Opinions on democratic socialism?

It is a thing. People here are sectarian. They'll dismiss any school of socialism as fake if it isn't their own. Anarchists do it to Leninists and vice-versa. What factually doesn't count as socialism though is social democracy. It even says it in its Wiki page.

...

It's not though is it? The full economism of communism is its defining feature, before then politics without politics isn't really a thing.

As for OP:

There is no class, no state, no "individual", and no separation of economy from the other aspects of life.

There are scientific facts about socialism. Socialism is, factually, the abolition of abstract labor.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean…

The basic definition of politics is a process of making uniform descions for all members of a group. Communism seems to be the embodiment of politics.

Mostly Lenin (which might be the disconnect). I meant that communism has largely technocratic aims as in the 'administration of people' becomes the 'administration of things.'

And while I don't mean we should repeat Lenin (his materialistic atheism is a dead end), his best lesson IMO is that for the foreseeable future there is no separation of economics from politics, and at some point there needs to be a defining line (ofc I think most of us agree that the party needs to actually evolve with the workers and not remain external and stagnant).

I mean isn't this the same issue with the bourgeois media and politics today, at some point a defining party representing the universal and not just single meme issues is needed.

did you just like pull that off wikipedia or some shit?

Sorry if I'm just stupid or something, but I'm not sure I understand half of what you said.

I'll try and respond to what I can.
No… The barrier between production and play, mental and physical labor, etc. breaks down. It doesn't just put all under the management of the most skilled in any particular area.

The separation of economics from politics was his worst mistake!

if by "the universal", you mean in the sense that the working class needs to reorganize all of life, then I would agree with you.

Yes Fourier and all that good shit but I meant that things become based on their economic impact. I think Lenin described it as moving from politicians doing the talking to engineers and scientists with bookkeeping at every level.

I feel like we're saying the same thing, unless you mean the difference between What is to be done and State and Revolution. The latter being more economic.

I meant the basic Leninist dogma that politics without the party form is politics without politics. As it occurs under bourgeois society today. But yea what you said applies as well.

I really hate how leftcoms conflate socialism and communism.
We don't live in the 19th century any more. Nor did it ever mean that. People just couldn't spread information fast enough like they can now. They never actually meant the same thing people just lacked the information required to be able to distinguish between the two.

It is a scientific fact that the mode of production that comes after capitalism will not be based on abstract labor (the essence of value) and that labor will become reintegrated back into every other facet of life.

It will be classless, stateless, moneyless, etc.,

If to you that means "communism" which is distinct from "socialism", then fine. But then the word "socialism" refers to nothing. There is nothing between capitalism and communism but the transition between the two. Utopian socialism, which has nothing to do with material facts, would then become the only kind of socialism.

Learn 2 dialectics.

What makes you think that history and ultimately the future follows some rigid linear dialectic path?
Isn't that pure ideology, trying to shove your ideology into "this thing we didn't know would happen, suddenly proves our ideology correct".
I wonder if Leftypol and the Left has bothered to analyze the black swan theory of Nassim Taleb, which basically says that society needs to learn how to survive extremely difficult to predict events, and reject fraudulent predictions by economists.

Prior to stalin, socialism and communism always meant roughly the same thing for marxists, they either used the terms synonymously as marx did, or they used "socialism" to refer to the the lower phase of communism as lenin did. The lower phase of communism is simply communism with rationing according to work done, it isn't a separate of production and it has nothing to do with the utopian socialism advocated by "market socialists" and certain types of anarchists (lol proudhon).

Lolwut? Are you seriously implying marx hadn't read the works of the people he was critiquing? This is a Holla Forums tier argument right here.
Marx distinguishes between scientific socialism (communism) and "utopian socialism" in the communist manifesto.

Oh, the irony.

Socialism is itself fundamentally about inserting democracy into the workplace. I think it counter-productive to attempt to achieve it through any other means than democracy.

It doesn't exist. Socialism is an inherently authoritarian system.

b8

no, its about abolishing the workpace

Fuck off STEMfags