"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?

maybe the old socdems (though they still fucking sucked)

Literally read Marx you fucking retard, he very precisely lays out what socialism is and isn't. And if you can't be assed to do that read the opening paragraph to the Wikipedia page for socialism, even that's enough to prove your retarded assertions wrong.

Marx said worker control of the means of production. Who here disputes this besides you?

The alternative to the social-democratic left directing the salvation of capitalism is for the right to direct the salvation of capitalism. Vulgar accelerationism is a meme.


I mean even "worker ownership of the means of production" is a good starting point.
The problem from a social democratic perspective has never been people saying "you're not a socialist" - which is true* - it's "you're not a socialist, and therefore it's not worth 15 minutes in a polling booth to try and empower you to nationalise the trains so that less commuters kill themselves."

Yes. Even I would suggest that at a certain point one has to refuse to play the voting game. Simply voting for the lesser evil isn't enough. In 2005, for example, I could better understand a left-wing vote for the Conservative party than the Labour party at that stage (mostly just to weaken the incumbent government), because at that stage the incumbent Labour government was just as nightmarish as any Tory regime.
That's a very important thing to remember. Advocating voting for social democrats is very different to advocating a vote for notionally social democratic parties run by neoliberals. In some cases, yes, there are neoliberals worth voting for - the SNP's social neoliberalism is a good example of this, as an alternative to New Labour's purer form - but when faced with a Blair/Howard situation, the best thing you can do with your vote is try to help CISTA keep their deposit.


Postwar Keynesianism lasted ~25 years as a coherent system and many of the systems then created (such as the NHS) still linger, diminished but not destroyed.
So yes, lets.

Actually read Marx friend. I know you mean well, but that's not correct.

Also, most people, such as Bernie, are actually very class conscious, they just play politics because they know going full Stalin tomorrow would be retarded for establishing communism.


Retard. Read more carefully. I never said social democracy was socialism. I'm saying we should accept it being redefined because it puts us on a path to an ACTUAL stage of socialism in the future. Even if you're too retarded to see that.


lol gtfo

None of you faggots agree with what that is. Tankies call anarchists 'liberals' all fucking day and anarchists never stop with their state capitalism memes. Again, none of you faggots agree to begin with on what socialism IS. That's the problem. Lenin's definition is most correct, the transitional phase between communism and capitalism.

No it isn't, that's vague as fuck. Most liberals see capitalism itself as accomplishing that compared to feudalism. Individuals being able to purchase property.

SocDems are gay, leave.

"Marx expresses here all essential elements of socialism. First, man produces in an associated, not competitive way; he produces rationally and in an unalienated way, which means that he brings production under his control, instead of being ruled by it as by some blind power. This clearly excludes a concept of socialism in which man is manipulated by a bureaucracy, even if this bureaucracy rules the whole state economy, rather than only a big corporation. It means that the individual participates actively in the planning and in the execution of the plans; it means, in short, the realization of political and industrial democracy." Is Fromm intentionally misrepresenting Marx here?

I should clarify that when I mean most people, I mean democratic socialists, whether they're in the closet or not.

Probably not intentionally, but yeah

Your skull is so fucking thick. This thread isn't even to argue the definition of socialism yet here you are sperging out about the definition like a stereotypical virgin commie. Shut the fuck up.

Even if it is vague, it's obvious that social democracy falls outside it.
Don't make it 2

Wow, historical revisionism much?

You 2 retards need to reread WHY, I have a problem with the "MUH NOT REAL SOCIALISM" meme.

Especially your reactionary dumbass.

Now, let's try again from my first post, put on those sweaty glasses:

You can support socdem policies and also support building socialism. It's not zero sum.

Fucking gets me every time.

No, I'm doing absolutely nothing. I'm a complete tangent. (Though the left of SocDem parties always has a few socialists kicking about.)
I'm not going to build public support for socialism by telling them that actually, socialism is just handing out free puppies while keeping society exactly the same as it is now.
No see I'm trying to get the trains nationalised. in theory anyway That's sort of what I do.
The left seems to have congealed around the British Labour Party quite easily. (Except for viewers in Scotland where Labour act as the vote-splitters.)
Nationalised railways are good.

Basically the only point that applies to a SocDem is A), and you can fuck right off if you think you can park your tanks on our branding. Social Democracy and Socialism are, broadly speaking, compatible allies - but that doesn't make them the same thing, nor is conflating the two a good idea. That's how you wind up with "Taxes = Socialism" tier stupidity.

It's zero sum to leftypol. Yes they're that retarded, I've been here long enough.

We know, this thread doesn't concern social democrats. Gut yourself and give us back Rosa.

Aside from a one or two accelerationists on here this isn't actually something people here think
Outgroup shill detected. >>>Holla Forums

actually social democracy killed 4 million and one people

Except the part where it implicitly (explicitly? I mean, Marx's quote notes an alliance with French SocDems.) advocates voting for social democratic parties to improve the conditions of the workers, down to using a picture of a social democrat in the OP image.

Stop posting GMIL. I am so fucking sick of the "ML is succdem with guns" meme. Leftcoms love to pretend that they're well read but I swear to fucking God the only thing they actually comprehend is GMIL.

either way they both collapse into neoliberalism

Like I'm totally going to use the phrase "we're that retarded" when I disagree with the majority here. English 101 man.

Nice try Holla Forums

What i don't understand about socdems is: how do they plan on transitioning their system into "real" socialism? Just slowly nationalizing everything?

...

While I'm admittedly a weirdo: I leave that to socialists and pray that someone, somewhere has a better plan then "Well we'll wait for life under capitalism to get so miserable that people will have no choice but to revolt :^) " tier vulgar accelerationism.

Ad-hoc you could probably hack up some kind of pretty solution involving co-ops, harmonisation of international living standards, socialisation of investment, etc, but I'm not going to pretend know.

It's that simple.

IDK I'm not a suckdem but getting people to experience socialism and like it would be a good start.
there's too much bullshit surrounding it that needs debunking, like free healthcare will result in stalinism and gulags via slippery slope

Real socialism is the abolishment of all forms of exploitation, including not only rent and profit but also taxes. Seeing as I (and presumably other socdems, but don't want to overgeneralize myself, it's a broad ideology) personally don't see any need to abolish the state or taxes, we don't care about a transition to socialism per se.

On private property rights, however, the idea is to either nationalize like you said or to gradually introduce more and more restrictions on private property (both from the "you can't do this" and the "we get the revenue in excess of cost" manners) in such a way that private ownership doesn't mean a damn thing. Should the bourgeois not like it, we laugh at them and point to our separately introduced laws against capital flight while showing the individual people out the door; should they try to resist with violence, we respond in kind.

how do socdems counter the bourgeoisie inevitably losing their shit and trying to reverse all progress made?

Bernie + Corbyn


I might disagree with them on strategy. They are my comrades and we are on the same side of the struggle.

If Bernie was a social democrat, why wouldn't he just say he wants to make the USA an American style social democracy rather than "democratic socialist"?

because american political vocabulary is a trainwreck

1. SocDems have shit brand recognition in the English-Speaking world. (The only "Social Democratic Party" I know of was the UK SDP, which contested only two elections before merging with another party, and they were on the Labour right. The SNP also identify as Social Democratic, but this is more of a minor note given their predominantly civic-nationalist focus.)
2. They're (at least on Bernie, Corbyn as a Bennite is more confusing*.) Socialists in terms of ideology but SocDem in terms of their actual policies for election.**
3. Socialism sounds much more radical without quite tipping into seeming edgy.

*Britain has always had a problem of "Socialism is whatever the policies of the UK labour party are", I can't say I know about Benn well enough to say what way he went personally but in the 70s and 80s he pushed an "alternative economic strategy" that amounted to Social Democracy in one country, and he set up a few co-ops in government.

**It's kind of the old "Communist Country" problem, linguistically - the distinction between a Socialist/Communist as one who follows Marxist ideas or claims to do so, and a Socialist/Communist as one actually pushing implementation, and then the later question of whether the implementation succeeded. (Hence one could have for example a "Communist Neoliberal" if they're a sufficiently dedicated vulgar accelerationist.)

But see, in practice this is exactly what social democratic movements extinguish.Once you get some social benefits and reforms talk of class becomes taboo. You also don't understand union culture which is built around "fuck you I got mines". They don't like talking about class either once they get a few concessions.

I agree with this. Support genuinely left-wing socdems, just don't get your expectations up.

I'm not a SocDem but if I were I would start nationalizing as much as I can and use those nationalized businesses to fund a ubi which would eventually be steered into the direction of fully automated luxury communism.

If all you can think of is just UBI then that's already coming from the tech industry in the next 10 years.

Liberal shit thread, impolite sage

a fucking rose.