no it cannot because it’s referring to whether or not the workers control them and on a societal scale this is a binary flip, at some point the workers are more in control than the bourgoeis and at that point it is socialism and at any point before it is not.
Aha, so you do agree that different societies have different levels of control the working class and the bourgeois have over production, but you seem to be convinced that if that “relative level of proletarian control” is below 50% the state is fully capitalist, and otherwise the state is fully socialist. Why do you think this definition is more useful than the obvious one, where we retain the scale instead of quantizing it into a binary form?
This question is especially relevant because you also seem to believe that there currently aren’t any “socialist” countries by your definition. By retaining the spectrum, we can then make analytical statements like “China is more socialist than the US”.
marxism does not define socialism as “more worker influence than before” but as an actual change in the relations of production. really the decisive question is which class controls surplus and exists and continues itself as a ruling class.
the binary is not 50 percent versus 49 percent. it is whether bourgeois property relations have been superseded.
Aha, so you do agree that different societies have different levels of control the working class and the bourgeois have over production, but you seem to be convinced that if that “relative level of proletarian control” is below 50% the state is fully capitalist, and otherwise the state is fully socialist. Why do you think this definition is more useful than the obvious one, where we retain the scale instead of quantizing it into a binary form?
This question is especially relevant because you also seem to believe that there currently aren’t any “socialist” countries by your definition. By retaining the spectrum, we can then make analytical statements like “China is more socialist than the US”.
marxism does not define socialism as “more worker influence than before” but as an actual change in the relations of production. really the decisive question is which class controls surplus and exists and continues itself as a ruling class.
the binary is not 50 percent versus 49 percent. it is whether bourgeois property relations have been superseded.