End Goal for Socialists?

I can't speak for everyone, but what it boils down to me is by definition, communism is stateless. Socialism can be, but is usually thought to have a state of some kind. Some have economies based on markets, others have a planned economy. Cockshot's book describes an implementation of the latter.

Personally, I just don't believe an anarchist society is the way to go. I think in the long run, it'll lead to stagnation or fall apart as someone inevitably forms a state. I'd rather see a democratic state that provides for its citizens. I also don't believe in market socialism, because I think it would have many of the same issues as a capitalist market. Rather, a planned economy, like in Towards a New Socialism, would provide far better living standards in the long run.

That's actually a good question. I've seen loads of different names for Cockshot-style socialism (cybernetic socialism, cyber socilalism, etc), but no one seems to identify as a Cockshottist.

Classless: basically all of them, moneyless, gonna be more of a mix, stateless, not many of them.

...

Socialists are not distinct from Communists. This is a misunderstanding caused by the fact that so many European socialist parties gradually abandoned their socialist heritage and turned to social democracy in the early 20th century — which is why so many people from Bernie supporters to Holla Forumstards seem to believe socialism is "when government does stuff."

The death of politics. Also, anyone calling themselves a socialist but who is not a communist can be nothing but a social democrat or a liberal.

REEEEEEEEEEEEEEAD BORDIGA YOU FUCKING OPPORTUNIST!

noice bordiga pepe i saved that

Cockshott is a Marxist.

They're all Marxists even if they don't know it.

A harmonious, ethical sublation of the realms of non-human nature and human society.

Its like you have never even heard of marx.

To automate all the things.

I can't say I really know what's in store. I do know a stateless society is fucking retarded because we didn't manage our resources any more sustainably before civilization. Perhaps some sort of decentralized planning after worker cooperatives begin to dominate the economy? All I know is that capitalism has got to go.

Some degree of centralization is a good thing though. We'll never get lunar solar power without it.

FALC master race?

Cockshott is a communist and self-described Marxist as well as a Leninist (although he rejects Marxism-Leninism, that is, he's not a tankie anymore)

He's more of an economistic neo-utopian than a Marxist, although that is far superior to his former MLism and is excellent in its own right.

Well, anarcho-communists are the variety of anarchists in question which seek this specifically, and are by far the most common variety of anarchist. They're not the only type, though. Proudhon, the first self-described anarchist, wanted a stateless free market where the means of production were communally owned and managed on the basis of possession, with usufruct rights and community-controlled mutual banks giving out low-interest loans.
Yes and no. As for pure market socialists (which are actually only a very recent trend - both Yugoslavia and mutualist anarchists were against what are worker-managed LLCs in essence), this critique goes. For Yugos and mutualists, it's more complicated because they actually do away with or end up modifying beyond recognition aspects of the labor market and its relations. Remember, by the end of his life Proudhon was advocated non-circulating labor vouchers in a scheme which was separately developed in a forking road by Marx and Bakunin. My conclusion is that they're still calling for capitalism, social democracy under another guise, but that's a much longer argument to be made. Dauve explains why planning doesn't equate capitalism's abolition pretty well in "Eclipse And Reemergence Of The Communist Movement" in a few paragraphs which work just as well for marksocs.

This. Communism is not left wing or apolitical - it is anti-political.

Read a book.
No one on the Left has ever said that organization requires the state. Marxists, anarchists, communalists, utopians, socdems, etc. The market alone is proof of this (albeit a poor example).
Proudhon's later writings in essence. Decentralized planning according to need can even arise spontaneously, though, and we have the logistics and communications technologies now to scale it indefinitely even with homemade free software and cheap, ubiquitous old hardware.
There are ideas beyond the narrow capitalist market-state dichotomy, you know.

The goal is to seize the means of production and to look swag while doing so. The first part is easy, but the second might be too hard for diehard neets, weebs and robotz.

Obviously the socialists only seek the destruction of all mankind and the extinction of the human race.

This

It's not you idiot. Stop falling for stupid memes.

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx's_theory_of_history

If you actually read Marx, then you'd know that he equates socialism with communism and separates both from the DoTP. A link to Wikipedia is not an argument.

In my mind there's not really a different between being a socialist or being a communist. Both should have the same goal, imo (classless, moneyless, stateless society, etc., etc.). You can't be a socialist and not have communism as the end goal, I think.
Maybe some people call themselves "socialists" instead of "communists" because socialism isn't connected to "muh 100 billion deaths" like communism is. But to distinguish between the two is a bit silly.

Socialists don't want to work.

How is this supposed to refute in any way that the endgame of socialism is communism?

True politicians like Lenin didn't have any 'end goal' when they acted.
What you propose is a form of philosophico-ideological masturbation of a religious cult, to which Bolsheviks had resorted later, in the course of the party's decay and ultimately its disintegration.

As a socialist i just want socialism right now and then smoothly and gradually transition to communism (material super abundance) I see a "communist" as a revolutionary communist, like a leninst et-al who want to transition quickly via D0tP

Tikkun Olam.

if only

t. not Marx

...

OP there seems to be a lot of disagreement on this. It seems that most people who call themselves Socialists are basically Communists, but perhaps they see in cooperatives and unions the revolutionary potential that someone like Rosa disregarded? Perhaps Socialists just have different strategies than MLs. In that sense they're like leftcoms or councilcoms almost; a different flavor of Connunist. Honestly, this disappoints me a little. It's to be expected of course, since Marx brought about a sea change in politics, economics, as well as inventing the social sciences, so naturally most of us are standing on his shoulders. Still, I was thinking there would be Socialists who claimed early 19th century thinkers or contemporaries of Marx that called themselves Socialists as themspurce of their belief system. Well, there are those people, they're called Anarchists. Anyway, thx for the discussion, very interesting.

Connunist. Fuck.

Cute picture

Theres a lot of different things. Some want a perpetual USSR, some want what we have now but without private firms, some have strange technocratic fantasies about computer gods. Then you have to figure anarchists and marxists don't mean the same thing when they talk of the state.

Yep. /cute/ has some good stuff.

No, he didn't

Didn't have an end goal? What then was the reason behind Lenin's actions? Was he just flying by the seat of his pants? To pretend that Lenin wasn't trying to bring about the material conditions necessary to realize Socialism then Communism is to paint Lenin as extremely myopic. He believed in the historical necessity of the overthrow of the bourgeois capitalists by the proletariat, then the eventual withering away of the state into Communism.

I agree though that the ideal of Communism was held up as an end goal that was basically not actually being sought after in the latter days of the Society Union, being used as justification for the next geriactric to retain dictatorial power and keep oppressing the people. I still think that the earlier Communists, who still believed in the historical necessity of Communism, were actively working to bring it about.

...

Stop sexualizing anime children

He believed that objectively there will be communism at some point. He didn't perceive himself as a bourgeois parliamentary politician with a "goal", he understood that his patry already achieved the goal of taking over, so his activity is already the means to an end, and there's no point in proving his credibility - objective forces of history are on his side, all questions ought to be solved by application of reason alone. The principal question here is the application of reason and when did it become distorted in the Party. Some argue it was distorted from the day one, some - much later.

Brazil, the movie

Star Trek style?

Careful. They don't like it when you call them out for their deviant love for extremely underage-looking Lolis.

Don't worry looks, the loli from OP's pic is about 495 years old

"They"?

fug

Well, that's super obvious and makes it totally not creepy.

You can get used to it, the entire touhou series is about girls in frilly dresses being actually old-as-shit mythical creatures.

Thats why 2hu is besto

This but unironically

never

To make everybody miserable. The end goal of Communism is to make everybody dead.

That was a pretty disappointing insult.

UPHOLD ZAPFFE-MARXIST THOUGHT

Sublimation or bust.

I just looked that up. If I understand correctly, it's the way in which the thesis and antithesis interact dialectically, with the synthesis containing elements of both. So Capitalism would sublimate into Socialism, then into Communism?

When you say "I just want Socialism right now," what do you mean? What is a Socialism in this context? Worker coops, factory councils, neighborhood sections, etc., or USSR style Socialism with a planned economy? Maybe the horizontal people's organization along with central planning to use the state as a tool to combat reactionaries? The latter proposition though is excellent because the USSR showed how the Soviets and factory councils were actively squelched by the Bolsheviks for the sake of centralization. What say you?

I, uh, was just referring to the transcendence macguffin from The Culture novels…

Socialism is more of an umbrella term that includes communists (as in marxists who want to seize the state) and non-retarded anarchists.

...

The end goal🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Socialism🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧 from its inception is and always has been to secure the wealth of the goyim for the Jewish people.

Are you gonna actually critique the theoretical structures of Socialist though, or are you just gonna call stuff you don't like 🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧(Jewish🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧) and spam shitty """"info""""graphics

Marx had familial and racial ties to the international parasites, especially the predatory capitalist bankers, the so called *porkies* you profess to hate. And *Jacob Schiff* funded the socialist revolution and was a member of the Frankfurt school. Why aren't you asking questions?

...

>Marx is distantly related to the rothschilds and hitler said some totally objective bad shit about the soviet union means communism as a political theory is just a jewish conspiracy

It's like you actually want people to discard your political opinion

why does it matter if Marx had familial ties to Jews? so did hitler. It really does not matter unless you can show some kind of larger jew empire at work, then just pointing out peoples jewiness proves little but anecdote.
I'm sorry, but you have to have read works by Adorno and at least have a base level of understanding of what he discussed to be able to talk about it. Name dropping and whingeing on about "gultural margsism" is not an argument.
And bankers funded the Nazis, porky does as porky does, if their is money to be made, then he will try and make it.

What did Gramsci mean when he called Socialism a religion?

...

That quote is falsified. One can simply not take seriously anything these faggots say when they do this themselves.

Oh. He did advocate for cultural hegemony, though, right?

getout pedofaggot.
your weeb shit is dead and gay

...

he advocated the destruction of capitalist cultural hegemony, he didn't really care what replaced it iirc

So basically "state capitalism without markets"?

What's the point of having a state if there is no more class conflict?

What is exactly wrong with socdem besides the ebin Rosa Luxembourg meme

Perhaps the fact that social democracy is not communist? Did that not cross your mind?

Could still be a useful transitional phase.

Except that it was never designed to be one, but to better administer capital. Socialism was supposedly the goal, but we can see today that most social Democrats no longer need to make allusions to it. Furthermore, it assumes that socialism can come to be through bourgeois politics.