I did. Communism implies there is a *commune*

Socialism prepares society to enter into a communist society.

So, especially in the early phases, you might be required to work certain jobs.

Socialism being a transition state only is bollocks

@Deleted User Though I have heard numerous times that socialism comes after communism.

Is it?

It defeats the purpose of socialism

At least in a practical sense

Whoever said socialism comes after communism is a retard.

Same as it defeats communism

>Socialism
>Practical

No no I meant making it to be simply the state between capitalism and communism

Pick one.

There might as well not be a word for that other than "chaos" if there's nothing behind socialism other than 'muh property'

Why is socialism as a bridge to communism, self-defeating

?

It implies concessions that take away from the end goal and risk departure from it at all

You cannot have communism if there is a king, you cannot have communism if there is a consul

IMO socialism should not be a transition state. Nor should it be related to communism. It should instead be something entirely different but very much similar.

Capitalism must be dismantled on a global stage, first of all. This is no easy feat. But it is necessary in order to solves the contradictions between classes that cannot be imposed forever.

The community/the social ownership of production and its fruits should be the goal of a true socialist society

Of course.

Trotsky, marx, lenin, and stalin all failed at that.

Without the elimination of individual mandate, and without the elimination of property

However property may be relegated by the community

And it is more present than ever.

How do you even believe it is possible to do it with communism?

@Deleted User Can you STFU for a second?

Now that was rude.

@Deleted User I don't understand your criticism. Without addressing exploitation everywhere, outside of your own lands, then it will be a threat and invite the repressive forces of capitalism to return.

Who said others cannot be empowered by a socialist nation or people?

This is why Socialism is authoritarian. Because it requires the focus of the masses in the fight.

I am trying to understand why you think there is a problem with socialism as a means to an ends.

Well, it is not just that, it is a necessary stage.

Have you ever heard of the foreigner volunteers for the wehrmacht. Brave men fought with the Germans against their colonial oppressors.
Socialism can be spread without conquest.

Yes.

And it most certainly cannot be a means to an end

All things decay

All systems decay

Yes.

And all ways of life decay