Spicy's plan for utopia

[archibaldcrane]

They aren't liberated until they have democratic control over the means of production

(like in Norway [mostly])

[Roranora]

you space out those gestations just right and that liberation is a get

[Mrbeansman]

Again spicy just brushing off the suffering of other people as NBD.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Spicyryan]

Again spicy just brushing off the suffering of other people as NBD.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

Actually, the opposite.

[Uzor]

Pray tell, If Sweden doesn't have a good work-life balance, what does a good work-life balance look like in your opinion?

To me, it sounds like the only thing you want is for people to eat for free, live for free, and not have to work at all. Throughout all of human evolution, that has never been the case, even before money was invented.

[Mrbeansman]

Don't you see? If even one person is suffering then your way of life is evil and must be destroyed.

Sent from my SM-G973U using Tapatalk

[Tymon]

Pray tell, If Sweden doesn't have a good work-life balance, what does a good work-life balance look like in your opinion?

To me, it sounds like the only thing you want is for people to eat for free, live for free, and not have to work at all. Throughout all of human evolution, that has never been the case, even before money was invented.

Yeah, it should be like that though, so harumph.

[Uzor]

I guess the colonizers had it right, we just need to declare part of the human race to not be humans and all of Spicy's visions can be achieved. That way they can do all the work such as producing food or working in hospitals, while the "superior race" can just play games all day. It's a win-win situation, perfect Utopia achieved without "human" suffering. I guess Europe and America were just really ahead of their time back then severely misunderstood.

[synistar]

Relevant - Omnipotent Marxist Space Dinosaurs create Utopia on earth



No Work - All Life balance.

[Tymon]

"From each according to his ability*, to each according to his needs*

* unless you're not a protected class and/or critical of the Party, then it's to the gulag/the slave pens for you

[archibaldcrane]

No, you could not make the argument because it is a capitalist country. A state is not socialist because it's monarchy "owns a majority of the means of production." Proletariat are to own the means of production and lead it. The western educational systems "socialism is when the government does stuff" are why basics like this aren't understood.

Norway is not "pretty close" to socialism.

Who controls the means of production is the clearest, simplest way of delineating between socialism and capitalism.

When the state owns the majority of it AND the state is democratically controlled, that's more socialist than capitalist.

[Gredival]

Who controls the means of production is the clearest, simplest way of delineating between socialism and capitalism.

When the state owns the majority of it AND the state is democratically controlled, that's more socialist than capitalist.

It's socialist if and only if spicy approves, damn actual economic theory

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[Zealot]

I was led to believe that socialist meant control by the people and distribution via democratically-elected government, communism was control by the state only.

Sent from my SM-N981U using Tapatalk

[Andalusian girls]

you will never, ever, get either socialists or communists to agree on common definition of their ideologies, and both lay claim to a wide diversity of economic systems. that said,

socialism is very broadly defined as communal or social ownership over the means of production, versus capitalism's private ownership. this is better seen as a sliding scale rather than a hard dichotomy, as essentially every nation on earth has some kind of communal ownership of means of production (usually nationalized industries/corporations in democratic frameworks) in tandem with private ownership. but even within that framework there is market socialism and non-market socialism, there is state socialism and cooperative ownership, there is market-based state socialism that bleeds so heavily into state capitalism there are only marginal differences, libertarian socialism that bleeds into anarchism, etc. some socialisms would see the State as the most powerful body in the globe, others favor decentralization to the point the state ceases to function. but, fundamentally, social ownership.

communism is in some ways more interesting as Marx himself was a historical critic, a dialectical materialist in the Hegelian tradition who presented a model of analyzing all economic history and projecting that model into the future (predicting the collapse of the capitalist base/superstructure on account of a socialist counterthesis and thence synthesis into communism). but he himself said exceedingly little about how society would organize itself in a post-capitalist epoch, or how any kind of ideal society ought be structured. what is a Marxist state? we have little idea.

non-Marx Marxists, of course, supplied those answers. most famously and successfully Lenin and his extrapolation of the dictatorship of the proletariat to a dictatorship of the party controlling the entirety of the means of production. others in the movement call for the abolition of all private property, money, classes, the state itself, a kind of triumphant anarcho-syndaclism as Chomsky likes to frame it. as communists formulations are invariably underpinned by social ownership it is best to see communism as a specific subset of socialism. the most successful one, as it turns out they are by far the best at revolution.

[Andalusian girls]

well that last aside may be flippant, Leninist communists were the best socialists at realizing the entirety of their visions, but undoubtedly the ones with the greatest impact on the greatest number of people are reformist socialists, or those who seek to transform society from capitalist to socialist through existing structures rather than revolutionary rip and tear. while they have never successfully affected such a transformation, capitalist societies have been radically transformed by their efforts over the last century and change of their operation.

[Gredival]

you will never, ever, get either socialists or communists to agree on common definition of their ideologies, and both lay claim to a wide diversity of economic systems.

I would care more if spicy had any actual theory behind what is and isn't socialism beyond what is and isn't sufficiently utopian for him.

[Andalusian girls]

glad you've reduced the discourses of socialism and communism to what ryan thinks about them

[Gredival]

I mean the thread topic is spicy utopia, not actual legitimate economic debate

Sent from my SM-G991U using Tapatalk

[archibaldcrane]

undoubtedly the ones with the greatest impact on the greatest number of people are reformist socialists, or those who seek to transform society from capitalist to socialist through existing structures rather than revolutionary rip and tear. while they have never successfully affected such a transformation

(except for in Norway where they have cleverly used social wealth funds to put the majority of the means of production into the hands of the democratically controlled state)

[Andalusian girls]

I mean the thread topic is spicy utopia, not actual legitimate economic debate

true and it is written into the forum bylaws that no thread is allowed to ever deviate from its stated purpose