Does "socialism" actually exist in the same way "capitalism" and "communism" does?

[RedWorker]

Can "socialism" be considered a stage of historical materialism, mode of production, or other concept which is directly comparable but different to to "communism" and "capitalism"?
If so then what is your criteria for socialism? How is it differentiated from capitalism and communism, and how is it directly comparable to them?

Groups such as the SPGB use "socialism" as a term with the same meaning as "communism" so such things should not be taken into account here. Here I refer to "socialism" being construed as something different to "communism".

[Q]

There are different definitions. I consider it a transitory stage where the capitalist old and the communist new interpenetrate. It certainly is not a 'mode of production' then.

I'm sure much Marx quotations will follow here. And I'm moving this from /politics to /learning.

[RedWorker]

Hmm. I placed it in "Politics" because more than to learn this is to see people's opinion which on this subject which probably would vary based on tendency, etc. But "Learning" has a nicer environment and usually focuses on actual description of ideas rather than personally-focused discussion, which here in RevLeft often comes to revolve around insults disguised in one way or another (sometimes overt) after someone has run out of arguments.

Marx quotes would be good. :D

[tuwix]

Can "socialism" be considered a stage of historical materialism, mode of production, or other concept which is directly comparable to "communism" and "capitalism"?


Yes, it can. But the answer to question: is socialism the same with communism depends on tendency. So some people will say that socialism is something different than communism and other that it is the same.

[Slavic]

I see Socialism more so as a movement as opposed to an organizational structure with specific attributes. Socialism is the movement that socializes the means of production and hopefully sets course on a path toward Communism.

This being said, there are many tendencies and groups that have different criteria of how to socialize and thus there are different interpretations of a socialist society,

[Wht.Rex]

Socialism is slow way towards communism. Not including any ideologies, Marxists believe there is spectre:
Communism ------------------------------------ Capitalism (liberalism, nazism, fascism etc.)
Socialism is just like wagon that brings society to the left side of spectre, but there are different paths:
Marxism-Leninism (Bolshevism) - revolutionary way, where workers and farmers uprise, take over country with force and bring down capital and abolish burgoise.
Socialdemocracy (Menshevism) - non-revolutionary way, government allows progressive taxes, capitalist class very slowly fades away, makes society slowly more equal. Possibly abolish burgoise in future too as bolsheviks try.
Stalinism - Stalin's way (read Grover Furr - Stalin's struggle for democracy)
Maoism
Titoism
etc.

Idoelogies like North Korean Juche doesn't follow communism.

[Red Economist]

Answered No, but for the sake of clarity, Lenin described Socialism in State and Revolution as the lower stage or phase of Communism. It therefore does not constitute a 'mode of production' in it's own right like Capitalism or Communism. The term is used in a similar sense to the way Lenin used 'Imperialism' to mean a stage of Capitalist development. There were some debates in the USSR about what the nature of the transition for Socialism to the higher phase of communism would mean and what distinguished them, but I don't know the exact details.