Permanent Socialism?

[Ander]

Socialism is generally seen as the stepping stone to communism after a successful revolution has occurred. However, I personally would like to see socialism as the end result instead of simply a transitional stage. Is it possible for socialism to be permanent? Can a revolution end in socialism, and function that way without eventually evolving into communism?

[Janus]

Can a revolution end in socialism, and function that way without eventually evolving into communism?
Yes. Look at Cuba, the USSR, or the PRC. Now they claimed and continue to claim to be socialist though the workers never held nor hold power.

The longer it is kept, the greater the chance of a bureaucratic elite taking power and ruling in its own interests. If that happened, what would be the point of the revolution?

[Commie Dic]

If only the people would maintain control instead of letting someone take control. It is all about mind control I guess. Though maybe it would not of happened with Cuba if the US would not of had Che Guevara killed.

[Whitten]

In theory yes, in practice it would become corrupted. The only reason marxist socialism can work is because the system is enginneered so that the powers of teh state will naturally become meaningless once a classless society is achieved.

[Enragé]

why would you even want that?

[Sadena Meti]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 12:33 AM
Can a revolution end in socialism?
In a continuous revolution, nothing ever ends, it keeps on changing and evolving.

Any theory or model of socialism or communism we can think up now is based on the world as we know it. With a continous revolution, the end result will probably be unlike anything we can think up, because everything changes, again and again.

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Jello+Jul 29 2006, 05:33 AM--> (Jello @ Jul 29 2006, 05:33 AM)Is it possible for socialism to be permanent? Can a revolution end in socialism, and function that way without eventually evolving into communism?[/b]
No. Socialism will exist as long as class antagonisms do. It is these very antagonisms that the socialist state will eradicate over time. Socialism is the process of transforming a capitalist society into a communist one. It makes no sense to suggest that this process is in itself the final product.


Janus
Yes. Look at Cuba, the USSR, or the PRC. Now they claimed and continue to claim to be socialist though the workers never held nor hold power.
The key word here is "claimed".

[Black Dagger]

Originally posted by ComradeOm+Jul 30 2006, 12:37 AM--> (ComradeOm @ Jul 30 2006, 12:37 AM)
Janus
Yes. Look at Cuba, the USSR, or the PRC. Now they claimed and continue to claim to be socialist though the workers never held nor hold power.
The key word here is "claimed". [/b]
What do you mean?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by Black [email protected] 29 2006, 03:44 PM
What do you mean?
Just because the USSR claimed to be socialist doesn't exactly mean that it was. As such it has little relevance in a discussion on whether socialism could be permanent.

Actually this raises the question of why on earth anyone would feel that socialism is preferable to communism?

[loveme4whoiam]

Actually this raises the question of why on earth anyone would feel that socialism is preferable to communism?
Probably because they fear the uncertainty that constant revolution would bring about. In a socialist system, at least everything is fixed and constant, and in theory better for everyone than under capitalism. In a society that is constantly changing, it would be much harder to be "certain" about anything.

Not that I'm saying that this is right, just how people who feel that way possibly think.

[ComradeOm]

To be certain: I am using socialism in the Marxist sense - the transitional state between capitalism and communism. Not in reference to either the USSR or the welfare state.

[Ander]

Originally posted by [email protected] 29 2006, 07:43 PM
Actually this raises the question of why on earth anyone would feel that socialism is preferable to communism?
Well...I am not a communist and I don't personally believe that communism can be achieved without failing miserably. Now, seeing as I hate capitalism yet am critical of communism, my only option lies smack in the middle...socialism.

[sav]

Ok, n00b talking:

If we're talking about socialism in the Marxist sense, then shouldn't communism naturally occur as the state becomes useless? So theoretically, the revolution could never end in socialism permanently?

[ComradeOm]

Originally posted by [email protected] 30 2006, 12:17 PM
If we're talking about socialism in the Marxist sense, then shouldn't communism naturally occur as the state becomes useless? So theoretically, the revolution could never end in socialism permanently?
Exactly. I can only assume that the original poster was referring to the USSR or Sweden when referring to "socialism".

[Ander]

Due to me being stupid I began the thread using socialism in the Marxist sense when I didn't want to at all.

Let's just close this thread down because my question was already answered and yeah.