"MUH NOT REAL SOCIALISM"

Hi, if you call yourself a socialist and an anarchist, but you ridicule efforts to improve the conditions of the workers because these efforts are "not socialist enough" for you. Then frankly, you need to find a rope and hang yourself because you are A.) getting in the way of organizing public support for socialism and anarchism B.) being absolutely completely useless by never doing anything until some lunatic LARPER comes along and recruits you + 8 other people C.) helping the Right have more victories by splintering the Left's numbers, and finally D.) not helping the workers in anyway whatsoever.

Now to quote Marx because frankly, it really seems as if the ones spamming "not real socialism", are by far the most illiterate and politically ignorant:

"The Communists fight for the attainment of the immediate aims, for the enforcement of the momentary interests of the working class; but in the movement of the present, they also represent and take care of the future of that movement. In France the Communists ally themselves with the Social-Democrats, against the conservative and radical bourgeoisie, reserving, however, the right to take up a critical position in regard to phrases and illusions traditionally handed down from the great Revolution.

In Switzerland they support the Radicals, without losing sight of the fact that this party consists of antagonistic elements, partly of Democratic Socialists, in the French sense, partly of radical bourgeois.

In Poland they support the party that insists on an agrarian revolution as the prime condition for national emancipation, that party which fomented the insurrection of Cracow in 1846.

In Germany they fight with the bourgeoisie whenever it acts in a revolutionary way, against the absolute monarchy, the feudal squirearchy, and the petty bourgeoisie.

But they never cease, for a single instant, to instil into the working class the clearest possible recognition of the hostile antagonism between bourgeoisie and proletariat, in order that the German workers may straightaway use, as so many weapons against the bourgeoisie, the social and political conditions that the bourgeoisie must necessarily introduce along with its supremacy, and in order that, after the fall of the reactionary classes in Germany, the fight against the bourgeoisie itself may immediately begin.

The Communists turn their attention chiefly to Germany, because that country is on the eve of a bourgeois revolution that is bound to be carried out under more advanced conditions of European civilisation, and with a much more developed proletariat, than that of England was in the seventeenth, and of France in the eighteenth century, and because the bourgeois revolution in Germany will be but the prelude to an immediately following proletarian revolution.

In short, the Communists everywhere support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.

In all these movements they bring to the front, as the leading question in each, the property question, no matter what its degree of development at the time.

Finally, they labour everywhere for the union and agreement of the democratic parties of all countries.

The Communists disdain to conceal their views and aims.
They openly declare that their ends can be attained only by
the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions.
Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution.
The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains.
They have a world to win."

Now stop sperging out in your echochamber and help create the conditions for socialism, you fucking useless slabs of meat. The "not real socialism" posters NEED to be purged.

'No'

but it isn't real socialism man, like fucking read a book man

Prolonging capitalism isn't helping the workers.

passive accelerationism

you're retarded.


I really wish I had weed.

get off my board, Jason.

There is nothing wrong with helping the working class, but don't call it something it is not.

I agree with you that purists are idiots and should vote for socdems if they're the best chance but there's a pretty fucking deep chasm between socdems and neolibs

/thread

None of you faggots agree on the defintion. Also, redefining it to mean more social control is a winning strategy to an actually socialist ends.


really?