It's a mess of a title but it's the best I could come up with right now.

I am writing some pages which are written for a general audience. I wish to, really quickly, distinguish the following from each other. Ideally a single term, but if necessary I can add a one-sentence explanation for them, if it's a term a typical person may not intuitively understand.

  • A society wherein the means of production are held in common - a society with a 'socialist economy'
  • A state which aims to achieve such a system, but isn't one yet - a 'pro-socialist state'

Already-established terms are preferred. This is the kind of thing were I'd assume they would have to exist by now, I just can't recall them.

I also want to avoid confusing terms. For example, a communist society is one which has implemented communism, but a communist state is (by definition) one which has not implemented a communist society. So I don't want to call a state which has established socialism a socialist state .....

Is it fine to use 'socialist economy'? I think ideally I wouldn't imply economy is distinct from society, but I don't know if 'socialist society' is different enough from 'socialist state' to avoid confusion.

Is 'socialist state' clear enough to refer to a state which intends to establish a socialist means of production, or should I say 'pro-socialist state' instead?

Maybe 'socialist society' and 'pro-socialist society' are clear enough?

PS: if this fits better in another community, let me know!

  • AssortedBiscuits [they/them]
    ·
    2 years ago

    A society wherein the means of production are held in common - a society with a ‘socialist economy’

    To me, a socialist society is a society with a socialist base and a socialist superstructure. Having a socialist economy is not sufficient. There must be a socialist superstructure as well. The socialist superstructure is represented by a ruling socialist ideology, a ruling socialist org, and a ruling socialist state apparatus (or anarchist equivalent). It doesn't mean literally every single person has to be a socialist, but that the ruling ideology is socialist. Just like a capitalist society has capitalist realism, a socialist society would have a socialist equivalent.

    • temptest [any]
      ·
      2 years ago

      Thanks for the detailed reply!

      The definitions do get tricky as there are so many for 'socialism' and 'socialist' themselves. As you said, definitions are divisive, and in the articles I'm writing I've put myself in a challenging position of strong non-sectarianism, my goal is that an M-L and a non-Marxist ancom can both read them without feeling misrepresented. So please, do hair-split my definitions, better now than later.

      I was (up to now) using the framework of:

      • Socialism is a social movement aiming to establish a system where private property is abolished, in favour of common ownership over MoP.
      • Socialist is having characters of socialism..... which is admittedly vague and loose.
      • Socialist society/economy is the main goal of socialism, where no priv. prop. and worker's own MoP

      which (it seems so obvious now) has problems. Yes, that last one especially is unnecessarily narrow. Reconsidering this, 'socialized economy' is a great term . It's much clearer and eliminates a lot of potential confusion and debate that might come from saying 'socialist' there for something so narrow.

      Thanks for emphasizing that Marxists tend to see socialism more as processes which may give an uncertain result, rather than uncertain processes to reach a specific result. I believe I've leaned more towards the second in my explanations.