Socialism: What do we do now?

[Imperializt Russia]

ermm

no, this isn't how class politics works
Racism, sexism, homophobia all have no place in socialist societies and absolute equality does.
Identity politics only exists because there is no equality in liberalism.

How would you even enforce absolute equality? There will still be biases, and quite possibly, if not certainly, discrimination.
I mean, people aren't born equal. Some have disabilities, and some are more gifted than others.
An almost perfect form of equity could work, but not equality.

If you are more gifted, you will probably become what Kropotkin termed "special men" - gifted enough to become an expert or master craftsman. You are not granted an institutionalised station above your peers, but your input is especially valued because it is most likely to be correct and best-informed.

It's very simple. This whole "but how does absolute equality thing work" is a pretty facile argument overall. Everyone is treated equally, under a principle such as the famous "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need". If you are disabled, your ability is lesser than others and your need is greater. If you are especially gifted, your ability is much more than your need.
Resources are not hoarded and guarded arbitrarily as in capitalism, but doled out as to... needs.

Before the "but basic needs isn't living!" crowd gets up, entertainment, freedom of association and joy are considered needs in socialism, because fucking duh.

[USHALLNOTPASS]

How would you even enforce absolute equality? There will still be biases, and quite possibly, if not certainly, discrimination.
I mean, people aren't born equal. Some have disabilities, and some are more gifted than others.
An almost perfect form of equity could work, but not equality.

If you are more gifted, you will probably become what Kropotkin termed "special men" - gifted enough to become an expert or master craftsman. You are not granted an institutionalised station above your peers, but your input is especially valued because it is most likely to be correct and best-informed.

It's very simple. This whole "but how does absolute equality thing work" is a pretty facile argument overall. Everyone is treated equally, under a principle such as the famous . If you are disabled, your ability is lesser than others and your need is greater. If you are especially gifted, your ability is much more than your need.
Resources are not hoarded and guarded arbitrarily as in capitalism, but doled out as to... needs.

Before the "but basic needs isn't living!" crowd gets up, entertainment, freedom of association and joy are considered needs in socialism, because fucking duh.

But even the principle of "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is based off of equity. Even then, it's not equality. There will never be a form of absolute equality, since it works on the premise of people being inherently equal. And if a gifted person's input is especially valued, would that not make the system unequal in nature?

Imo, socialism doesn't aim for equality, but rather equity.

[Neo Balka]

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

socialism and democracy dont mix. Europeans may think so, but these are the same people who were slaughtering each other one hundred years ago for kings and kaisers.

[Kvatchdom]

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

socialism and democracy dont mix. Europeans may think so, but these are the same people who were slaughtering each other one hundred years ago for kings and kaisers.

Eh, they can. Especially in modernised nations. Problem is, the instability that follows such a radical change in economic model makes it not worth it just yet. Western nations have gotten very used to their liberal democracies.

[Olivaero]

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

socialism and democracy dont mix. Europeans may think so, but these are the same people who were slaughtering each other one hundred years ago for kings and kaisers.

It's quite funny bashing the region of the world which your nation wouldn't exist without.

Not that it's terribly important because Europe is as capitalist as the US but I don't expect you to actually know what your talking about, you probably just saw an opportunity to bash Europeans and took it.

[Kubra]

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

socialism and democracy dont mix. Europeans may think so, but these are the same people who were slaughtering each other one hundred years ago for kings and kaisers.

who was not slaughtering over something silly in 1917

[Orostan]

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

socialism and democracy dont mix. Europeans may think so, but these are the same people who were slaughtering each other one hundred years ago for kings and kaisers.

Read a book and stop frogposting on /pol/.

[Tokora]

IMO, socialism will work if it can effectively demolish the bourgeoisie.

Do you mean through integration or purging?

Amusing because historically successful socialist movements actually have more in common with what I propose than you. Unless you think that the Russian, Chinese, Cuban, and other nation's lip service to internationalism was genuine (which hint: it wasn't).

Che Guevara did try to spread it after Cuba. Failed spectacularly in Bolivia but he did try.

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

1 and 3 are fine, but 2 is never going to happen in a Socialist state. Private property is just an excuse for the elite to hoard as much land as possible and force those who can't support themselves to cram into slums and ghettos.

[Orostan]

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

Do you mean personal property?

[War Gears]

Socialism: What do we do now?
1) Admit that you have betrayed your base, the working class; in favor of identity politics.
2) Fix this problem, or socialism will slit its own throat.

ermm

no, this isn't how class politics works
Racism, sexism, homophobia all have no place in socialist societies and absolute equality does.
Identity politics only exists because there is no equality in liberalism.

That's a ridiculously utopian and unsubstantiated view of socialism, and is ironic as well when you take into consideration several prominent socialist leaders (Marx, Proudhon, Sorel, etc.) all had some barely concealed Anti-Semitism.

[Arkinesia]

socialism and democracy dont mix. Europeans may think so, but these are the same people who were slaughtering each other one hundred years ago for kings and kaisers.

Eh, they can. Especially in modernised nations. Problem is, the instability that follows such a radical change in economic model makes it not worth it just yet. Western nations have gotten very used to their liberal democracies.

Yeah, it's almost like people enjoy the freedom to spend their money as they choose and participate in a market consisting of competing interests which offer a wide variety of products or something.

[Liberalter]

Nevermind that for many people, the idea of exclusionary nationalism is as repulsive as global capitalism, and adopting it with the accompanying policies will also deny the rights, interests, and justice for a lot people. But I suppose the opinion of filthy rootless cosmopolitans just don't count.

Then those people don't have the interest of the proletariat of their nation and socialism in mind, they're more concerned with social liberalism and pushing that agenda despite it alienating numerous sectors of the working class.

Wrong. The truly oppressed should not be embracing nationalism. Or you get Donald Trump and racist white workers undermining the issues of black or women working class people, or transgenders, or non-binary.
Embracing liberalism is a good thing, and more people should embrace social liberalism as it is the way forward.
Plus, neo-nationalist propaganda being pushed by Russia and Putin (who made trump win by bribing political establishments, hacking the dnc and giving billions of dollars to brietbart and other fake reactionary garbage) is dangerously xenophobic and islamophobia.

We do not need to cater to white men. That is how a revolution dies. We need to put the needs of the most oppressed first.

[Atkemri]

Then those people don't have the interest of the proletariat of their nation and socialism in mind, they're more concerned with social liberalism and pushing that agenda despite it alienating numerous sectors of the working class.

Wrong. The truly oppressed should not be embracing nationalism. Or you get Donald Trump and racist white workers undermining the issues of black or women working class people, or transgenders, or non-binary.
Embracing liberalism is a good thing, and more people should embrace social liberalism as it is the way forward.
Plus, neo-nationalist propaganda being pushed by Russia and Putin (who made trump win by bribing political establishments, hacking the dnc and giving billions of dollars to brietbart and other fake reactionary garbage) is dangerously xenophobic and islamophobia.

We do not need to cater to white men. That is how a revolution dies. We need to put the needs of the most oppressed first.

May you explain how Donald Trump is racist? I'm black and I support him and I can assure you he is not racist. My farther told me a story where His mom was in a car with him. It broke down and then a couple of white people started yelling the N word at them. That's racism. Second there was no Russian collision CNN said that was a nothing burger. And wouldn't you like the DNC to be hacked seeing that Hillary effectively cheated against Burnie by using Super Delegates? And third Islamophobia can be justified. The Koran actively calls for violence against infidels. I'm not saying all Muslims are terrorists of course not that's just stupid. But it is fair to say a good amount of Terrorists are Muslims.

[Jiyon]

Here are my demands before we can even begin. (just a few basics)
1. You have to allow elections.
2. You have to allow private property.
3. You have to allow free speech, assembly, and religion.

That's the starting point, if you go against any of these you fail already.

socialism and democracy dont mix. Europeans may think so, but these are the same people who were slaughtering each other one hundred years ago for kings and kaisers.

You could not be more wrong. I live in America, but my parents were born in India and came from a state called West Bengal. As you know, India is a democracy and holds elections, has freedom of speech and allows the ownership of private property. It is the largest democracy in the world. Despite being a democracy, a communist government was elected in Bengal for almost 40 years and was widely successful. Despite still being a democracy today, there is a communist government in the state of Kerala. It is a myth that democracy and socialism cannot coexist. An egalitarian society should go along with a free one.

[Josepf Stalin]

Of course, in reality both Trump and Clinton are bourgeois puppets of the Capitalist Class.

[Trotskylvania]

Of course, in reality both Trump and Clinton are bourgeois puppets of the Capitalist Class.

You're using buzzwords without actually understanding Marx and Lenin's critique of political economy.

The state serves capital, not capitalists. Just as the capitalists themselves are ultimately bound to the laws of capital accumulation, so too is the state.

One of the fundamentals of bourgeois ideology is that the bourgeois individual is the master of his destiny, and that by extensions the so-called "captains of industry" can steer the ship of capital and state. The dynamics of capitalist economy are beyond anyone's control. All are subject to the impersonal market forces,

Marx described it thus in the Manifesto: "Modern bourgeois society, with its relations of production, of exchange and of property, a society that has conjured up such gigantic means of production and of exchange, is like the sorcerer who is no longer able to control the powers of the nether world whom he has called up by his spells."

[Imperializt Russia]

If you are more gifted, you will probably become what Kropotkin termed "special men" - gifted enough to become an expert or master craftsman. You are not granted an institutionalised station above your peers, but your input is especially valued because it is most likely to be correct and best-informed.

It's very simple. This whole "but how does absolute equality thing work" is a pretty facile argument overall. Everyone is treated equally, under a principle such as the famous . If you are disabled, your ability is lesser than others and your need is greater. If you are especially gifted, your ability is much more than your need.
Resources are not hoarded and guarded arbitrarily as in capitalism, but doled out as to... needs.

Before the "but basic needs isn't living!" crowd gets up, entertainment, freedom of association and joy are considered needs in socialism, because fucking duh.

But even the principle of "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is based off of equity. Even then, it's not equality. There will never be a form of absolute equality, since it works on the premise of people being inherently equal. And if a gifted person's input is especially valued, would that not make the system unequal in nature?

Imo, socialism doesn't aim for equality, but rather equity.

I am knowledgeable about nuclear power. You are not.
You want to try to come to a decision on a nuclear plant.

To make an informed decision, you would logically come to me for my input. But I don't suddenly become project lead.
It's about the removal of institutionalised positions, which form insular groups.
But I don't suddenly take charge of the project. You understand I am knowledgeable, you respect that knowledge and you consult it.

And when I want to address a healthcare model in my commune, I consult you and your medical expertise.

Nothing about this is somehow "unequal".

[Imperializt Russia]

ermm

no, this isn't how class politics works
Racism, sexism, homophobia all have no place in socialist societies and absolute equality does.
Identity politics only exists because there is no equality in liberalism.

That's a ridiculously utopian and unsubstantiated view of socialism, and is ironic as well when you take into consideration several prominent socialist leaders (Marx, Proudhon, Sorel, etc.) all had some barely concealed Anti-Semitism.

Marx was allegedly of Jewish descent and this supposed Jewish connection was used by the Nazis to try and discredit communism through their actually antisemitic propaganda.

They developed the term "cultural bolshevism" which has since morphed into the modern phrase "cultural marxism", popularised by Anders Behring Breivik, white nationalist communities who lionise him, and from there outwards, anti-SJWs because the link between anti-SJWs and white nationalism is very, very close.

[Vaenkansa]

That's a ridiculously utopian and unsubstantiated view of socialism, and is ironic as well when you take into consideration several prominent socialist leaders (Marx, Proudhon, Sorel, etc.) all had some barely concealed Anti-Semitism.

Marx was allegedly of Jewish descent and this supposed Jewish connection was used by the Nazis to try and discredit communism through their actually antisemitic propaganda.

They developed the term "cultural bolshevism" which has since morphed into the modern phrase "cultural marxism", popularised by Anders Behring Breivik, white nationalist communities who lionise him, and from there outwards, anti-SJWs because the link between anti-SJWs and white nationalism is very, very close.

Wasn't Marx outrageously anti-Semitic like most European intellectuals of that time?

[USHALLNOTPASS]

But even the principle of "to each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is based off of equity. Even then, it's not equality. There will never be a form of absolute equality, since it works on the premise of people being inherently equal. And if a gifted person's input is especially valued, would that not make the system unequal in nature?

Imo, socialism doesn't aim for equality, but rather equity.

I am knowledgeable about nuclear power. You are not.
You want to try to come to a decision on a nuclear plant.

To make an informed decision, you would logically come to me for my input. But I don't suddenly become project lead.
It's about the removal of institutionalised positions, which form insular groups.
But I don't suddenly take charge of the project. You understand I am knowledgeable, you respect that knowledge and you consult it.

And when I want to address a healthcare model in my commune, I consult you and your medical expertise.

Nothing about this is somehow "unequal".

If your input is especially valued over someone else's, that would make a less knowledge-able person's input less valuable. Instead of creating an institutionalised society, you would have created a society where knowledge, or expertise is the new commodity. In that scenario you would still lead the project, since nobody, or very few people, would have the same level of expertise as you. You would become the de facto leader of the project.

Socialism will never remove inequality, it can only mitigate its effects.

[War Gears]

That's a ridiculously utopian and unsubstantiated view of socialism, and is ironic as well when you take into consideration several prominent socialist leaders (Marx, Proudhon, Sorel, etc.) all had some barely concealed Anti-Semitism.

Marx was allegedly of Jewish descent and this supposed Jewish connection was used by the Nazis to try and discredit communism through their actually antisemitic propaganda.

They developed the term "cultural bolshevism" which has since morphed into the modern phrase "cultural marxism", popularised by Anders Behring Breivik, white nationalist communities who lionise him, and from there outwards, anti-SJWs because the link between anti-SJWs and white nationalism is very, very close.

Marx was of Jewish descent, but that doesn't keep him from being racist against Jews, unless you believe people are for some reason unable to hold racist views against groups they descend from. He and Engels also held racist views against Slavic people which the USSR criticized, and Engels justified the American-Mexican War on the basis that the US was taking land from the "lazy" Mexicans.

"Cultural Marxism" is largely used by right-wingers to describe a crude caricature they hold of post-modernism which they conflate with Marxism because they are poorly informed over what Marxism is actually about (which is disappointing because dialectical materialism deserves to be savaged and made fun of). This has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not Marx held racist views.

Besides Marx, Proudhon's own racism is much more vocalized and well known, we have it from his own diaries that he wanted to see the Jews either exterminated or deported from France and some of these ideas served to form a bridge between far-right and far-left groups in France (see the Cercle Proudhon). In his one work, on the Civil War, he states that Caucasians are superior to blacks, Indians, and other races and it was for this reason that they were able to dominate them.

Speaking of the Nazis, let's not forget that several of them were socialists (Johann Plenge, the Strasser brothers, Rohm, etc.) who wanted Hitler to carry out a socialist revolution and who shared his ideas about the superiority of the Aryan race and the inferiority of the Jews.

Changing economic systems is not going to suddenly make social issues like racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. disappear because they're two separate things. There may have ceased to be a slave class in America in the 19th century, but that did not magically make lynchings and discrimination end.

[Greater Miami Shores]

Don't feel so bad you have Cuba, North Korea, Vietnam, China and Venezuela.

[Tokora]

Of course, in reality both Trump and Clinton are bourgeois puppets of the Capitalist Class.

I wouldn't be talking if I were you uncle Joe.

Wasn't Marx outrageously anti-Semitic like most European intellectuals of that time?

Marx was ethnically Jewish so if he was then he must've had really awkward family reunions.

[-Ocelot-]

I'm not a socialist but I do believe that they need to change if they want to "revive" the left.

IMO socialists are too stubborn. They refuse to reject economic principles that don't work and refuse to even slightly deviate from their 20th century ideologies. On the other hand, the far-right is becoming increasingly more flexible, which is why it has become so popular in the last few years. The alt-right and alt-light "movements" prove that flexibility works and the left ignores that for some reason.

So what socialists must do in order to become relevant in the 21th century is change and become less intolerant of different opinions. They must focus more on economic issues and accept some free-market ideas that are proven to work. They should also stop highlighting minor first-world problems, like they used to. People don't take the left seriously because the (far) right-wing parties and groups are way more realist and spend their time talking about more serious issues.

[Brocialist]

That's a ridiculously utopian and unsubstantiated view of socialism, and is ironic as well when you take into consideration several prominent socialist leaders (Marx, Proudhon, Sorel, etc.) all had some barely concealed Anti-Semitism.

Marx was allegedly of Jewish descent and this supposed Jewish connection was used by the Nazis to try and discredit communism through their actually antisemitic propaganda.

They developed the term "cultural bolshevism" which has since morphed into the modern phrase "cultural marxism", popularised by Anders Behring Breivik, white nationalist communities who lionise him, and from there outwards, anti-SJWs because the link between anti-SJWs and white nationalism is very, very close.

Being an anti SJW does not make someone a white nationalist.