2 ms·
It's been a while since my Marxism-Leninism class so caveat emptor, but I believe the role of socialism was limited. There supposed to be transitional phase fro
by varjag 9y ago
It's been a while since my Marxism-Leninism class so caveat emptor, but I believe the role of socialism was limited. There supposed to be transitional phase from coercive proletarian state to truly classless society aided by "socialist mode of production", but not much after that.
The socialist and social-democratic (as you correctly put it) movements promoted socialism as end-game within bourgeois/capitalist social framework and were viewed as adversarial.
And clearly there are ongoing changes in social fabric but it's hard to attribute them to socialist movements alone more than to e.g. technological, agricultural or medical advances.
- ewzimm 9y agoSocialism and communism are often used interchangeably, but communism almost always refers to the end state, while socialism tends to encompass both the transition and the end state. It’s a little hazy even to Marxists. This might help clear it up: https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.htm https://www.marxists.org/archive/fromm/works/1961/man/ch06.h... Anyway, the type of socialism you’re referring to is associated with the cooperative movement which led to things like mutual insurance and credit unions. I fully support these types of systems in which people with common interests and a common communitry create structures to support themselves. I think this is the best way to create structures with community-based values that compete with for-profit industries which don’t always represent their customers.