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?
The actual end goal of Socialism
Other urls found in this thread:
The end goal of socialism is the end of capital. That's all I know.
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!
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.
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.
Oh its actually a rick and morty joke
engels actually says in Feuerbach and the End of Classical German Philosophy that history never ends - see:
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.
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.
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?
The end goal of socialism is democracy in the workplace and a living wage for everyone.
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.
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.
You want people to be born into a class and have their future and opportunities available predetermined at birth?
Marx made no distinction between socialism and communism.
he knew there would be a lower stage of socialism/communism which lenin just called socialism. semantics
I advocate for a distributed state, in which there are only one level in the hierarchy.
Good post man. This thread has really irked me for a while but I couldn't really articulate it.
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.
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
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.
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.
Stop with this religious bullshit. Communism is not some paradise of peace love and harmony. It is a mode of production and distribution.
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.
The end goal for me is better shit.
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?
State =/= class. Without a state to oversee things, who'll make sure things don't degenerate back into capitalism?
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.
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.
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.
If communism is the movement to abolish the current state of things then why are you describing socialism as such?
Dunno, to distinguish it from dogmatic ultraleftism which is never satisfied with real movement, I suppose.
Why do you make a distinction between socialism and communism? What do you define socialism as, then?