even thought of trying to "bring in," because, in any event, it is altogether impossible to "bring it in."
And here we come to that question of the scientific difference between Socialism and Communism upon which Engels touched in his discussion cited above on the incorrectness of the name "Social-Democrat." The political difference between the first, or lower, and the higher phase of communism, will in time, no doubt, be tremendous; but it would be ridiculous to emphasize it now, under capitalism, and only, perhaps, some isolated Anarchist could invest it with primary importance, that is, if there are still people amongst the Anarchists who have learned nothing from the "Plekhanoff-like" conversion of the Kropotkins, the Graves, the Cornelisens, and other "leading lights" of Anarchism to Social Chauvinism or Anarcho-Jusquauboutism as one of the few Anarchists still preserving their honor (Gay) has expressed it.
For the scientific difference between Socialism and Communism is clear. That which is generally called Socialism is termed by Marx the first or lower phase of Communist society. In so far as the means of production become public property, the word "Communism" is also applicable here, providing that we do not forget that it is not full Communism. The great importance of Marx's explanation is this: that here, too, he consistently applies materialist dialectics to the theory of evolution looking upon Communism as something which evolves out of capitalism.
Instead of artificially elaborate and scholastic definitions and profitless disquisitions on the meanings of words ("What Socialism Is," "What Communism Is"), Marx gives us an analysis of what may be called stages in the economic growth of Communism.
In its first phase or first stage communism cannot as yet be economically mature and quite free of all tradition and of all taint of capitalism. Hence we see the interesting phenomena of the first phase of communism retaining "the narrow horizon of bourgeois law." Bourgeois law, in respect of the distribution of articles of consumption presupposes inevitably the capitalist State, for law is nothing without the organization for forcing people to obey it. Consequently, for a certain time, not only bourgeois law, but even the capitalist State may remain under Communism without the capitalist class.
This may appear to some a paradox, a piece of intellectual subtlety of which Marxism is often accused by people who would not put themselves out to study its extraordinarily profound teachings. But, as a matter of fact, the Old, surviving in the New, confronts us in life in every step in Nature as well as in Society.
78
