Is socialism a separate stage from communism?

Is socialism a separate stage from communism?

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Is dawn a separate stage from day?

Depends on who you ask. According to anarchists and leftcoms, no. According to various left-wing capitalists (MLs, mutualists, market socialists, socdems etc.) and most right-wingers, yes.

If you read Marx, no.

Better question: Does it benefit the left in any way to consider socialism as a "stage," or one separate from communism?

Take a hint from the bourgeoisie and realize words are meant to serve us, not the other way around.

If you read and agree with Marx, no.

Socialism, in the marxist definition of the word, is used more or less interchangeably with communism. Marx refers to the phase before as the "dictatorship of the proletariat".

Surprised this is not gorilla thread.

Not really… Some do consider socialism to be "less than communism".

Like Bordiga. Socialism was, like, no money but goods aren't distributed 100% freely either, there were labor vouchers or something that one had to have to get goods (at least ones that are scarce) or the goods would be distributed to the needy.
Communism is when there's no need to ration stuff much. One could just go and get what he needs or wants.
So the difference isn't maybe as much organizational as it is technological, I guess.

No. Socialism and communism are both stateless classless societys. the words are interchangable. Some leftcoms use socialism to mean lower phase communism.

Isn't communism when the state has withered away, as opposed to socialism? As per Engels.

Socialism is lower-stage Communism

I prefer the term "a-capitalist spectrum"

rousing

Is a seed separate from the plant?

Is the coming to be different yet identical from the resultant being?

Are anarkids and leftcoms undialectical? Without question.

Source?

Yes.

spooky ideologies there friendo

This

Don't you mean Lenin?

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

+ referenced texts

Yes and no. Depends on who you are asking.I view the question as unimportant if you simply very clearly define your terms before you use them in a discussion. However, I personally view the term socialism as most useful when it is irreconcilable with capitalism, which per Marx is based on the generalization of commodity production. In this case I think it would be okay to name the Incan Empire as basically primitive socialism without necessarily being communist, seeing as they had large scale planned production directly for use while not having things like free association.

Is AW stuck up his own ass without knowing very much at all? Absolutely.