@ckaihatsu, What you said wasn't a process, it was a definition of socialism. You can't compare a definition to a process. What, and how, are two different questions. If you can't see that, then there's no way your politics are straight. Also, socialism is a scientific process because it can't happen spontaneously.
The Diggers were a step forward, but they were not real socialists.
You have no reason to even *use* the term 'socialism', since you're not an internationalist.
AI is not required for socialism, as we can see in history. But, you're wrong on saying that socialism cannot have any AI coordination. AI are not humans, and socialist programmed AI would have no profit motives.
People are rightly suspicious of new technologies because of their *knock-on effects* on everyone's lives -- nukes have already killed people, and could wipe out all life on the planet, for example, but the same technology could also provide effortless free energy for everyone, particularly if workers are allowed to control all aspects of such technology.
Regarding AI, it would be putting the cart before the horse at this point because the world is *still* under class rule, and the actual real-world implementation of any AI would still be based on returns on capital investments, or sheer profit-making -- the *best* time to implement any kind of artificial intelligence would be once the workers of the world have social production securely under control, and would then be thinking about *refinements* in how a collectivist society uses and produces energy, etc.
Crime has strongly risen when socialism collapsed in Eastern Europe after the early 1990's. There's more crime today than there was 50 or 60 years ago. But, either way, you can't prevent crime. Crime will always exist.
No, again, there's been a clear *drop* in crime, starting in the late '90s, as seen in the graph above.
And, no, crime and capitalism do not *have* to exist, if we can get to a world in which crime and profit-making would offer no material advantage to anyone, because everything that everyone needs and wants is already effortlessly provided-for with today's (and beyond) technologies.
This isn't just pie-in-the-sky political *marketing* -- it's feasible and realistic because of the never-ending rate of *increasing returns* from the use of newer and newer technologies, for production. Under capitalism new technology causes *layoffs*, of course, which is *bad* for the working class, but, once a proletarian revolution is made to *overthrow* the world's system of private-property-based production, such highly-leveraged technologies, like AI robots, could become the ubiquitous laptop-like personal tech of the future, to relieve everyone from *all* tedious manual tasks, forever.
Again from Wilde:
Now as the State is not to govern, it may be asked what the State is to do. The State is to be a voluntary association that will organise labour, and be the manufacturer and distributor of necessary commodities. The State is to make what is useful. The individual is to make what is beautiful. And as I have mentioned the word labour, I cannot help saying that a great deal of nonsense is being written and talked nowadays about the dignity of manual labour. There is nothing necessarily dignified about manual labour at all, and most of it is absolutely degrading. It is mentally and morally injurious to man to do anything in which he does not find pleasure, and many forms of labour are quite pleasureless activities, and should be regarded as such. To sweep a slushy crossing for eight hours, on a day when the east wind is blowing is a disgusting occupation. To sweep it with mental, moral, or physical dignity seems to me to be impossible. To sweep it with joy would be appalling. Man is made for something better than disturbing dirt. All work of that kind should be done by a machine.
And I have no doubt that it will be so. Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure – which, and not labour, is the aim of man – or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends. And when scientific men are no longer called upon to go down to a depressing East End and distribute bad cocoa and worse blankets to starving people, they will have delightful leisure in which to devise wonderful and marvellous things for their own joy and the joy of everyone else. There will be great storages of force for every city, and for every house if required, and this force man will convert into heat, light, or motion, according to his needs. Is this Utopian? A map of the world that does not include Utopia is not worth even glancing at, for it leaves out the one country at which Humanity is always landing. And when Humanity lands there, it looks out, and, seeing a better country, sets sail. Progress is the realisation of Utopias.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/
"The less punishment, the less crime?!" I strongly disagree with that. Punishments lower crime. Areas that are more strict tend to have lower crime rates. The criminals of "today" are criminals. Rapists, murders, slackers, and cruel people are criminals. Child abusers, and cruel people will always exist. You need to have punishment for criminals. Criminals can and did exist within socialism.
Socialism has *never* existed in world history, so all of your contentions here are baseless. You're showing more interest in the functioning of the *capitalist state* than in anything about the working class.
Non socialists who live in socialism are traitors subconsciously, and need to be re educated (like you).
As I said, you're 'Stalin 2.0' with authoritarian-Stalinist lines like this one.
A global, workers' controlled economy maybe the best result, but that doesn't mean that socialist states that exist in a world full of non socialist states; are not socialist.
Those states are not socialist because socialism by definition has to be *worldwide*, and has to show control of social production by the world's *working class*.
Age and gender are both social constructs in pure socialist words. A 10 year old can work at a factory. A 10 year old can fight in a war. A 10 year old can drive a car (I know a guy who started driving box trucks when he was nine years old). There are mature young people. What's next, you're against 12 year olds smoking and having sex? When I was younger, I knew 12 year olds at the time who had sex and smoked. In a pure, workers' controlled socialist economy, a younger person working is not oppression.
Again you're conflating *lifestyles* (culture) with society's *necessary production* -- a 10-year-old should not be put to work because that's an age that's better for *learning* and *doing from one's own volitions*, and not being exploited for the sake of private profit-making interests. Children shouldn't have to smoke, but it's one way that people deal with stress -- leave children out of adult work roles and they won't be stressed to the point of having to smoke cigarettes.
"Nationalistic warfare?" What does that have to do with someone fighting for their society? China defending their northern lands against the USA during the Korean War is NOT imperialism. The USA was the imperialist force during the Korean War.
Okay, this is a specific example of an anti-imperialist / national-liberation type of defense, which was justified. You're correct here on your historical assessment.
If a socialist society is attacked, many people need to defend it as much as possible. I am anti imperialist. But, imperialism was a progressive force that helped liberated regressive societies from extreme poverty, child abuse, rape cultures, and sexism. Imperialism also helped globalize the world you dumbass. But yeah, I am strongly against Americanization which is imperialist.
Watch the name-calling -- I've said nothing in support of hegemonic Western imperialism, and your historical assessment is correct again.
Personal property does exist in capitalism. Personal property exists in both capitalism and socialism.
Well, no, it doesn't, because all property -- even hoarded wealth and productive equipment -- is lumped-into the category of 'private property', under capitalism.
so you're using that as a manipulative tool. When I was talking about crime, I meant homicides, rape, arson, personal property theft (someone stealing your toothbrush), beatings, torture, animal abuse, domestic abuse, or slackation.
This is yet another piece of evidence showing you to be a Stalinist authoritarian -- you're far too concerned with *enforcing* some kind of nationalistic work policy, which is politically problematic.
What does rape, arson, or domestic abuse have to do with "Stalinist nationalism?" It's not a "nationalistic work policy." Rape and arson are bad. Without that "nationalistic work policy" (which is really crime prevention in common sense words), you would get beaten up and your mom would get raped.
No, you keep thinking that only a *state* formulation / organization would be capable of dealing with anti-social individuals, potential crime, and crimes against the person. I think, given full co-administrative social powers, the *workers* themselves / ourselves, and the larger population, could readily deal with any individual-type, personal-type problems that may arise despite all social relations being fully collectivized.
You're still not being convincing that such crimes would even *exist*, post-capitalism, because there would be *no social basis* for such -- a prevailing social culture and ethos of egalitarianism would greatly *mitigate* such anti-social acts, certainly far more than in today's existing social environment.
"conceivable re-proprietization of collective property would confer no advantage in a post-commodity social order" This has nothing to do with nurse care workers abusing disabled elders.
You make such transgressions sound *inevitable*, but you're not convincing, and I think you're using *scare tactics* to carve-out a contrived "political" need for your favored state-apparatus-approach to social order.
"Yes, automated mechanized productive machinery *does* have to exist, post-capitalism, because such machinery massively increases *productive capacity*, or material productivity." Well I guess you're not a socialist, because you're now claiming that in order for socialism to exist, technology HAS to be automated. You're claiming that without automated technology, workers need money to motivate them, which is anti socialist. This also doesn't relate to your "socialism can exist before 1917" due to the lack of automated technology in the early 20th century.
I'm *not* arguing for the use of money -- I explicitly want the proletarian revolution to *eliminate* all currency and exchange-values *as soon as possible*, preferably *immediately*, even at the cost of a somewhat shrunken material economy of available goods and services, fully decommodified.
I *am* a socialist, and it's part of revolutionary socialism and communism to *call for* full automation so that humanity can benefit directly from fully automated industry and production, arising out of proletarian-revolutionized social relations, worldwide.
Socialism could *well* have existed before 1917, optimally, because the Western countries, like Germany, were already industrialized by then -- the Bolsheviks were trying to get Germany out of the war at the time, and were trying to spread the Russian (October) Revolution to there and to the rest of Europe.
"Your concern with 'slacking' is *moralistic*, and Stalinistic-authoritarian -- it's misplaced because not *everyone* would have to arbitrarily be *commanded* to contribute labor on an ongoing basis. You're already showing tendencies towards the *corruption* of your vaunted Stalinist state apparatus." You can't stop slackation, so how would you handle slackers in a socialist economy? Your reply makes no sense, nor does it relate to how to handle slackers. And you're against morals? Have fun getting beaten up for no reason. Have fun seeing innocent women getting raped. And have fun getting attacked for breathing.
Yeah, right, as if those are the activities I do to have fun. You're incredibly *dramatic*, to the point of sensationalism and alarmism.
'Slacking' is a *moralistic* (idealist) term because it connotes that there exists a formal, known *threshold* of work inputs that need to be done, and are *not* being done. The term also ignores the material-leveraging that machines do, to convert nominal, high-level 'control' efforts, such as programming, into fully-automated tangible social benefits, using machinery.
You're also a moralist lifestylist because you think that people *need* to actively be involved in mandated work, or else will just be idle and anti-social -- this is a pernicious *stereotype* of the working-poor. Wouldn't it be better for there to be *social services* that can address these 'charity cases' on a one-by-one basis, to provide social *solutions* for such?
You're *choosing* to be alarmist instead of applying *politics* to address such situations proactively -- you'd rather be *reactionary* and carve-out a reactionary alarmist kind of social politics of your own, obviously.
"your moralist authoritarian Stalinist state machinery." Shit man how would you handle the mass abuse of society in your economy? People bullying and harassing each other on a constant basis. You sound like you support a fuckin zoo. Hence, you would need drugs to cope with the extreme immorality of your society.
You're *purporting* to support a socialism-type of politics and outlook, but you keep showing yourself to prefer *opportunism* by *stopping* a socialist ethos, in favor of your own 'brand' of assumptions and reactionary alarmism. Your facile opinionating has no political value whatsoever.
The reason why I am talking about how to handle slackers in a socialist economy is because this proves to you that an "elitist" state (elite in your perspective) NEEDS to exist, TO PREVENT shit like that.
No it doesn't, and there's no 'proof' provided by you.
You're being downright *patriarchal* with your mindset that only sees elitist-legitimized social roles, such as for work, with all nonconformists stereotyped into the 'anti-social' and 'dangerous' category, automatically. This is about as far from socialism as one can get, and is definitely a *reactionary* political outlook.
"Fully-automated mass industrial production is the *goal* of socialism / communism, because the realization of such would mean that people could commonly benefit from such ultimately laborless mechanical 'work', without having to supply any liberated-labor whatsoever." Based on what you said, socialism is a technological, scientific process. But what if technology is not advanced enough for full automation? You're claiming that socialism can't exist if that's the case?
No, I'm saying that that's the *goal*, ultimately, because that would be the realistic *optimization* of mechanical productive capacity, to where *zero* human labor is required for social production.
Certainly the *social relations* can be revolutionized at any time, and even before 1917, when technological prowess was much less than it is today. Global human society can revolt against private ownership of social productive capacity, and, without full automation such implements under collective workers control would certainly be materially sufficient to provide a socially humane life to everyone in the world, with the goal of full automation being a later 'fine tuning' of such.
"'slacking' would be a non-issue because all anyone would have to do would be to put a work order into a computer" What if someone doesn't want to put a "work order" into a computer?
Maybe someone else would consent to do it for them.
"No, abuse would be virtually *impossible* because no one would be *stuck* anywhere -- they could simply *leave* whatever abusive situation and their life and livelihood would be *guaranteed* anywhere they go, due to abundant and always-freely-available social production, no matter the particular geographical location." But what if EVERYONE was abusive? Due to having no morals. Especially since you're against morals.
Sounds like a movie script -- better get on that right away.... (heh)
I'm actually against *moralism*, which is a political program that's based on concepts from a fixed, idealism-type view of the world.
For example you've already acknowledged that not all work roles are the same in function and social-benefit (picking herbs vs. laying down new railroad tracks), yet you idealistically think that 'idleness = dangerous anti-social behavior', and you're opportunistically ready to jump-in with your state-collectivist Stalinistic-authoritarian politics to *criminalize* and *police* such a social dynamic.
Neo-Nazi and Islamic terrorists who would rebel against an ideal, global socialist society can exist within socialism. Your replies are not answering my points. It's like I'm asking you what one plus one is, and you're replying "computers are comfortable."
Whatever. You're lazily misconstruing my politics, yet again, and not-understanding the *political basis* behind sectarian acts, which would *have no* basis in a workers-collectivist egalitarian socialism type of social order.
As long as a group of anti socialists have some weapons, such as guns or flammable gasoline, terrorism can potentially exist.
No, you're incorrect, and you misunderstand.
These kinds of acts -- like what ISIS did -- are sectarian-private *bids* for separatist hegemonic control of society, at a small-scale, as within the terrain of the former Islamic State. Once all of social production is in the hands of the collective working class, there would *be no* advantage to any top-down power plays because the constituent people would no longer be disadvantaged *anywhere* -- they wouldn't stay with a *political* abuser / opportunist, any more than they would with a *physical* abuser, and would opt to move to another place of individually-empowering material abundance, away from the abuse.
FUCK THE ANTIFA. THE ANTIFA IS ONE OF THE BIGGEST ENEMIES OF SOCIALISM.
No, you're wrong, even despite your use of all-caps. (heh)
You can't lump Antifa (antifascism) in with separatist-propertarian groups like Islamist, fascist, and ultranationalist ones because Antifa *counters* those kinds of sectarian politics, in favor of more-*socialist*-type politics that are *left*-wing and not right-wing.
You going against state socialism makes you sound like an anarchist!
Again, I'm *for* a workers state, but only as a transitional (dotp) *vehicle* against existing bourgeois-class rule. You make it sound like a workers state would have to be *permanent*, even after the overthrow of the class divide, when it *wouldn't be*. At that point there would no longer be a class foe, and humanity would then be collectively empowered to control society and socially-necessary production *directly*, without requiring a state apparatus ever again.
You're an opportunist because you call for 'socialism', while actually meaning *anarchy* and *Trotskyism*.
No, I'm *not* an anarchist. And Trotskyism just means *internationalism* for socialism.
You stay off the Internet and type your ridiculous Trotskyist, anarchist political lines into a text editor, save them, and keep them to yourself.
You're just making up bullshit here and falsely ascribing it to me. Stop it. You're on the verge of being a wantonly antagonistic *contrarian*.
"If you "prefer" a global socialist society then why are you content for it to *not* be fully worldwide, and instead confined to individual nation-states? Which *is* it that your politics advocate-for: Worldwide socialism and international workers solidarity, or nation-state-constrained state-collectivist bureaucratic-elitist Stalinistic authoritarian administrative hierarchies?" This has nothing to do with claiming that socialist states within a world composed of socialist and non socialist states aren't socialist.
You're not even addressing the question -- it's obvious that your politics are one of state-separatist *opportunism*, especially since you haven't mentioned the international proletariat even once.
It was the *Antifa* who corrupted the socialist movements around the world and watered-down the revolutionary politics to just the scope of promoting anarchy. There's no such thing as the Antifa being socialist, by definition, socialism is mature and does advocate to prevent crime and social decay, while the Antifa promotes crime and social decay.
No, Antifa deserves all left-wing support because it's *anti-fascist*, which means countering the far-right politics of race-baiting and anti-immigration.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%22Left-W ... e_Disorder
Go read a book you fuckin anarchist.
Still not an anarchist. Good try, though.
"Also people don't 'oppress themselves' -- they're / we're oppressed from *without*, by private-property-based social relations, and bourgeois rule. That's why a fully-global proletarian revolution is objectively required." Giving personal sensitive information about oneself, like how people do on social media, is a great example of one oppressing themselves. Because they're snitching on themselves, and they're losing some power.
You think 'power' happens on an *individual* basis -- ? -- !
You're *definitely* not a socialist with *this* immense misunderstanding of how the world works.
You're immature for calling me a Stalinist.
No, it's not about *me* -- I'm simply pointing out that your politics is one of state-separatist *opportunism*, and is *not* socialist in any way.
"No, I'm not trying to be manipulative, and you're *not* correct. Your moralist lifestylism is causing you to regress to your *cultural* perspective on politics, which is misguided at best." So you support drug usage, dirty living, domestic abuse, social decay, and ghettoness? There's a difference between progress, and social decay. You're regressive for supporting social decay, since your reply to this isn't answering the question directly, assuming that you do support drug usage and dirty living.
You're making careless *assumptions* about my politics -- I already stated, above, that such social ills require *supportive interventions*, and *not* criminalization by any kind of state, for the betterment of the individuals concerned. Best of all would be a proletarian revolution that would *seize* mass industrial implements, to at-once provide for everyone's biological and social needs *directly*.
"Also you seem to be trying to *personalize* (onto me) matters of politics, which are *not* inherently personal, but instead apply to entire *populations* of people, all the way up to social dynamics that are *worldwide* in scale." Yeah I don't know every single fuckin person, but I usually talk about the majority.
Well it's a plus that you're at-least *recognizing* the appropriate scale of dynamics here.
"Your critique here of multiculturalism is politically from-the-*right*, so now you're being outright *reactionary* in your politics, regarding matters of social policy. If anyone has problems with drug abuse / dependency, they should be able to access *help* and physiological rehabilitation for such, at public expense." What does this have to do with economic socialism?
You were just talking about 'multiculturalism', so either stay on-topic, or don't.
"'Social decay' is alarmist and reactionary." Ghetto, and NOT progressive.
I'm saying that you're not attempting to address 'social decay' / social-ills with your politics -- maybe you're unable to, or unwilling, but whatever the case you're not actively dealing with social policy, when that's exactly what politics is for.
Canada is more progressive, while the USA is more ghetto.
Yeah, I'd agree that Canada tends to have more-progressive social policies than the U.S.
TROTSKY IS A REVISIONIST!
Incorrect. *Stalin* was the *first* revisionist, with his capitulation to the Western, bourgeois-type nation-state formulation for his disastrous, misnamed 'socialism-in-one-country' politics and policies.
Stalin was now the party's supreme leader, although was not the head of government, a task he entrusted to key ally Vyacheslav Molotov. Other important supporters on the Politburo were Voroshilov, Lazar Kaganovich, and Sergo Ordzhonikidze, with Stalin ensuring his allies ran the various state institutions. According to Montefiore, at this point "Stalin was the leader of the oligarchs but he was far from a dictator". His growing influence was reflected in the naming of various locations after him; in June 1924 the Ukrainian mining town of Yuzovka became Stalino, and in April 1925, Tsaritsyn was renamed Stalingrad on the order of Mikhail Kalinin and Avel Enukidze.
In 1926, Stalin published On Questions of Leninism. Here, he introduced the concept of "Socialism in One Country", which he presented as an orthodox Leninist perspective. It nevertheless clashed with established Bolshevik views that socialism could not be established in one country but could only be achieved globally through the process of world revolution.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_St ... %80%931927
Overall, progressive and ghetto are different.
And, the Antifa is one of my biggest enemies.
@ckaihatsu, The Antifa should be supported the same as a rope supporting a hanged man. Fuck the Antifa.
Who / what group do you think would be better for the neutralization of fascism, and fascist attacks, then?