Am I the only one who...

[Weezer]

Isn't that fond of socialism? Don't get me wrong, Communism is a great idea, but I myself have never been really interested in living in a socialist country, especially when in most cases Socialism always leads back to capitalism. Not trying to start any sort of pro-capitalism thing here, but is Socialism really needed to get to Communism?

[Blackscare]

Well that's the meat of the whole anarchist v state socialist debate :/

[Pogue]

Isn't that fond of socialism? Don't get me wrong, Communism is a great idea, but I myself have never been really interested in living in a socialist country, especially when in most cases Socialism always leads back to capitalism. Not trying to start any sort of pro-capitalism thing here, but is Socialism really needed to get to Communism?

If your using the Leninst term for socialism, then no, I don't want to live in a 'socialist stage' which is self-identified as thus with a state.

If you use Marx's definition, I most certainly do want to live in a socialist society. Everyone on this board who isn't restricted or banned is a socialist and thus desires this.

If you refer to socialism as any transitionary period, regardless of whether its clearly defined, desired and marked out as a seperate stage and acheivment (as it is in Leninism), then yes, I'd like to live in a transitionary stage, as long as its not adminstered by a state and isn't considered an ends in itself, and is run by federations of workers councils moving towards communism. I'd like to participate in this stage to protect against capitalism and the state, but I recognise its a progression and thus needs to be rid off and ironically, fought against, to create proper communism.

[Louise Michel]

Isn't that fond of socialism? Don't get me wrong, Communism is a great idea, but I myself have never been really interested in living in a socialist country, especially when in most cases Socialism always leads back to capitalism. Not trying to start any sort of pro-capitalism thing here, but is Socialism really needed to get to Communism?

Socialism is a very broad and maleable term - it can mean North Korea, Canada (yes, really!), Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Soviet Union, a period of transition between capitalism and communism and more depending on who's using it.

So what's your understanding of what socialism is?

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Isn't that fond of socialism? Don't get me wrong, Communism is a great idea, but I myself have never been really interested in living in a socialist country, especially when in most cases Socialism always leads back to capitalism. Not trying to start any sort of pro-capitalism thing here, but is Socialism really needed to get to Communism?

I need to just make a response to this that I can copy and paste any time someone asks stuff like this...

There has never been a socialist country. Socialism and communism are the same. As far as a state being necessary to get to communism, yes. But Marxists have a different definition of the state that means one class organized as the ruling class. The state we seek to create is the proletariat organized as the working class. Because classes can't exist without private property, when the workers sweep away private property, the state ceases to exist.

[Weezer]

I need to just make a response to this that I can copy and paste any time someone asks stuff like this...

There has never been a socialist country. Socialism and communism are the same. As far as a state being necessary to get to communism, yes. But Marxists have a different definition of the state that means one class organized as the ruling class. The state we seek to create is the proletariat organized as the working class. Because classes can't exist without private property, when the workers sweep away private property, the state ceases to exist.

:confused: To my knowledge, socialism and communism are similar not the same.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

:confused: To my knowledge, socialism and communism are similar not the same.

Marx used them interchangeably. Lot's of people use socialism to refer to the lower phase of communism where people have access to goods only in proportion to their contribution, but both the lower phase and higher phase are stateless and classless.

[AvanteRedGarde]

Think of it as the necessary and specific means (socialism) by which to move towards the ideal end (communism/anarchism).

Think of a staircase. You are at the bottom (capitalist-imperialism) and you want to make it to the top (communism/anarchism). Think of each step as a contradiction (exploiter vs exploited, oppressor nation vs oppressed nation, men vs women, youth vs adults, the bureaucrats vs the grassroots, etc- not in any particular order order) that need to be resolved. You simple can't leap up to the top but must climb each step and resolve each contradiction. It's an imperfect analogy.

In any case, according to modern Marxists, a society won't simply develop novel ways of doing things over night- it will necessarily reproduce conditions of the past simply because of things like habit, etc. In any case, any society won't leap from its current condition to the ideal simple with one revolution or simply the installation of socialism. Rather, class struggle must be continuous.

In the course of resolving contradiction, organized systematic force is applied in some manner or another- i.e. a state (call it what you will). Whereas this is necessary is the course of the revolution, the existence of the state will inevitably creations the conditions which lead the the existence of a "new bourgeoisie" based on its relation to the new power structure. Again, modern Marxists uphold the need for continued class struggle- all the way to the top of the damn staircase.

That said, the intermediary period of class struggle between today and the ideal- the staircase so to speak- is a necessary process.

[sanpal]

Socialism is a very broad and maleable term - it can mean North Korea, Canada (yes, really!), Pol Pot's Cambodia, the Soviet Union, a period of transition between capitalism and communism and more depending on who's using it.

So what's your understanding of what socialism is?
From above-stated to us we are interested in "period of transition between capitalism and communism".
None of the left can transform capitalism into communism by one stroke, from night to day, transitional period for it is inevitable. All issues are how to organize (politically, economically) such period. After the proletarian revolution would have happened capitalism (capitalist mode of production) will be existed for a definite time and during that transitional period the first commune(s) will be created on the State property base by means of translation the means of production from State to collective group of commune(s) freely (without paying for property) . There the communist sector of economy conforms to the lower phase of communism (classless and stateless sector) and it exists beside capitalist (state capitalist + traditional capitalist) sector of economy (class- and state- sector). There would be a dialectical competition between two kinds of labour relations: labour power would have a free choice to move to the sector where the condition for living is better. If the better condition is in communist sector so the masses of proletarians will move into communist sector where they cease to be proletarians as such and hence capitalists (and the state capitalist sector) without labour power will lose their business, so private industry gradually will be nationalized as a first step and then it'll be communiazed (excuse my word invention) as a second step. The DotP is instituted 1) to prevent any counteraction from bourgeoisie 2) to organize communist self-management 3) to nationalize and communiaze private property into common property. For better understanding of the process of transition period the scheme is offered here http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=252&pictureid=1849

The transition period has communist sector and capitalist/state capitalist sectors simultaneously hence such kind of society as a whole couldn't be named as "communism of the lower phase" though it has it partly so the word "socialism" (or more exactly "proletarian socialism") is more suitable to the transitional period.

[StalinFanboy]

I don't use socialist or communist to describe my beliefs, but that's because of the rap those words have gotten through western propaganda.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

If your using the Leninst term for socialism, then no, I don't want to live in a 'socialist stage' which is self-identified as thus with a state.

If you use Marx's definition, I most certainly do want to live in a socialist society. Everyone on this board who isn't restricted or banned is a socialist and thus desires this.

If you refer to socialism as any transitionary period, regardless of whether its clearly defined, desired and marked out as a seperate stage and acheivment (as it is in Leninism), then yes, I'd like to live in a transitionary stage, as long as its not adminstered by a state and isn't considered an ends in itself, and is run by federations of workers councils moving towards communism. I'd like to participate in this stage to protect against capitalism and the state, but I recognise its a progression and thus needs to be rid off and ironically, fought against, to create proper communism.

Very well said. Completely agree.