Socialists lack imagination

It's even more common outside Holla Forums but I see it daily here aswell. People are literally unable to see socialism/communism as anything but slightly different managing of capitalism, and while it's expected of reactionaries to strawman socialism/communism as "when the government does stuff" or "taxes" you'll also find loads of self-proclaimed socialists functioning as these strawmen, talking about "socialist policies" and "socialist government".

Basically, socialism has been reduced to nothing but a position within the arena of liberal capitalism, to duke it out with "conservatives", "liberals", "centrists" etc.
Socialism has become a question of having socialists in power, having socialist government policy and reducing income inequality.

Did she say we should ever pretend that reformism of any kind was socialist?

My question to you is, how do we solve this? Or alternatively, defend your position as to why taxing capitalists more, nationalizations or having a socialist party in power equals socialism or communism.

Other urls found in this thread:

I mean their is such a thing as "lower stage communism". As obnoxious as people that insist taxation and welfare constitutes socialism, people that condemn collectivized economies that haven't fully abolished the commodity form as capitalist can be just as annoying. I'm not referring to the USSR or any M-L state btw. As to an answer to this, there really isn't beyond just engaging in debate with these interpetations, but even then nothing is guaranteed to change. Sometimes, people just believe whatever is most convenient.

While Lenin wrote about "Left-Wing Communism: an infantile disorder" it might be time to write "Left-Wing Capitalism: an infantile disorder"

Socialism is meaningless, I am for communism and so on.

Because for the most part the world is peaceful, and the forces of production have advanced so far as to provide abundance of basic commodities for most of the planet's population. Most people are risk averse and don't want to instigate an ultra-violent global revolution just so they can arrive at a society that looks like ours, just with less inequality and a better distribution of political/economic power.

Most people are fine with some level of alienation/exploitation/inequality. No one wants to talk about actual violent revolutionary change, just like no one wants to talk about de-growth or other things needed to adequately respond to climate change - they just don't want to rock the boat for themselves or the people around them.

Thanks for proving OPs point


Capitalism is vastly more violent on a daily basis than any potential revolution. And most people live precariously except for a handful of middle class petty bourgs.

This. Read Zizek.

It's there and no, there isn't.

Ironic flair is ironic.

structural violence is still violence

by refusing you food on arbitrary business grounds i can kill you without touching you.

(oh and obviously implicitly, it's not just me refusing food but the state promising to put a bullet in you if you try and take it when i'm off drinking a jug of Vaseline in the kitchen.)

holy shit, a socdem who is not a moron

Do it

I don't feel like I'm well-read enough to write such a polemic but I'd definitely do it one day

And I'm not refuting that, I was trying to play devil's advocate in my post by saying that most people under capitalism have adapted to how the system works and doesn't work, and are gonna need some heavy convincing to go beyond reformism and commit themselves to the necessarily violent and difficult task of revolution.

Perhaps a better answer to OP would be that the left needs to take Adam Curtis' advice and articulate a coherent, unified vision of the future, that both seems achievable and is appealing to the working people. At the risk of triggering leftcoms, you need at least a sketch of what socialism looks like, in order to inspire people to fight for it. This is especially important since most people only know of capitalism, and the half-capitalist simulacrum of state socialism. That's why Bookchin and Cockbott are popular on Holla Forums, and why those "what would X look like under communism" threads are not as much of a waste of time as people think they are. It's the only way to avoid the MMT-fueled UBI funbucks and ""workplace democracy"" capitalism that the socdems would have us hurtling towards.

Also, relevant Chibber on what I was trying to say re: risk-aversion to revolutionary change:

Idealists, abstract idealists all of you.

I don't see any reason we can't go via that avenue.

solve? we ride this bandwagon and push the narration

You mean people like Marx?
Sounds like a full abolition of the commodity form to me.

this is the case of the first world, but how about the third, people are discontent there, averse to politics, hating goverment, being fuck over by the system, how about them?, the first time a communist party postulated for congress in my country it grabbed up to a third of the seats, because people are tired of this shit, their presidential candidate was even winning

kill yourself

Marx never espoused instantaneous dissolution of the commodity form. If I'm wrong, feel free to prove to me otherwise

He didn't but that doesn't mean that he thought commodity production would be present in communism. The dissolution of commodity production will take place in the dictatorship of the proletariat.

I never claimed commodity production would be present in communism. My point was that dismissing a DotP as inadequate because it fails to abolish it instantaneously is completely asinine. To insinuate that it's "capitalist" or "bourgeois" in nature.

Not my concern. When I have to explain socialism AND communism to people I do. They are such simple & different concepts un-associated with goverment or authority or hierarchies.

I support Autonomous actions.
Here is the thing I don't care if all this dowsn't brings out a revolution, I'm fine with a reform to everything, to make things easier for me & my friends. If Bernie gets the throne fine, it will be easier for me to reach autonomy that way since his goverment still sucks but at least makes more wealth flow my way. I can only be so powerful.

Peace, gn man

But the "first world" doesn't notice it. Since they're sucking the blood of those poorer. It's true that the 1st world is blind to that reality, therefore it has less revolutionary potential.
I'm going to be ballsy here and admit that no, revolution/civil war won't happen but there is still a lot of shit to come & I welcome it. I'm participating however I can if it benefits me, more than happy to fight alongside with my comrades & especially other anarchs.

if thats you AW I'm glad to find you here. I have heard great things about you & your knowledge of Hegel. Good luck with whatever project you have rn.

Shut the fuck up AW.