Who else thinks socialism is most likely to be established without it being called socialism?

My biggest concern is the ruling class being able to reform the current system into some new sustainable capitalist system. I don't know how problems like unsustainable pension schemes, technological unemployment and environmental degradation would be solved, but the possibility exists for intensive reform that wouldn't benefit the majority of people.

Discontent among the populace is necessary for change, but it is not sufficient. If this discontent can be placated, I imagine this border-less capital owning class could continue to exist without fear of agitation.

With globalisation being as intensive as it is, a country that attempts to implement socialism (under whatever name) would ultimately be isolated from the benefits of globalisation, including advancements in medicine, technology, science, and most importantly, military technology.

Without a cataclysmic shift in the global balance of power (e.g. a World War), actually existing socialist countries would either be isolated in the current system (such as Yugoslavia pre-1990) or would need to change its political-economic-system enough to keep up with these changes with hopes of gaining the advantages of world trade (e.g. China)

probably some kind of bastardized UBI/subsidized jobs program, like the Australian work for the dole. Companies get paid to take on workers who get paid subsistence wages by the government. The government will also create public jobs that amount to digging ditches and filling them in.

that's the whole point of communism

well it seems an opportunity is on the horizon then

What OP talks about makes sense from language standpoint. When propaganda made "socialism"/"communism" the ultimate evil, it necessarily had to make it appear different from what it actually is. I've already seen victims of capitalist brainwashing argue volunteer fire departments are examples of private, free software is capitalist in principle, and, in one particularly silly case, that worker exploitation is "communism". When capitalism equals all that's good, then all that's good is necessarily capitalism - even if it's actually socialism by any meaningful definition.

However what I think will actually happen is class struggle getting partially resolved without establishing socialism. We're bound to end up with some kind of basic income system that pays people a fraction of the country's revenue to make sure they don't end up starving on the streets, while the rich keep benefiting from an increasingly automatized industry. Disappointing if you want fair egalitarian society, but eh, we should take what we can.

I'm hoping that a massive economic crash could disrupt globalized neoliberal capitalism, and its component financial system and supply chains, to open the opportunity for socialist revolution. Because IMO global trade is cancer and we need a return to regional industries and economies; you can't own the means of production when they're in fucking Bangladesh. Re-industrialize America, build a new proletariat of industrial workers, farmers and construction workers, and empower local and state governments enough to implement socialist principles so the people have some trust in the government instead of just resenting Washington D.C.

Of course, this is also predicated on the fact that American capitalists would give up their arbitrarily-earned power networks and fortunes for the sake of restoring the nation, rather than brutally repressing the masses and establishing themselves as the new Lords of feudal barbarism. I'm not ruling out violent revolution here, just saying that the elites will have to be confronted and forced into compliance to achieve success here.

it will be called super capitalism

I think the hardest part would be having a crash that shook, not only big business (and sadly the working class), but also a crash large enough to shake people's belief in the current national governments around the world.
Worse than brutally repressing the populace, the ruling class could support some token jobs programs to spur basic industry and pacify the masses. Like when FDR created all those New Deal policies in response to the Great Depression, in his journal he wrote that his "greatest achievement was that he saved capitalism". Despite their preference to maintain the status quo, the ruling class will always choose to deal with reform when the alternative is to deal with revolution.

never ever underestimate capitalism's ability to adapt (bailouts, credit cards, fake jobs like hole digging and filling up when machines can be doing all our jobs for us)

absolutely nothing could happen short of a nuclear bomb that would make today's dumb ass population even remotely wake up and realize just how amazing life would be if exploitation was outlawed and the workers owned the means of production. nothing.

in 100 years machines will be doing all the jobs and all of man will be living on welfare in slums doing fake hole digging jobs to spend what little money they have on a thousand different brands of products while a handful of people on the top who own the machines will be billionaires. rich get richer and poor get poorer. we will never have this star trek society because humanity is too gay. we will have a police state and the people will pray and look up to the like 100 rich guys on top.

capitalism will never stop adapting because porky is too powerful and has won the propoganda war.

rich get richer poor get poorer

This is something we Fascists must absolutely put a stop to.

Socialism means the degradation of all culture native to a worker's blood nation. Only the Not Socialists can defend against the perfidious threat that is 'socialism'. The socialism of what? Of the right to make mongrol of that stock of people who have the right and claim to their own land. Whose entire lineage has for eons past striven to drive out invaders.

Socialism by another name is still Socialism; only the Not Socialists have the answer.

...

You're thinking of Capitalism, retard.

This is a very good thread if I may say so. I just love the super-capitalism (literally socialism) thing. Is it a meme yet? I just think the very idea of masked socialism is the way to go tbh.

Don't despair too much my dude.
If we're right, and labor is the source of value in a market economy, then the profit rate will collapse as labor is removed from production.
We are already in a crisis of low profitability in competitive sectors RIGHT NOW

Socialism will be established by the bourgeoisie once they realize automation is going to take their jobs.

I might be getting too cynical but I don't believe that the majority of people will know where their interests lie when push comes to shove.

At this point, you are a leftist for religious reasons and you blindly believe in an optimistic possibility for your dumb revolution occurring.

((Not socialism, you're talking about capitalism))
What is the difference, the two belongs to ((them))

Nazi Germany was capitalist.

Protective capitalist, with every corporation nationalised, not the ((capitalism)) you hate so much

this is worse than anything 🍀🍀🍀they🍀🍀🍀 could possibly do to you

How? The Not Socialist get rider of the ones that made debt in the past and still make today, by the way socialism was and still are financier by those international ((capitalists))

Nat. Socialists

No, Hitler privatized corporations. He even privatized the banks(though he can laws in place to control the flow of credit). ub.edu/graap/nazi.pdf

Also every single Capitalist country except maybe Hong Kong(which is pretty much the London of China) got rich off protective capitalism, so I don't know where you're making the distinction.

...

That's what I said with fewer words

So, compare what the govnerment (not just Hitler) made to what ((internationalist capitalism)) made.
Just don't call it equal because they arent

No you said they nationalized corporations, this isn't true. It was no different than how capitalist had been practiced prior to the Great Depression(where state ownership had expanded significantly). It is special snowflake capitalism if you think there's any difference. Nazi Germany had a booming stock market because workers could get next to no credit as Hitler used to it to build instruments of war( and those who were manufacturing them got VERY rich),

"International capitalism" is relatively recent. I also don't think you understand what Marxist critique of capitalism well enough to realize why the "type" of capitalism is overall, irrelevant to its internal contradictions.

You're full of shit, how 1933-1945 Germany had a economy no different then international capitalism?
It was illegal to enrich by war with death as penalization

How international capitalism is recent if it existed with various stages, since colonialism until now

Bye, gonna troll more in other places

No, it had an economy no different than earlier capitalist countries. Protectionist policies were used by many countries to get rich.
And that makes no difference to the fact that the Nazi's used credit to build instruments of war and those who manufactured it(in exploitive relationships with their workers) got very rich.

nber.org/chapters/c9477.pdf

I'm sorry, do you think Nazi Germany that invaded half of Europe wasn't imperialistic?

Germany govnerment produced they're own money
What the fuck are you talking about?

The fact that they were imperialistic don't show how international capitalism is not old

By the way, you don't get it don't you.
The creators of free man sorry, communism, international is me, debt, anarchysm are the same group, ((they)) are behide every thing you fight for and against, just stop please with that thing of class fights and anti capitalism, in the final that does not matter.
Ideology should be the tool to make a better life/nation/world, just don't fight for it as a objective

Fucking autocorrector
Freemasonry , internationalisms