That’s actually wrong. Marx came up with it, he just called what Lenin called “Socialism” as “lower-stage Communism.” The origin is in Historical Materialism, and the concept of Scientific Socialism (as opposed to the Utopian form that thought you could just think up a good society and create it outright).

Calling it a “continuum” is misleading. Capitalism, as an example, starts with many smaller Capitalists but eventually concentrates and monopolizes. This is a trackable and historical motion, not a “continuum” but nonetheless an observed trend. Socialism, on the other hand, continues that movement but does so in the direction of collectivization, as public ownership and planning not only becomes feasible but far more efficient at higher levels of development, which is also observable and trackable.

Communism is when this process has been done and all private property has been folded into the public sector. This isn’t a straight and narrow line, but a process that will happen in many different manners across many different countries, but by tracking trajectories and behaviors this prediction becomes clearer and clearer, and Marx becomes vindicated by the passage of time as we observe them coming to fruition.

No economy is “pure,” what determines if an economy is Capitalist or Socialist is what is primary. Trying to say that Capitalism or Socialism describes a specific section of an economy results in issues like drawing hard lines where they shouldn’t and can’t be drawn.

Those are social programs. Socialism and Capitalism are systems overall, the presence of the post office in the US does not alter that character.

“Market Socialism,” if you mean the PRC’s Socialist Market Economy, is founded on Marxism. They maintain that they are working towards Communism and are working with a Marxian understanding of the economy. This isn’t about “purity,” rather, this is Marxist and is working towards Communism, so it’s a Communist ideology.

As for mixed economies, such a naming distinction is rather pointless. All economies are mixed, there exists no economy that does not have characteristics of the previous mode of production or the next. Whether a system is Capitalist or Socialist is determinate on what is primary in an economy, not what is “pure.”

Further still, no system is stagnant, competition forces centralization, so Market Socialism eventually works towards either a resurgance of Capitalism or progression to Communism.

I think “socialistic injections” is a misnomer. Capitalism and Socialism are descriptors for entire economies, not parts of them. Generally, reading theory tends to help people support moving towards Socialism.

Socialism is generally a form of society where public ownership and collectivization is the driving force of the economy. Communism is when that process is complete. There are various different forms and characteristics Socialism takes, but they all exist in motion and thus will either move on to Communism or revert to Capitalism. To call Communism a type of Socialism would be to call Capitalism a type of Feudalism, just because both have property owners, but this of course is not a good form of analysis.

I understand that you aren’t a Marxist-Leninist. I am, sure, but again I made the very clear case that the overwhelming majority of Leftism worldwide and historically has fallen under the categories of Marxism, which is without fail Communist, or Anarchist. These aren’t necessarily ML specific points of view, if you can point to major non-Marxist, non-Anarchist strains of Leftist practice that have any major relevance, then I can concede.

As for Leftists that don’t ascribe to labels, I don’t really care about what one individual is thinking, because I am not trying to prepare them for random internet leftist #18948 with their own specific eccentricities. I am talking in extremely broad and relevant distinctions, like what has actually existed and continues to exist.

Mercantilism is not distinct from Capitalism, but a form of it.

The person we are replying to is someone who wanted the absolute basics. Getting into the nuances of minor Syndicalist movements, the historical Utopian Socialists like Saint-Simon, or other forms really isn’t relevant unless you want to dig deeper.

Historically, the 2 largest and most significant strands of Leftist thinking and practice have been Marxist and Anarchist, and there are no non-Communist Marxists. I mean this absolutely, 99.9% of existing leftism has been either Marxist or Anarchist. They don’t need to understand the subtle differences in Yugoslavian Marxism or Russian or Chinese or Cuban, because they all are forms of Marxism.

Further still, again, Communism comes after Socialism. It isn’t a form of Socialism.

I leave out “socialism” because for the vast majority of actual implementations, they have been Marxist in character, and additionally any Socialist system in my opinion would either progress to Communism or regress to Capitalism, making it kind of redundant to split from Communism.

Communism isn’t a type of Socialism if we are being nitpicky, but the Mode of Production after Socialism.

Additionally, I did say it was an extreme simplification, and I meant that. I’m not diving into syndicalism, utopianism, Posadism, Maoism, Gonzaloism, Trotskyism, Hoxaism, etc because ultimately they don’t need to be delved into for someone with no knowledge.

I’m a Marxist, so Marxian.

I’d love to visit one day, such a resiliant and kind people. They have trained doctors globally for decades for little to nothing in return.

That’s my experience, generally. The ones I can get to read a bit of theory tend to be more sympathetic towards Socialism.

No, the mode of production creates the ideology, not the opposite.

Liberalism is european in origin, as Capitalism first truly took hold there. It isn’t the “modern divide” but the notion of Liberalism as a progressive motion or regressive motion.

Yep, and people think it’s silly that North Koreans hate the US that starved them through sanctions, committed genocide, and dropped more tons of bombs on it than the entire Pacific Front.

They are joining BRICS, so hopefully trade expands.

How so?

This is entirely false. Life expectancies rose dramatically, slavery was abolished, literacy rates rose dramatically, and the economy was democratized under Castro. To claim Castro is “no better than” the US backed fascist slaver is incredibly out of touch with reality.

Further, global trade is a necessity. No country in the Global North runs on its own, rather, they function based on Imperialism and plunder the Global South. If, say, France were to be cut off from the countries it plunders, it would collapse. The resiliance of the Socialist system therefore has proven itself.

You should read up on Cuban Democracy. Not only is Cuba now more democratic than under Batista, a fascist slaver US puppet, Cuba is more democratic than countries like the United States.

Liberalism is the ideological basis of Capitalism. When Capitalism was a progressive force, ie during the French Revolution, it was considered left wing. Now that Capitalism has become entrenched and turned to Imperialism, the progressive side is undeniably Socialism, while liberalism entrenches the status quo.

Simply saying that liberalism at one point was progressive does not mean history has not had several centuries of shifts and developments since then.

You can still get goods and services in Socialism and Communism, I don’t know what you mean by “consooming.”