Conversation

Notices

1. Embed this notice
   Gussy (wall0159@aus.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 13:54:39 JST Gussy

   • Wulfy

   @n_dimension I'd argue for "Social Democracy" (eg. 1950s USA) instead of "Socialism" (eg. 1950s USSR).
   I think two important things are:
   1. redistributionist economics that provide a robust welfare state while not disincentivising private effort, and
   2. individual liberty, including movement, ideas, assembly, and money (as long as the needs of point 1 are met)

   • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ repeated this.
   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 13:54:39 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Wulfy

     @wall0159 @n_dimension

     Social Democracy still maintains capitalist exploitation through the extraction of surplus value from the workers' labor due to private ownership of the means of production still existing. Collective ownership of the means of production (i.e., Socialism) is the only thing that will eliminate this exploitation.

     #capitalism #socialism #communism

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:36:57 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Wulfy

     @wall0159 @n_dimension

     Those aren't "problems" with socialism. Those are just key aspects (and misrepresentations) of socialism. 1. The Party administers the means of production. The state, led by the Party, would indeed administer redistribution of the means of production. That's just how state socialism works. No problem so far. 2. Their authority becomes based on violence. Yes, violence will be required in managing this kind of state. Violence of some kind is... 1/

   • Embed this notice
     Gussy (wall0159@aus.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:36:58 JST Gussy

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
     • Wulfy

     @Radical_EgoCom, the problem with Socialism is that it requires that the Party administer the means of production, their authority comes to be based on violence, and you get a ruling elite in a different way. I think it's possible to create a movement similar to DFR's, that redistributes the wealth throughout society. I think that could be called Social Democracy @n_dimension

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:37:27 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Wulfy

     @wall0159 @n_dimension

     ...required to manage every kind of state. It's impossibility to have a state that isn't based on violence since a state is a tool for one class to impose their will onto another (in this case, it would be the proletarian class, the majority of society, imposing their will onto the bourgeois class). So far, these have just been, not problems, but basic aspects of a socialist state. 3. This would create a ruling class in a different way. This is possible, for... 2/

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:37:49 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Wulfy

     @wall0159 @n_dimension

     ...the state to be high jacked by reactionaries or revisionists who don't believe in socialism, the revolution, or workers' power and become a new ruling class, but it is not a guarantee. If all goes to plan, the state would be managed by the people through representative democracy through the Party that will directly manage and run the state. As for your last point about Social Democracy, I already explained this in my last comment, but... 3/4

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:38:05 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Wulfy

     @wall0159 @n_dimension

     ...Social Democracy still maintains the exploitation inherent in capitalism. Socialism (collective ownership of the means of production) is the only thing that will eliminate this exploitation. 4/4

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:50:29 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Wulfy

     @n_dimension

     While there are various different kinds of socialism, the USA does not have any version of socialism, if socialism is to be defined as "The collective ownership and control of the means of production by society either through the state or directly." The USA has social services that any state is required by necessity to have (road systems, for example), but those aren't examples of socialism. Those are examples of government social services, which isn't socialism. 1/2

   • Embed this notice
     Wulfy (n_dimension@infosec.exchange)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:50:30 JST Wulfy

     in reply to

     • ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭
     • Wulfy

     @wall0159 @Radical_EgoCom

     Technically (the best kind of correct), it's not "THE PARTY", it's the Community that administers the means of production.

     This could be, as you say a political party, electronic plebiscite, a nominated/elected committee, WORKERS, or even Anarcho Socialism.

     There are also different flavours of "Owning the means of production".
     You could have the USA style of Socialism, where Space Craft Development, Military Development, Road system is owned by the taxpayer (😁) or a more mainstream Socialism where say Industry is Socially owned and Small retailers and Trades are private.

     The major problem with Perception of Socialism in the USA specifically (and it's vassal states like Australia), is that the Communists perception of Socialism is used. A transient state before full Communism.

     @n_dimension

   • Embed this notice
     ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭ (radical_egocom@mastodon.social)'s status on Thursday, 14-Nov-2024 20:50:43 JST ☭ 𝗖 𝗔 𝗧 ☭

     in reply to

     • Wulfy

     @n_dimension

     Also, when it comes to a system where industry is socially owned but small retailers and trades are private, that also isn't socialism, but a mixed economy model akin to Social Democracy, which is capitalism. 2/2