[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, Those are my political views, and my general views. You don't have to be interested in anyone's political views (if that's the case then there's no need for you to be on here since we all share our different political views). I don't sound desperate. You sound desperate for being manipulative and for making shit up.

"This should have been your political position *upfront*, initially." Well the main cause of mental illness is child abuse and bullying. Since those things cause depression, anxiety, heart problems, paranoia, or even in extreme cases, schizophrenia. So punish all abusers to prevent and stop abuse.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2017/stu ... later-life

Stalinism is a type of socialism. Some fascists are socialists, and some fascists are anti socialist. Remember, fascism has socialist roots. And you are correct on how Nazis are NOT socialist.

Yes full technological automation is the best desired goal for a socialist society. But that would also be the best in capitalism or in feudalism, so this reply in general has nothing to do with socialism, especially since that you claim that socialism could exist "prior to 1917" even though automated technology did not fully exist yet (and still doesn't as of 2019).

Graffiti is ugly. Graffiti is social decay. And a strong military is needed to prevent Islamic, and neo-Nazi terrorism.

"You're too provocative and you're idealizing presumed conditions of crime, post-capitalism, without describing a sufficient social basis for such. That's why I call you an 'alarmist'." Rape can happen anywhere, rape has no capitalist motives.

"No, you're not because up until this statement you've been touting state-collectivist / Stalinistic politics as being 'socialism', when it's *not*." So you want some drunk, ignorant bastards to lead a socialist society? You want some stupid uneducated fools who need religion to motivate them to be good to determine the conditions of society?

I'm "obsessed" with crime because CRIME IS BAD and that crime is an enemy to socialism.

Yes the Antifa fought against fascists and neo Nazis, but the Antifa are not socialists, they are GHETTO anarchists.

"Nope." Yeah you are an anarchist for strongly defending the anarchist Antifa.

"What's your underlying *basis* for this assumption? You, like SSDR, are willing to *stop* revolutionary politics at the international level, and all based on what calculation / premise, exactly" In order for a pure global society to exist, there needs to only have one global culture, and you can't have pro rapists mix with anti rapists. Muslims support rape, while the West is against rape. Good luck mixing with that you fucking dumbass.

[Stardust]

And how should this 'increasing wealth disparity' be accounted for...? Doesn't this point out the fact that the 'social class distinction' has in fact 'sharpened' rather than being reduced; beneath the obscuring social and economic relations inherent in Capitalism?

Do you honestly believe social class is still as important under capitalism as under feudalism? That is too bizarre to bother refuting.

Well, were you comparing the social class distinction in Capitalism with that of Feudalism when you initially put the argument forward? As my answer was to your argument, then you should know that I was actually referring to the importance of social class under Capitalism within the passage of time. I mentioned that under the obscuring surface of the economic and social relations in Capitalism; the core of the system remains the same, which contributes to the widening of the gap between the wealthy and the poor / the capitalists and the workers as we go on. The exploitation of the labor still forms the basis of the existing economic and political system, that is how the surplus value is created and where also the interest (in your question) comes from.

Where does the 'interest' come from? This is the question we need to find answer for. Surely, you don't think that it was created by some sort of magic; with no real / materialistic basis...

I don’t care,because it is something many workets have today and it does not make them owners. The definition used is outdated. The doctor in my example has more in common with me than he does Bill Gates.

You may not care as you wish, but the realities of the system still stand; independent from your understandings and conclusions. Your example of the doctor here, still doesn’t clarify many things, as you have not indicated where his initial multimillion investment came from, what percentage of his earnings is made by his dividends, and what percentage from his wages. If the main part of his earnings come from his wages, then yes; he could be considered as having more in common with you as a worker (in principle) than with a capitalist.

What defines a particular social class, is its position in relation with the means of mass production and the distribution of wealth. Therefore, in each individual case, we need to look into both factors of this equation.

Competition and the contradictions inherent to Capitalism, in time have led to more and more individuals from the petit bourgeois (lower middle class) to lose their possessions and slip into the working class; so much that for years now, the main population of the capitalist world could be considered as working class – physical and intellectual workers, with various layers; and the earnings which in comparison to a few on the highest ranks strikingly differ.

We all have different perceptions. I don’t see the worker/owner divide, as defined, having any significance to modern society.

This has already been explained above.

Which 'community' are we talking about? The community of the wealthy, or the poor? The workers, or the capitalists? The deprived, or those who deprive; and those whose wealth and material possessions come from the deprivation of those of the others...?

Geographic community. Any small town person will tell you the social divisions are almost nonexistent when the community is the primary point of reference. The unemployed, the laborer, the banker, and the landlord all socialize at the same bar, restaurant, football game etc. It is emphasis on community that destroys social class, not an obsolete workers versus landowners.

Yes, this is ‘your’ perception, but I’m sorry to say that it wrong. The unemployed, the laborer, the banker, and the landlord may all socialize at the same bar, restaurant, football game etc. from time to time; but that doesn’t change the realities of their lives, it doesn’t change the fact that the unemployed and the laborer; have different economic and social interests from those of the banker and the landlord / capitalist. In fact, one can correctly say that the unemployed and the laborer in the community of your example; have a lot more in common with the laborers and the unemployed living in another small town geographically much further away, than with the bankers and the landowners of the same so called community…

[One Degree]

@Stardust , your argument seems to be based upon ‘economic class is the only class that matters’ and ‘how your wealth is earned determines your dedication to the community’. I believe both of these are outdated stereotypes from a time when these groups were also socially segregated. You argue they still are and I disagree. I do not have more in common with a person in a different community who makes the same money as me, because my life is not centered on income. Working with all levels in my community to create a better community is and should be the goal. I don’t see any evidence today that how we earn our money has any relationship to our dedication to the welfare of the community. Whether or not I get paid the same should be irrelevant. Your view is based upon the individualism of humanism rather than community. You are describing a socialism based upon individuals first rather than community first.
I simply don’t accept a socialism based upon economics as the basis.

[B0ycey]

When you have a photo of a banker drinking with a production worker let me know. Is it really a debatable question that the class of society interact with their own class?

[One Degree]

When you have a photo of a banker drinking with a production worker let me know. Is it really a debatable question that the class of society interact with their own class?

My social friends have never been determined by income. I always had friends from all levels. I socialized with lawyers, doctors, unemployed, drywallers, and multimillionaires. They are all just people. Why should I care how much money they have. There are jerks and good people at all levels.
I made concrete statues and one of our closest friends at the time was the banker and his wife, another was a very wealthy farmer (landowner). My neighbor was a multimillionaire inventor whose kids sold pumpkins and apples from his farm. No, I don’t have a picture on my iPad.

[B0ycey]

My social friends have never been determined by income. I always had friends from all levels. I socialized with lawyers, doctors, unemployed, drywallers, and multimillionaires. They are all just people. Why should I care how much money they have. There are jerks and good people at all levels.
I made concrete statues and one of our closest friends at the time was the banker and his wife, another was a very wealthy farmer (landowner). My neighbor was a multimillionaire inventor whose kids sold pumpkins and apples from his farm. No, I don’t have a picture on my iPad.

Sorry One Degree but Stardust's analysis is completely spot on. Your economic circumstance determines what you want from your society. A person the other side of the country who has the same income, wants, needs and circumstance as you will want exactly the same out of their society as you want from yours now. A wealthy individual who can afford whatever they like will want different things from society that you do even though you share the same bar. Do you think a wealthy banker wants to subsides schools and health out of their income for you because you live by each other? No. They will look after their self interest and would want their society to mirror their interests not the unemployed of society. And an example with what I am getting at. If a service you use from society was eliminated you would campaign for its return. However those who don't use the service from your society won't. And vice versa.

And sorry, I don't know where you are in America but it doesn't seem to be the case anywhere else. The class of society does indeed interact with their own class and not any other. I cannot imagine those from The Bronx having a beer with Wall Street any time soon.

[One Degree]

Sorry One Degree but Stardust's analysis is completely spot on. Your economic circumstance determines what you want from your society. A person the other side of the country who has the same income, wants, needs and circumstance as you will want exactly the same out of their society as you want from yours now. A wealthy individual who can afford whatever they like will want different things from society that you do even though you share the same bar. Do you think a wealthy banker wants to subsides schools and health out of their income for you because you live by each other? No. They will look after their self interest and would want their society to mirror their interests not the unemployed of society. And an example with what I am getting at. If a service you use from society was eliminated you would campaign for its return. However those who don't use the service from your society won't. And vice versa.

And sorry, I don't know where you are in America but it doesn't seem to be the case anywhere else. The class of society does indeed interact with their own class and not any other. I cannot imagine those from The Bronx having a beer with Wall Street any time soon.

What do you base this view on that people with money don’t care about their community or others? A 100 year old stereotype? Don’t you know anyone with a lot of money? I am aware there are social classes, but it is only loosely associated with wealth today compared to what you imagine. I have been around the ‘wealthy elitists’, but there are many wealthy people who don’t believe or live that way.
That is the whole point of saying the definitions are no longer appropriate. People don’t fit these stereotypes like they used to 100 years ago.
You see some on Pofo exhibiting social superiority based upon wealth, but they aren’t refusing to talk to those of us who aren’t wealthy. The internet has become social life for many. Do you care how much they earn? Or how they earned it? Do our positions match our wealth? I see little correlation.

[B0ycey]

It isn't about stereotypes, but reality. You are so clouded in your nonsense you cannot see past the shit in your eyes. Everyone who reads Stardust's analysis will know it is true by just experiencing life. They will read yours and know it is just One Degree chatting shit again.

[One Degree]

It isn't about stereotypes, but reality. You are so clouded in your nonsense you cannot see past the shit in your eyes. Everyone who reads Stardust's analysis will know it is true by just experiencing life. They will read yours and know it is just One Degree chatting shit again.

So my life experience is invalid, but yours isn’t? This is why international socialism must be authoritarian in reality. You simply disregard the fact not everyone shares your view of reality. You cross it off as ‘chatting shit’ to justify your authoritarianism. Socialism is all about what everyone I want.

[One Degree]

So my life experience is invalid, but yours isn’t? This is why international socialism must be authoritarian in reality. You simply disregard the fact not everyone shares your view of reality. You cross it off as ‘chatting shit’ to justify your authoritarianism. Socialism is all about what everyone I want.

Edit: @B0ycey , I have serious doubts either of you are talking from experience. It is obvious you are insisting reality match your textbook.

[B0ycey]

Gated community and ghetto.

As I said I know Stardust's correct by living life. People of class live in the same part of the community. They work at the same level in jobs. They basically interact with each other all the time. And what they want from society mirrors their needs not that of others. I know you are wrong and anyone with more than two brain cells will do too. It isn't really worth debating this issue because it is a fact of life. But please by all means publish those photos of Wall Street Bankers drinking a cold beer in a bar with people from the Bronx as they watch the Yankees. After all, it is a common occurence right?

[One Degree]

Gated community and ghetto.

As I said I know Stardust's correct by living life. People of class live in the same part of the community. They work at the same level in jobs. They basically interact with each other all the time. And what they want from society mirrors their needs not that of others. I know you are wrong and anyone with more than two brain cells will do too. It isn't really worth debating this issue because it is a fact of life. But please by all means publish those photos of Wall Street Bankers drinking a cold beer in a bar with people from the Bronx as they watch the Yankees. After all, it is a common occurence right?

Why don’t you just look at the posters with ‘announced wealth’ and those with ‘announced worker status’ and tell me how well it matches your textbook definition. Workers, on here, are seldom socialist. Workers are arguing against you. We have ‘textbook socialist’ who will cry their eyes out if anyone actually comes for their money. They are preaching equality from excess comfort.

[Stardust]

@Stardust , your argument seems to be based upon ‘economic class is the only class that matters’ and ‘how your wealth is earned determines your dedication to the community’. I believe both of these are outdated stereotypes from a time when these groups were also socially segregated. You argue they still are and I disagree. I do not have more in common with a person in a different community who makes the same money as me, because my life is not centered on income. Working with all levels in my community to create a better community is and should be the goal. I don’t see any evidence today that how we earn our money has any relationship to our dedication to the welfare of the community. Whether or not I get paid the same should be irrelevant. Your view is based upon the individualism of humanism rather than community. You are describing a socialism based upon individuals first rather than community first.
I simply don’t accept a socialism based upon economics as the basis.

You don't seem to be paying attention to anything I say, and I don't see the point of repeating what I have clearly stated.

So, in your eyes the society is working right today, and there are no conflicts of the interests or antagonism between the different classes; as they're now able to socially interact more often with each other than the past, when the means of these types of interactions were not yet created / available.

And I still say this is not the correct way to view the society, it is superficial as it does not look at the interactions beneath the surface. You are happy with the way things are, even though the capitalist theoreticians are no longer able to justify or find lasting solutions to the existing systemic issues- climate change, economic declines, growing conflicts, wars, forced immigration, deprivations and poverty of the majority of the people of the planet.

You believe in the perfect communities which don't really exist / cannot exist today, until the society is changed from its basis, so the people will have common interests and goals.

Then, who really doesn't want to see the realities as they are, and is determined to see them through his / her own colored lenses?

You're saying that you "simply don’t accept a socialism based upon economics as the basis", then it would be your own individually defined kind of Socialism; as the provision of humans' basic material needs for living is the priority goal of Socialism, because the existing conditions created by Capitalism is far from ideal for such fulfilment, and also because unless and until such material needs are provided for all; humanity will never be able to flourish and develop its true potentials.

[One Degree]

You don't seem to be paying attention to anything I say, and I don't see the point of repeating what I have clearly stated.

I am paying attention. I just don’t agree with you.

So, in your eyes the society is working right today, and there are no conflicts of the interests or antagonism between the different classes; as they're now able to socially interact more often with each other than the past, when the means of these types of interactions were not yet created / available.

Read my signature and it should be obvious I am not satisfied with the way things are working. The problem is not a abused working class. It is the destruction of community. The placing of individual rights above community rights. We have no other common purpose that will truly unify people.

And I still say this is not the correct way to view the society, it is superficial as it does not look at the interactions beneath the surface. You are happy with the way things are, even though the capitalist theoreticians are no longer able to justify or find lasting solutions to the existing systemic issues- climate change, economic declines, growing conflicts, wars, forced immigration, deprivations and poverty of the majority of the people of the planet.

You obviously are not familiar with my positions. Your assumptions are wrong.

You believe in the perfect communities which don't really exist / cannot exist today, until the society is changed from its basis, so the people will have common interests and goals.

How are you going to change the basis without changing communities which are the basis of civilization. The only other way is authoritarianism (centralization and globalization). It will fail and it is the cause of the problems you mention. Globalization is the biggest cause of global warming.

Then, who really doesn't want to see the realities as they are, and is determined to see them through his / her own colored lenses?

There is no reality. There are realities. We choose most of our reality by what we choose to believe. We are demonstrating it right now.

You're saying that you "simply don’t accept a socialism based upon economics as the basis", then it would be your own individually defined kind of Socialism; as the provision of humans' basic material needs for living is the priority goal of Socialism, because the existing conditions created by Capitalism is far from ideal for such fulfilment, and also because unless and until such material needs are provided for all; humanity will never be able to flourish and develop its true potentials.

I was hardly the first to believe in community socialism. I don’t actually believe in socialism however. I just have nothing against communities trying it if they want.
You are arguing socialism will provide basic necessities in a world where that is not an issue. We have been willing to provide basic necessities, but people prevent it. Not rich capitalists, but ruthless individuals and gangs who don’t believe in your humanistic view.

[Rancid]

Anyway, to answer the question directly.

I became much more socialistic and open to socialist ideas after 2-3 years of working after graduating college.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu , ‘hurrying the process’ has failed in every previous attempt. Global liberalism is the most successful attempt and we are seeing the beginnings of it’s end now. It is a cyclical mistake that we don’t learn from imo.
I am sure we won’t agree, but I enjoyed the exchange.

I basically mean that the clock is not on our side, regarding prospects for a worldwide 'upgrade' to socialism and socialist social relations.

I can appreciate your abundant concern with 'the social fabric', if I may, but I think that localist types like yourself don't get that such would happen 'automatically' (in the 'superstructure') once the 'base' is appropriately transformed
by collective workers control over social production.

Another way of putting this is that *businesses* today may be small or large, but the *customer's* experience (for the receipt of life-necessary goods and services, etc.) will be mostly-uniform no matter if the shop is mom-and-pop or a large transnational corporation. Likewise, in the *post*-capitalist context, people can certainly be provided-for by feasibly globally-reaching workers concerns (over various industries, for finished non-commodity products, for humane need).

If, *as individuals*, people can readily get their needs and wants met by a socialist material-economy, they would probably be much more inclined to *contribute* in some way back to that material collective economy, and also to use their spare time to commune with others, in the spirit of 'local community', if you like.

I think any regular revolutionary socialist will tend *not* to address matters of 'community' coffee- or bar-talk within the politics because it's generally understood as a 'given'. *Of course* people like to casually socialize, and would want to do so *even more* in a more relaxed, functioning world. But, paradoxically, the way to get there is *not* to practice-at-bar-community-culture, but rather to collectively make a world in which people would have the *free time* to do community things, as a matter of course rather than some kind of special weekend sign-up thing to squeeze in a few hours at some charitable tasks while dreading the coming of Monday.

I know you're fucking around, but seriously. I'm all for socialistic stuff like socialized healthcare.

My point is, I don't buy that some sort of international workers socialism will work.

Could you elaborate on the latter part, Rancid? What would 'go wrong'?


---

I'm just saying, the best we can practically do today is to have socialism, or socialistic nations, that still compete/cooperate with each other on trade. Effectively capitalism between nation states. I don't really care about full socialism or full capitalism or whatever. It's what might practically work that matters to me.

What's your underlying *basis* for this assumption? You, like SSDR, are willing to *stop* revolutionary politics at the international level, and all based on what calculation / premise, exactly?

When did I say I was willing or wanted to stop revolutionary politics at the international level? Why are you making shit up?

If you'll notice, I *asked* -- you made a statement that I followed-up-on. (Why leave international economics to capitalism, over nation-state entities, when such could be *revolutionized* as well as for *intra*-state matters.)

Anyway, the "calculation/premise" is that people across cultures will simply not want to cooperate at this international level. People naturally think their culture/religion/etc is superior. They are completely willing to have their culture prevail at the expense of cooperation. For example, China will not be willing to put aside it's current global super power ambitions to help some poor worker in America, Africa, Latin America, etc. etc. No, they're after what they think is theirs. They're out to spread a hegemony that is favorable to them alone (much like the west has done post WWII). I'm picking China as an example because it's easiest to understand, but this will be true of just about any culture with influence on the planet.

Okay, this is a decent point about cultural 'inertia', if-you-will.

But what if various cultures of workers *do* want to cooperate at the international level? It happens *every day*, and there are rank-and-file-labor-union-types of networks that are in constant touch with each other, and are already doing labor-solidarity kinds of political work, today.

Your description sounds far more characteristic of *bourgeois nation-state* interests, propping up various yesteryear 'authentic' cultures for the sake of maintaining marketable group identities, for nationalism.

You're also describing *geopolitical* dynamics, which are rooted in capitalist nation-state rivalries.


---

Are you saying what we have today is full capitalism? Obviously it's not. Just as we haven't seen pure/true communism, we haven't see true/pure capitalism. Frankly, I don't care.

My overall stance is that some sort of mixed system would be best.

And what is this *based* on? What would be better about a 'mixed system', and how would it theoretically operate, according to you?

Something that would take into account cultural differences and the natural inclination for different cultures to complete for starters. Hence, local socialism within a culture, and cross culture capitalism could possibly be a mix that might work in the near term. Ultimately, it's not clear what would really work. Hell humanity can't even agree on what metrics defines if a system "works."

Okay, I hear ya. *My* concern with the capitalist-international-ties thing is that such would still function on *capital*, and we've repeatedly seen the *problems* with such -- the Libor scandal immediately pops to mind:

Libor scandal exposes banks’ rigging of global rates

6 July 2012

Rotting in its own criminality, the capitalist financial system produces ever more powerful arguments for its expropriation and reconstitution under public ownership and democratic control.

The latest banking scandal, thus far focused on UK-based Barclays bank, goes to the heart of the global financial system. It provides a glimpse into the mechanisms by which a handful of giant banks rig the so-called “free market” to boost their profits and the fortunes of their executives and big investors. It is a process of economic plunder whose result is mass unemployment, poverty and ever increasing social inequality.

Barclays last week became the first of many big banks to admit to manipulating the most important benchmark for international interest rates, the London interbank offered rate (Libor). The daily Libor rate, which is supposed to measure the average cost of short-term loans between major banks, determines the interest rates for loans and investments that affect hundreds of millions of people around the world.

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2012/07/pers-j06.html

So, at the *international* level capital and the policies regulating it, have no accountability because that's 'the top of the world' -- it's the highest of the financial hierarchy and the national governments themselves don't even reach that high, as to police it.

My original point is that the level of international cooperation you are looking for just simply isn't practical in the current global culture. Humans are just too different and too self-interested.

You're describing typical social behavior within the context of alienated-individuated *capitalism*, but at the same time capitalism happens to bring wage-laborers *into contact* with one another, for the sake of capital's exploitation of labor-power at the workplace. It's *these*, rank-and-file connections, that contain the real-world potential for workers solidarity and more.

Ultimately, to get what you're after is going to require MASSIVE cultural change. We would need a global mono-culture. This means most cultures on the planet will need to get wiped out. I don't think you can get people to just change their cultural norms/values/traditions in the name of international workers cooperation.

Forget about abolishing nation-states, you would need to abolish cultures.

Hmmmm, I'll have to disagree here -- like SSDR you're mixing-up culture with politics, and the two are *not* the same. Business culture, for example, long ago went multilingual in the reach for profits through colonizing non-Western countries and natural resources, and international *workers* have an intrinsic 'business interest' in collectivizing among themselves, though not for purposes of plunder, but rather for re-organizing and re-coordinating their own / our own labor power. Cultural matters could certainly continue at the same time, but it's a different 'realm' than *political* connections and (worker-type) issues.

@ckaihatsu, Those are my political views, and my general views. You don't have to be interested in anyone's political views (if that's the case then there's no need for you to be on here since we all share our different political views). I don't sound desperate. You sound desperate for being manipulative and for making shit up.

Dude, *take a break* and don't be so *paranoid* -- I *can't* 'manipulate' you over a text-based system if you don't *want* to be manipulated. Remember, I'm *not* a Stalinist, and there's no base of power here, so I don't do 'palace intrigues'.


---

What makes you think that my politics won't have social services for the mentally ill? What causes mental illness is abuse, so the abusers would need to get punished. Child abusers, social worker abusers, care giver abusers, and criminals cause their victims to be mentally ill, so they would get punished.

This should have been your political position *upfront*, initially.

Well the main cause of mental illness is child abuse and bullying. Since those things cause depression, anxiety, heart problems, paranoia, or even in extreme cases, schizophrenia. So punish all abusers to prevent and stop abuse.

https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/2017/stu ... later-life

Okay, I'm in agreement with you on this, and anything related, for the period of the socialist *workers state* (in its open class struggle with the bourgeoisie and capitalism) -- once the class division is ended humanity will be able to entirely pursue its own humane self interests, collectively, and any conceivable anti-social behavior at that time will confer no advantage then and so will 'wither away'.

Stalinism is a type of socialism.

No, it's not -- this issue played-out a century ago:

The Left Opposition was a faction within the Bolshevik Party from 1923 to 1927, headed de facto by Leon Trotsky. The Left Opposition formed as part of the power struggle within the party leadership that began with the Soviet founder Vladimir Lenin's illness and intensified with his death in January 1924. Originally, the battle lines were drawn between Trotsky and his supporters who signed The Declaration of 46 in October 1923, on the one hand, and a triumvirate (also known by its Russian name troika) of Comintern chairman Grigory Zinoviev, Communist Party General Secretary Joseph Stalin and Politburo chairman Lev Kamenev on the other hand.

[T]rotsky founded the International Left Opposition in 1930. It was meant to be an opposition group within the Comintern, but members of the Comintern were immediately expelled as soon as they joined (or were suspected of joining) the ILO. The ILO therefore concluded that opposing Stalinism from within the communist organizations controlled by Stalin's supporters had become impossible, so new organizations had to be formed. In 1933, the ILO was renamed the International Communist League (ICL), which formed the basis of the Fourth International, founded in Paris in 1938.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left_Opposition

---

Some fascists are socialists,

No, they're not. They're not for the international working class.

and some fascists are anti socialist.

*All* fascists are anti-socialistic because fascists defend the bourgeois nation-state, while socialists are for its *abolition*.

Remember, fascism has socialist roots.

No, it doesn't:

What constitutes a definition of fascism and fascist governments has been a complicated and highly disputed subject concerning the exact nature of fascism and its core tenets debated amongst historians, political scientists, and other scholars since Benito Mussolini first used the term in 1915.

A significant number of scholars agree that a "fascist regime" is foremost an authoritarian form of government, although not all authoritarian regimes are fascist. Authoritarianism is thus a defining characteristic, but most scholars will say that more distinguishing traits are needed to make an authoritarian regime fascist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]

Similarly, fascism as an ideology is also hard to define. Originally, it referred to a totalitarian political movement linked with corporatism which existed in Italy from 1922 to 1943 under the leadership of Benito Mussolini.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Definitions_of_fascism

---

And you are correct on how Nazis are NOT socialist.

Yes full technological automation is the best desired goal for a socialist society. But that would also be the best in capitalism or in feudalism,

No, it would be *impossible* under capitalism or feudalism, for different reasons.

Under capitalism business investment is compelled to increasingly direct larger proportions of its investment capital to stay current with *technological* / infrastructure developments (meaning productive technologies), versus that expended on wages for labor.


[23] A Business Perspective on the Declining Rate of Profit

Spoiler: show

Any company that implemented full technological automation would soon go out of business because *every other* competitor could do the same and drive costs down to *zero* -- consider the availability of email accounts, for example, which today are *free* through several companies, even unaccompanied by advertising, due to the negligible hardware cost for such provisioning.

Also, on the horizon is automated *services*, which may still have a viable business plan due to it being a *service*, and not a tangible *good*, like Nuro -- https://nuro.ai

For tangible goods, we'll see if this domain is ever covered under capitalism by fully automated, fully non-labor productive processes, but I tend to doubt it. Consider 3D printing, for example, which has the potential capability / capacity of undercutting conventional *industrial production* altogether, adding to the ongoing declining rate of profit, overall. Already, in the technology's infancy, anyone with about $1000-$2000 can get *their own* 3D printer, production equipment that we'd typically be dependent on *factories* for the utilization-of.


---

so this reply in general has nothing to do with socialism, especially since that you claim that socialism could exist "prior to 1917" even though automated technology did not fully exist yet (and still doesn't as of 2019).

I've covered this point already -- for socialism the minimum would be *industrialization*, which *did* exist prior to 1917, while the maximum would be fully-automated industrialization, which *does* exist today (AI robots).

Graffiti is ugly. Graffiti is social decay. And a strong military is needed to prevent Islamic, and neo-Nazi terrorism.

I tend to agree, and I think such would be covered by the *workers state*, as I asserted above for other things.

I supported U.S. intervention against ISIS at the time, though I think the U.S. should now leave Syria immediately because it no longer has significant ISIS targets.

"You're too provocative and you're idealizing presumed conditions of crime, post-capitalism, without describing a sufficient social basis for such. That's why I call you an 'alarmist'." Rape can happen anywhere, rape has no capitalist motives.

Rape is often done for reasons of *punishment*, though, which is itself an act of petty, desperate *power*. After the class divide has been overthrown no one would have any more individual 'power' than anyone else and would definitely *not* benefit from the use of such personal violence due to revolutionized, mass-empowering prevailing progressive social norms that would be far more commonly attentive to the *prevention* of such violence, even before it happens.

"No, you're not because up until this statement you've been touting state-collectivist / Stalinistic politics as being 'socialism', when it's *not*." So you want some drunk, ignorant bastards to lead a socialist society? You want some stupid uneducated fools who need religion to motivate them to be good to determine the conditions of society?

I'll suggest that the correct and most-appropriate term for what you're indicating is 'vanguard', as in a worker's vanguard is empirically the most politically advanced collection of revolutionary workers that happens to exist at any given moment. Derivatives would be a more-formally-organized 'vanguard party', and a 'workers state' for the prosecution and suppression of the bourgeois elite in overall conditions of open class warfare.

I'm "obsessed" with crime because CRIME IS BAD and that crime is an enemy to socialism.

Fair enough, but keep in mind that much crime is currently levelled against property and wealth, in unorganized and organized ways, so this means that 'crime' is cross-class until you *define* it as this-or-that, *specifically*.

Yes the Antifa fought against fascists and neo Nazis, but the Antifa are not socialists, they are GHETTO anarchists.

I don't quite agree with your disparaging characterization -- if you're going to shift to be a truly internationalist socialist then you would necessarily have to become more solidly anti-fascist.

"Nope." Yeah you are an anarchist for strongly defending the anarchist Antifa.

No -- you're playing identity politics and *overgeneralizing* my politics based on a single united-front *strategy* / tactic with anarchists who are Antifa. Again, support for Antifa doesn't automatically make one an anarchist -- it's a limited-scope *strategy* or tactic based on a commonality of politics across the revolutionary-leftist spectrum, to address certain real-world developments, like an upsurge of fascist organizing and public displays of such.

"What's your underlying *basis* for this assumption? You, like SSDR, are willing to *stop* revolutionary politics at the international level, and all based on what calculation / premise, exactly" In order for a pure global society to exist, there needs to only have one global culture, and you can't have pro rapists mix with anti rapists. Muslims support rape, while the West is against rape. Good luck mixing with that you fucking dumbass.

You've said that you support *social services*, so maybe you should apply that politics *here*, to *this* situation, instead of merely ranting about cultural demographics that you don't like.

I *don't* agree that socialism at the global scale requires a corresponding, like *culture* as well -- I'm not a Maoist.

You should strive to understand 'base-and-superstructure', as I've covered already.

My neighbor was a multimillionaire inventor whose kids sold pumpkins and apples from his farm. No, I don’t have a picture on my iPad.

I think they sell iPads with that kind of thing already loaded-on.... (heh)


---

So my life experience is invalid, but yours isn’t? This is why international socialism must be authoritarian in reality. You simply disregard the fact not everyone shares your view of reality. You cross it off as ‘chatting shit’ to justify your authoritarianism. Socialism is all about what everyone I want.

You have no grounds to dismiss authoritarianism so out-of-hand -- please recall that authoritarian methods are just that: methods, or *means*, and such doesn't automatically have any political content of its *own*.

Using means-and-ends we can't ignore what the *ends* are at-hand -- authoritarianism for *what*? If the ends are justified then the means can be practically *anything*, as long as it helps society to realize its common interests, which, specifically, is for the overthrow of the class divide.

Why don’t you just look at the posters with ‘announced wealth’ and those with ‘announced worker status’ and tell me how well it matches your textbook definition. Workers, on here, are seldom socialist. Workers are arguing against you. We have ‘textbook socialist’ who will cry their eyes out if anyone actually comes for their money. They are preaching equality from excess comfort.

No, this formulation is *identity politics*. You're erroneously conflating someone's background with what their stated politics are.

How are you going to change the basis without changing communities which are the basis of civilization.

Your politics, OD, are, unfortunately, based on *geography* ('community'), and, as such, aren't *substantive*.

A class analysis looks to how any given person procures the means for their life and living, and, on the whole, looks to how society in general disposes of its material surplus, as Stardust already mentioned:

What defines a particular social class, is its position in relation with the means of mass production and the distribution of wealth. Therefore, in each individual case, we need to look into both factors of this equation.

EDIT:

The only other way is authoritarianism (centralization and globalization). It will fail and it is the cause of the problems you mention.

You're being too *inflexible* regarding means-and-ends, or 'strategies' and 'tactics', for a given political principle or goal.

[Rancid]

But what if various cultures of workers *do* want to cooperate at the international level?

That would be great and wonderful. I would encourage it.

[One Degree]

@ckaihatsu , you didn’t explain how workers can change anything without the community changing. Dictatorship?
I don’t share pics on Pofo.
I dismiss authoritarianism out of hand because power corrupts. You don’t need to know anything else.
The problem with the means justifying the ends is because the ends are usually defined out of hubris based upon assumption. Socialism is no different. It is based upon an assumption humans are egalitarian. We are, but we aren’t. Marx like everyone else simplified us to meet his purpose.
Your comment geographic communities are not substantive is a contradiction to communes being the basis. You say this is a given, but you are disregarding it’s importance entirely. Civilizations do not exist without communities. Class division does not exist without communities. You are reversing priorities to justify authoritarianism. You are not advocating Socialism when you say authoritarianism is necessary. That is a basic contradiction.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu , you didn’t explain how workers can change anything without the community changing. Dictatorship?
I don’t share pics on Pofo.

I hope you'll excuse this, but I really tend to view 'community' as being inherently *consumerist* (economically) in nature -- you haven't explicitly mentioned anything about a local *workers-collective* community, which would be bottom-up, per-workplace collective control of the means of mass industrial production, which would be materially *productive*, primarily, and not consumerist primarily.

The Marxist dictatorship-of-the-proletariat is meant to indicate a workers *hegemony*, particularly in open class warfare against (existing) *bourgeois* hegemony.

I dismiss authoritarianism out of hand because power corrupts. You don’t need to know anything else.

It's *tricky*, though, because at the same time the proletariat has to have *centralized coordination* for the workers state, which requires some degree of authoritarianism, for the purpose of nimbly responding to bourgeois offensives, etc. -- events of class struggle in realtime, basically, no matter the scale or scope.

I'll admit that historically we *have* seen what the degeneration of the Bolshevik Revolution (from without, due to foreign invasions) led to, namely Stalin's distorted "socialism-in-one-country" formulation, for lack of the October Russian Revolution being able to spread elsewhere, meaning Europe at the time.

I myself wouldn't *want* / desire *any* substitutionist-type institution, like the vanguard party of a dotp workers state, but politically I think it's *unavoidable*, due to the history of what the West does to governments / revolutions that threaten its hegemony.

The problem with the means justifying the ends is because the ends are usually defined out of hubris based upon assumption. Socialism is no different. It is based upon an assumption humans are egalitarian. We are, but we aren’t.

No, I think you're using *liberal*, idealism-type terms here -- socialism can be *very* well defined, as I have in my 'labor credits' model framework, for example.


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

Socialists like myself aren't calling for a *world* *culture* of egalitarianism, but rather a *political economy* of egalitarianism, in structure. If people want to be very individualistic and just work for their own personal accumulation of labor credits (in my model), that would be absolutely fine. If people wanted to just be consumers and partake from what others were willing to do freely, that would be absolutely fine as well.

There's no 'hubris' at work if many -- the world, basically -- can get 'on the same page' with what needs to be done in general, and no assumptions would be necessary, either.


---

Marx like everyone else simplified us to meet his purpose.

Well, now this is just *unkind* -- you're making out Marx to be some sort of master marionette manipulator, with everyone below only capable of acting according to how their strings are being pulled. That's just *caricature*.

Your comment geographic communities are not substantive is a contradiction to communes being the basis.

You're *mistaken* -- nowhere do I claim that 'communes' should be the material basis for socialism. (In my model I do have the component of a geographically-specific 'locality', but that's mostly for *consumption*-type social activity.)

My point that location-bound 'communities' are not sufficient a social force to truly overhaul social relations, stands.

You say this is a given, but you are disregarding it’s importance entirely. Civilizations do not exist without communities.

As with SSDR, I'll say that you're not-understanding 'base' and 'superstructure' accurately -- sure, communities and civilization exist, to varying degrees and extents, but these are still 'superstructure' to society's *productive* *base*.

Without feasibly organized *social production*, as with feudal- or capitalist-oriented exploitation of labor power, or, with socialism's egalitarianism, material production just doesn't get done and people will be too distracted by lower-level *biological* matters, like having to eat, than to enjoy healthy *communities*, as you'd like to see -- no civilization there, either, in such desperate material conditions.

Class division does not exist without communities.

Yes, it does -- people could be impoverished and living badly, individually alienated and mostly disconnected from each other, but still toiling for the capitalist employer.

You are reversing priorities to justify authoritarianism. You are not advocating Socialism when you say authoritarianism is necessary. That is a basic contradiction.

No, you're mistaken here, too -- the *priority* is international-workers-solidarity and worldwide collective control of social production, which is socialism. Such workers control *could* use authoritarian means to achieve political objectives, or it may not. I happen to think that such dotp authoritarianism *will* be necessary, given the lengths that the counterposed bourgeoisie has gone to, to repress and destroy such forms of rank-and-file organization.

[One Degree]

I hope you'll excuse this, but I really tend to view 'community' as being inherently *consumerist* (economically) in nature -- you haven't explicitly mentioned anything about a local *workers-collective* community, which would be bottom-up, per-workplace collective control of the means of mass industrial production, which would be materially *productive*, primarily, and not consumerist primarily.

I view ‘community’ as being a group of people who place the general welfare above their own. How they accomplish this socially, economically, and politically is irrelevant. If the people control the community then they control everything in it including the means of production no matter who has their name on the title. Worker ownership of the physical means of production is not necessary.

The Marxist dictatorship-of-the-proletariat is meant to indicate a workers *hegemony*, particularly in open class warfare against (existing) *bourgeois* hegemony.

A division that is not clear cut today. Many workers do not feel oppressed. The unsafe factories are gone. They may want a raise, but they don’t want to own the company.

It's *tricky*, though, because at the same time the proletariat has to have *centralized coordination* for the workers state, which requires some degree of authoritarianism, for the purpose of nimbly responding to bourgeois offensives, etc. -- events of class struggle in realtime, basically, no matter the scale or scope.

No, they don’t. I have repeatedly argued voluntary cooperation can accomplish anything centralized control can. No one has proven differently.

I'll admit that historically we *have* seen what the degeneration of the Bolshevik Revolution (from without, due to foreign invasions) led to, namely Stalin's distorted "socialism-in-one-country" formulation, for lack of the October Russian Revolution being able to spread elsewhere, meaning Europe at the time.

I myself wouldn't *want* / desire *any* substitutionist-type institution, like the vanguard party of a dotp workers state, but politically I think it's *unavoidable*, due to the history of what the West does to governments / revolutions that threaten its hegemony.

I have no disagreement that all ideologies try to destroy other ideologies. This is why global ideologies don’t work, because they are not globally wanted. People are different. It is the stupidity and hubris of forcing our ideology on others that creates nonstop conflict.

No, I think you're using *liberal*, idealism-type terms here -- socialism can be *very* well defined, as I have in my 'labor credits' model framework, for example.


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

Your socialism seems to remove itself from humanism and treat people as cogs in the economic machine. I see no real difference between ‘labor credits’ and ‘Cash’. Sorry.

Socialists like myself aren't calling for a *world* *culture* of egalitarianism, but rather a *political economy* of egalitarianism, in structure. If people want to be very individualistic and just work for their own personal accumulation of labor credits (in my model), that would be absolutely fine. If people wanted to just be consumers and partake from what others were willing to do freely, that would be absolutely fine as well.

Yes, this further verifies what I said above. I don’t really have a problem with treating humans as objects when devising a ‘best plan’ for humans, but I can’t accept it for economic reasons. The economic is simply not that important to creating the best human environment imo. It should never be given primary importance.

There's no 'hubris' at work if many -- the world, basically -- can get 'on the same page' with what needs to be done in general, and no assumptions would be necessary, either.

Exactly and the only way for this to happen is each community accepting it on their own in their own time. You can not hurry it. It will just result in suppressed anger that will eventually rise up and destroy your plans.

---

Well, now this is just *unkind* -- you're making out Marx to be some sort of master marionette manipulator, with everyone below only capable of acting according to how their strings are being pulled. That's just *caricature*.

Not my purpose, humans just have a tendency to jump on one man’s ideas and grant them a ‘God status’. It blinds them to their hubris because it becomes a religion. Marx was a brilliant man. There is no reason for the entire world to agree to one man’s view, whether Marx, or variations of Marx, or Locke, or Plato etc. Global ideology is not logical or natural unless it evolves naturally in all the different communities. Any centralization is unnatural because it dictates the outcome.

You're *mistaken* -- nowhere do I claim that 'communes' should be the material basis for socialism. (In my model I do have the component of a geographically-specific 'locality', but that's mostly for *consumption*-type social activity.)

My point that location-bound 'communities' are not sufficient a social force to truly overhaul social relations, stands.

I disagree and we are seeing that force showing itself right now in rebellion against liberal globalism. Dedication to local community has destroyed every previous empire attempt. Humans are communal, but only up to a certain number in the community. They will always rebel to get back to that arbitrary number.

As with SSDR, I'll say that you're not-understanding 'base' and 'superstructure' accurately -- sure, communities and civilization exist, to varying degrees and extents, but these are still 'superstructure' to society's *productive* *base*.

Without feasibly organized *social production*, as with feudal- or capitalist-oriented exploitation of labor power, or, with socialism's egalitarianism, material production just doesn't get done and people will be too distracted by lower-level *biological* matters, like having to eat, than to enjoy healthy *communities*, as you'd like to see -- no civilization there, either, in such desperate material conditions.

People living together came first then they created the structure. It is the communal that is the essence. Many different types of political/economic systems have produced material goods. Even if I accept ‘labor’ as the basis of humanity, that does not mean socialism is the only way to organize that labor.

Yes, it does -- people could be impoverished and living badly, individually alienated and mostly disconnected from each other, but still toiling for the capitalist employer.

Please explain how you can have an employer without a community of employees. They must live close enough together to work at the same place.

No, you're mistaken here, too -- the *priority* is international-workers-solidarity and worldwide collective control of social production, which is socialism. Such workers control *could* use authoritarian means to achieve political objectives, or it may not. I happen to think that such dotp authoritarianism *will* be necessary, given the lengths that the counterposed bourgeoisie has gone to, to repress and destroy such forms of rank-and-file organization.

And I am 100% sure they will continue to impede one another like they have throughout all history until we accept the fact we need to leave others alone. We need to quit trying to make the world better as a whole and just work at making our one little area better. This doesn’t mean we can’t offer a helping hand, but we can’t attach ideological strings to that helping hand.