Questions for "Real" Socialists

There's nothing wrong with reacting to stuff. Everyone reacts to stuff.
Being a reactionary is not just reacting to stuff it's reacting to social change by seeking to establish a previous social order, like monarchists wanting feudalism back or incel dweebs wanting traditional family back.
The problem with reaction is that it's based on a naive and idealised view of history and historical development. You can't simply go back to a previous social order, because that social order ended for a reason, and going back would just mean repeating the same development that led to its downfall. Modern reactionary thought is also built on the idea that you can pick and choose which part of the past you can bring back, that you can bring back the things you like while leaving what you don't like, which completely ignores that all these things build on each other and can't be seperated. There's no going back, only forward

Because their progress is only surface deep.

Because they only have farcial progress to make capitalism a little bit more inclusive while having a reactionary attitude to economical progress. They're trying to uphold the old economic order by trying to make the contradictions of it look more bearable.

progressive means you want to bring in the future (socialism, unless the liberals divert your attention to their latest idpol)
conservative means you want to hold things in stasis (capitalism)
reactionary means you want to return to the past (feudalism)

So no, we don't 'label' everyone as a reactionary, only people who spout 'muh traditional values' as the solution to social problems.

Or like bourgeoisie millennials who want communism back?
Are you a commie, because if you are, you have no self awareness.

Destiny, you have to go back

learn your words namefag retard

A less retarded version of what you said here is why some leftists consider tan.kies reactionary, but you're still a dipshit who doesn't know what the word "bourgeoisie" means

Funny, I would say the same thing about "real" socialism.

Would a communist country, also be reactionary to capitalists? Trying to fix the old system they deem as faulty?

So the progress doesn't mean moving forward? And I didn't see a thread on lefty pol calling Milo a reactionary?

Capitalism is reactionary either way so would the people trying to defend the contradictions of communism from the next step be too.

Because it's idpol

Wew

I would assume everyone try to change the system they live under, would be considered reactionary, given the example presented to me.

Fam…

Who cares? You're here to make an argument, not discuss what you would or would not say
We currently live under global capitalism, and so you capitalism is not a progressive force to react to a prior state back from

So the people back in the days soviet Russia was still around, who wanted to get rid of commuism, weren't reactionaries? And more over, do you think we haven't changed capitalism at all or something?

There are places in the world free of capitalism, if you cared enough to go to them.

...

Are you a super-capitalist op?

You mean a small cabal of people arround Yeltsin? The Soviet people never wanted the USSR to dissolve.
There is just Cuba and the DPRK and both are being strangled with sanctions. I also speak neither Korean nor Spanish.

communism is super capitalism
at least this is what Mussolini said

There is not a single place on earth that is free from global capitalism, but you'll be happy to know that you're in good company since you agree with tank.ie retards and fox news grandpa dipshits

Of course they were. The Whites back in the Civil War were either tsarists or interventionist forces from the capitalist states. They tried to stop the social development to go back the status quo of either Tsarist Russia or global Capitalism. They were reactionaries
Of course Capitalism has developed, but that doesn't make Communism a reaction of Capitalism. Communism develops from Capitalism due to the contradictions that arise, not vice versa.

No there aren't. Capitalism is global, there's not a single thing it doesn't touch. The only place free from Capitalism is space, and not for long.

"bridge" means several different things whether an electrician, engineer, architect, or grammarian is using it. that doesn't make it "reinvented" you massively stupid asshole.

And you idiots wonder why, I call you "Real" socialists, it's because no one but yourself is a "Real" socialist.

I do not identify as one, and I believe in democratic socialism.
>>2230001
And we're those people not reactionaries?
Also, there are plenty of places where there is no government to enforce capitalism, as a way to survive. You can live off the grid with all your commie buddies.

Mate, that means you, yourself are a reactionary.

It's almost like words have meanings and if someone says they're doing one thing and goes ahead and does something completely different he didn't actually do what the orginally said he would. If somone says they will paint their house yellow and then paints it blue and get asked why they said contradictory things, would "Oh so blue is not "true" yellow any more?!" be a resonable answer or would you agree it's nonsense? If they get called out for not being socialist if they say they are it might be because of a lack of socialist practises and ideas rather than anything else.

That's primitive communism, not communism.
Some people here only like to call something socialism when it's convenient for them. Socialism generally means common and collective ownership over means of production and production for use instead of profit, which includes the abolition of individual producers that allocate surplus on the market. You will find two factions here that nitpick whenever this goal is achieved, some will say for a common ownership you need to vote on every single issue at the workplace, some say once you have state officials in administrative functions it can't be socialism (then they continue to redefine the Marxist definition of class and claim state officials are their own class) and finally, some say because of value still existed as an abstract concept it can't be socialist. All three positions is what we Marxist-Leninists like to call opportunism - a desperate attempt to dissociate yourself from achievements of communists because you don't like the flavor of it, or are concerned about gaining sympathy with liberals.

Yes it us truly strange, it's as tho everyone who trys to make true socailism, always brings us not true socailism?
And Why should I believe you guys, when you say you'll bring true socailism?

Yea sure you do. You gona post some sargon links in this thread like you do every thread?

Not unless it's relalvent, and I have previously posted it.

Why don't you finally go read some fuckin books you dumb faggot

Because as you already can tell we're pretty hard on sticking to the actual definition of the word rather than letting people run away with it for their shitty statist populism. Are we being to hard or too soft? It's time to make up your mind son.

Y the h8 m8?

Because you are a fuckin moron in every thread you post in

Mate, you can say whatever you want, but I'll believe you guys when I actually see something that isn't shit.
BTW the answer was, I shouldn't.

I disagree, but to each their own.

Fam, I realize that you're desperate to prove that commies are the real reactionaries but it jus doesn't work. Communism arises from Capitalism, it develops from it. It's not an old social order that we seen to establish, it's a new one. Any attempt to stop such a development, whether it's capitalism from feudalism or communism from capitalism or x from y, is a reaction. Plain and simple

What do you mean "see something that isn't shit"? Either you think the working class is the historic agent due to class contradictions or you don't. You either think we have the productive capacity and computing power to produce for use or you don't. Socialism is a stage of historical development not some isolated political project.

These threads are trash. Jump off your nearest bridge.

I'm actually trying to prove, being called a reactionary, is meaningless. Just like how x, the Yeltsin, where a reaction group to the system that was in place, y being comunism/soviet Russia. Or like you morons, who are a reactionary group created by the faults of capitalism/the US government.

Wat?

Pseudo-namefag is the worst namefag

there was never any Socialism in my country (U.S.A.) so I don't know what the fuck "socialism" is to you.

I consider social services provided by the government to be socialism.

The eternal 🍔burger🍔 strikes again

...

...

Except we are aren't. Like I said before in , a reaction isn't just reacting to stuff, and it isn't just trying to change stuff, it is specifically a reaction to a social change and an attempt to revert said social change. It's literally turning back time. That's literally what being a reactionary is: going back to the good old days when things weren't so bad and your guys were in power. If you can't even comprehend that, then there's no point in arguing with you.

I mean, it’s meaningless to liberals, yeah, because many of them see capitalism as the end of human history

What you suburban idiots don't realize is that socialism is a spectrum. You guys are so hamstrung trying to bring about your "real", "pure" socialism that you aren't willing to be reasonable and have a good mix of capitalism and socialism like every good, modern liberal democracy on earth.

Ok, then I'll be using soviet Russia again as an example. What would you call their government trying to suppress the social change that the Yeltsin and the blackmarket were trying to bring about? The answer is reactionary by your own definition. Like the reactionaries that are still in Russia to this dsy, who long for communism to once again rule russia.

I actually agree, but don't pretend to be me. BTW Mods i've gotten around your ban of me again.

Stop pretending to be me. Why can't you falseflagging idiots ever debate in the marketplace of ideas without resorting to cheap ploys?

Oh, I like you.

MODS I the totally real user wasn't joking, I did avoid my ban.

You're implying that I want the Soviet Union back. Yeltsin's coup wasn't a social movement, most of the people wanted the Soviet Union to remain. You're also implying that the Soviet Union was a communist society in any sense, and not just a state led by communists who wished to establish such a society. Nationalisation isn't Communism, and the Soviet Union never went further than that. It's not only not real communism, it isn't communism, period, and the existence of communism would imply material conditions that would make a development into capitalism very unlikely, if not impossible.

Preserving the status quo isn't reactionary. For the Soviet government to be reactionary they would have to want a return to Tsarist Russia. Look up the definition of status quo ante.

Blah blah blah "not real communism". The truth is the USSR was the perfect example of what happens when the regressive left gets out of control, we end up going backwards with everything. The Russians would have all been better off if they had just left the monarchy alone and worked on bettering themselves instead of trying to force equality, which never works. Eventually they could have agreed on a good compromise.

because communism is real scientifically measured progress and everything else is degenerate and barbaric nonsense peddled by intellectual inferiors

...

It's the truth fam. It's not my fault you're blinded by ideology. If you'd actually read communists and understood what it is they want, you wouldn't be so retarded

Yea, so vote bernie guys!
Don't worry about all that money he wants, who cares what he uses it for!
Who cares if he is sucking Shilldawgs dick right now, VOTE DEMOCRAT!
Who cares if we lost because people thought we were stupid WE ARE INTELLECTUALLY SUPERIOR AND YOU RURAL AND SUBURBAN RETARDS BLAH BLAH BLAH

You sound like a brainwashed moron, given the right circumstances literally any ideology could be "perfect and progressive" communism is not the end all be all of humanity you fag, so long as scarcity exists, communism won't.

You're the one who keeps defending Communism is "progress". If being a "reactionary" means reacting to progress in society, then being against communism isn't reactionary because it's just regressive nonsense.
Figures you commies can't actually defend your own ideas, you just have to parrot words written down by dead guys. The rest of us in the real world operate just fine off plain old common sense

And now we're back to sqare 1, can we please get past this annoying part, were I compare you to a religious zealot, and you like an idiot, counter by saying that, it is actually an entirely different religion, even though your two groups share the same god?
Because frankly, I've said it so often, it's now just to repetitive.

disregard that, I suck cocks

What the fuck are you talking about? The soviet union was a necessary step from the agrarian, feudal society that came before it. That makes it a step in the right direction, but that doesn't mean it's communism

Tangentially, how frequently and how hard were you dropped on your head as a baby? Your ability to follow simple logic and arguments is astoundingly low

...

Wow, fucking rude. I come in here to teach you barbaric commies some simple logic and facts and you act out by mocking me?

Yeah that's it, keep sucking down that koch.

Mate, when they were in power, they were the status quo.

Yes, because it has worked out so well in the past.

See

Who was?

The funny thing is I'm a admin of a trap group.

Soviet Russia

is a meme, and a retarded one at that, you fucking brainlet. Come up with a real argument any time

It's actually history, get btfo you commie fuck.

So what is your point here?

Forgot your name user

That the commies can also be reactionaries. Making the term pointless.

Are you illiterate? Is stating that defending the status quo is not reactionary.

Are you literally retarded?

Whether or not it is deemed a meme has no bearing on the validity of the argument it makes.

Bash any trash cans lately?

Your mixing up your ideologies cum-nigger

Not really.

You're the one who got defensive about his normiebook-tier meme. What's the matter? No soccer moms and aging guys who mistake a love of meats for a persona to back you up?

Black bloc are anarchists not marxists

It literally is. Communism develops from Capitalism, thus it's a progression. If it was a regression from Capitalism, then that would mean that Capitalism historically arose from Communism, and sorry but the French monarchs weren't commies. It's very difficult to imagine capitalism arising from the material conditions that communism would require. Where's the need for a capitalist when production is already developed and fully automated? Why would anyone sell their labour to a capitalist if they already have what they need? Capitalism required property to arise. It required that society was divided between a group of people who own stuff, and people who literally have nothing but their labour. If production is owned in common and there is no class, then Capitalism is impossible.

They basically were. Just one dude deciding everything and government control of everything in your life. Communism is just monarchy under a different name. Only capitalism can give you freedom and choice in your life. I can walk down to the store right now and buy whatever I want, unlike in commie countries or monarchies where everyone has the same of everything given to them by their rulers.

You can read a book any time, famalam. Maybe stop listening to propaganda and actually try to understand what Communists want.

The only propaganda is the one that tells lazy idiots that they don't have to work for anything and just take things from more successful people. Why would I listen to anything you tell me when you'll just spend the whole time explaining to me why my family's company should really be everybody's? Well my grandfather worked for that company and you guys can't accept that maybe people have things you don't have because they're better than you and work harder than you.

So much for being a Democratic Socialist

I pay my taxes.

That's not me.

Its time to get off chans ol'boomer

So much for the free right

I'm 20, I just already know the value of hard work from working my family's business growing up. It's not my fault you guys can't find a job and don't understand hard work like the rest of us.

I'm not right wing. I'm a democratic socialist. I think we need a good mix of capitalism and socialism like we already have in every western country.

They are waving your flag homes.

When you start up that "glorious red state" they will be your foot soldiers. And they will also be the reason that it fails, welcome to humanity.

It all makes sense now

Then you should be the first person to say "fuck taxes".

No one who values their work wants to throw it away on useless trash that call themselves human.

Socialism is a slippery slope my friend.

like pottery

He's not me

...

Read a fucking wikipedia page you moron. All you are doing is regurgitating this tired old meme-tier propaganda version of communism that isn't at all what communism is.

There are clearly 3 people using the name user in this thread.

🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧Wikipedia🇬🇧🇬🇧🇬🇧

Fuck off, you aren’t me

Nah it's all me

You have more ownership of your work than most. Hard work has no intrinsic spooky value you are implying. The 8 hour day includes some large portion where your production covers your wages and at that point you are just pure profit for your owner. In your case at least your owner is your family so it is likely to be more benevolent. Capitalism requires poor people, nececitates an underclass and unemployed lumpen. Not every one can be a petit-bourgeois cunt or the system will break down because there will be no slaves to """""voluntarily""""" employ.

You guys are dumb. Quit pretending you are me

The definition there is accurate, at least it is in a easily digestable format for your Wal-Mart store brand Mcbrain.

...

all me

A large number, probably some majority, of our side is indeed reactionary towards capitalism, even though this is was not originally the point. The earliest socialists were just typical enlightenment types who believed in progress and that, rather than actively oppose capitalism, we should work towards constant improvement which happened to involve changes to new politico-economic systems. Marx simply believed socialism (which he used in the vaguest sense of any left-wing thinker) was inevitable given his ideas about historical change and progression. My point of course is that leftism didn't start as reaction to capitalism and none of its theory is reactive towards it either.

This label is indeed thrown around too often.

Should have known only a porklet could have such shit opinions

You're smarter than most.

A reactionary stance toward capitalism would be monarchism. Communism literally can't be reactionary in a capitalist world. These words have fucking meaning.

Maybe the fake user, I the OP am not.

Can capitalism be reactionary in a communist world?

Learn to use trips

Yes. That's what we've been saying this whole thread

Yes

Then this must be wrong.

You are fucking retarded

In what way?

I fundamentally disagree, with the assertion that communism can't be reactionary to any group.

We get that you are retarded but how does

prove

wrong?

Capitalism developed from feudalism. Do you deny this? Would you deny that someone in a post-feudal society (capitalism) who wished to return to a feudal society is a reactionary? No? Would you then deny that someone in a post-capitalist society (literally communism) who wishes to return to a capitalist society is a reactionary?
Communism develops from capitalism. A communist (stateless, moneyless, classless) society resolves the internal contradictions of capitalism. The material conditions required for it to exist would make capitalism obsolete, and a stable capitalist society could never develop from it unless those conditions disappeared. This is because communism arises from capitalism's internal contradictions and capitalism cannot resolve those contradictions without becoming a communist society. Thus any regression towards capitalism would sooner or later develop into communism again.
This is precisely what's wrong with reaction: It's a backwards step that does nothing to resolve the contradictions of the old society that enabled the current one to arise. If we went back to feudalism we would sooner or later get capitalism. If we sent all the women to the kitchen they would sooner or later get back out of the kitchen. If a communist society went back to capitalism it would sooner or later become communism. All this provided, of course, that the conditions that allowed for those things to arise still exist or have the potential to exist. If we destroy ourselves before we get communism, communism becomes kinda difficult.

That's, like, your opinion, man.

Because the definition of reactionary used by you guys (A reactionary is a person who holds political that favor a return to the previous status quo.) Means that is a contradiction. Because even if there never was A communist state to you, there could potentially be one in the future, and if that state were to fall, the people who long for said state would by your definition be reactionaries.

There is nothing contradictory in that post retard

No, I do not, although I believe that there was capitalism under feudalism.
By leftypol's commonly accepted definition, it would be a yes.

Impulsive decisions don't end up good for anyone involved. In fact, let's say there's a party in the old west, let's call them The Donner Party. They're starving, they need food, but they're stuck in frozen terrain as far as the eye can see. They simply pick the one person they don't like to cannibilize, but just as soon as they eat one of their party, they act suspicious towards one and eat another. With two now cannibalized and children there, arguments break out between the families of the people who have been consumed, and the parents who said they deserved it because would starve, and soon, none of them are left alive.

That's the problem with reaction. It doesn't fucking plan for its own mistakes, and reacts on gut impulse that in the end, fucks everyone over and the whole thing was counter intuitive. They could have waited, could have committed suicide with a rifle. But they all did not do that.

How is criticism of a systemic problem reactionary, exactly? Do you even know what this word means?

Because you're probably from Holla Forums and stupid as shit, relying on your gut more than the accumulated knowledge of the last century and today.

You have brain damage and should be banned on sight because every single thing you say is a shitpost.

It isn't just "us", it's been slung towards you retards for about a century now.

You can't be serious, that was a fucking horrible attempt at definition.

...

Isn't it better to live with a chance to survive, than to just die?
So if I gave you criticism about comunism, I won't be a reactionary?
Nope, I'm a classical liberal.

In this situation you are dead anyways. You are advocating for cannibalism of your family and friends instead of thinking another way out, perhaps suicide.

Who in their right mind would be selfish enough to think that they are better than their family member or friend to eat them?

This is the core problem of your dumbshit ideology, it refuses to acknowledge other solutions. Once consensus is made among you, all you do is completely destroy the previous social fabric and divide people to the point of violence towards the public majority instead of the few that put us in this situation in the first place. Lobbying, corruption, racism, these are all things you now defend instead of just choosing the right answer.

You're dead anyways.

Oh Sargon's retarded anal baby is back

Will you make up your mind about what you are?

No fam you don't get it

Liberal = Socialism but less
Classical = I'm a 20 year old intelectual who admires landscape paintings, classical music, and not this degenerate art of the present. I want to return back to an idealized time where everyone was happy with capitalism where rainbows sprouted and a vintage van blaring Beethoven would slowly drive down the street, relaxing all their neighbors. Everyone has a replica Greek statue on their front lawn.

But how am I to know that? I'd think that there would still be a chance to survive.

Thats right retard we want your toothbrush

That actually sounds like a nice place, will there be whores on every street corner?

I've always found that reactionary thought is based purely on an emotional response to something that is particular rather universal. It seeks to isolate that particularity and makes it the sole threat. They have not concept of dialects, they base struggles in society on emotion rather than class/material struggle. The point is to use dialectics to critique society. Critique is the primary way to put the problems with society into terms. Believing that you are done after a single round of critique and subsequently change is extremely naive. Therefore it requires not only an antithesis but also a synthesis (again crude terms never used by Hegel). It has nothing to do with abstract or concrete. It has to do with the particular and the universal. It is the particular view which creates the abstraction.
While the universal is the concrete. Both Hegel and Marx were both very keen on describing the universal because creating models based on the particular creates abstractions. Just look at libertarians and their basic economics, it is an abstraction created out of a particular of capitalism, which only includes free trade between people without assuming any outside forces.
This way it can never be critiqued when applied to its particular circumstances, while also never being usable outside those particular circumstances. Marx instead created a theory where the universal was described. The trade on the market between actors and their own circumstances, while being influenced by the market forces and the social process of production. The communist view is not to look at society in an emotional or moralistic lens

Because in this analogy you are stuck away from miles and miles and miles, and miles and miles away from even the most remote outpost. You are dead. Your wagon got fucked, your animals died of the cold. You are dead, nobody is there to save you, so desperately clinging onto your mortality with your nigh almost certain end, you end up, you know, instead of killing yourself; eating your family and friends because maybe someone will rescue you.

You are dead.

The danger of having this kind of mindset in a civilized society where your exist are self made, and responding in the paradigm itself is literally fucking dumber than the Donner Party was.

You worship wealth, you worship mortality, you worship yourself, and you worship everyone but the people you consider lesser, who in a different time, you would be cheering if they died from starvation. No wait, you still do that.

This is why everyone hates 🍔burger🍔s

Not a previous status quo, a previous social system. All new social systems develop from the one before - capitalism from feudalism, communism from capitalism. A development from capitalism to communism is a progression (you go from A to B). A development from communism to capitalism is a regression (you went from A to B and back to A). Society will keep trying to make that leap from A to B until it succeeds or is destroyed, because systems don't exist in a vacuum, they arise from the old system due to the contradictions of that system, and in turn they too will eventually be replaced by another system.

It developed under feudalism, but that doesn't mean that feudalism was capitalist.
t. Marx
The new system always exists in embryo in the old one, and as the old system slowly collapses the new system rises to replace it. You saw this with the rise of feudalism and you saw it with capitalism

I've walked dozens of miles before no problem. I actually wouldn't care if somebody I don't know died of starvation, as long as it does effect me.

You do know how long the Oregon Trail is, right?

They were stranded for 100 miles. Let's entertain it was shorter, you have no fucking clue how weather works. They broke down in a storm with dead animals and you would die of exposure. If you want to commit suicide trying to help other people, that at least would be more admirable than eating your family and friends.

I was using this as an analogy, to how reactionaries behave. Instead of trying to help make the world a better place, they immediately jump to paranoia and suspicion out of fear, and I have no doubt in my mind given this time period and this context, you would eat each other as well.

My point is, you do not question why there wasn't better preparation enforced by the party responsible, the cheap salesman and the capitalist, the government that supported them in promoting such dangerous voyages than "He always looked a little funny……I'm so hungry…."

That's what your societies are always analogous to, and always will be.

And that is why people call you a stupid shit head.

Reactionary doesn't mean any movement that is organized in response to another, it means a movement with the goal of "returning" to a previous state of things (in the sense of a progressive view of history, e.g French people who want to restore the monarchy are reactionaries, Russians who want to restore the USSR are not necessarily). Since communism would be the end stage of such a view of history it wouldn't be described as reactionary.

I don't

Why don't you just google reactionary?

...