The actual end goal of Socialism

Samuel Gutierrez
Samuel Gutierrez

The end goal of true socialism is not communism. The end goal of socialism is whatever socialism evolves into. If the evolution of socialism just so happens to become a stateless, casteless, religionless society, then the end goal was communism. However, evolving into exactly this system is not very likely. In this current moment in time, our goal is not building communism. Nor should it be. Instead, our goal should be bringing about true socialism, and worrying about what comes afterwards later. The next stage of humanity will come about organically, as humans collectively react to the conditions around them. To focus only on building communism is to try to stop the organic force of history in motion. Thoughts, Holla Forums?

Attached: capitalism.jpeg (14.46 KB, 290x174)

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

Evan Bell
Evan Bell

Good take.

Angel Sanchez
Angel Sanchez

Good post.

Dominic Williams
Dominic Williams

The end goal of socialism is the end of capital. That's all I know.

Owen Richardson
Owen Richardson

haha let us work to abolish the current class system, and hey, if another class system evolves so be it
Sure sounds a whole fucking lot like Capitalism just came about again!
This is what I think. You are some sort of Christfag, classcuck, etc… and the idea of Communism gets under your skin somehow. So, you think, "Well Marx was right about everything, just not necessarily Communism". You even take some Marxist ideas and mash them up into a Franken belief before trying to pass it on to Holla Forums.
Anyways, no, the goal should be Communism. We aren't trying to stay in some transition phase. The goal of the Communists should quite obviously be Communism. To want to establish Socialism and just let it sit in the sun until it combusts into Communism is a hilarious view of historical materialism, like you forgot history is made of men, and will be established by men. It's also a hilarious view of Socialism, which I believe Marx has always used interchangeably with Communism and only Lenin referred to it as a lower stage. No thinker, ever to my knowledge, has advocated that Communists establish Socialism, develop "true socialism", and then link hands waiting for society to develop. Congrats for originality, user!

Attached: a1a0680f3a07229832e5475b54447b87de4879ac1a2a64073477b467a77e7bbd.jpg (11.21 KB, 255x143)

Cooper Bailey
Cooper Bailey

Just because we abolish class society doesn't mean that the cultural and political remnants of class society will eventually wither away without the class superstructure to maintain it
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/

Attached: IMG-0673.PNG (4.14 KB, 225x225)

Xavier Torres
Xavier Torres

After true socialism is established, society will still evolve and develop. The point of this thread is to say that it may not develop into communism. Communism is a great ideal to strive towards, but it is and has always been merely a rudimentary understanding of a future we do not yet understand.

Ayden Reyes
Ayden Reyes

I’ve doubt you heard of it but, there was a 1910’s silent cartoon that I recommend everybody watches called “Richard & Mortimer” that really gives the viewer a kind of uplifting existential nihilism, followed by leftist ideas. That is if you have a high enough ĮQ to understand half of the humor/references.

Ryan Johnson
Ryan Johnson

actually went to look it up

Oh its actually a rick and morty joke

Hudson Turner
Hudson Turner

engels actually says in Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy that history never ends - see:
Just as knowledge is unable to reach a complete conclusion in a perfect, ideal condition of humanity, so is history unable to do so; a perfect society, a perfect “state”, are things which can only exist in imagination. On the contrary, all successive historical systems are only transitory stages in the endless course of development of human society from the lower to the higher. Each stage is necessary, and therefore justified for the time and conditions to which it owes its origin. But in the face of new, higher conditions which gradually develop in its own womb, it loses vitality and justification. It must give way to a higher stage which will also in its turn decay and perish. Just as the bourgeoisie by large-scale industry, competition, and the world market dissolves in practice all stable time-honored institutions, so this dialectical philosophy dissolves all conceptions of final, absolute truth and of absolute states of humanity corresponding to it. For it [dialectical philosophy], nothing is final, absolute, sacred. It reveals the transitory character of everything and in everything; nothing can endure before it except the uninterrupted process of becoming and of passing away, of endless ascendancy from the lower to the higher. And dialectical philosophy itself is nothing more than the mere reflection of this process in the thinking brain. It has, of course, also a conservative side; it recognizes that definite stages of knowledge and society are justified for their time and circumstances; but only so far. The conservatism of this mode of outlook is relative; its revolutionary character is absolute — the only absolute dialectical philosophy admits.
<But if all contradictions are once and for all disposed of, we shall have arrived at so-called absolute truth — world history will be at an end. And yet it has to continue, although there is nothing left for it to do

Charles Perry
Charles Perry

What proof do you have of anything you just said? I, for example, can point to past developments in society and tell you why I believe the next will be classless. Historically, one of the classes glorious uprisings the other classes, establishing itself and destroying the others. You can see this with the bourgeois during the death of feudalism. Now that this class is the proletariat, who will they exploit?! Please, tell me user, who will the workers work. I'm interested to tears. Because all I can see in your post is vague assertions, I'll paste them exactly as I see them.
Communism is a great ideal
What exactly is so "ideal" about Communism? What is so, so incredibly utopic about no class, no private property, and being paid according to your needs and ability? I've simplified it for you.
it is and has always been merely a rudimentary understanding of a future we do not yet understand.
You sound like you are speaking of God. "We simply can't understand the great workings of the infinite Communism and thusly must simply sit around and ritually perform 'True Socialism' in his name, amen". Seriously, what do we not understand about Communism? What is so rudimentary about it? You're bordering on Capitalist apologia with your strange fetishes for discrediting Communism. For what aims could you be doing this for?

Attached: 2ffe541dc731d165220f80795ddff246c80004b2c231e1dd92083a5616d13e6d.png (13.39 KB, 255x255)

Thomas Watson
Thomas Watson

The end goal of socialism is democracy in the workplace and a living wage for everyone.

Easton Campbell
Easton Campbell

What if our classless, public MOP ownership, each according to his needs society has a state? What if it is largely religious? This is not communism, it is true socialism, but it meets all criteria for socialism and is in many ways an end goal in itself.

Xavier Phillips
Xavier Phillips

I've actually thinking about this a lot, and idk if I am a Communist, the only reason being I do not wish for a stateless society. I don't think it would be efficient, yes it could work, but efficient? Doubt it. That and I actually think laws are good. What I want is the unification of the world into a decentralized state, a Socialist World Republic, where humanity is united to fix the world and colonize the stars, without an upper class to exploit the lower or focus on self gain rather than humanity as a whole.

Attached: 1515803012554.jpg (79.83 KB, 455x599)

Camden Ross
Camden Ross

Sounds good.

Gabriel Ortiz
Gabriel Ortiz

I do not wish for a stateless society
You want people to be born into a class and have their future and opportunities available predetermined at birth?

Landon Martinez
Landon Martinez

Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism.

Carter Torres
Carter Torres

he knew there would be a lower stage of socialism/communism which lenin just called socialism. semantics

Caleb Rodriguez
Caleb Rodriguez

I advocate for a distributed state, in which there are only one level in the hierarchy.

Joshua Gutierrez
Joshua Gutierrez

Good post man. This thread has really irked me for a while but I couldn't really articulate it.

Attached: Brecht.jpg (146.57 KB, 921x612)

Joseph Martin
Joseph Martin

We aren't trying to stay in some transition phase.
But we should try to get there first. At that point the struggle for communism will have to develop responding to the conditions socialism has created. It is not very worthwhile to speculate or sperg about that struggle beforehand.

Brandon Watson
Brandon Watson

If we go from the presumption that socialism is a transition phase to communism, then the socialism we create should be designed to lead to communism. The workers do not need a state that does not wither.
I hate your posts very much btw

Camden Ortiz
Camden Ortiz

Bless your heart. Anyway, you can't do that. You cannot predict the contingencies that you will be working under to establish socialism, and the antagonisms that will implant in socialism. Either communism can be arrived at directly like a kingdom of heaven on earth, or you will have to go through a socialism that then resolves its own contradictions into communism. Or collapses into capitalism again. Third time's the charm.

Lincoln Johnson
Lincoln Johnson

You cannot predict the contingencies that you will be working under to establish socialism
Socialism sounds like a retarded theory then. Or you're a retard who refuses to read books to gain an understanding of the implications of socialism.
Either communism can be arrived at directly like a kingdom of heaven on earth
Stop with this religious bullshit. Communism is not some paradise of peace love and harmony. It is a mode of production and distribution.

Jonathan Reed
Jonathan Reed

Socialism is communism, just in it's early stage. This is one of the arguments against calling it socialism, while it is arbitrary in the end, it perpetuates the idea that the first stage of communism (socialism) is a completely different system. While it is undeveloped in relation to full communism, the basic characteristics are all present.

Jacob Powell
Jacob Powell

(1) The end goal of socialism is whatever socialism evolves into.
<(2) ???
(3) PROFIT!

Ethan Butler
Ethan Butler

The end goal for me is better shit.
t. egoist

Attached: 4.jpg (50.82 KB, 700x419)

Christopher Perez
Christopher Perez

Morality is a spook
Some of the least moral people on the planet are politicians and businessmen
It is in any egoist's best interests to attempt to seek power and wealth
Therefore, why not abandon revolutionary thought and try to start a successful business?

Justin Nelson
Justin Nelson

State =/= class. Without a state to oversee things, who'll make sure things don't degenerate back into capitalism?

Kevin Cooper
Kevin Cooper

Nobody needs to make sure things don't degenerate back into capitalism. The People will just magically know that capitalism is not in their best interests and never return to capitalism because they're smarter than that.

Matthew Ward
Matthew Ward

Communism means that everyone has good shit and thus by extension I have good shit.
If I try make successful business, I may fail and be left with bad shit or succeed but be left with less good shit then I would have in communism.

Socialism and by extension communism means that everyone is working to get good shit and if everyone helps others get good shit then all will have the good shit man.

Basically man it's about not having all the bad shit capitalism creates.

Cooper Harris
Cooper Harris

It is in any egoist's best interests to attempt to seek power and wealth
still thinking in terms of normative self-interest and not owness
No thanks.

Daniel Myers
Daniel Myers

It is a mode of production and distribution.
No, it's a movement to abolish the current state of things. What it will be in practice will depend entirely on how the contradictions of capitalism are overcome or resolved, which again is not going to come about in one sudden organic (or rather orgasmic) turn. You are the religious thinker here. Socialism - a crude amalgam of steps in the right direction as the circumstances allow it - has to be built so that a kind of communism might hopefully come about.

Gavin Fisher
Gavin Fisher

If communism is the movement to abolish the current state of things then why are you describing socialism as such?

Nicholas Gutierrez
Nicholas Gutierrez

Dunno, to distinguish it from dogmatic ultraleftism which is never satisfied with real movement, I suppose.

Attached: jezza.gif (755.36 KB, 250x203)

Landon Lopez
Landon Lopez

Why do you make a distinction between socialism and communism? What do you define socialism as, then?

Attached: 15826515-1351427674901816-5035184634014347940-n.jpg (10.7 KB, 311x313)