Tfw you still don't know the difference between socialism and communism

The division, if I may say, is unfounded. Socialism is not a state of affairs to be established, but the movement that abolishes the present state of things.

Socialism is that mode of production, too, where the means of production are controlled directly by all of society and production is done to satisfy needs, not for the reproduction of capital. A state is necessary, in the beginning, for the crushing of bourgeois resistance, after which it necessarily withers when it ceases to have its function as an organ for the suppression of one class by another, here being the DoTP.

I don't know exactly when the terms started being used in the way they are today, as if different things.

youtube.com/watch?v=ysZC0JOYYWw
youtube.com/watch?v=HMUuw_K-ky0

Here you go, this is really idiot friendly and goes well into explaining the basics for beginners

...

Mr 007 there is the only correct one.

And how do these localities trade with each other? There must still be a market to exchange right?

Thank you.

Good, because there are none.

Then why do people use different terms then?

marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt2-2.htm#s6

No market. Federation of these councils with some kind of central planning committee will control the resource distribution.

What in did I say that was kautskyist?

So basically exchange will never occur?

How is value expressed in communism without money/currency?

It will but on basis of mutual aid and necessity to change raw resources. I think that most communes will be build to become mostly self-sufficient in communism, but there might be some kind of "market" economy with labor vouchers and "luxury" goods.

there's measurements for how people have access to goods, but not currency

nah, a portion of output will go to expanding productive capacity (if people vote for it anyway)

Because they've been informed as such by tankie ideologues or the remnants of tankie ideology stating as such. The concept of "socialism" being a stage in between capitalism and communism and an entirely different mode of production, one that is different from communism in any regard, is entirely in contradiction with what we could actually see being produced from the dismantling of capitalism, and quite ironically this is done by people who fancy themselves Marxists or even followers of Marx's words. All Marx did was speak of a lower and higher stage of communism.

He railed against it too:
>Further. The essence of Marx's theory of the state has been mastered only by those who realize that the dictatorship of a single class is necessary not only for every class society in general, not only for the proletariat which has overthrown the bourgeoisie, but also for the entire historical period which separates capitalism from "classless society", from communism. Bourgeois states are most varied in form, but their essence is the same: all these states, whatever their form, in the final analysis are inevitably the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie. The transition from capitalism to communism is certainly bound to yield a tremendous abundance and variety of political forms, but the essence will inevitably be the same: the dictatorship of the proletariat. (marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch02.htm)
>But we say that our goal is equality, and by that we mean the abolition of classes. Then the class distinction between workers and peasants should be abolished. That is exactly our object. A society in which the class distinction between workers and peasants still exists is neither a communist society nor a socialist society. True, if the word socialism is interpreted in a certain sense, it might be called a socialist society, but that would be mere sophistry, an argument about words. Socialism is the first stage of communism; but it is not worth while arguing about words. One thing is clear, and that is, that as long as the class distinction between workers and peasants exists, it is no use talking about equality, unless we want to bring grist to the mill of the bourgeoisie. (marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1919/may/06.htm)
At best Lenin made it fashionable to use the term socialism, which Marx first used interchangeably with communism, to describe a lower, less-developed communist mode of production likely to function on rationing and, for example, labour notes, as hypothesized in Marx's Gothakritik but that's it.

So why does this shit-tier understanding of what capitalism is and isn't and what socialism/communism will and will not be like persist even outside of "Marxist"-"Leninist" topology? Who the fuck knows. But anyone who spends a little time investigating the question or actually consults Marx and Lenin before claiming to have an understanding or represent their views respectively should understand these things as such.

The part where you differentiated between socialism and communism, n.b. where you described a scenario in which value production (and thus generalized commodity production AKA the capitalist mode of production) still exists by speaking of "obtaining the full value of labour" and then described communism as a society that is suddenly now not just stateless, but previously also held the existence of classes because you dub it "classless".

It isn't. (Exchange) value is the depository of a commodity; an object made primarily to be exchanged. Under a society absent of the commodity relation, the only type of value left is use value, i.e. the direct utility of an object, a widget or service.

That is a ton of inferences and extrapolation based on me giving the most basic foundational definitions to terms. Those are how the terms are used, I did nothing to describe their relation to one another (I also don't believe there is a meaningful distinction where you have socialism "before" communism or whatever)

My mistake, I meant use-value. I've skimmed through the soviet cybernetics thread, but is there any leftcom perspective that concretely deals with this? (I.e. distribution of goods and services in absence of markets, capital, money and production for exchange-value)

Where did you get those definitions, who else uses them, for what purpose do they use them and from where did they obtain them? The merit of their accuracy and consistency is what matters, not what's most popular. The definitions you provided might only be in 5th place behind such a first place best-seller like "socialism is healthcare and communism is state ownership" but I'm afraid its spot at the throne remains only much more bollocks than yours.

Except for when you said that the latter "logically" concludes the former, and that the former has characteristics no longer present in the latter, both implying a relational conception.

First of all, the absence of all these things is to be as such because these things cummulatively and symbiotically define the capitalist mode of production (there is no capitalism without the generalized and dominating presence of these things).

Second, and to reiterate, communism means the overthrowing of capitalist relations. That requires an understanding, theoretical, of capitalism against as a set of relations, not only as a system that produces goods but also a system that (re)produces relations.

So, the view that comunism isn't some permanent condition we are waiting for to impose itself on society, but that communism is rather a movement in which new social relations will exist that can only be hypothesized, is an incredibly generic notion of communism. As per Marx (yes, there is no "leftcom society" brought forth by left communists):
(marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm)
So attempting to define post-capitalism "positively" by effectively describing a hypothetical society isn't wrong because it might be inaccurate ("stateless, classless, moneyless" and so forth is an example of an entirely acceptable definition, even), but because it distracts from or even at times entirely ignores that communism is at first nothing but a negating thing, and that only through this negation the possibility for a new society adopting wholly unique properties may emerge.

So, with all these things in mind, and the knowledge that the communist productive relation may take on various forms, the most concrete example of a communistic productive relation we may find today (for now at least) would be within internet piracy. Zizek, who I do not always agree with, actually put this forth many times by mentioning that with the internet, communism already exists in a certain form. Why piracy then? Because it shows the existence of a movement which has transformed exchange values into a circulation of free use values. If anyone wanted me to define this process, especially that autistic blackflaggot who failed to respond to my other thread in which I explained it, I would define it as communization. And here the relationship between two individuals sharing a file is now a direct association of individuals, rather than a (market) relationship between two commodities. Within the former only use-values exist, while in the latter use-values are only actualized after the process of exchange establishes (exchange) value.

I can't and won't attempt to blueprint the aftermath of a potential social transformation absent of generalized commodity production, but organs like councils within the larger scope of a commune would be likely examples of a society reproducing itself under the aforementioned absences.
If you want, the closest thing to a "leftcom perspective" elaborating and building heavily on what I describe would be this short text: libcom.org/library/capitalism-communism-gilles-dauve.

take off that flag, faggot

socialism and communism are the same