Questions for "Real" socialists

Can you explain to me what real socialism is?
Is Anfem real socialism, or is ancom the brand?

Other urls found in this thread:

socialistworld.net/index.php/slideshow/9412-venezuela-the-capitalist-offensive-has-socialism-failed
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

The "What about real socialism" meme is a straw man by right-wingers whenever they are confronted by socialists explaining to them how different socialist attempts haven't been able to succeed in implementing socialism. Right-wingers don't care about the nuance about the subject and as such try to associate the failures of implementation as the failure of the system. Otherwise it would render 99% of """"arguments"""" against socialism completely dead.

Well, what is real socialism?

...

Is anfem real socialism?

no.

The "real socialism" meme is the product of western anarcho-liberals trying their best to rehabilitate socialism in the face of billions of dollars worth of anti-socialist propaganda.

t. Karl Marx

You're welcome, OP.

socialistworld.net/index.php/slideshow/9412-venezuela-the-capitalist-offensive-has-socialism-failed

You could write an entire book about this, and there is a lot of historical context that plays into how this is interpreted. For the sake of simplicity, I give you this quote from Marx (in this case, we are assuming that socialism and communism are interchangeable, as the distinction between the two would not be elaborated upon until later in time):
"We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things. The conditions of this movement result from the premises now in existence."
In other words, it is the complete rewriting of the social/material relations between people of a society whilst building upon the foundation of present (capitalist) society (as opposed to, for example, moving backwards into some earlier form of organization like feudalism). How this is accomplished and how far the movement must go to accomplish this goal will vary from interpretation to interpretation.

The most bare bones requirement for a society to be considered socialist is through workers ownership of the means of production (MOP); this property-based definition is the most basic used by even some of the earliest socialist writers and one cannot call themselves a socialist without it. Through this, you have the abolition of the capitalist class as an active role in the society, thus eliminating existing/direct ruler-servant class dynamics.
Further elaboration of this might entail that ownership of the MOP must be direct and democratic, thus eliminating potentially exploitative relationships between those who produce and those who direct production (be they capitalist or unaccountable economic planners) and (under some interpretations) preventing the emergence of a new ruling class.
Still beyond that are those who would argue that socialism requires the abolition of money as a means of preventing the accumulation of capital, thus once again helping to ensure that no section of society begins to form the embryo of classed society's re-emergence (among other things that I won't get to in depth with).
Lastly, you have those who interpret this as necessitating the end of generalized commodity production as a whole as a prerequisite for socialism, thus ending production for exchange and the abolition of capital itself (thus abolishing the very core of the capitalist mode of production).

That's not by any means a comprehensive list, but that explains why you will have some who will argue whether certain historical societies had met the requirements for socialism, especially among the left.

It's a way of understanding feminism through the lens of anarchist conceptions of hierarchies and power relations rather than an ideology to itself. Almost nobody actually identifies as an "anfem," as it is implicit with any form of anarchism.

Send me a link mate.

no

By getting rid of the class system, you are technically comitting genocide on the working class.

what? How does that work, please eplain.

The working class wouldn't exist, because there are no classes.

abolishing the class system doesn't mean we physically get rid of people who are in that class, how fucking stupid are you?

I never said it would literally get rid of them.

the how is it genocide?

This is some next-level esoteric spookposting.

It works the same way as pol's anuddah shoah works.

Oh, i see your logic: so you're considering by abolishing the classes, we're destroying people identities, so kinda like a cultural genocide?
That wage slavery of thoses exotic proles is a folklore we ought to preserve?

W h I t e g e n o c I d e

Yes.

but that's still incredibly fucking stupid. What's "worker culture" anyways? Being poor?

how does it feel to be fucking stupid then?

You think the working class is stupid? Geez, I didn't know leftypol was full of classist pieces of shit.

...

yeah, basically, the working class is fucking stupid.

what makes you think I give a shit about the working class? I want to end capitalism because it would liberate my ego.

I swear to god this guy just comes to leftypol to post absolute fucking bullshit and then act surprised when people don't debate him and call him studip, then jerks off to his fantisy about how the left doesn't actually care about the working class, but only about importing muslims to commit anuddah shoah and to impelement third wave feminist thougth in schools.

that's a pretty dank word filter, thanks mods

This is what happens when your knowledge of political ideology comes from cartoons of ball shaped flag faces.

Socialism, in the broadest sense, is an economic mode of production in which the means of production are owned by the workers.

Communists add the condition that the means of production must be collectively owned by the workers, and must be used to produce commodities for use rather than exchange. This is what sets communism apart from market socialism, market anarchism, Marxism-Leninism, or any other flavor of utopian socialism, unrelated to Marxism.

No, our culture is there every time a mother gives birth to her 8th child, it's there whenever we eat a bowl of gumbo, it's the thing that helps us figure out how to restart the car we got in the 90s, that we haven't bother to mating in 10 years.

sounds like your culture is fucking trash tbh

Alright pack it up boys, now i'm not doubting anymore

Fuck you, it is awesome.

let me guess, you are also into scat

No gross, I'm into MILFs.

Although I won't be again you guys getting rid of it the same way the Romans did. By giving us food and circus, only in the modern sense for the second.

*Against

just leave

And yet people reply instead of filtering him.

capped, I was planning to make a thread to produce a post like this
thanks user

so it doesn't work

Not exactly. A race dying off through being mixed into another isn't negative, as long as it isn't forced. But a culture that is doing no harm to anyone shouldn't just be destroyed. Take the Indian culture for example, they were just fucking in the woods before another group of people came along and stopped that.

...

workers owning the means of production is real socialism. no porky state, no porky boss.

Yes comrade, us in the inner party are working just as hard as you for that bright future without THEM.

we don't need bosses or politicians. you're dead as fuck if you try to appropriate my labor.

Mate, upper-left is authoritarian by their very nature. Authoritarianism = bosses

see the expression on the laborer's mouth. she is a slave of the state.

socialism is when the government does stuff and the more it does the more socialist it is

Depends, whose definition are you using?
According to Marx and Engels there isn't. According to Lenin and Stalin there is.