I have nothing to add but I would say - discourse and questions like yours should be encouraged by Hexbear.

in terms of developmental stages as laid out by marx, socialism is the lower stage of communism, after a revolution has happened and the workers control the means of production, during the class-dictatorship of the proletariat, before the state has withered away. During this phrase there are necessarily some trappings of the old society.

But that's the developmental context of the word socialist. The word socialist has many other contexts, some good, some bad. The nazis called themselves "national socialists" but Marxist-Leninists and Democratic socialists don't consider them such, viewing them as fascism masquerading as socialism (something fascism is incidentally very good at, since it capitalizes on the fury of downwardly mobile petit-bourgeois by channeling their anger against scapegoats instead of capitalism, i.e. channeling their potentially revolutionary energy into counter-revolutionary energy.)

The original sense of the word "socialist" which predates Marx and Engels was Utopian Socialism, which was born out of the European enlightenment. It was an idealist, non-materialist tradition of viewing that a vaguely defined Socialism (the end of class exploitation) would come about purely out of the development of technology, and/or the altruism of the capitalist, and/or people simply convincing others that it was the right system through civil debate. This utopian socialism came from people like Owen (a capitalist who tried to be nicer to his workers than other capitalists) and Fourier, but further developed through people like Lassalle in the Gotha programme, which Marx criticized. Marx and Engels took Utopian Socialism and made it "scientific" (in the 19th century sense of the word) by arming it with the economic critique of capital, synthesizing it with historical materialism, and emphasizing the need for the proletariat to become class conscious, militant, and organized, and banishing the illusions that socialism would simply come about peacefully through reasoned debate or reformist transition.

To your thoughts:

Listen to the Blowback Podcast! Season 1 was all about the recent Iraq war.

Not everyone can or should be a matyr and thats fine. That doesn't take away the value of doing good work that helps people against capitalism. My contribution was before I went back to school I organised with a tenant union and helped with a rent strike. Its not a revolutionary act in itself but it helped a lot of people to improve their lives materially. I plan to go back when I'm out of school again, when I've got the time to be of assistance.

Honestly, this is awesome! Learning is the most important thing you can do personally and also then using what you’re learning to teach other leftists is highly important. You’re doing great comrade!

Socialism is Communism, just an earlier stage?

im not sure for others socialists but for Marxist-leninists socialism is a stage of development of to eventually arrive at communism, so it goes capitalism-socialism-communism

Socdems in sweden came closest with their plan to buy out stock market in 40 years, but got got and stopped the program after like 5 years. All the rest of socdems are full of shit, especially after 90s.

Socialism and communism were used interchangeably in the 1800s, so the difference is whatever people you are talking to define them, as after marx you fractal of splits and states.

All communists are socialists, but not all socialists are communist.

you're becoming based

Socialism and Communism historically have been defined multiple different ways by different people in different areas at different times. Marx used the terms interchangably. What we typically use now for clarity's sake is that Socialism is the stage of society that involves moving towards "Communism", where Communism is the classless and stateless society where all of every person's necessities are provided for.

From Critique of the Gotha Programme by Marx:

In a higher phase of communist society, after the enslaving subordination of the individual to the division of labor, and therewith also the antithesis between mental and physical labor, has vanished; after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want; after the productive forces have also increased with the all-around development of the individual, and all the springs of co-operative wealth flow more abundantly—only then can the narrow horizon of bourgeois right be crossed in its entirety and society inscribe on its banners: From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs!

Maybe because I’m just really delving into this, but sometimes I’m like “I don’t think I can start a revolution, but it feels like I have to.” Maybe that’s normal idk

I think that's very normal, there's another thread here full of folks grappling with the same question of what praxis looks like in a time like ours.

I take solace in the reality that it's not about me as an individual, Lenin didn't pull off the Bolshevik Revolution because he was such a great guy. We reject great man theory, it's about a collective struggle towards a common goal. And while we aren't where we need to be yet, we're a hell of a lot further than we were when the Iraq war kicked off.

Hell yeah ask all your questions and share your thoughts.

Some things I’ve learned so far: Democratic Socialism is like only doing a cancer treatment halfway - the cancer will always come back because capitalists will always find ways to roll back the progress made for the workers/people. That’s because it’s the way capitalism is built (squeezing the most money out of all resources, workers included) and the concessions they give are just to stem the progression towards revolution.

They'll also jail and kill your leadership the first chance they get.

Socialism is Communism, just an earlier stage?

Socialism is what socialists do/plan to so with their power: depose and suppress the bourgeoisie, reorganize production around human need, and begin the process of eliminating class distinctions. Exactly what that looks like is a matter of debate, but I tend to be fairly forgiving so long as they're really attempting to develop on that path.

Communism can refer to multiple ideas and people conflate them, making folks confused.

There's communism as in the theoretical eventuality of a classless, stateless society realized through socialist struggle. Marx talked about it a lot.

There's also communism as in a state run by communists who did a successful revolution. "Under communism in the Soviet Union..." etc etc. This is a capitalist epithet for socialist countries run by commies (being generous with what counts as socialism).

Glad you're finding the content engaging!

To your question: not quite but it is in the right direction! These types of societies are different in that under socialism there would usually still be remnants of class structure. Socialism being a dictatorship of the proletariat would naturally mean that there are still bourgois elements in the world around them. Not all Labour would be compensated equally across all fields nor would all labourers share equal burden. Under communism there would be no class distinctions for anyone, it would be radically equal in all aspects of life from Labour conditions to luxuries enjoyed. In more concrete terms, under socialism Labour would be entitled to all it creates, workers would all own their means of production. Under communism all people would benefit from the fruits of all Labour, there would be a common ownership of all things.

I’m not knowledgeable enough to answer your questions, but I’ll say I absolutely love it when people ask good faith questions and are here to learn. I struggle to read theory, but I learn so much from the responses to posts like yours and really appreciate the discussions and education they inspire