How do ML, Maoist, Ancom, and Left-Com definitions of "socialism" and "communism" differ?

How do ML, Maoist, Ancom, and Left-Com definitions of "socialism" and "communism" differ?

leftcoms and ancoms actually want socialism and communism

Don't leftcoms believe they are the same?

Yeah I'm pretty sure

Yes, Marx used them interchangeably.

how did the "dictatorship of the proletariat = socialism" meme come about?

Lenin

When did Marx specifically define socialism?

I've heard somebody say socialism is really just a world without exchange value, where production is thus geared toward use.

Why is this board mostly just giving definitions of different ideologies

Pls return to AP World History

t. ancoms and leftcoms

t. 'marxist'-'leninists' and trotskyists

Lenin popularized the use of the word socialism to describe the so-called lower stage of socialism Marx described in Critique of the Gotha Programme, where the legacy of bourgeois society has not yet been fully eradicated and there remains some work to be done to fully restructure society. Lenin also loved using the term for propaganda purposes to name any policy he deemed to be conductive towards the goal of abolishing capitalism - at various points he described state monopoly capitalism, workers' coops and even the electrification of Russia as being "socialism".

Maoism seems cute.

Better here than /r/socialism

Stalin era. People are saying Lenin but what Lenin did in S&R was simply use socialism to mean an underdeveloped socialism.

LeftComs believe that the exact form of a future communist society cannot be predicted in the present day but must arise naturally out of the conditions the people find themselves in after the destruction of private property and the law of value, just like capitalist society arose from the material conditions created by the bourgeoisie and was not planned out ahead of time during the feudal period. They do not believe the state can just be disbanded by decree, but that the circumstances for the state to become superfluous must come into being before such a thing becomes possible.
AnComs generally have some sort of plan as to how a future society should be organized, ranging from trade union control for AnSyns to a confederation of decentrally planned communes or whatever. They do believe the state can be abolished whenever, and wish to do so immediately.
MLs are just delusional capitalists who think that the system becomes intrinsically different when the "worker's state" directs production.

hey its phil

hi phil

Coming from a leftcom that honestly sounds like a compliment rather them an insult.

MLs ARE delusional though

Yeah and anarchists allways end up creating a State instead of abolishing it. All ML States where extremely good till revisionists took over and ended up fucking the soviet Union and the eastern block

Revisionism is a feature of 'Marxism'-'Leninism', not a bug

MLs are the only ones who have done anything

Its less of feature and more something that hapens gradualy. Revisionism dosent come instantly It took Khrushchev 3 years to denounce stalin, after he came into Power Khrushchev dident Just tought one day he would just fuck the USSR he started having a incorect line of tought wich evolved to full blown revisionism. This what hapend in marxism since Marx dident expecify alot of things, it allows for extreme revisionism of his core ideas wich ends up fucking everything up.

Revisionism is the logical conclusion of concentrating too much power in the hands of one man.

ML and Maoist : It's socialism/communism if the propaganda say it is.

Ancom and Left-Com : Classical marxist definitions of socialism and communism.

Jesus Christ how horrifying.


wew lad

how so

how are MLs delusional? their system seems to work pretty well if not for the suffering when it goes wrong


how are leftcoms delusional? because they haven't been proven right?

Which is mostly a tragedy of history. Lenin, Trotsky, and especially Stalin took very bad lessons from Marx. Had Rosa and Pannekoek and Kalinin and potentially even Bukharin held positions of power, 20th century socialism would have been much different.

...

Yes, capitalist powers would have crushed 20th century socialism in just a few years.

In Critique of the Gotha Program Marx wrote about the "lower stage of communism" that would still retain certain features of capitalist society, but that these would gradually disappear. This lower stage is what we now consider socialism, and the higher stage would now be considered communism. I think applying these terms in this way started with the Bolsheviks but I'm not really sure.

Tbh getting crushed after a few years as heroic martyrs who stayed true to their principles is better than degenerating into repressive bureaucratic oligarchy almost immediately and then lingering on for 70 years and permenantly destroying the reputation of socialism.

Hmm… let me see… worker ownership? Check. Democracy in the workplace? Check.

Sounds good to me!

Co-ops are literally private property, they are owned by a small section of workers and not society at large.

Damn, Marxism-Leninism really is the best ideology :^)