|
Socialism - A society without commodity production, exchange value, the State, and allows for freedom of association. If it's got any of those then it ain't Socialism. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 21:30 on Jan 28, 2019 |
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:26
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
Cicero posted:I have no idea what you're getting at here. Socialism isn't "properly managed Capitalism" in spite of anyone's good intentions. Welfare policies aren't Socialism. Capitalism is defined by commodity production and the use of the State to mediate between labor and Capitalists.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:32
|
|
|
Cicero posted:Don't see what's wrong with calling it limited or incremental socialism. Does only revolutionary socialism that takes over everything at once count? No, but at no point in history has incremental and reformist changes from one mode of production to another been achieved. It's always been total, large scale, and violent. quote:No, but if you collectively manage a potato farm with a bunch of other farmers and then collectively share the proceeds, is that not socialism? It's about as much Socialist as the Khmer Rouge was.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:I don't know if I would describe the transition from feudalism to capitalism as being non-incremental and non-reformist. Violent and eventually total, sure, but it took a while and was quite distributed across geography and time and also lacked central oversight. Fair enough. But there's some wiggle room between "limited or incremental" and immediate, and that wiggle room is where I'm working from. But large scale in that, even geographically specific, it wasn't a matter of "first we'll Capitalize the basket weavers".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:42
|
|
|
It's always been a case of a class realizing their political power. In the transition of Feudalism the bourgeoisie and guilds realized that not only did they outnumber the aristocracy but they generate the most wealth, hold actual political influence and since they stopped believing in God the "Divine Mandate" ace up the Aristocracy's sleeve was null in void. They rise up and new methods of generating wealth were created in the form of commodity with new methods of managing and exploiting labor to get there. So once one nation made that realization and started chopping heads the bourgeoisie next door thought, "Wait a minute. They're onto something." The issue with previous attempts to "build socialism" have been the working class in certain pockets realizing that they outnumbered the bourgeoisie, they generated the wealth, and they hold actual political influence. But since these movements to "build socialism" never got past the commodity form and still needed a section of society to manage and exploit labor for commodity production and the realization of various plans of construction, they never actually accomplished a social transformation. This section of society ceased being working class when their day to day was no longer laboring but instead managing Capital for accumulation and investment. They became the new Capitalist class. Zuhzuhzombie!! fucked around with this message at 21:57 on Jan 28, 2019 |
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 21:53
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 15, 2024 13:01 |
|
|
> Cos it's important to consider why people don't think that now, why the booj still hold power. > but I think I like Marx's general suggestion that capitalism's gonna collapse when it can't do otherwise, That's ultimately it, right? The bourgeoisie probably spent untold amount of time stewing about how they should run things. There were plenty of minor or smaller or isolated revolutions that were killed by the aristocracy until the kings and queens could no longer justify their power to their base. There's an interesting bit of literature out there speculating that one of the things that the bourgeoisie used to finally grip power was to begin associating the masses of people with "the nation" instead of "the king".
|
|
#
¿
Jan 28, 2019 22:15
|
|