this post was submitted on 22 Dec 2025
430 points (84.0% liked)
Memes
54215 readers
657 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Socialism is pre-communism. Communism itself cannot fully exist until global socialism, but each individual country can begin the transition between capitalism and communism called "socialism." Socialist states aren't communist not because of imperialist aggression, but because communism itself is a higher, global mode of production.
Socialist countries exist under siege, but generally commit far less harm than capitalist countries.
Returning to the original comment, you just seem generally mixed up on terms and are drawing false conclusions from them.
This is just quibbling over semantics & context. When communists run a state, yes that state is technically socialist/pre-communist. That’s why those states have “Socialist” in their names and not “Communist.” There is never going to be a “communist state,” because definitionally communism’s long-term end-goal is a classless society. And since we define the state as a system which protects the interests of one economic class over others, such a society would definitionally be stateless.
So when someone—assuming they know what they’re talking about—says “communist state/country,” they mean a communist-led socialist state.
Sophomoric is the word
It's a broken culture that makes people act like you; professorial on topics they objectively know less about than their 'audience'
At what age did you collapse entirely into your mind palace? When did you decide you knew enough to extrapolate what the outside world was like through pure platonic reasoning?
You have a fundamental lack of understanding of the concepts you're talking about. Your points are drivel. The response you deserve is to be told to shut up and learn. You're acting like you have something valuable to say and you do not. It's childish immaturity.
Communism is both a mode of production, and a process. Socialist countries run by communist parties are properly communist in that they are building communism in the real world. This is why Marx states in The German Ideology that
The point isn't that socialist countries would be in that higher mode of production if they weren't under siege, or that they aren't sufficiently communist, but that they must build up state power to resist this siege, and as a consequence this state power sometimes commits excesses and mistakes.
No?
I was arguing against this point in particular.
They were absolutely proper, "purity" in constructing socialism is something liberals obsess over.
My point isn't "socialism in real life is bad, but was only forced that way because of imperialists." My point is that I support socialism, including the development of state power required to protect socialism from sabateurs and imperialists, knowing that no implementation of state power has ever been free of sin. I acknowledge the necessity of protecting socialism, and the immense gains made by these systems for their working classes.
The fact of the matter is that imperialist countries do exist, and any socialist country must therefore develop means to protect itself. This is an internally driven necessity from solving the contradiction between imperialist and subjugated countries. It isn't something imposed from the outside, but the inside reacting to conditions it is in.
No? It seems like you're deliberately refusing to see the point. Socialism is good and defending itself is necessary. You're taking a mechanistic approach.
Your point was that socialist states that protect themselves aren't "proper," and are posturing as though they are terror regimes.
This was your claim. The harm is a result of building communism, the internal necessity of protecting socialism is an internal reaction to opposed forces. You're erasing dialectical materialism. We do not live in a world without imperialism, or reactionary forces. This doesn't mean building up socialism wouldn't be nicer if imperialist countries didn't exist to sabotage them, but at the same time we must recognize that these problems are universal to building socialism and not merely the products of external circumstance. This is "proper" socialism, warts and all, that gradually resolves its contradictions and works towards the development of communism.
You are mixing up the terms
I don't take homework assignments from people who didn't do the reading
You're extremely tedious in a very specifically German way, and this limits the amount of time people want to spend talking to you
I ain't reading all that, free Palestine