Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**hardeep** · 05-09-2011, 11:54 PM

Is socialism the step before Communism? The little hybrid type of thing or is it something completely different?

**ClichéGuevara** · 05-09-2011, 11:56 PM

It's the transitional stage between capitalism and communism. It's essentially there to "set up" society for communism.

**cleef** · 05-10-2011, 12:03 AM

Never feel bad asking questions mate! Everyone here is learning!

Sean pretty much hit the nail on the head. It is the working class seizing the means of production in society and this property is owned by the community.

As for why america was against it is because the U.S is a capitalist society. Capitalism is an opposing force of communism as it is an economic system whereby the means of production are privately owned and operated for the profit of a few

(Please note that the USSR was not communist by the marxist defintion but state-capitalist)

**ClichéGuevara** · 05-10-2011, 12:06 AM

The state capitalist part is debatable, Cleef lol

**cleef** · 05-10-2011, 12:16 AM

haha u would say that

What would you call it? The way i see it, when Stalin took power it ceased to be moving in the direction of communism any longer

In regards to your post about socialism hardeep, that is the marxist definition yes.
However there are different beliefs to as how socialism should come about for example Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, stating that it must arise spontaneously. Instead of having a state dictate to them they favour direct worker-ownership of the means of production through independent worker cooperatives

**Asshole** · 05-10-2011, 12:20 AM

(05-09-2011 11:49 PM)Sean Wrote: The Communist Manifesto is out of date. Marx himself said the same.

thats what chomsky's for. and study chavez, hes a good example of socialism.

and hardeep, there is a socialism thread i just posted yesterday. it basically asks what would your socialism be? maybe some good stuff there

**ClichéGuevara** · 05-10-2011, 12:20 AM

It was Marxist-Leninism. Socialist economics worked under Stalin. It's kinda difficult to get to Communism in one country though. That's something that has to happen across the entire world.

**The Vegan Marxist** · 05-10-2011, 12:39 AM

(05-10-2011 12:16 AM)cleef Wrote: haha u would say that

What would you call it? The way i see it, when Stalin took power it ceased to be moving in the direction of communism any longer

In regards to your post about socialism hardeep, that is the marxist definition yes.
However there are different beliefs to as how socialism should come about for example Libertarian socialists and anarchists reject using the state to build socialism, stating that it must arise spontaneously. Instead of having a state dictate to them they favour direct worker-ownership of the means of production through independent worker cooperatives

I would beg to differ. Stalin's period was the period of strengthening socialism and actually separate the party from the worker's push towards communism. Stalin was trying to end the bureaucracy, as was Beria. Though, events such as the democratic reforms by Stalin was never talked about by Khrushchev after Stalin's death and his rising to power. It's quite interesting that, despite all the slanderous lies Khrushchev made against Stalin, it was Khrushchev, himself, who was voted out from being leader for errors and crimes committed that he blamed on Stalin for doing.

To understand better on Stalin's campaign for democratic reforms during his time as leader over the USSR, you should read these great articles:

http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr.html

http://eserver.org/clogic/2005/furr2.html

**Asshole** · 05-10-2011, 01:00 AM

my two main issues with stalin:
he implemented a style of imperialism, conquering new territories
he was too ambitious, russia is too large geographically and too diverse culturally to successfully be a socialist/communist pioneer

**The Vegan Marxist** · 05-10-2011, 01:31 AM

(05-10-2011 01:00 AM)Amaru Zion Wrote: my two main issues with stalin:
he implemented a style of imperialism, conquering new territories
he was too ambitious, russia is too large geographically and too diverse culturally to successfully be a socialist/communist pioneer

Can you produce evidence on these claims? I'm guessing the only 'evidence' you have on your first claim is the USSR's taking over Poland (since that's literally the only time the USSR expanded militarily under Stalin's command). Though, you'd then have to disregard the fact that Nazi Germany was trying to expand over Poland as well; thus, reason why the USSR had to protect the country from Nazi control.

As for the second claim, I'm guessing you're talking about the 'forced' collectivization that took place. Yet, the only reason we can now say there were errors committed is because we have the privilege of looking back. Stalin didn't. He had to address then-present conditions/issues and apply what he felt was best. And there's no doubt that collectivization (how it was implemented, not it itself) brought some unfortunate deaths. Though, without it, there would've been more deaths. The collectivization (along with industrialization) ensured that the USSR pressed forward away from pre-feudal issues like famines.

**zanj uhuru** · 05-10-2011, 01:40 AM

(05-10-2011 01:00 AM)Amaru Zion Wrote: my two main issues with stalin:
he implemented a style of imperialism, conquering new territories
he was too ambitious, russia is too large geographically and too diverse culturally to successfully be a socialist/communist pioneer

your serious ''too diverse culturally to successfully be a socialist/communist pioneer'' that is the most hilarous thing ive heard on this forum since the divine penis argument

**shakur420** · 05-10-2011, 01:50 AM

Right socialists utilize the term "Socialism" to describe the interim period between the fall of capitalism and the achievement of a stateless, classless society they call "Communism".

Left socialists utilize the term "Socialism" to describe workers control over production. They don't use the term "Communism", as workers control over production and real Democracy in society is their goal. They see workers control and Democracy throughout society being co-dependent and therefore do not restrict the use of the term "Socialism" to describe the interim period mentioned above - a period of class warfare.

In short, Communism is to Marxists what Socialism is to everybody else. It's pretty easy to understand, once, of course, you learn how to decipher marxist, capitalist and anarchist literature/terms.

I agree on the reasons other people gave about why Socialism/Communism was demonized by the U.S. and accurately described as a threat to it's dominance. Good article.
http://www.chomsky.info/articles/1986----.htm