Soc dem?

So well all hate soc dems and capitalism. Fine. How do we reconcile the fact Marx says capitalism modernizes and develops society. And, in a modern society socialism and communism is kind of a joke. I mean Marxist theory is mostly based on the means of production are out of the proles reach due to their price tag. Thus isn't soc dem the future because with at least some controlled capitalism the MOP like computes and automated factories can be seized. Throw me a bone. Explain to me why social democracy isnt the socialism of today and the digital age?

Capitalism has diminishing returns and all that progress is made with the blood, swat and tears of the workers.
Nigga what.
The rich can't be asked out of power

Socdems depend on imperialism and monopolies. Imperialism is parasitic on the 3rd world, slowing development there. Imperialism also leads to decay and stagnation in the 1st world because all the competition has been stamped out. Socdems just create a labor aristocracy and then try to placate the rest.

no, stop trying to speak for us, and fuck you

you illiterate chode

I hate burgers like you.

I think you kind of answered your own question. Marx did believe that capitalism brought production to levels that would not have been possible without it, but his point was that capitalism was just one phase in the history of humanity. He believed that it was a necessary phase that the world had to go through to bring about the conditions for communism in that it brought about a society of excess/surplus. And that's precisely why capitalism is no longer necessary. We have come to a point where we are producing enough to provide for everyone, but there are still so many without, and this is part of the tension between classes that gives way to the revolution.
Pretty much what said. Modern capitalism is thoroughly "democracy-proof."

You got me there. I haven't read enough theory to refute that or anything so I really don't know what to say.

Sorry. I'm not sure where you gathered I claimed anyone should be "asked" out of power.

capitalism does what's profitable. the current political economic model is neoliberalism. that doesn't develop society, it cannibalises it. what develops society is the political will to develop society.


Learn things fucking properly instead of trying to reconstruct a political worldview from a few isolated phrases you heard.

Or, in other words, every system has the potential to modernize and develop society, but they're historically limited, and once they themselves develop productive forces past a certain point they've created the conditions for another economic arrangement to step in.

Social-democrats of course agree with that, but they believe the transformation to this new arrangement can be achieved through legal and peaceful reforms, mostl parliamentary reforms. So far from considering Socialism or Communism a joke, they just have different strategies from revolutionary socialists. And this dumb strategy presupposes that you can gradually chip away at a class's wealth and monopoly of power while they just stand still. Whether you refer to history or common sense this seems like unlikely, particularly in an age where political frameworks are national but wealth circulation is global. The material means of power remain in their hands, which means the working class trying to seize mechanisms to change society in its favour through legal reforms is as vain as telling previous dominating classes to win it back by electing a lord or a priest prime minister.

This is the reason for our disagreement with them, not because they think capitalism is here to stay or because society can be fixed by making means of production available (as if Marx hadn't spent his entire life fighting Lassallists and others who thought social transformation could be achieved by giving state money to co-ops and dumb shit like that, or as if there isn't plenty of socialist and bourgeois theory about the tendency for one segment of the capitalist class to gradually swallow all others)

who ya talkin to?


okay thanks for clearing that up, I thought it was that but I figured I'd ask, also please post more

Literally every point made addresses one of OP's questions or claims, so if you're having trouble following a discussion it's not our problem. Maybe you'd be better at reading if texts with more than one paragraph didn't intimidate you that much

Feudal society. We are not living under Feudalism, aren't we? Today it hinders development and modernization.

You have meme-tier understanding of Marxism.

we know

whatever m8

Ya, not shit. I may not understand a lot of theory but I'm starting to think the majority of you have no concept of social democracy. I get all the jokes like soc dems are weak or Rosa killers but explain to me why soc dems have conform to rules and vote or enact reforms unlike the Bolsheviks, maoist or their French equivalents?

I should have explained more thoroughly what I meant by that.

It depends how far it goes I think. Would a co-op dominated economy with huge public services that provide you with things like healthcare, housing, transportation, internet, college, etc. be considered a kind of low stage socialism? I kind of think it would, because it would seem that common labor is incredibly secure in that situation, while assuming widespread co-ops the mega rich would probably be almost non-existent. We'd be on our way to real class power over the state as mega money capitalists become mostly extinct, unable to wield the immense power that billions of dollars gives you. There may still be some minor millionaires though, if co-ops pay leaders a lot. Judging by examples out there now though, they usually put some ratio of highest to lowest wage.

The “civilizing influence of Capital” is pre theory of metabolism. The Marx of capital saw capitalism as destroying the transhistorical metabolic exchange between humans and nature and saw it necessary to consciously reappropriate control of production from its reified social forms

Anyway, this post is still wrong because socialism for Marx was never “proletarian power” but the end of the proletariat as such due to common rational control over production.

The proles aren’t supposed to buy the MoP. And if you’re talking in terms of full automation then it makes more sense for the automated everything to be nationalized or collectivized.