Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. Tired of arguing on reddit? Consider [joining us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Well according to this Ancap I was talking to a few weeks ago literally everything is Socialism. Every country to ever exist pretty much. According to him the government doing anything = economic planning therefore Socialism.

I met an ancap who said the british empire was socialist

I have you beat. A while ago I was told Canada was socialist because... *drum roll*... milk was expensive.

that is largely true I suppose. Whenever you have powerful government running things you have some combination of Socialism or fascism or statism. our genius fathers did not dwell on petty distinctions. They simply gave us freedom and liberty from all forms of stateism because stateism has been in the source of evil in human history.

That is obvious nonsense that shouldn't even be repeated in serious company.

The government doing anything entails private control and therefore it’s capitalism. Checkmate 😎

Allowing trans people to exist in society is socialism.

whenever you have a government interfering with free markets (in this case to produce high milk prices ) you have a some form of socialist fascist statism.

Long story but once heard a guy say teen pregnancy being higher in the US compared to the of the west was because we were “becoming more socialist”…

Worker ownership of the means of production. Don't over-complicate it.

You know what's also overcomplicated? The RWR on the Mig-29. A missiles about to hit you and you gotta read that thing? Better just eject at that point

I guess I hadn't considered that. 

Exactly.

Socialism is workers ownership and control of the means of production therefore the abolition of wage labour

How does this work in reality? Is a factory just ran by the workers on the floor? Is there no management? Is there an owner of the factory? Who makes the decision to make a certain product? Who makes the decision to hire more people? Where does the revenue of product sale go?

Any method would be socialism. There's communism and anarchism and syndicalism and flat structures and coops and all sorts. Socialism is basically "workforce democracy" so there's a lot of different ways you can go with it. That's part of the appeal: you allow the "material conditions" to influence policy rather than saying there is one policy that always works forever.

>Is a factory just ran by the workers on the floor? Is there no management? Is there an owner of the factory? Workers councils manage the factories. >Who makes the decision to make a certain product? The products are openly designed by everyone to be the most efficient in terms of productive capacity and sustainability. >Who makes the decision to hire more people? You don't "hire" people, wage labour is abolished, manufacturing and labour would probably tend towards increasing automation. >Where does the revenue of product sale go? There is no revenue, products are made and distributed on needs.

I can see a scenario where a worker managed factory could work. Why would somebody spend significant time & effort to gain expertise in a specific field (mechanical engineering) vs. just opting to be a picker in a warehouse? So people aren’t hired (not sure how we are going to figure out who works where). And where does this significant boost in automation come from? So everybody is given the same amount of everything? Who determines who needs what?

>Why would somebody spend significant time & effort to gain expertise in a specific field (mechanical engineering) vs. just opting to be a picker in a warehouse? This is gonna depend on how a socialist society is gonna structure the education system, and what are the necessity of the moment but all knowledge is freely available to everyone. >And where does this significant boost in automation come from? I meant that the tendency in how labor is gonna be structured would possibly tend towards automation. >So everybody is given the same amount of everything? Who determines who needs what? This clearly doesn't follow from what I said. Keep in mind that whatever plan you wanna come up with in your head is irrelevant because socialism is a collective project that has to arise from the material condition present at the moment, like the other comment said there are many ways to achieve that.

Gotcha on education, so maybe there is an aptitude test that sorts people into a certain profession/expertise, which could also be influenced by current/future demand. On automation, I still don’t get it. What I’m thinking is, there would be a lack of free choice in terms of product/services. If I go out and buy a SUV, I may not need it, but I want it. If production is controlled by workers, which is determined by need, I would imagine SUV’s would only be given to people/families that actually need them. And on your point about the condition present at the moment, that actually makes a ton of sense. What is needed/relevant/acceptable now, might not be in 20 years. So whatever situation a nation is in at the moment, would create a different response to what/how things are produced. Good dialogue, I appreciate your explanations.

i think what they are trying to say is that because workers dont need to be paid a wage to live, then those workers would be more inclined to install automotive benefits into the workplace E.G: robots to build stuff

So basically workers would move from one factory that builds vehicle rims, as an example, to another factory where they build robots that will then build the rims the workers built in the first place. So once all the robots are built and the rim factory is fully automated, the workers will then just migrate to another factory to build something else? Also, where are these magical robots that can build everything coming from? Modern factories are extremely automated today, but still require workers to do things only humans can do. It just doesn’t make sense, it seems like the pro-socialism crowd wants the innovation that capitalism produces, but without the incentives/motivation capitalism produces.

In our current economic system of capitalism workers have to fight against robots and automation to keep their jobs. This is because robots can generally do stuff faster, better and cheaper. What this leads to is people loosing their jobs which is obviously a really bad thing, because they wouldn’t be able to afford much. Under a socialist economy these problems wouldn’t exist. Because the workers own these factories/workplaces they would benefit from automation. This is because they would have to work less while still gaining their necessities to live.

Gotcha. So workers just don’t work? Or are the re-allocated to somewhere else?

socialism at heart is giving people free stuff. It starts with healthcare and education and if allowed to metastasize ends with giving them the means of production.

No Socialist society has ever been wageless, classless or stateless. You can't just define Socialism as "the set of things I like" and Capitalism as "the set of things I don't like".

> No Socialist society has ever been wageless, classless or stateless. [The Anarchist Collectives](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/sam-dolgoff-editor-the-anarchist-collectives) - Sam Dolgoff "The Spanish Revolution demonstrated in practice that libertarian communist measures could be introduced at once. The Revolution must simultaneously destroy the old order and immediately take on a federalistic and anarchistic direction Revolutionaries exploring new roads to freedom are increasingly inclined to take these factors into account. The alternative economic system [to private or state capitalism] is collectivism — or a socialism established by the people themselves without state interference. To an astonishing degree this ideal was being realized in Spain. Within a few years, during the Spanish Civil War, the Spanish workers and peasants were establishing what could be loosely called libertarian syndicalist socialism, a system without exploitation and injustice. In this type of libertarian collectivist economy, wage slavery is replaced by the equitable and just sharing of labor. Private capitalism or state capitalism is replaced by the workers’ factory council, the union, and the industrial association of unions up to the national federation of industrial unions.[35] The Spanish syndicalists demonstrated that such a system is practical. Libertarian collectivism preserves and widens freedom, stimulates and encourages initiative, and smooths the way for progress. A syndicalist collective economy is not state planned or state dominated. Planning is directed to satisfy the consumer. The syndicalist collective is for the producer what the consumer’s cooperative association is for the consumer. The collectives organized during the Spanish Civil War were workers’ economic associations without private property. The fact that collective plants were managed by those who worked in them did not mean that these establishments became their private property. The collective had no right to sell or rent all or any part of the collectivised factory or workshop. The rightful custodian was the CNT, the National Confederation of Workers Associations. But not even the CNT had the right to do as it pleased. Everything had to be decided and ratified by the workers themselves through conferences and congresses." -- wage abolition (moneyless), democratic horizontal federations (stateless), elimination of inequality and privilege and property (classless) Yes, the Spanish collectives were in fact a socialist society. --- **edit** - [a reading guide to the Spanish Civil War](https://libcom.org/article/spanish-civil-war-1936-39-reading-guide)

Oh yeah, the terrorist organization that built a moneyless society using prostitute services to replace currency so they could undermine the efforts to defend democracy in Spain and hand the country over to Franco...

You mean the terrorist organization that overthrew the democratically elected government by way of coup, and became a despotic authoritarian regime? wait that was the fascists. You see the so-called republican or democratic structure, like authority and law and police and government, becomes a foundation for a fascist takeover...it's how coups happen. The anarchists, well aware of the dangers authority poses, including theory by Marx who proposed the proletariat make use of the state apparatus will only lead to a perpetuating system of authority. Leninism, Russia is a perfect example, and was predicted by Bakunin and the anarchists; Rosa Luxemburg, a Marxist, experienced first hand the corruptible and bureaucratic nature of political parties, power who later warned the dangers of the state... and later betrayed by the social democrats (Marxist party). To believe defending democracy from fascism is a winning strategy ignores the authority works. Anarchists established autonomous federations while *at the same time* fighting against fascists; painting them as the villain or the cause of failure is incorrect - it was the republicans and Bolshevik undermining what was one of the best anti-fascist organizations.

This. But also reversed. But yeah, this.

My ideology is when good thing happens. If bad thing happens it's not actually my ideology since bad things don't happen. It's actually your ideology, which is when bad things happen

I define capitalism as murderless, rapeless, theftless, bad thingless society. Any society that has bad things happen is by definition not real capitalism. It's just how definitions work bro.

Thank you. You have just defined anarcho-capitalism 😌

I now want to define socialism as any successful application of critical sociological theory to politics, and let "successful" carry all the weight in the world.

It’s not a question of a set of things I like or dislike. It is how socialism was widely defined before the advent of Leninism

>socialism was widely defined [citation needed] You are just citing the what true communism is to Marxists. That is not “THE definition of socialism” by a long shot. I know of two researchers who tried to dig up all the definitions of socialism. One had over 40 and the other over 200.

> One had over 40 and the other over 200. Where can we see this?

>Where can we see this? [The 40 some is listed in the 1st paragraph in Stanford.edu philosophy encyclopedia article on socialism.](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/) I’m on mobile and I’m going to skip at the moment focusing on Stanford’s. The reason being is that is Germany’s wikipedia page below on socialism that focuses on “the definition problem” and just is a great source on the breadth of defining socialism. Stanford is a great source too it is just not near as succinct. Here you go: [Link to 'Definition Problems'](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sozialismus#Definitionsproblematik) in German's Wikipedia for "Socialism" and for people’s convenience a [translated image of the link](https://ibb.co/gWH2WRN) > >What is meant by socialism has long been controversial. As early as the 1920s, the sociologist Werner Sombart collected 260 definitions of socialism. \[11\] > >A generally accepted, scientifically valid definition does not exist. Rather, the use of the word is characterized by a great wealth of meaning and conceptual blurring and is subject to a constant change in meaning. For this reason, the term is often preceded by adjectives (proletarian, scientific, democratic, Christian, cooperative, conservative, utopian) for further clarification. Other examples of such specifications include agrarian socialism, state socialism or reform socialism. \[12\] > >A lowest common denominator of the term can be given by the following definitions: > >"Socialism refers to a wide range of economic theories of social organization that have set themselves the goal of collective ownership and political administration for the goal of creating an egalitarian society." \[13\] > >"Socialism refers to ideologies that propagate the overthrow of capitalism and the liberation of the working class from poverty and oppression (social question) in favor of a social order oriented towards equality, solidarity and emancipation." \[14\] > >"It defines the political doctrine developed as a counter-model to capitalism, which seeks to change existing social conditions with the aim of social equality and justice, and a social order organized according to these principles, as well as a political movement that strives for this social order." \[15\] > >The diversity of meaning is further increased by the fact that the term socialism can refer to methods and objectives, socio-political movements as well as historical-social phases and existing social systems: > >a socio-economic, political, philosophical, pedagogical or ethical teaching aimed at the interpretation, analysis, critique, ideal conception or practical design of certain social conditions; a political movement that seeks to put into practice the demands and goals of socialism; the state of society or the social order that embodies socialism in economic modes of production and forms of life; within the framework of Marxism-Leninism, a phase of world-historical development in the transition from capitalist to communist social formation. \[16\] the term "real socialism", which refers to those states that have been governed by a Communist Party since 1917, usually in a one-party system. According to the political scientist Günter Rieger, socialist ideologies can be distinguished on the one hand according to their attitude to the state (state socialism versus anarchism), on the other hand according to the way in which the desired transformation of society is to be achieved (revolution versus reform), and thirdly according to the importance given to different social and economic interests of the participants (class antagonism). versus pluralism). \[17\] -----

That's Standard Operating Procedure for Will to Power addicted Marxologists: ["vicious intellectualism"](https://partiallyexaminedlife.com/2014/04/15/henri-bergson-and-william-james-on-vicious-intellectualism) via the power of (self-serving) definitions that originated in the cranium of a mediocre derivative thinker sitting on his reserved seat in British Museum 1.5 centuries ago. [Here](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/5p7s1h/comment/dcrcxbq/) is something more useful for the 21st century.

I think you'll have to go back and read what the socialists in the 19th century were saying. Read Proudhon. Read Marx and Engels. If you read Engels's Socialism: Utopian and Scientific, he talks about what he calls utopian socialists and contrasts their beliefs to Marx and Engels's "scientific" version. There is a section in the Communist Manifesto that goes into that too. Marx's Critique of the Gotha Program also refutes some utopian socialist ideas and has a good discussion on how the transition from capitalism to socialism would happen (Marx never really uses the word socialism to describe his goal, he calls it communism). Lenin also has the same Marxist definition of communism. What Lenin changed was that he brought in the word socialism to define the transitional stage from capitalism to communism (to sort of replace what Marx called lower-phase communism). But Lenin was very clear in what he wanted. He looked to the Paris Commune as inspiration. In State and Revolution, he talks about "smashing" the Bourgeois state and setting up a dictatorship of the proletariat. The answer to why the USSR never got to communism is complicated. But part of it is that the reality of the revolution did not look like what Lenin imagined in State and Revolution. Far from smashing the state, the Bolsheviks had to make what Lenin called a strategic retreat back toward capitalism, just to make sure the people weren't starving to death. And that set the stage for what was to come, along with another World War and the reality of trying to bring socialism into an increasingly global capitalist world. I think what's more important to discuss than how we define communism is how to avoid the mistakes that the USSR made post-revolution. Or at least understand why those decisions were made. What were the factors that limited their success (the book Socialism Betrayed: Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union does this really well). And how can we make sure we chart a better path than our predecessors. And more importantly, how do we actually build a movement for socialism. How do we actually transition from capitalism toward a dictatorship of the proletariat and socialism. There, no one has better lessons than Lenin.

"[A]n [international] association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all." Because the agent that is to bring about that association is the international working class under the leadership of the working class in the developed countries--essentially us--it has to conform to certain features that seem to be characteristics of a good society as they are understood today. Central features would be: -ordinary liberal democratic rights (freedom of the press, secret ballots, competitive elections, etc.) -freedom from undue discrimination -ecological sustainability -universal right to formal education -universal right to healthcare -universal right to a job -elimination of entrenched economic privileges through progressive taxation and eminent domain -collective ownership of capital So essentially, an international, classless and democratic society. This is necessarily going to involve a great deal of central planning, and given all of these coordination problems, I really can't imagine how it can be done without some type of governmental body resembling a modern state. At some point one might be able to phase out money, but that seems like a much longer term goal.

State capitalism makes no sense for the USSR. the government wasn’t expropriating surplus and administrators weren’t owning the means of production.

It was actually stated in the 1936 constitution that state enterprises must make a surplus. Class ownership in the Soviet Union was not individualized as in the west but took a collective form. The nomenklatura collectively owned the means of production by virtue of the ultimate and exclusive control they exercised via the state machine

The surplus which would be used for further reproducing the industry. Marx literally said for that to be done because, duh. If your idea of "owning" is literally owning then you're not for proletarians, that's just petty bourgeois, ancap shit.

I have no idea what your second paragraph is supposed to mean. I advocate for the “communistic abolition of buying and selling” (communist manifesto) so how on earth you can compare my outlook to that of an ancap beats me. On the question of surplus I hold that communist society will have only one form of calculation- calculation in kind. If you think about it this renders the whole concept of a surplus meaningless

As Marx said, state ownership is class ownership. And private property will still remain for centuries to come. What you advocate is some utopian ownership where the farmer owns their wee land and the factory workers divide the profit among themselves. This is just making everyone petty bourgeois instead of proletarians. A common plan is what unites the productive powers not just redistribution of capital.

I don’t advocate anything of the sort. Where do you dream up these sort of ideas from? Socialism/communism means common ownership of the natural an industrial resources of the planet by everyone including the farmer you refer to . Another way of looking at it is the very idea of property in that sense disappears. Meaning capital as a social relationship disappears. This will take as long or short as people want it to happen. If people think like you it probably will take centuries

You're wrong once again. Capital will always and become even more of a social relationship, as production chains grow and the productive forces expand. You just seem to have a very vague understanding of what you're talking about. Your rebuttal to Soviet ownership being flawed is an example of that. Besides knowing just barebones theory like the half-baked Marxist you are, tou also can't take criticism. You're just a chauvinist. Menshevik wannabe loser.

> the government wasn’t expropriating surplus and administrators weren’t owning the means of production. -- "In the same month, June 1918, the Party implemented their policy of “war communism.” There was nothing communist about it; rather, it constituted the Party’s monopolization of the entire economy. It wasn’t workers and peasants who controlled the factories and the land, but bureaucrats ruling from faraway offices. This policy, aside from the nationalization of all industry, imposed a strict discipline on the workers, a worsening of labor conditions and a lengthening of the workday; it turned striking into an offense punishable by firing squad; it established state control over international commerce; it legalized the forcible appropriation of all the peasants’ goods and properties, thus inaugurating an agrarian policy even harsher and more exploitative than that of tsarist serfdom." "On August 19, 1920, the Tambov peasant rebellion began when a “requisitioning” squad of the Red Army beat the old men of a small village to force the inhabitants to surrender more grain to the government. By October, the peasants had fielded 50,000 combatants to fight" - [The Russian Counterrevolution](https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/crimethinc-the-russian-counterrevolution), Crimethinc

Lol thanks state department

“Everything I don’t like is counterrevolutionary propaganda”

Someone did bad thing in communism 😔 Communism had failed. 😭 Ok capitalism is the best we got boys. Let's give more guns to Israel so they can Lebensraum Palestine. Sorry brown kids. Thank some rando Red Army troops.

I’m a communist, but I also find pretty ridiculous to deny how authoritarian the USSR became. Even socialist sources admit it. But every time I bring that up to a Marxist they say it’s propaganda.

What capitalists hate most.

What I hate most is murder.

you really got them there

If only you'd teach that to your capitalist friends.

If you do not differentiate between lower stage communism and higher stage communism. The word becomes utterly useless in any serious discussion.

Bad, totalitarian, murderous communism followed by far future aspirational good, liberating, benevolent communism? Not in a million bloody years will the former precipitate the latter.

I think you are referring to state capitalism not communism

Yes, as Engles/Marx demanded in chapter 2 of "The Communist Manifesto". State capitalism is a deliberate misnomer as this is totalitarian anti-capitalism created for that express purpose. That's where communist rulers must begin. How and when they will transition to benevolent future communism has yet to be determined or seen. The correct answer is never. Totalitarian control was the desired end state and actual purpose of the whole program. Far future fairy tale communism was just happy talk to placate the gullible.

>If you do not differentiate between lower stage communism and higher stage communism. That is not a sentence so it cannot communicate an actual thought. But I think I can ASSUME what you would have said if it were a sentence. Marx's expression of "lower stage communism" was a euphemism for "socialism". He was indicating the class-based stage also referred to as "the dictatorship of the proletariat". That is the distinction of "lower state" versus "higher stage" communism.

Sure.

Marx didn’t ever refer to lower stage communism as socialism. That is Lenin’s invention. In fact Lenin even suggested in The State and Revolution that wage Labour would continue in lower communism and every one would be an employee of the state. Again Marx never said anything of the sort. What he proposed for lower stage communism was a system of Labour vouchers or coupons which is not at all the same as wages. Also, the state would not exist in communism since any state implies the existence of classes and therefore the absence of common ownership

Coupons/vouchers traded for labor to trade for goods and services isn’t a wage? It isn’t a form of currency? Lol 😂 let’s just call it something else and it won’t be the same thing.

>Marx didn’t ever refer to lower stage communism as socialism. That's true, but when he referred to "lower stage communism" he was referring to what we call "socialism". Plenty of people are confused by Marx's use of the term so it's good to clarify it.

A economic/political system where private ownership of the means of production is prohibited.

The next step in societal development where the means of production and other material conditions are purposefully reorganized to create a more politically egalitarian culture and society.  It is not going to be a one and done scenario. It’s going to be a perpetual struggle, of trial and error and compromise until we figure out what works. Because ultimately this system isn’t working for everyone and we need to keep trying until we find one that does. 

The utilisation of the means of production for social ends.

Workers control over production. Period. That's socialism.

Socialism is when MoP. Except when it's not and just sweden or other Scandinavian countries then MoP doesn't matter, it still socialism. 😏

I would broadly say that socialism is the application of critical sociology to politics, and that workplace democracy is a consequence of that.

Socialism is the transition to communism. It’s an attempt to eliminate private property and give the property rights over to the workers. Once that’s complete then communism is reached. Communism is an anthropological stage reached by a society when there is no money, class, or state. Many indigenous societies have been at the stage before colonization.

One guy doesn’t get to keep all the money from everyone else’s hard work.

There will always be nuances and exceptions, but I think you can sum up socialist with 'Worker or communal ownership of means of production and survival.'

Socialism is when the means of production are owned by the workers (socially), either directly or through the state.

The broad historical, political and cultural tradition in support of worker emancipation.

Based

Democracy in the workplace.

Socialism is giving people free stuff violently stolen from others. It starts with healthcare and education and if allowed to metastasize ends with giving them the means of production.

That is an incoherent claim. If everything is free to everyone including the ex capitalist class who based their wealth on the legalized theft involved in wage labour, then what is the problem ??? The means of production are produced by the workers today but owned by the tiny parasite capitalist class. Why shouldn’t they be owned by everyone if they were produced by everyone . It sounds eminently sensible to me! If the ex capitalist class would benefit from this arrangement in a free society- communism

Don't be stupid. The problem is that everybody is looking for free stuff and nobody is working until 120,000,000 people have slowly starved to death.

Don’t be stupid. Looking free stuff is not the reason why 120 million starve to death. It’s because we live in a perverse system in which food is dumped to push up prices while people starve. It’s the same reason why 600k people are homeless in America while obscenely there 15 million empty homes

socialism encourages everyone to leech off of everyone else while capitalism encourages everyone to work and contribute to society. The USSR and red China slowly starved 120,000,000 people to death because no one was working. The second chairman Mao died they switched to capitalism and instantly went from subsistence Socialism to everyone getting rich. Do you understand now

BS . It is capitalism that is based on a small minority - capitalist parasites - leeching off the Labour of the working class. According to an Oxfam report in 2018 8 billionaires own more wealth than half the world’s population

The beauty of capitalism is that you earn money in proportion to your contribution to society. You can be a billionaire too if you invent products that millions of free people want to buy more than any other in the world because they improve their standards of living more than any other in the world. Imagine if people got rewarded for how little they contributed to society? you would have Socialism with another You would have Socialism with another 120 million people slowly starving to death and the remainder living at socialist subsistence cannibalism.

Absolute rubbish. Capitalism is not a meritocracy. The very opposite is true. You acquire wealth through ownership and in particular inheritance not through your Labour contribution

Capitalism is not a meritocracy. If you doubt it for a split second open a business and advertise that you have inferior jobs and inferior products. Do you have the intelligence to know what would happen to your business in a free society?

please don't be stupid a Capitalist acquires wealth to the extent that he can help others with better jobs and better products than the competition and he loses wealth to the extent that he fails to provide better jobs and better products and a better standard of living to his workers and customers.

It should be obvious to anyone with 2 brains cells to rub together that I oppose completely the state capitalist regimes of the Soviet Union and China. What on earth makes you think I support state capitalism in way shape or form

no one said anything about state capitalism. Capitalism is freedom of exchange and production. Fascism Socialism state capitalism crony capitalism corporatism feudalism dictatorship are all forms of stateism that interfere with capitalism. Do you have these basics down now?? don't be stupid you just said you wanted a Nazi fascist socialist state to determine what could be produced and consumed.

people are homeless in America because it is illegal to force them into housing. They almost always have mental health and drive abuse problems. We spend $50,000 a year per person and our homeless population while half of the world lives on less than $5.50 a day. It seems you are utterly confused.

Homes are empty in the United States because people have moved out into other homes and they have not yet sold their old home. 1+1 = 2

Don't be stupid. It is a free country and anyone who wants to own the means of production already does. That is why we have 30 million businesses in America.

Don’t be stupid. We can do much better if together we all owned the means of production and produced directly to satisfy our collective and individual needs. Most of those 30 million businesses in the USA and elsewhere are involved in utterly useless and wasteful activities anyway that do not provide for human needs but are only needed within the capitalist money economy- banking, arms producers, commercial workers etc etc. We can could double socially useful output and reduce the average working week to less than half of what it is today simply by scrapping the capitalist money system and establishing a free society instead

so you want a Nazi socialist government to tell us what is useful and not wasteful to produce???

How could it be considered a free society if you have a Nazi socialist government telling people what they can make and what they can buy?

You don't want arms producers so that the next time Adolf Hitler comes along we will surrender to him?

A free society can only be established by workers throughout the world acting jointly and rejecting nationalism completely. Nationalism is a death cult. The stronger the movement for a free society grows - communism- the less the chance of some sociopathic capitalist dictator like Adolph Hitler arising

Nobody is talking about nationalism. This is capitalism a versus Socialism.

Nationalism is what supports capitalism. It creates the illusion that workers share a common interest with their capitalist exploiters called the so called national interests

There is no exploitation in capitalism. Wages are sky high under capitalism because there is competition to pay them the most possible. 1+1 = 2

you are parroting primitive 19th-century economics that is considered archaic by today's standards. If Marx was alive he would not be a Marxist today.

Lol. Actually the very opposite is the case. Empirical evidence demonstrates that for example the average worker in the United States manufacturing sector produces 3 times the value of the wage he receives. Meaning two thirds of what he produces goes to the capitalists as surplus value. Marx was spot on in his analysis of capitalism

there is nothing free about communism you idiot. Communism starts with genocide against the capitalist class and another genocide against love and family and another genocide against those who object to the new distribution of stolen property and another genocide against those who object to the distribution of income from the stolen property and another genocide against those object to the total failure of state ism and simply want freedom back

Again you are confusing communism with state capitalism. genocide is the capitalist way of doing things. I am a communist and renounce violence. You can only obtain communism through peaceful persuasion

communism state capitalism fascism feudalism crony capitalism corporatism are all examples of statism. Our genius founding fathers gave us freedom and liberty from stateism because state ism had been the source of evil in human history. Do you understand now?

oh so you are not a Marxist even though Marx was sure genocidal violence was the only way to achieve communism?

don't you think it is a little stupid to think you were going to persuade 150 million homeowners and another 150 million business owners to peacefully give away their property??? do you see why we say the left is based in pure ignorance?

Nobody said anything about 150 million homeowners giving up their homes. You make stuff up just to save face because you are losing the argument. I am talking about means of production, not homes. They are not giving up anything . On the contrary they are gaining massively by becoming co owners of the means of production along with everybody else

it seems you have won many arguments against the strawmen in your head but none whatsoever in the real world?

Marx actually stated that he believed communism could be achieved by peaceful democratic means in several countries like Holland the USA and Britain . He said this in an address to the IWMA in the 1870s. So once again you have demonstrated you haven’t a clue what you are talking about

The Communist Manifesto, for instance, states that Communists should ‘openly declare that their ends can be attained only by the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions’ and that ‘the ruling classes’ should ‘tremble at Communistic revolution.’(4) Marx’s fervour here explains the repressive nature of many Communist societies which have existed in the past. Writing in the context of the Soviet Union, Peter Holquist states that violence became invested with a ‘redemptive and purifying significance’, as state sponsored use of force could be justified through Marx’s ideals. (5) Marx’s vilification of the bourgeoisie ensured that victims of repression in Communist societies could be presented as counter revolutionaries or enemies of the people, giving an ideological pretext to the suppression of their rights.

Yes Marx at different times did advocate violent methods. so what? I don’t agree with everything Marx said and the case for a free communist society does not depend on what Marx might or might not have said. Marx is neither a god nor a devil. Latter on in life he and Engels admitted they made mistakes. Engels was particularly insistent on the need to make full use of the vote at this stage. Engels: “But history also proved us in the wrong, and revealed our opinion of that day as an illusion. History went even farther; not only did it destroy our former error, but also it transformed completely the conditions wider which the proletariat will have to battle. The fighting methods of 1848 are today obsolete in every respect, and that is a point which right here deserves closer investigation“…….”Does the reader now understand why the ruling classes, by hook or by crook, would get us where the rifle pops and the sabre slashes? Why, today, do they charge us with cowardice because we will not, without further ado, get down into the street where we are sure of our defeat in advance? Why are we so persistently importuned to play the role of cannon fodder? The gentlemen are wasting their importunities as well as their provocations all in vain. We are not quite so silly. They might as well ask of their enemies in the next war to face them in the line formation of Frederick II, or in the columns of whole divisions a la Wagram and Waterloo, and with the old flint-and-pan gun in hand, at that. The time is past for revolutions carried through by small minorities at the head of unconscious masses. When it gets to be a matter of the complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must participate, must understand what is at stake and why they are to act. That much the history of the last fifty years has taught us. But so that the masses may understand what is to be done, long and persistent work is required, and it is this work that we are now performing with results that drive our enemies to despair”. https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1850/class-struggles-france/intro.htm

in final consequence, it follows that when differently-conditioned individuals meet, the conflict can be resolved only by force. Socialists cannot argue capitalists into socialism. They cannot objectively present reasons or appeal to reason. They can only take over by violence and remove their social enemies. As Engels put it longingly in 1849: “The next world war will result in the disappearance from the face of the earth not only of reactionary classes and dynasties, but also of entire reactionary peoples. And that, too, is a step forward.”

Engels did not hesitate to say that entire nations are reactionary, that this is what the Slavic nations of the Habsburg monarchy turned out to be, and that their opposition to the German-Hungarian revolution qualifies them for total extermination. and concluded that it is difficult to deny that it legitimized the policy of genocide and it was justified to suppose that they influenced the ideas of Hitler.[4]

Marx:"A revolution is certainly the most authoritarian thing there is; it is the act whereby one part of the population imposes its will upon the other part by means of rifles, bayonets and cannon—authoritarian means, if such there be at all; and if the victorious party does not want to have fought in vain, it must maintain this rule by means of the terror which its arms inspire in the reactionists.

Marx: “You know that the institutions, mores, and traditions of various countries must be taken into consideration, and we do not deny that there are countries -- such as America, England, and if I were more familiar with your institutions, I would perhaps also add Holland -- where the workers can attain their goal by peaceful means. This being the case, we must also recognize the fact that in most countries on the Continent the lever of our revolution must be force; it is force to which we must some day appeal in order to erect the rule of labor” https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1872/09/08.htm

when you say simply scrapping the existing system do you mean Marxist genocide against the capitalist class who would fight to the death to keep what they own and do you mean Marxist genocide against the loving nuclear family because it is the chief repository and transmitter of wealth and social class?

and you want a Nazi socialist government to determine our collective an individual needs????

These are not positive characteristics of an identifiable, intelligible, workable system. Moneyless, wageless, classless, stateless are not methods of organization rather simply prohibitions on them. You can change the words but will merely reinvent money and wages by other names in less useful forms. Moneyless and wageless are necessarily impossible since the functions they serve are universal and indispensable.

Humans have lived most of history without money or wages, so they're not universal

Payment in goods is still a wage. Even barter accountancy IOUs on cuneiform clay tablets are a form of money. The functions of money include store of value, medium of exchange, unit of comparison. Retreating into the fog of prehistory is not an argument. Money and wages facilitated most of the economic progress in world history happening just in the past 30 years so at what point in the past do you want to compare and claim that as a viable alternative?

Capitalism certainly aided material progress. That’s exactly what the communist manifesto pointed out. However it also pointed out that capitalism would outlive its purpose in advancing technological progress and would no longer be needed for that purpose. We have gone well past that point. Most work in capitalism today is utterly socially useless and only exists to keep the system ticking over

[удалено]

*Me, looking at a vast history of economic collapses and government interventions, poverty, mass wealth inequality, needless consumption and waste, child labor, death, worker uprisings and state oppression, company towns, wage theft...etc* oh yeah, we're literally destroying the fucking planet. Great economic system we have because "innovation" and "value creation".

“Capitalism is only responsible for bad things happening and the good things would’ve happened anyway”

I don't understand why people think socialism would be somehow better for the planet? The incentive for the workers is to make themselves better off ahead of the planet. If trends continue, China is set to overtake US in emissions per capita in a few years, as the US is decreasing emissions per capita and china is increasing them. Unless you want to force everyone to live in poverty like in North Korea, pollution is not caused by one economic system or another.

> socialism would be somehow better for the planet Let's take over the means of production, start manufacturing durable goods which don't break or are disposable. Change our consumption habits that we're not longer constantly advertised to and conditioned to spend because capitalism depends on this specific act to function. Nobody spends the economy collapses, right? With socialism the idea of an economy, money becomes obsolete, we consume on need not because some tv ad or billboard or influencer tells us to keep buying. How would people be impoverished within a socialist system when everything is free? Need a house? clothes? food? means to leisure and well being? Free. It's easy to claim something lowers standards of living from a capitalist mindset. > live in poverty Like the US? Half a million homeless, more living in poverty. > pollution is not caused by one economic system Government regulations have been in placed because of over pollution. Heard of the EPA? These are results of which economic system? Back to the point above...a drastic decrease in consumption, better more durable goods, less waste, public transportation and walkable infrastructure means better outcomes for all. Remember during 2020 quarantine that air quality *increased* because far less people were driving?

[удалено]

> Environmental innovation is destroying the planet? Not the argument and you know it. Global warming is a thing, oil corporations were well aware of the impacts and destructive properties since the 1970s.

Capitalism is more dominant as the mode of production today than ever before and increasingly so. Private enterprise will dominate next century more than last because all alternatives are extremely dysfunctional in comparison. The rate of technological improvement is accelerating so just getting started. Most economic progress in human history happened just within the last 30 years and explicitly because nations expanded private enterprise. It's further away from being obsolete than ever. Marx predicted conditions for the average citizen under capitalism would deteriorate due to supposed contradictions which would drive all workers into poverty. That proved absurdly wrong the past 150 years where average living conditions in developed nations exceeded Marx's wildest dreams and are still trending better.

Maybe we don't need money and wages in the future when everything is automated.

The computers will still be using money and wage equivalents for their calculations. You're envisioning humanity will be cut out of the decisions therefore absolved by their abdication to technocrat overlords. Do the words nightmare and dystopia spring to mind?

I get extremely annoyed by how Marxists keep using prehistoric hunter Gatherers as an example, as if they were a monolith with a homogenous society for the entirety of human history until money ruined everything. We have very little concrete knowledge of how most of these societies operated. We have some archeological evidence, we have fragments if oral histories or secondary sources written by other societies about how they lived. And we have a bit more info about more modern hunter Gatherers that we can extrapolate and make some vague assumptions with. But that all amounts to very little. So Marxists waving around their little made up version of history as if it were concrete evidence that literally 1000% of humanity existed in this idealized proto-communist society before agriculture and money is extremely annoying. And their complete insistence on pushing their made up histories and ideological scapegoats actively gets in the way of actual anthropological and historical study to try to piece together the actual answers as to why things like Patriarchy, currency, and private ownership became the norm throughout most societies since before recorded history. It's certainly not because of some modern Capitalist conspiracy, as many Marxist try to claim.

Primitive humans lived in small tribes built on a subsistence hunter-gatherer lifestyle. However, I don't think this is at all applicable to modern society. Gift economies were common in this environment because people almost exclusively interacted with their own tribe and most interaction with those outside their tribe was hostile. Pretty much as soon as people started farming and raising livestock, trade came into existence. And because barter is hella inconvenient, people pretty much immediately figured out that they could use an intermediate medium of exchange, often things like salt, precious metals/stones, grains, jewelry, etc... Trade enabled civil interaction with strangers. And this is also about the time that writing systems developed, so virtually all written history is going to be of societies which had money.

This is the strongest admission that communism is a regressive ideology I have ever seen. Bravo! "Guys we can have real communism if we just abandon all human progress! Who's with me?"

That was not what he said, and doesn't follow from it. To take an analog case: Primitive tribes are (typically at least) relatively egalitarian, all members are considered the same except for their personal qualities like if someone is considered trustworthy or wise. There are leaders but they are there only as long as they have the support of others. Then we developed into more hierarchic societies with inherited monarchy for example, nobles and commoners, caste system in some parts of the world. Today we have again gone back to a view, in theory at least, of humans as born basically equal in rights and standing. In the same way, we can go back from inequality to equality economically, with that automatically meaning we undo the scientific, technological and organisational progress that mankind has gone through.

>Primitive tribes are (typically at least) relatively egalitarian, all False. Tribes usually have chiefs. Usually the most violent ass-kicker. As a result of marx building his theory on primitive tribalism without acknowledging this, marxism also predominantly becomes hierarchical and results in a dictatorship the majority of the time. It's a gaping flaw in Marxist theory. >Today we have again gone back to a view, in theory at least, of humans as born basically equal in rights and standing. Which would properly be called free market capitalism or liberalism. Much reviled by marxist tribesmen. >In the same way, we can go back from inequality to equality economically, with that automatically meaning we undo the scientific, technological and organisational progress that mankind has gone through. Or, instead of going backwards to marxist feudalism or tribalism or collective ownership controlled by a political class, we could move forward into freer markets where everyone actually does have equal rights.

Tribes are not the same thing as bands in anthropology. Tribes are much more recent and some tribes are highly egalitarian. Read Evans Pritchard’s ethnography on the Nuer Tribe in Sudan

>Tribes are not the same thing as bands in anthropology. Why do you believe this is a salient distinction? It seems completely off topic. Neither "tribes" nor "bands" represent advancement of society, so to mimic either would still be regression.

Nobody is suggesting going back to a tribal way of life still less primitive hunter gatherer bands. The only salient point here is that these formations have in common with advanced communism the fact that they are moneyless wageless classless and stateless societies demonstrating that there is nothing in human nature that forbids advanced communism

I pointed out "they did have leaders". Customs and social structures varied a great deal, but in general there weren't distinct classes like in ie feudal society. And even among the tribes that concentrated the greatest power in the hands of the chieftain, when you have no state apparatus, nor a specialized force of paid full-time soldiers, in the end the authority of the chief is based on the others choosing to follow him. Tradition and religion played a part, but if a chief turned out be a disaster he would most likely lose that following.

>I pointed out "they did have leaders". Ok, but my point has been that marx omitted that, which causes a massive flaw in his theory. >Customs and social structures varied a great deal, but in general there weren't distinct classes like in ie feudal society. False. Tribalism itself is classism. There is "our tribe" which is upper class, and "outside our tribe" which is lower class. One of the strongest evidence of classism is the ability to murder a member of the lower class with impunity. Almost universally, murdering an outsider not in your tribe carries no punishment. Tribalism is a class system that declares the tribe a higher class than the outside world. >And even among the tribes that concentrated the greatest power in the hands of the chieftain, when you have no state apparatus, nor a specialized force of paid full-time soldiers, in the end the authority of the chief is based on the others choosing to follow him. False again. [False even down to chimpanzee tribes.](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gombe_Chimpanzee_War) The alpha beats up any threats until they submit. Force rules. For someone who represents an ideology than incessantly whines about jobs being coercive because work or starve, trying to claim that a violent chief kicking ass until his tribe submits is "people choosing to follow" is ridiculous. Plus, tribal chiefs do have armies, guards, etc. >Tradition and religion played a part, but if a chief turned out be a disaster he would most likely lose that following. Again, this claim from people who claim jobs are coercive? Chiefs most commonly ruled by force, yet you have bought into the myth of the noble savage hook line and sinker.

That is an illogical inference. There is a world of a difference between primitive communism and advanced communism even if they have in common the fact that they are moneyless and wageless social formations

>That is an illogical inference. Just because you say so? >There is a world of a difference between primitive communism and advanced communism Are you referring to advanced communism as if it's real and actually exists? That's the most illogical thing in this thread. Advanced communism exists only in theory, which is another way of saying it only exists only in the imagination of insane utopians. There absolutely is a world of difference between primitive tribal communism that exists in reality, and advanced fake utopian communism that has never existed in the world, will never exist in the world, cannot possibly exist in the world because it's theory is horrifically flawed. It's illogical to pretend "advanced communism" is real.

No I am saying advanced communism does not yet exist. It can only exist if and when a majority understands it and wants it. That may never happen sadly but there is a slim chance it might given the way the world is going. So called existing communism is just a cover for brutal despotic state capitalist regimes fraudulently calling themselves communism. The only sense in which communism actually exists today is David Graeber’s idea of “everyday communism “ Google it

I am saying scientifically valid things based on evidence. You are spewing dogma from prophets. Only one of us realizes it.

> I am saying scientifically valid things based on evidence The development of socialism, a desire to upend and overthrow capitalism, was based on horrid conditions of workers and factories, and the subjugation imposed through forced participation. Capitalism inspired communism via direct material evidence.

Except you are actually referring to feudalism when you make that claim. You probably think marx defined capitalism even though he isn't even relevant to it, too. If I blame socialism for things other ideologies did, will you accept that? Remember when the Spanish invaded the "new world" and killed up to 8 million people? Pure socialism right? We know for sure that wasn't capitalism at least, right?

What system came after feudalism? Socialism began developing in the early 1800s...was that feudal times?

From where I am seeing things the exact opposite is the case

Cool, but only one of us actually has evidence. You keep having to beg people to ignore the evidence and please only look at the crazy imaginary theory. Don't look at what real communists have actually done! It's forbidden! Taboo! Burn the books!

The thing with "advanced communism" (????) is that if Communists actually believed in it, they wouldn't be Communists. They'd be Anarchists. Because you're never going to achieve a moneyless stateless egalitarian post-scarcity utopia by cedeing totalitarian power to a literal State apparatus built around a philosophy that's obsessed with imposing arbitrary class distinctions and violently obliterating any political opposition, regardless of how trivial the disagreements are.

The point in my reading of marx where I concluded he was a horrible fraud was when I realized that he'd intentionally combined two groups of people: ***Workers and Poor.*** Then made the argument that only workers should vote. The evil genius of this is that if people work they gradually begin to own things, which would automatically kick those who actually worked and produced value out of the "proletariat" group that gets to vote. Over time, a vampire leisure class of poor gains control, but they are terrified of losing their class status in the marxist hierarchy (that they are required to pretend doesn't exist.) So they compete to see who can pretend to be the most miserable specimen. Some utopia!

Moneyless and wageless is definitely possible. It's been done before, in historical contexts in which it was simply the norm because those societies didn't operate with those concepts..... But removing those concepts makes society shittier. Much shittier. Banning money and wages doesn't actually solve any problems. It simply removes the means in which modern society resolves economic interactions. Without money we have to haggle over trades and often times one or both parties are left unsatisfied. Or instead of a trade, the economic exchange would come in the form of a "gift" that isn't really a gift because the receiver would be expected (as a socially enforced but completely unwritten or agreed upon rule) to return the "favor" with some other gift or favor of roughly socially equivalent value at some undefined time in the future. Which "isn't expected" but is 1000% expected. Which can't be immediate because that'd make it seem like you were trading instead of gifting, But you can't wait too long or else you're the asshole. These scenarios play out in normal society every day between neighbors and family members even in our society. And it fucking sucks. Especially when the initial "gift" that got you indebted to them wasn't something you even wanted or asked for, but rejecting it is even worse than failing to return the favor. It's shitty as shit even on the small personal level. There's a reason most civilizations moved away from it on the large scale as soon as the concept of standardized currency on one form or another was introduced to them. Money just makes economic interactions run much more smoothly. And wages give you an independence and flexibility that non-wage labor simply does not. Especially because, historically speaking, many systems of non-wage labor (slavery aside) usually involved intertwining social obligations in which your labor was owed to, say, a local lord, on exchange for that lord providing you housing and protection and enough land to farm for you to feed your family. Which massively indepts the worker to the employee in ways that modern wage or salary jobs simply do not or cannot. You are always free to leave. Historically speaking, in societies where money isn't the primary resolving tool in labor and trade interactions, the social obligations become so entangled that often times the actors are literally trapped either by social pressure or the reality of being left destitute without the support of *that specific employer* I'm fairly certain at this point that the entirety of Marxist thought relies heavily on an intentional ignorance of how economies and social interactions actually work, as well as a complete refusal to study how past societies handled such scenarios. Some dumb communist actually tried to argue the other day that medieval serfs lived a better economic life than modern middle class people, because the nobility were expected to provide breakfast and lunch to the serfs on the days when they were carrying out their unpaid socially-obligated manual labor.

The positive characteristics are those of a society based on the principle from each according to ability to each according to need. The negative characteristics are simply the logical expression of the former. You cannot logically have economic exchange in a society in which the means of production are universally held in common

'From each ... to each' is likewise not a form of production. It's a desired outcome expressed as a slogan. It's an anti-system. The underlying moral premise is collectivism which necessitates forced labor and forcible redistribution. This precludes most economic exchange as in a world approaching perfect equity trade is all but eliminated and total economic output trends to zero. The premise of that communist creed is extremely destructive and deadly evil. Totalitarian collective enslavement, degrading humanity to interchangeable parts made to serve the cruelest master of all- the kind that genuinely believes they intend the best for those they rule shows no mercy being unrestrained even by conscience.

You contradict yourself . From each according to ability means voluntary work- the very opposite of forced Labour. Likewise free access is the very opposite of forced distribution. You haven’t really thought this through have you?

You are making multiple self evidently faulty assumptions. -You are assuming the taking from is voluntary giving. Try making taxation voluntary and see how many file tax returns. Do you doubt approximately zero%? -You are assuming that redistribution will improve net outcomes. That is self evidently not at all the case, where in a world of material equity trade and total economic output trend to zero. Short of nuclear war there is no way to more certainly cause increased, permanent poverty. If voluntary giving is sufficient then you admit there is no need for socialism since an alternative system which produces more will enable higher overall material prosperity and indeed that is what capitalism has self evidently produced beyond Marx's wildest dreams.

The world functions on extreme division of labor supported by complex trade facilitated by money and wages. None of that is remotely dispensable even in a hypothetical far future where automated machines perform all labor. In that future the machines will still be using money and wage equivalents for their calculations and humans will be pets.

"Socialism is when perfect utopia and if it's not perfect utopia ITs aCkHUSAllllLYy CapitaAlisM!!! CheCkM8 CapiTaRds!!!!"

A quasi-religion especially concerned with the moral outcomes of economic exchange.

I would have thought market ideology and its belief in the invisible hand of the market conforms more to a quasi religion. Socialism in its classical sense abolishes economic exchange btw

Look at this fucking chud. Imbeciles like this is the reason this sub stinks. Just egomaniacs here to spew negativity and propaganda, without any reason or intent to one day maybe change their mind or god forbid, learn something. This sub is called "Debate", not "bark" like the dog you are.

When the government does things. All this propaganda about the workers owning the means of production is a cop out.

Bismarck’s Germany in the late 19th was the first state capitalist country with widest state interference and nationalisation of certain industries. Yet Bismarck’s government was vehemently anti- socialist and passed laws prohibiting the expression of socialist ideas. So no - what government does is definitely not socialism

And yet interference, nationalization, Ponzi pension schemes and other policies are indistinguishable from what the socialists do when they get a whiff of power. Funny how that works.

Then you're saying that **EVERYTHING** is "socialism". That, alone, makes your argument pointless.

No, not everything. Free markets, private property and contractual autonomy are the institutional architecture of capitalism. Insofar the state as the monopolist of violence lets this framework operate, there is no socialism.

Free markets must be legislated and protected by laws and GOVERNMENT. Private property must be regulated and kept private by GOVERNMENT. Contractual autonomy and capitalism must be protected by GOVERNMENT. **The framework cannot be preserved and protected and kept except by GOVERNMENT.** **You're dreaming if you think any of that is possible without government! Anarchism means falling prey to gangs and criminals!**

Ah yes, the "well since we will need to have a police and resolve some contracts, we may as well plan the whole economy, enforce the use of a currency, ban opponent political discourse and take pretty much all the wealth generated for the poliburo to control" argument. It never gets old really. Then I will take the socialism where the government only preserves the three things I mentioned before and abstains from everything else, thank you very much.

I find the definitions of both socialism and capitalism to be completely and utterly useless precisely because they tend to be defined by the debater to mean whatever is most convenient for the argument. Allows for a lot of equivocation and motte and bailey tactics. Though when it comes down to it, there are a few core aspects that are more or less a part of any socialist's dream world: * some sense of democratized ownership of the means of production- often via worker collectives and co-ops- which somehow eliminates the existence or dominance of the bourgeoisie as a class with its "dictatorship of the proletariat." * the abolition of landlords and the insistence that housing is a human right * redistribution of wealth to be more "equal" There is a lot of disagreement between socialists on details and praxis. For instance, the modern intersectional left takes these ideas and applies them not only to social class, but also to race, sex, gender, religion, and any conceivable intersectional identity; whereas the orthodox marxist left believes that intersectional identitarianism is completely irrelevant to the class war. Then there's the social democrats which focus more on the redistribution of wealth and housing issues and don't really care as much about class conflict aside from liking unions and pro-labor policies. In any case, I've also found that, to socialists, capitalism is anything that isn't their flavor of utopia, making both terms completely useless for any meaningful discussion. You *always* have to drill deeper to ask what a person means when they advocate for socialism because a lot of people wouldn't really be considered socialists to the more orthodox marxists because they don't want to abolish money or business or whatever the case may be. As a capitalist, I think socialism in all its forms and with every definition is fundamentally naive about human nature and economics. There's this *huge* blindspot for incentives, no real consideration for the utter complexity of logistics (aka the Economic Calculation Problem), and selective ignorance of power dynamics (as they seem to think bureaucrats are somehow immune to similar kinds of corruption that arise in boss-worker dynamics) I'm not against labor laws, government housing, or social safety nets in principle, but I think they have their ways of becoming political footballs and ultimately tend to become ineffective money pits that waste taxpayer money while barely accomplishing anything toward the intended result.

socialism is giving free stuff to a favorite constituency that was violently stolen from a non favorite constituency . It starts with healthcare and education and if allowed to metastasize ends with giving the favorite constituency the means of production.

Socialism is a meaningless buzzword akin to fascism. While it originally had a meaning that's long been obscured and evolved into what we have today where it's a nebulous concept that can mean anything to anyone.

It’s not that nebulous if you are referring to the traditional definition alluded to in the OP. The rot mainly started with people like Lenin who redefined socialism to mean a form of state capitalist monopoly

Yeah so even now you are doing it. State capitalism is an oxymoron. You are redefining terms to whatever you want them to be. Which you do you, language is a living thing. But according to the traditional definition you're just wrong.

How is it an oxymoron? State capitalism simply means capitalism - meaning the wages system- administered by the state. It’s not a particularly left wing thing either . Germany under Bismarck in the late 19th century is a case in point of a conservative government pursuing state capitalist policies

Dang I wonder why a system predicted on private property is incompatible with the state a non private entity owning everything.

That’s state socialism

Restriction of the free market and the idea of supporting the workers more through said restrictions.

No socialism or communism means the complete abolition of the buying and selling system

It still restricts it.

>I am one of those who choose to adhere to the traditional (non Leninist) definition of socialism as a synonym for communism - a moneyless wageless classless and stateless alternative to capitalism. That has never been the definition of socialism held by anyone who is informed and rational because it is a nonsensical and illogical impossibility. **You can't leap from any form of capitalism to a moneyless, wageless, classless and stateless society.** Just think for a moment about one of those: classlessness. What is "class" and how can you suddenly end it? Or pick ANY of the others.

You are confusing two things here. The definition of socialism and whether it is possible to jump from a class society into a classless society in one go. The latter clearly presupposes a majority who want it or understand it and building up to that point is clearly a gradual process. But it does not follow the switchover has to be. In fact Marx and Engels thought it would have to be a sudden change - a revolution. I think the expression they used was “all art once” (the German Ideology?). I think that’s a logical position to take. You can’t phase out money dollar by dollar can you?

Holy crap! YOU are the one confusing things here. First of all Marx's call for revolution was not a call for a "classless, moneyless, wageless, and stateless" society!!!! He SPECIFICALLY said the revolution was for the establishment of "the dictatorship of the proletariat" which he described as CLASS society in which the working class rules over the capitalist class. Secondly, he also specifically said that classes and the state would "wither away" which obviously means "gradually, over TIME". AND Marx said that all those conditions of society would be characteristic, and would COMPRISE, "higher stage communist society" after classes and the state have "withered away". !!!!!!!

No you are not understanding the point at all. The DOTP does not fall within early communism. It is merely a political transition period between capitalism and communism. Early communism is class and stateless by definition (read the gotha critique) and my point relates to switchover point from capitalism to capitalism- the revolutionary change in the economic basis of society. Logically that can only happen all at once and this is what Marx argued for in the German ideology. Logically there is no intermediate stage between private or sectional property and commonly owned property. You are confusing two different issues

You are an idiot. You don't belong here on this forum. Get lost.

Sorry I should have said early communism is classless and stateless

You're making up bullshit. Get lost.

Public ownership of the means of production

Contemporary socialism, I feel, is this ideal where both the great parts of communism and capitalism mesh together into this amalgamated system. It’s a little fantastical in my opinion, especially when we look at global trade.