[ronimacarroni]

Why is it that the vast majority of socialist are stuck in the 19th century.
Many things have changed since then.
Nobody can relate to the term means of production because the means of production are in China.
Most of the jobs here in the US are in the service sector.
Also nobody mentions how technology allows for better communication/organizing than ever before.
Post scarcity also never comes up.
Also unless you work in a blue collar job most people can't relate with the term worker.
Socialism needs a make over.

Er well here's some suggestions
instead of focusing so much on workers, we should focus on resources
Instead of calling it means of production we should call it factories
Instead of calling the final stage of socialism, communism we should call it post scarcity society
Instead of using the term worker we should use the term the employeed
and instead of using the term capitalist we should use the term financieer or investor class
I think that kind of reflects the modern world better

[Someone5]

Nobody can relate to the term means of production because the means of production are in China.

Being denied access is a relationship with the means of production. It's a very stark, very in-your-face sort of relationship. There is a lot of antipathy towards this situation among quite a lot of workers. I don't know too many Americans who are thrilled that most of our products are made in China. I mean, there are a few right-wing crazies who think that it's some sort of glorified ideal form of capitalism to keep Americans from having work, but that's not really a normal response to having your job shipped overseas.

Most of the jobs here in the US are in the service sector.

Which is a fact that socialists ought to use to get people riled up; "service sector" jobs are even more demeaning.

Also nobody mentions how technology allows for better communication/organizing than ever before.

I've known quite a lot of socialists to discuss this matter at length.

Post scarcity also never comes up.

That's because no one has a reasonable basis from which to discuss post-scarcity. It will inevitably come in a form that is difficult--at best--to predict in advance. Other than some very general ideas, it's hard to describe what a post-scarcity society would actually look like, or how it would work.

Also unless you work in a blue collar job most people can't relate with the term worker.

Which is a fact that socialists ought to use to their advantage; rather than abandoning workers, we ought to spend more time trying to get people to fight against this transition to "service sector" employment.

Socialism needs a make over.

Not particularly.

[Julian]

Nobody can relate to the term means of production because the means of production are in China.

Also unless you work in a blue collar job most people can't relate with the term worker.

You are right that Socialism in the West cannot be seen as a movement based entirely around blue collar industrial workers. I think that in the UK and most of Europe mosts 'socialists' have accepted the reality that the composition of the working class has changed. I don't really know how socialism is viewed in America.

Post scarcity also never comes up.

For many people grinding poverty has been replaced with chronic insecurity. Post scarcity was fashionable in the 1970s when jobs were easily available and when income inequality was very much lower. I don't think people feel so optimistic at present

Nobody can relate to the term means of production because the means of production are in China.

China produces heavy industry but Western Countries still have an edge in terms of very high technology.

However we would be better thinking of the world as a global system. Which creates inequality, insecurity across National boundaries. Possible key to its realisation being the elimination of chronic poverty, fair trade, extending worker rights and dealing with climate change

[Social_Critic]

I'm with Sandra Bullock, I want world peace. I do wonder, what does climate change have to do with socialism? This climate change topic pops up everywhere in the unlikeliest settings. Yesterday I was buying bread and I heard two kids debate whether playing football caused global warming. I had to explain to them it did bit they shouldn't worry about it too much because it does it by a tiny amount.

[Julian]

who would want to argue with Sandra Bullock ?

I accept that Socialists don't have a sole claim to be concerned about Climate change and nor do they have all the solutions. however better planning, fairer shares in the earth resources and effective global governance are probably part of the solution and it tends to be socialists who make the case for these things. morever its not just climate change, that is just one example of an issue which requires greater collective action globally. there are plenty of others.

[Eire]

I don't think I am stuck in the 19th century, I just think the greatest thinkers where in the 19th century like Eugene V Debs.

[Eran]

instead of using the term capitalist we should use the term financieer or investor class

What on Earth is the "investor class"?

Bankers, hedge fund managers and private equity fund managers make up a tiny fraction of both the wealth and decision-making capacity in society.

There are two truly powerful classes - politicians and corporate executives. The former are, in my opinion, the true parasites whom socialists tend to want to replace rather than displace.

Corporate executives fail any class classification. Technically, they are mere employees. Yet they truly control the means of production (or factories, if you prefer). What a puzzle!