Confused as to what actually socialism is?

l understand it's not "muh workers control of the MOP" which is just socially owned capitalism (which I feel somewhat compelled too) . I also understand it's not just muh "big state owns all industries". Theres stuff to do with exchange and capital that I don't quite understand.

Btw I only really want an answer in Marxist terms. if your anarchist or tankie or nazbol i'm not really interested.

Other urls found in this thread:

Socialism is the economic system which follows directly from late stage capitalism, with the end goal of establishing communism, a stateless and classless configuration of society. The most important aspects of socialism are worker-owned means of productions and the abolishment of private property.

i explicitly stated that a) that is not what socialism is b) i'm not interested in listening to anarchists

a) Not my fault you don't understand
b) Suck my dick

worker owned means of production ARE private provperty. You can't just take a bit of ownership out of capitalism and call it socialism.

Production for use and collective ownship of property.


No, private property is defined as the capital and facilities owned by private entities, i.e. corporations, in order to produce goods. If the workers collectively own and control the capital and facilities used to produce goods, clearly this ceases to be private property, it is now collectively owned property. You seem to be under the impression that simply making things = capitalism, which is fucking hilarious.

Socialism is a mode of production distinct from capitalism where production is owned and controlled by the community and goods are made for use without any kind of wage labor or private property.

Remember, socialism isn't a mode of management. If all the aspects of capitalism remain except with collective abstract capitalists running the firms instead of individuals then it is still capitalism.

Which aspects of capitalism remain?

Markets, wage labor, capital accumulation, production for exchange. Maybe try the mutualist flag next time, it fits what you're saying a bit better.

Point taken, I didn't mention these things explicitly although I'm opposed to them as well, definitely not a mutualist.

Socialism is a system where individuals interact through force, instead of voluntarily through reason. For example, if you produce something of value and sell it to others, the government puts a gun to your head and forces you to hand over some of the proceeds, maybe 40%, or 50%, or 60%, or some other amount, as there's no objectivity under socialism.

On the other hand, capitalism has produced virtually everything in the modern world, including the computers that we are typing on, while socialism has resulted in about 100 million deaths worldwide, including 1/4 of Cambodia's population under the Khmer Rouge. But some people (usually college kids about to go $100K into debt, or tenured professors) are so ignorant of history that they still advocate for socialism "because it's never been tried!"(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)

And you are completely right

the computers we're typing on are produced in large part by underpaid starving workers in china and southeast asian countries, not "capitalism"


Good point!

But they were invented and designed, for the most part, in the mostly capitalist US. However, it's true that the companies have made a deal with the devil to manufacture with political convicts, or children, or some other "dirty" labor force. This non-voluntary interaction is capitalism merging with fascism.

invention and design of new technology is no less possible under socialism than it is under capitalism, look at sputnik. (i'm not a stalinist fwiw) also, capitlism in practice will ALWAYS exploit the labor force, since it is in capitalists' self interests to cut costs and maximize surplus value.

Lol, you're fucking retarded. Socialism is the workers ownership of the means of production + workplace democracy + abolition of commodity production. Don't discount anarchist comrade because you're a brainlet, they want the same things that we do.

Fascism is the unofficial/official enforcement arm of modern capitalism. You can't write off exploitation as an exception to an otherwise good system, the system requires exploitation in order to function.

If the US went socialist after the second world war, you have all of the resources and talent necessary to invent all of the advances in computing that happened. US had such a huge advantage after WW2 that it was inevitable they would outpace the Soviets in some areas. Even then it wasn't that much of an advantage all things considered, Soviet military was pretty much at parity with American military techwise.

A definition everyone can probably agree on:

A socioeconomic system directly proceeding capitalism where the previous working class have seized the productive forces of society and directed production toward use rather than exchange.

Are you actually fucking retarded?


A lot of socialists get triggered by it doesn't explicitly state the absence of wage labor or production for exchange.

Which is silly, because worker control of the means of production necessarily brings about the absence of wage labor and production for exchange.

It literally is, your feelings are not relevant to whether the definition still stands or not.

I remember when a girl in my class defined communism as "when the government puts a gun to your head and says vote for us or we'll kill you". Good times.
The teacher then corrected her by saying "no, its when everyone gets paid the same"

What you're thinking of is probably the abolition of commodity production, which would mean that things are no longer produced to be exchanged, but are produced only for their use value. Production for use, not for exchange.

There's also the abolition of wage labour, which would mean that labour power is no longer a commodity, as it is under capitalism.

Basically unless you can make an infographic telling people they can keep their iphone under socialism, they won't listen.

oh great another spooked ass sectarian christfag
Listen to people here ffs

Socialism as a system is more or less synonymous with communism, that is a stateless, classless, moneyless society. The idea that socialism is the stage before communism is plain revisionism. Socialism requires the abolition of capital, which is why it isn't just workers' control of the MoP

Soc Dems are not comrades

Computers were invented by a british man named Alan Turing who was an avowed socialist.The software running in over 1 billion microcomputers, GNU/Linux as android, was invented by richard stallman, an avowed socialist. we are typing on socialist devices.

most of the socialists, here were I live, at least are working class - not to mention the khmer rouge were installed and helped by the CIA as opposition to the socialist forces in indochina.

most people are drawn to socialism out of an awareness that they are being fucked over not an acute sense of marxist literature.

don't give me empty platitudes designed to make bernie sanders look good on reddit. that's not a proper definition of socialism and you know it.

in both a literal and socialist sense I supposed
tiocfaidh ar la

the failure of "libertarian socialists" has always been their willingness to compromise - even to the grave or the cells. Did anti sectarianism help the Ukranian peasants after they assisted the bolsheviks rise to power?

Not even ancaps are this retarded

Protip: just because socdem has the word "social" in it does not make them socialists. It doesn't make them the same thing as anarchists either. In any case,
Is socialism, regardless of your feels. Read a fucking book, go back to Holla Forums, etc.

You realise Marxism is a specific brand of socialism and doesn't have the monopoly. Workers owning the means of production is a prerequisite for abolition of the value form and is fundamentally a different mode of production to capitalism. Anybody who says otherwise severly lacks nuance

this reads like heavyhanded satire of a lolbert, why was that user banned?

Alan Turing didn't invent computers, but he did crack the code that allowed the US to win World War I. When the Soviet Union tried inventing its own computers they rage-quit and copied Western-made computers.

Socialism isn't workers' ownership, it's social ownership. Social ownership could be by a council that actually knows what it's doing.

From what's been posted ITT, I would say that socialism is an economic system characterized by:

Anything else?

An"com"s are Social Democrats

you realise pre-marxist and marxist independent socialism is a load of useless shit

and Marxist socialism's best effort led to Kruschev sooo…. Its all useless shit in the end until it actually creates communism. Don't get me wrong I appreciate Marx's analysis and think it is for the most part accurate, I just think its silly to call "socialised capitalism" the same thing as capitalism, as many and that it lacks nuance, primarily because in a worker owning MOP society, there literally would not be capital in the form of private property. You can have commodities and value still in this scenario, but it isn't capital in the traditional sense

thank Ben Shapiro!

Please go on and elaborate how a proletariat revolution going directly to Communism is the same thing as reformed Capitalism. This should be fun.

perhaps when anarchists stop telling me capitalism with shared factories is communism

nobody says that though. Bakunin calls that collectivism. Marx calls it the lower stage. Kropotkin didn't want it at all. Proudhon pretty much supports it but does not call it communism but mutualism, they are all modes of production in their own right

1) Market socialism and mutualism are more than that.
2) Marxism doesn't have a monopoly on the definition of socialism.

Also how something that is owned by several people all at once with equal shares and says private property? You literally can just take away a bit of ownership. Surely if it is no longer the property of the boss, and is the property now of the workers, it is not private property. You could say that, those workers have the capacity to act as one, like a boss split into many parts and exploit other parts of the workforce other than themselves, which would be fair enough, but assuming this co-op exists within capitalism, that exploitation was already there and they aren't increasing it. Assuming a revolution has taken place and it exists within a web of other co-ops, it will certainly be true that they will be forced to compete with each other, however given the multiplied community ties linked into the collective ownership of the workplace, this will still be far great mechanism for the expression of the will of the proletariat than has ever been provided on earth ever. Nobody is saying its communism but a step towards. At least, that is what I am saying, and I think most others are saying also. Furthermore this criticism applies to every other form of organisation, be it a trade union, your average reformist party, or even your revolutionary class party, or your off the chain nihilist bombing cell ,the conditions will be such that at some point it may be compelled to work purely for its own interest, potentially against the interest of other parts of the proletariat. I think the co-op network, combined with strong trade unions and shared municipal projects, provides many crossovers for the intersection of interests and in this way is actually much less likely to be exploitative than the other forms of organisation.

Oh shit, it's spain's favourite astronaut on the lower left, Carrero Blanco.

I fucking love Carrero Blanco memes

Is there a youtube series that introduces people to socialism?
so much for freeze peach

Can I get some sauce on this claims


You need to go back and stay where you came from

i just searched Carrero Blanco memes on google images

tumblr is just for porn



Seriously mods, you don't need to ban shit like this, I mean it's not like anyone will take it seriously.

Astronaut? You crazy, he's world record holder for highest jump while inside motorized vehicle.

You have to go back.