yo, whats with the socialism?

[Pravda]

There is a lot of throwing terms here, so im little confused. What is socialism? Is it lower stage of communism? Isnt it different from dictatorship of the proletariat? Do classes still exist in socialism? Is there a state?
Thanks for response in advance:)

[Rafiq]

It's a class based ideology interchangable with communism.

[Domela Nieuwenhuis]

I believe it's the state of the 'state' after the revolution, but before communism.
It would be the state that holds the vanguard party.

[The Jay]

Marx didn't make a distinction between Socialism and Communism. Others did. It depends on whom you ask.

[The Idler]

Socialism, communism, Same thing.

[#FF0000]

I think the folks saying "socialism is interchangable with communism" are being a little, uh, wrong.

Socialism is a large blanket term for a whole lot of things and it means something different depending on the context.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

It's an over-arching political philosophy. It's used interchangeably with communism, but I see communism the state society is in at the point where it is classless, moneyless and stateless.

Socialism does not describe some 'lower stage of communism', but is the political philosophy that aims to replace Capitalism with a Socialist society - communism.

I think that is the simplest way to describe it accurately.

[Ostrinski]

Communism is the ultimate realization of the socialist mode of production on a global level. A classless, stateless, wageless economy where production is according to social ability and distribution is according to needs and desires of individuals.

The socialist mode of production is an economic arrangement where the practice of commodity production for exchange on a market has been abolished and therefore the use of money as a universal equivalent and wages (exchange of the productive output of labor for a fraction of the value of itself) have also been abolished.

[TheGodlessUtopian]

Lenin defined socialism as the "Lower-Phase of Communism" which existed following the period of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat. During this time class struggle is still fierce and society is still progressing so money and various social vices are still present.

This will definition will be different pending on who you ask.

[Rugged Collectivist]

I think the folks saying "socialism is interchangable with communism" are being a little, uh, wrong.

Socialism is a large blanket term for a whole lot of things and it means something different depending on the context.

Well, the only other context I've seen it used in was in reference to social democratic parties. But who gives a shit what they think?

[Yuppie Grinder]

Communism is the ultimate realization of the socialist mode of production on a global level. A classless, stateless, wageless economy where production is according to social ability and distribution is according to needs and desires of individuals.

The socialist mode of production is an economic arrangement where the practice of commodity production for exchange on a market has been abolished and therefore the use of money as a universal equivalent and wages (exchange of the productive output of labor for a fraction of the value of itself) have also been abolished.

You've got it exactly right!

[Ostrinski]

You've got it exactly right!
http://24.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_mbulupXl1s1r3r2k1o1_500.gif

[doesn't even make sense]

I take socialism within a revolutionary context to be pretty much the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under communism there is no dictatorship of the proletariat because there are no classes.

[Positivist]

It usually refers to any arrangement of production in which resources are publically owned and socially managed, or in which direct producers retain ownership of their own surplus. However most marxists use the term interchangeably with communism, defining it as a stateless, classless, communal society where distribution is determined according to need and an abundance of value is secured. Furthermore you also have leninists who use it to distinguish between a public ownership arrangement enforced by a state and stateless final communism.

[Yuppie Grinder]

I take socialism within a revolutionary context to be pretty much the dictatorship of the proletariat. Under communism there is no dictatorship of the proletariat because there are no classes.

This is incorrect. Socialism as distinguished from full communism by Lenin is NOT the same thing as the DotP, contrary to what far too many assume.
Socialism is not government of a certain class character.

[doesn't even make sense]

This is incorrect. Socialism as distinguished from full communism by Lenin is NOT the same thing as the DotP, contrary to what far too many assume.
Socialism is not government of a certain class character.

Could you please clarify? Do you consider socialism & DotP entirely distinct or are they different concepts which overlap?

[Rafiq]

Now, everyone, calm the fuck down. As a movement, ideologically, if you were to call yourself a socialist, you identify with communism. In this sense, communism and socialism are interchangeable as both are the embodiment of the interests of the proletarian class, in the same way Liberalism was to the Bourgeois class. Members of the revolutionary bourgeois class didn't run around calling themselves "capitalists", now, did they? The product of socialism and communism is almost completely unknown, especially since we aren't even close to approaching a revolutionary situation or even an elementary form of revolutionary class consciousness. Lenin made a certain distinction applicable to the former Russian Empire shortly after the end of the civil war, however, despite this, it isn't at all a signification that we should start defining "communism" and "socialism" as real existing mode(s) of production or state of affairs.

Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality [will] have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence.


And it's this quote which signifies the differentiation between Marxists and Utopian socialists. Communism and Socialism are ideologies, not mode(s) of production which can be analyzed in the same way capitalism can. Really, the reason the USSR and it's friends were called "Communist states" by Liberals cannot be constituted as a misunderstanding or a form of propaganda. What was meant was that these were states ruled by Communists. Nothing more. Any idiot could understand that commodity production was well existent in all former Communist states.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Could you please clarify? Do you consider socialism & DotP entirely distinct or are they different concepts which overlap?


Lenin defined socialism as the "Lower-Phase of Communism" which existed following the period of the Dictatorship of the Proletariat.
above

[Ostrinski]

The DotP still retains vestiges of the capitalist mode of production.

[Q]

There is a lot of throwing terms here, so im little confused. What is socialism? Is it lower stage of communism? Isnt it different from dictatorship of the proletariat? Do classes still exist in socialism? Is there a state?
Thanks for response in advance:)

Since there have already been useful answers, I'll refer to this article (http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/823/socialism-is-a-form-of-class-struggle) that explains how class society isn't abolished overnight. This is what distincts the lower phase of communism ("socialism") from the higher phase.

The "dictatorship of the proletariat" just expresses a political hegemony in the constellation of class society. Just like we're currently living in a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisie".

As for the "state under socialism" thing, I'll going to give a "yes, it will exist, but..." kind of answer that is explained in my blogpost right here (http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=6359).

Hope it is useful.

[Let's Get Free]

The word "socialism" has been thrown around so much and has been evacuated of so much meaning that it's hard to even use anymore.