What is socialism?

...

A state, as I've seen it described, is a political aparatus designed and used for one class of people to oppress another.
The broadest class division is between Bourgeoisie and Proletariat, ie owners of private (not personal) property and those who work them. There is some more nuance to people within those classes, as some roles give one worker functional and legal rights greater than others (such as various levels of management, and so on). And not all of the ruling, oppressing class necessarily own significant private property, such as politicians, but they still hold power over others, reap more value from the labour of others than they put in, and benefit from the same class dynamics as any traditional bourg.

Additionally, there are the un-employed, criminals, illegally employed (migrant labourers with < minimum wage) and precariously employed, who are all sort of freeradical elements.

A society in which responsibility is delegated from the bottom up, and in which the delegate members are liable, and answer to the public would not be a state as such, unless one's definition of state is any sort of social organization.

According to the most common definition, socialism is workers' management (elect their own delegates to a council) of a firm within a framework of production for human use (not exchange). It's more complicated with leftcoms - the outline closest to what they want is found in ancom literature, in "The Conquest Of Bread". Both ancoms and leftcoms see socialism as only being the immediate abolition of all value production in all forms (and "work" as we know it, but not necessarily labor) by eliminating the firm as a distinct thing. Take, for example, peasant communes (such as the Russian mir, which existed until Stalin collectivized agriculture). "Work" as a separate category of life, with its own temporal and spatial character, did not exist in these. All labor was integrated into daily life, with distinct, unalienating purpose to it - if you want milk, you milk the cow, if you want clean clothes, you wash the clothes, etc.

Socialism is an ideology where fat losers sit at home all day playing video games, and expect "big daddy gubmit" to provide them with free shit. Holla Forums takes this one step forward, and thinks it can usher in communism, a shity meme ideology, that's never lasted historically.

Define "work".

Imagine being this ignorant

Agreed, this is why we need super capitalism as fast as possible.

This is socialism.

wat

Will everyone be socialists if all that work is handled by machines?

super capitalism looks like neo-liberal welfare capitalism propaganda. It even specifies that managers and other autarchs are needed and obviously doesn't mention that since there is a market and since many workers will start out with more capital than others (as capital has not been abolished) that they will then dominate the market and become ultra wealthy at the expense of the "empowered workers". Another thing to keep in mind is that a huge number of workers have no skills and without an incentive for corporatiosn to push people through degree mills a huge number of workers would never enter the work force as it would be considered even more of a joke since everything is supposed to be automated. If you have to work to live then obviously workers are not keeping more of the fruits of their labor, the relative cost of living went up with the share of wealth they kept. So unless you are suggesting that some insane economic magic will happen where everyone keeps all their wealth, all firms stay afloat, everyone is spending to stimulate the economy, no firms become powerful, no managers use capital to amass influence and then finally where incoming workers deem it necessary to go to school when they can just get a retard job at a co-op filling ditches with dirt or just live off the immense welfare apparatus provided by the surplus of wealth that technology is supposed to provide. I just don't see how this would even work. A small number of billionaires and mega millionaires control all the automation, patents, software, factories and classified information on computing technology. They will never ever in a million years extend the benefits of these things to the citizenry. The last thing that bothers me and actually makes me viscerally upset, is the idea that this transformation is even physically possible. There is no mechanism for the transfer of ownership legitimately from Anglo-Jewish management to soy-mass bug nerds. I don't see how people like Jack Dorsey or Zuck would even go about turning facebook into a collectively owned establishment. Everything about FB is hierarchically organized from the engineering teams, to the management to the finance department (which would still be necessary and so would marketing and PR as the market and Capital are still relevant). I don't see the mechanism where it would ever make sense to not just eliminate the bud nerds and then automate as much of it as possible while keeping as small elite group of investors and managers to benefit with mercenary specialized labor being supplementary to the automated service. I really think super-capitalism and workers co-ops are socialism for rich people. Its a system where upper middle class and upper class people can protect themselves form the market AND can pretend they're sharing wealth with others, but really just maximizing the surety of their own bets (hedging against failure by tying everything to a collective interest). Imho it comes off as more pernicious than what we already have. There is even more that I find repugnant about this idea

Did you just have a stroke?

NO

As far as I'm concerned, socialism is the replacement of private property for collective property. Exactly who owns it and how it's managed depends on the socialist current.

State capitalism managed by a legitmately democratic state could vaguely sort of be called socialism

is that why some guy kept sperging to me about how the federation in star trek was socialist?

Never get involved with ideology and media arguments, it's always cancerous and a sentence away from liberal trash.

I think he meant the end of production for exchange

Might as well say "co-ops" are socialism.

Something something market socialism yadda yadda.