i don't know if i'm a socialist or whatever all i know is that i just want trans and gay people to be able to live their lives, women to not have men make decisions about their bodies, borders to be abolished, people to not want the earth to burn up, and to ducking just care about conserving endangered species.
bonus points for elected officials to behave like fucking grown ass adults for once.
I dont think anything you said would qualify you as a "socialist"
Counterpoint: If you ask most elected officials edit: in the US (of either party), any two of those as policy goals would make you a socialist.
fuck the US, why is it relevant what they think?
You'll find out when we get done with our "Republic" arc and start the "Empire" one.
you have been on the empire thing for literal decades
You ain't seen nothing yet, sheltered child of neoliberalism.
i live in a colony of neoliberalism, im seeing things on a daily basis.
some of which coming from a direct consequence of the empire's decisions. some of which comes from genocides past.
there was never a republic in the first place for us.
And yet you wonder why it's important what America thinks?
Here's hoping you don't find out.
im not wondering if its important or not, i'm saying its not. what is your point?
you seem to get what the empire is capable of, but you dont get that they are actually doing this stuff already as much as they can, everywhere. we are "finding out" by virtue of US's mere existence.
they will oppress us anyway so might as well think about freedom, and it doesnt matter whether or not the US would like socialism for itself or not, or how their deceiving politicians lie about it.
Counter point, countries exist outside the US
Source?
Fair; I've amended my comment.
And sometimes perception is reality.
I think the abolition of borders falls under the umbrella of socialism
Socialism means one thing: democratic control over the economy. It's radically left-wing in most of the world, and because of that socialists also advocate for other radically leftist ideas. I'm one of the radical leftists that don't believe governments should exist at all in their current form, but that's not what makes me a socialist.
Socialism being more international isn't just because it's radical, but because Communism can only exist fully if there is no Capitalism anywhere to re-emerge. What you've said is correct, just incomplete IMO.
isn't government not existing just a form of libertarianism? (not trying to argue or anything; just genuinely curious)
before chuds hijacked it, libertarianism was always associated with the left. it was variously called anarchism and libertarian socialism.
Kind of. Communism itself is described as a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society, and Anarchism is Stateless as well. Socialism is just collective ownership of industry.
That's a progressive outlook, but not a Socialist one, primarily because nothing you said has anything directly to do with Modes of Production.
A Socialist is someone who wants the Means of Production to be collectively shared, rather than privately owned. There are many forms of it, like Syndicalism, Anarchism, Marxism, Market Socialism, etc.
So by your example, a socialist is someone who's not a dick? I can get behind that 😁.
basically :D
Not necessarily. Those things can be fixed without instituting socialism (if they're fixable. That's not a given) and may even be done better without it based on socialism's real record!
Same. I believe in the abolition of hierarchy in all forms and a society based on community and co-operation and don’t believe that any human should have any lever on power or control over any other person.
So…I guess I do know. Never mind.
I would settle for everybody banning TikTok and Facebook usage. That's all I wanted for christmas.
It is worse when you're an anarchist. Best case, they say you're a socialist. Worst case, they say you're an extremist rioter.
Both are not true, but the later couldn't be further from it.
Anarchism would be closer to an extreme libertarianism than socialism. Socialism is usually seen as an overreach of government by those who oppose it, unless they are even further left than that and want more government involvement in the economy. If people can't even wrap their head around your political beliefs, how are you supposed have an intelligent conversation with them?
If socialism is understood as collective/worker ownership of the means of production, which I would argue is a fitting and accurate definition, then anarchism requires socialism in order to end coercive relationships of domination in the workplace. Socialism doesn't necessitate a state and many anarchists/libertarian socialists would argue socialism is impossible with a state
From a Marxist perspective socialism needs a state. Marx defines socialism as a transitional step to move from capitalism to communism. Marx left it open how communism would be achieved but he did believe that state is necessary for that transition. In his mind the state will be abolished once communism has been effectively achieved. This means the existence of a state is important to socialism, according to Marxism.
Marx's definition of what constitutes a state is so nebulous that you could consider the organizational structure that most libertarians propose to be a state. Not to throw shade at libertarian marxists, of which there are a good handful. His framework of the state and power structures is lacking and not very useful for anarchist analysis and theory. Our conceptions for what a state is and how power functions are very different from authoritarian conceptions. Marxism isn't the end all be all of socialist theory, and if that's as far as you've gone in your study of the topic I'd be happy to provide some anarchist theory and analysis.
I want to write more and get into the weeds of it but I keep tripping over myself wanting to pull all the strings together but there's just too much to break down for a comment. I'm happy to talk more about the differences but I think we may need to narrow the scope a bit more, or take it one thing at a time. Theres like 5 different tangents I could go off on lol. Or I could drop some links if you'd rather have it all laid out in one shot haha
I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. I told my cool family members. I just call myself a socialist now around them, it's easier.
Honestly at a certain point labels only help when you share a common definition with your audience.
If I call myself a socialist I need to preface it by defining socialism because everyone above 25 still thinks it means autocratic dictatorial regime where the government owns your underpants.
I just tell people that democracy is better than monarchy so we should expand that to workplaces and give workers a vote on the direction of their workplace. Most people are more amenable to this than dropping the S word or god forbid C word.
I just tell people that democracy is better than monarchy so we should expand that to workplaces and give workers a vote on the direction of their workplace. Most people are more amenable to this than dropping the S word or god forbid C word.
I used to live out in the boonies, surrounded by rednecks, and this approach worked almost every time unless one of them was well-read enough to know I was talking about socialism.
And in my experience the well read ones will either screech about socialism or are themselves a socialist.
"I'm into super democracy. Would you like to argue against democracy as a concept, or just dance around insisting it's somehow different?"
Im also an anarchist and get around that by pulling the ol switcheroo on them. I say a bunch of anarchist shit I know they'll agree with and when the times right go "yeah and thats why I'm an anarchist". Gets them to open up a bit and leaves them with a better impression of what anarchism actually is
Are the shouting matches better or worse than the endless Monty Python quotes?
Silly movies made in the 70s by British comedy troupes are no basis for a political ideology! Realistic political strategies are born from reading theory, not some farcical medieval movie!
Why, if I went around calling myself a Christian nationalist because I watched The Life of Brian they'd put me away!
Anarchism is Socialist. It may not be Marxist, but Anarchism cannot exist when property rights create hierarchy.
It does resemble socialism, but there are differences depending on the school of thought of Anarchism that you prefer It is not completely incompatible with individual property.
How do you have property rights without hierarchy and without a state?
By having the means to defend them
Private Property is hierarchy. You cannot have an employee/Owner relationship without unjust hierarchy. Personal Property is allowable within Socialism, as such Anarchism is only Socialistic, unless you change the very meaning of Anarchism.
Being able to kill anyone that opposes your ownership of Capital also implies a monopoly on violence, and thus a form of State.
There's no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, just Libertarian Capitalist LARPing with Anarchist aesthetics.
We used to call anarchy "socialism puberty"
Damn I feel that
At least the horse is not loose in the hospital anymore.
And yet there are entire teams of billionaires attempting to get the horse back into the hospital.
That's right, Mattpad
I want to kill everything, Satan is good, Satan is my friend. I am not Tom Hanks in a movie called the neighbors.
i don't know if i'm a socialist or whatever all i know is that i just want trans and gay people to be able to live their lives, women to not have men make decisions about their bodies, borders to be abolished, people to not want the earth to burn up, and to ducking just care about conserving endangered species.
bonus points for elected officials to behave like fucking grown ass adults for once.
I dont think anything you said would qualify you as a "socialist"
Counterpoint: If you ask most elected officials edit: in the US (of either party), any two of those as policy goals would make you a socialist.
fuck the US, why is it relevant what they think?
You'll find out when we get done with our "Republic" arc and start the "Empire" one.
you have been on the empire thing for literal decades
You ain't seen nothing yet, sheltered child of neoliberalism.
i live in a colony of neoliberalism, im seeing things on a daily basis.
some of which coming from a direct consequence of the empire's decisions. some of which comes from genocides past.
there was never a republic in the first place for us.
And yet you wonder why it's important what America thinks?
Here's hoping you don't find out.
im not wondering if its important or not, i'm saying its not. what is your point?
you seem to get what the empire is capable of, but you dont get that they are actually doing this stuff already as much as they can, everywhere. we are "finding out" by virtue of US's mere existence.
they will oppress us anyway so might as well think about freedom, and it doesnt matter whether or not the US would like socialism for itself or not, or how their deceiving politicians lie about it.
Counter point, countries exist outside the US
Source?
Fair; I've amended my comment.
And sometimes perception is reality.
I think the abolition of borders falls under the umbrella of socialism
Socialism means one thing: democratic control over the economy. It's radically left-wing in most of the world, and because of that socialists also advocate for other radically leftist ideas. I'm one of the radical leftists that don't believe governments should exist at all in their current form, but that's not what makes me a socialist.
Socialism being more international isn't just because it's radical, but because Communism can only exist fully if there is no Capitalism anywhere to re-emerge. What you've said is correct, just incomplete IMO.
isn't government not existing just a form of libertarianism? (not trying to argue or anything; just genuinely curious)
before chuds hijacked it, libertarianism was always associated with the left. it was variously called anarchism and libertarian socialism.
Kind of. Communism itself is described as a Stateless, Classless, moneyless society, and Anarchism is Stateless as well. Socialism is just collective ownership of industry.
Depends on whether you think socialism is inherently globalist, which I wouldn't say is necessarily true.
It might as well be considering the history of cross-country support. Class above nation, after all.
Socialism by definition will take care of most if not all of these
That's a progressive outlook, but not a Socialist one, primarily because nothing you said has anything directly to do with Modes of Production.
A Socialist is someone who wants the Means of Production to be collectively shared, rather than privately owned. There are many forms of it, like Syndicalism, Anarchism, Marxism, Market Socialism, etc.
So by your example, a socialist is someone who's not a dick? I can get behind that 😁.
basically :D
Not necessarily. Those things can be fixed without instituting socialism (if they're fixable. That's not a given) and may even be done better without it based on socialism's real record!
Same. I believe in the abolition of hierarchy in all forms and a society based on community and co-operation and don’t believe that any human should have any lever on power or control over any other person.
So…I guess I do know. Never mind.
I would settle for everybody banning TikTok and Facebook usage. That's all I wanted for christmas.
It is worse when you're an anarchist. Best case, they say you're a socialist. Worst case, they say you're an extremist rioter.
Both are not true, but the later couldn't be further from it.
Anarchism would be closer to an extreme libertarianism than socialism. Socialism is usually seen as an overreach of government by those who oppose it, unless they are even further left than that and want more government involvement in the economy. If people can't even wrap their head around your political beliefs, how are you supposed have an intelligent conversation with them?
If socialism is understood as collective/worker ownership of the means of production, which I would argue is a fitting and accurate definition, then anarchism requires socialism in order to end coercive relationships of domination in the workplace. Socialism doesn't necessitate a state and many anarchists/libertarian socialists would argue socialism is impossible with a state
From a Marxist perspective socialism needs a state. Marx defines socialism as a transitional step to move from capitalism to communism. Marx left it open how communism would be achieved but he did believe that state is necessary for that transition. In his mind the state will be abolished once communism has been effectively achieved. This means the existence of a state is important to socialism, according to Marxism.
Marx's definition of what constitutes a state is so nebulous that you could consider the organizational structure that most libertarians propose to be a state. Not to throw shade at libertarian marxists, of which there are a good handful. His framework of the state and power structures is lacking and not very useful for anarchist analysis and theory. Our conceptions for what a state is and how power functions are very different from authoritarian conceptions. Marxism isn't the end all be all of socialist theory, and if that's as far as you've gone in your study of the topic I'd be happy to provide some anarchist theory and analysis.
I want to write more and get into the weeds of it but I keep tripping over myself wanting to pull all the strings together but there's just too much to break down for a comment. I'm happy to talk more about the differences but I think we may need to narrow the scope a bit more, or take it one thing at a time. Theres like 5 different tangents I could go off on lol. Or I could drop some links if you'd rather have it all laid out in one shot haha
I'm an anarcho-syndicalist. I told my cool family members. I just call myself a socialist now around them, it's easier.
Honestly at a certain point labels only help when you share a common definition with your audience.
If I call myself a socialist I need to preface it by defining socialism because everyone above 25 still thinks it means autocratic dictatorial regime where the government owns your underpants.
I just tell people that democracy is better than monarchy so we should expand that to workplaces and give workers a vote on the direction of their workplace. Most people are more amenable to this than dropping the S word or god forbid C word.
I used to live out in the boonies, surrounded by rednecks, and this approach worked almost every time unless one of them was well-read enough to know I was talking about socialism.
And in my experience the well read ones will either screech about socialism or are themselves a socialist.
"I'm into super democracy. Would you like to argue against democracy as a concept, or just dance around insisting it's somehow different?"
Im also an anarchist and get around that by pulling the ol switcheroo on them. I say a bunch of anarchist shit I know they'll agree with and when the times right go "yeah and thats why I'm an anarchist". Gets them to open up a bit and leaves them with a better impression of what anarchism actually is
Are the shouting matches better or worse than the endless Monty Python quotes?
Silly movies made in the 70s by British comedy troupes are no basis for a political ideology! Realistic political strategies are born from reading theory, not some farcical medieval movie!
Why, if I went around calling myself a Christian nationalist because I watched The Life of Brian they'd put me away!
Anarchism is Socialist. It may not be Marxist, but Anarchism cannot exist when property rights create hierarchy.
It does resemble socialism, but there are differences depending on the school of thought of Anarchism that you prefer It is not completely incompatible with individual property.
How do you have property rights without hierarchy and without a state?
By having the means to defend them
Private Property is hierarchy. You cannot have an employee/Owner relationship without unjust hierarchy. Personal Property is allowable within Socialism, as such Anarchism is only Socialistic, unless you change the very meaning of Anarchism.
Being able to kill anyone that opposes your ownership of Capital also implies a monopoly on violence, and thus a form of State.
There's no such thing as Anarcho-Capitalism, just Libertarian Capitalist LARPing with Anarchist aesthetics.
We used to call anarchy "socialism puberty"
Damn I feel that
At least the horse is not loose in the hospital anymore.
And yet there are entire teams of billionaires attempting to get the horse back into the hospital.
That's right, Mattpad
I want to kill everything, Satan is good, Satan is my friend. I am not Tom Hanks in a movie called the neighbors.
That's because you are Tom Hanks in The Burbs lol