. Compare the farmer who grows his own food and sells any surplus on the market with the farm labourer who works on a farm, is paid a wage, and needs to buy the food. Their life activity is made separate from them, and we call this 'alienation'.
Any society in which that is the case is not communism. Social democracy (I include Leninism as a form of social democracy) seeks the abolition of private ownership of capital and its concentration in the hands of the state. As such, the desired aim is still capitalism. Communists seek the forcible overthrow of the rule of the owners of capital and the concentration of ownership of capital in the hands of the state, however only with the aim that the state dismantle capitalism through the reorganisation of production and consumption. Exactly how that will take place I have no idea and won't attempt to go into here. What is important, though, is that this state can only do so if it is the state of the working class. What Marxists understand by the word 'state' is a body of armed people, distinct from the population as a whole, with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (note the similarity to, but difference with Weber). When the working class, the majority of the population, is armed and organised and in control, then yes, it is distinct from the population as a whole, but at the same time, such a state is a very different creature to all previous ones because of two things: 1, it is a state by and for the vast majority of the population, 2: it is a state by and for the exploited. As long as capitalism exists, even if that capitalism is a capitalism being dismantled by the working class, then the working class is being exploited. In that situation, however, it is the working class overseeing its own exploitation, acting as a kind of collective capitalist. Engels said that this state 'is not a state in the proper sense of the word', while Marx, in response to Bakunin complaining about such a state being a workers state , said 'if you must call it a state'. It is obvious that both of them recognised the implication of their definition of 'state', and at the same time saw that a 'workers state', to use Bakunin's phrase, was both unavoidable and not really a state, a kind of 'transitional' form of social organisation.
Anyway, how is this relevant to what you asked? It is relevant because while they didn't talk about what communism is, they did talk a lot about capitalism, and pretty much the entire left accepts Marx's analysis of capitalism (or whatever they think Marx's analysis of capitalism was) even if they are non-Marxist. In talking about capitalism, they may not have said what communism is (though obligatory motions in the direction of Critique of the Gotha Programme which has a very broad sketch in a few paragraphs), in their view, but they did say what communism isn't.
This gives a lot of latitude for what communism is, with the main differences being in the 'how to get there' realm.
Also, in response to Tank whinging about the 'utopian communists' not being Marxist, well that term isn't really used much. The term 'utopian socialists' is used, and refers to those people who had detailed plans on how to organise society, who came from among the bourgeoisie and aristocracy, the best example of which is Robert Owen (srsly, he is like the nicest guy who ever lived). The pre-Marxist communists are simply called pre-Marxist. because they generally didn't design any utopias. The first communist organisation, the Conspiracy of Equals, it must be pointed out, was not that far from Marxism, in terms of programme. They lacked any useful theory, but programmatically they were pretty on the ball. The denigration of pre-Marxist communists is partly a result of Marx promoting himself as better than anyone else (well, he was, but he exaggerated how much everyone else sucked) and his followers in later generations exaggerating those criticisms.
Edit:
I would also like to post this quote, to help expand on what I've said:
Anyway, my answer to this starts with the question "what is capitalism?"
Capitalism is a social and economic formation characterised by the domination of capital. Capital is goods and money used to make more money. That capital is worked on by workers who use it to produce commodities which are sold for more money than was invested. For the society to be dominated by capital means there must be a class of people who have no capital of their own, nor any means of production to subsist on their own. That is, such a society needs a class of people who own nothing but their ability to work, and who are therefore compelled to sell their ability to work in order to live. These people engage in their life producing goods that they do not own, and which confront them as alien on the marketplace. Compare the farmer who grows his own food and sells any surplus on the market with the farm labourer who works on a farm, is paid a wage, and needs to buy the food. Their life activity is made separate from them, and we call this 'alienation'.
Any society in which that is the case is not communism. Social democracy (I include Leninism as a form of social democracy) seeks the abolition of private ownership of capital and its concentration in the hands of the state. As such, the desired aim is still capitalism. Communists seek the forcible overthrow of the rule of the owners of capital and the concentration of ownership of capital in the hands of the state, however only with the aim that the state dismantle capitalism through the reorganisation of production and consumption. Exactly how that will take place I have no idea and won't attempt to go into here. What is important, though, is that this state can only do so if it is the state of the working class. What Marxists understand by the word 'state' is a body of armed people, distinct from the population as a whole, with a monopoly on the legitimate use of force (note the similarity to, but difference with Weber). When the working class, the majority of the population, is armed and organised and in control, then yes, it is distinct from the population as a whole, but at the same time, such a state is a very different creature to all previous ones because of two things: 1, it is a state by and for the vast majority of the population, 2: it is a state by and for the exploited. As long as capitalism exists, even if that capitalism is a capitalism being dismantled by the working class, then the working class is being exploited. In that situation, however, it is the working class overseeing its own exploitation, acting as a kind of collective capitalist. Engels said that this state 'is not a state in the proper sense of the word', while Marx, in response to Bakunin complaining about such a state being a workers state , said 'if you must call it a state'. It is obvious that both of them recognised the implication of their definition of 'state', and at the same time saw that a 'workers state', to use Bakunin's phrase, was both unavoidable and not really a state, a kind of 'transitional' form of social organisation.
Anyway, how is this relevant to what you asked? It is relevant because while they didn't talk about what communism is, they did talk a lot about capitalism, and pretty much the entire left accepts Marx's analysis of capitalism (or whatever they think Marx's analysis of capitalism was) even if they are non-Marxist. In talking about capitalism, they may not have said what communism is (though obligatory motions in the direction of Critique of the Gotha Programme which has a very broad sketch in a few paragraphs), in their view, but they did say what communism isn't.
This gives a lot of latitude for what communism is, with the main differences being in the 'how to get there' realm.
Also, in response to Tank whinging about the 'utopian communists' not being Marxist, well that term isn't really used much. The term 'utopian socialists' is used, and refers to those people who had detailed plans on how to organise society, who came from among the bourgeoisie and aristocracy, the best example of which is Robert Owen (srsly, he is like the nicest guy who ever lived). The pre-Marxist communists are simply called pre-Marxist. because they generally didn't design any utopias. The first communist organisation, the Conspiracy of Equals, it must be pointed out, was not that far from Marxism, in terms of programme. They lacked any useful theory, but programmatically they were pretty on the ball. The denigration of pre-Marxist communists is partly a result of Marx promoting himself as better than anyone else (well, he was, but he exaggerated how much everyone else sucked) and his followers in later generations exaggerating those criticisms.
Edit:
I would also like to post this quote, to help expand on what I've said:
ICL-FI Marxism vs Anarchism
A conventional understanding of socialism and communism, of what motivates us, is that we are hostile to capitalism because of the extremes of economic and social inequality. There are people who work hard and are destitute, especially but not limited to the Third World countries. And then there are people who do nothing, who are strictly parasitic, and live in the lap of luxury. Well, certainly an important goal of communism is to eliminate that. But that is not the ultimate goal. The ultimate goal lies in a whole other sphere of human activity, the sphere outside consumption, and it is precisely this sphere that requires a much higher level of labor productivity than exists in even the most advanced capitalism. In other words, if our goal were simply to provide everybody in this country with a decent standard of living, say, equivalent to $80 000 or $100 000 for a family of four, we could do that with the existing American economy just by a little rearranging. That is not what we're ultimately about. What we're ultimately about is providing all members of society, here and elsewhere, with the capacity to do creative work, what Marx called free or unalienated labor. We are not basically in the business of equality of consumption.
Now precisely because of this aspect, Marxism, the concept of communism, is fundamentally different from earlier socialists and anarchists. For the pre-Marxian socialists, the ultimate goal was equality. The first revolutionary communist organization, derived in the last stages of the French Revolution, was called the "Conspiracy of Equals." If you ask an anarchist what his ultimate goal is, he would say "freedom." When Kropotkin formed a journal in England in the later 19th century, he called it freedom. Although we recognise that equality and freedom have a value in themselves, ultimately for us these are a means to an end. What does equality mean under communism? It certainly doesn't mean that people have the same living standards, or utilize the same material resources. Equality simply means equal access. There'll be a huge range of lifestyles, consuming very differently.
People will be free to do what they want. It's not merely that there won't be a coercive state, but that most time will be what is now called "free time." The question for Marx was, how will people utilize that free time? Will they do it like they do now, which is mainly entertainment, sports, games, socializing, vegging out, hanging out, you know, not working? Marx envisioned most people spending their free time in "free labor," that is, creative, artistic, scientific or related work, which he described this way:
"Really free labour, the composing of music for example, is at the same time damned serious and demands the greatest effort. The labour concerned with material production can only have this character if (1) it is of a social nature, (2) it has a scientific character and at the same time is general work, i.e. if it ceases to be human effort as a definite trained natural force, gives up its purely natural, primitive aspects and becomes the activity of a subject controlling all the forces of nature in the production process"
Well, to control all the forces of nature in the productive process involves the expenditure of very considerably resources. First, there is the question of acquiring the knowledge of the resources of nature. Consider the vast resources necessary to acquire a PhD in physics or chemistry or biology--not for the privileged few, but for anybody who wants to. Also, many spheres of scientific research require vast expenditures of material resources--space exploration, genetic engineering, robotics, paleontology, on and on. The point basically is that Marx's conception of communism is one in which all the progressive achievements of civilization are fully utilized, made available to all members of society and vastly expanded. It is a concept quite alien to the Rouseauean idea of some kind of primitive economic harmony or communal values.
Now precisely because of this aspect, Marxism, the concept of communism, is fundamentally different from earlier socialists and anarchists. For the pre-Marxian socialists, the ultimate goal was equality. The first revolutionary communist organization, derived in the last stages of the French Revolution, was called the "Conspiracy of Equals." If you ask an anarchist what his ultimate goal is, he would say "freedom." When Kropotkin formed a journal in England in the later 19th century, he called it freedom. Although we recognise that equality and freedom have a value in themselves, ultimately for us these are a means to an end. What does equality mean under communism? It certainly doesn't mean that people have the same living standards, or utilize the same material resources. Equality simply means equal access. There'll be a huge range of lifestyles, consuming very differently.
People will be free to do what they want. It's not merely that there won't be a coercive state, but that most time will be what is now called "free time." The question for Marx was, how will people utilize that free time? Will they do it like they do now, which is mainly entertainment, sports, games, socializing, vegging out, hanging out, you know, not working? Marx envisioned most people spending their free time in "free labor," that is, creative, artistic, scientific or related work, which he described this way:
"Really free labour, the composing of music for example, is at the same time damned serious and demands the greatest effort. The labour concerned with material production can only have this character if (1) it is of a social nature, (2) it has a scientific character and at the same time is general work, i.e. if it ceases to be human effort as a definite trained natural force, gives up its purely natural, primitive aspects and becomes the activity of a subject controlling all the forces of nature in the production process"
Well, to control all the forces of nature in the productive process involves the expenditure of very considerably resources. First, there is the question of acquiring the knowledge of the resources of nature. Consider the vast resources necessary to acquire a PhD in physics or chemistry or biology--not for the privileged few, but for anybody who wants to. Also, many spheres of scientific research require vast expenditures of material resources--space exploration, genetic engineering, robotics, paleontology, on and on. The point basically is that Marx's conception of communism is one in which all the progressive achievements of civilization are fully utilized, made available to all members of society and vastly expanded. It is a concept quite alien to the Rouseauean idea of some kind of primitive economic harmony or communal values.
