BlueOak

The Top general taken out. Second in command of the military. Xi's purge continues. Chinese troops reinforce the capital. Following the Putin playbook. Kill all opposition. Kill all dissent. Kill everyone with a different opinion. Sad world we live in.

'Who decides' doesn't mean authoritarianism. You are acting as if only markets can decide or a dicator. Typical left right oversimplistic division in American politics. Which happens when a country excludes all other opinions from even discussion for a generation or two. Here are some socialist examples that could make such a decision. Democratic institutions and groups. Worker Unions Worker Councils. Or just open publicly accountable governance, better representation of working people's views. Unequal trade under capitalism is what causes exploitation. Socialism is all about enforcing labor laws and workers rights. If workers decide something collectively there is no middle or upper class involved. The problem you have, Elliot, is you live in a country that has so rejected part of itself, that it cannot even grasp what it's arguing against. You are so desperate to demonise an ideology that you end just grasping at straws or attempting one-line gotchas. There are many problems with a pure socialist viewpoint, not least of which are self-interest, billionaire resistance and greed, but you haven't even lined one up yet. Collective decision making is not authoritarian; certainly democratic collective decision-making, pretending it is, is looking through this lens as a capitalist would and applying capitalist values to it.

Its dependent on the type of socialism. Democratic and/or Liberal socialism: Yes, you can. Market Socialism: Cooperative Businesses are usually allowed for but not individual ownership. (In a perfect world I would be here.) State Socialism or Communism usually no.

I said Trade. One is capable of picking trade partners, and this issue is far more nuanced than you are allowing for. Countries positively improving the conditions of their workforce can be factored in, as can countries already treating their workers well, and appropriate and equal trade can be given to them. Exploitation of a workforce, is probably the most incorrect angle of argument against socialism that I have ever seen proposed. The workforce runs the country in such a system, it, as you have repeatedly pointed out, seeks unity amongst the world's workers for better conditions.

@Bjorn K Holmstrom I'm going to go over this in detail over the weekend when I am rested, thank you for being bold.

This is extremely easy to challenge. How many fathers would step in front of a bullet for their own child. But we are not talking bullets or children. We are talking collective good, a much more loosely defined term, and with a much lower bar for the ego than the cost of your life. If the country is in a pure survival state, nothing works well. The average joe isn't taking a bullet for a random person, maybe a child. If the country is reasonably well off, and survival needs have been met, its easier to think of others. But here is the kicker: The way to meet the survival needs of the worst off in society, starts with the improvement of social programs. >>Socialism would work is we were all Awakened, egoless saints. Yep. But it'll work okay if we are pretty good people. Flawed and all. Not perfect, nothing is. It'll also work okay on those that need it and would value it most, because they are bought into its success. You are right, its the people in it that matter, and the amount of people ripping it down.

You are using attractive slogans to hook young people or those disatisfied and natural wish for rebellion as a definition of an ideology. No doubt it appeals to a teen or someone who is politically ignored, i'm sure it did to me at one time when my focus was more anti establishment. World to win does not mean socialist states or groups conquering nations. For Marx it meant: The subject is the workers not the state. The WORKERS. Its about focus. The action is to unite not to invade. The goal was ending class rule. You still aren't getting that he believed this happens automatically and cannot be initiated by an outside force. You still don't get his words. He wanted the focus on the people not states, nations, or groups. For some reason you keep ignoring all these parts of the ideology. As if they are incovenient to the point you want to make. Marx never describes a world government or a plan of state conquest or socialism dominating as a state or governing body. International solidarity doesn't mean a global empire. There are many groups that want unity or solidarity with each other, that do not have imperial or aspirations on conquest. Socialism is not a country acting like a corporation. That would be the opposite of socialism. You are bringing capitalism back and calling it socialism. In Marxist theory: The Bourgeoisie are owners of the means of production The Proletariat are those who sell their labor These are class relations, not national identities. A country cannot be the Bourgeoisie, if so it is no longer a socialist country. A border doesn't turn exploitation into socialism; if expolitation of workers exists the country would no longer be socialist. In your example the means of production would remain local, owned and run by those within it not be outsourced to India. Because that is the most important part, as I have repeatedly said, about socialism. That the means of production remain public, not outsourced, not done by another. Marx explicitly rejected corporate or class rule. His entire framework or belief system was anti nationalist and anti corporate. Marx did not believe the exploitation of another countries workers was socialism. Nor does any socialist i've ever met. Quite the opposite, if work was done overseas and traded, they'd want and likely only trade with those in good working conditions because that's their entire ideology. You are still confusing a class struggle with state domination or in this exploitation of other states. Socialism isn't any old group calling itself socialist, even if it exploits workers. Musk calling himself green does not make him an environmentalist; corporations calling themselves your friend (like insidious banks do these days) or worse families, does not abolish class relations or struggles. You are describing capitalism to me. The system socialism abolishes.

Easier to argue for in the current dynamic of socialism being massively underpresented or suppressed. As there seems to be a purity test if you say you want a combination of the best of both worlds. You get this from both sides however. Elliot earlier here told me I just want the benefits of socialism for myself, that tends to be how capitalists think. In terms of themselves. If it was as socialist saying I am not a real socialist then, (which happens) you almost get the same thing, or you want the easy way out, convenience etc. Its amusing to get it from both sides. I feel like saying yes I want convenience, and I want the best for myself. Is this a bad thing to want? I also want that for everyone else. But for now Wilhelm, we'll stick with the I am a socialist label, its easier for these discussions, they wouldn't have got this far into it had I not. That and because in the current climate everyone would label me a socialist, so I might as well use the label given. Because I am so far to the left of them (on some key issues), it tends to apply.

Yes this supports exactly what i've been saying. Solidarity is not the same as saying socialist states or groups take over the world. He describes a working class movement, acting in the interests of the majority, supporting each other, aiming at ending the domination of any class. Nowhere does he say: Socialists must take over the world, certainly not socialist nations or states, or that nations must be conquered or replaced. The idea doesn't make sense, who is conquering them in a stateless society? He doesn't say socialism is defined by domination. Socialism at its core doesn't function this way geopolitically. Because people, not a state, are its focus. He believed that this class struggle and transition happened automatically, rightly or wrongly this was his belief. Not that it was outward imposed, which i've already cited several times in quotes. “At a certain stage of development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production… Then begins an era of social revolution.” And its continuation: **“No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed; and new, higher relations of production never appear before Karl Marx, Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (1859) or “No social order ever perishes before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed.” From A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy (Preface) So I am running my logic through GPT again; it raised some good definitions: Quote start Socialism = social/collective control of the means of production Marx = analysis of class relations and predicted international worker solidarity Later Marxist-Leninist states = state-led revolutionary strategy Quote end. It takes a state, to do what you are saying. And Marx specifically didn't want a state, as you have already tried to argue. He didn't want outward conquest and believed things happened naturally. Further Quotes on Socialism: From The German Ideology “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” -Not a state imposed plan or outward conquest. From Capital “It is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness.” -Social systems change because of conditions, not an ideology that conquers the world. If you believe what you are telling me quote me Marx saying this or an approximation. Socialism is defined as socialist states or their equivalent, replacing all nations through global conquest or imposition from an outside force.

Alright let's do this then. I'll start the sourcing: Encyclopaedia Britannica (2026 update): Socialism is a “social and economic doctrine that calls for public rather than private ownership or control of property and natural resources.” Link: https://www.britannica.com/money/socialism Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (peer-reviewed academic reference): “In contrast to capitalism, socialism can be defined as a type of society in which… the bulk of the means of production is under social, democratic control.” Link: https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/socialism/ Oxford Reference (dictionary/academic reference): Socialism is “an economic and political system based on collective or state ownership of the means of production and distribution.” Link: https://www.oxfordreference.com/abstract/10.1093/acref/9780199533008.001.0001/acref-9780199533008-e-2179 Merriam-Webster (major dictionary): Socialism: “economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production…” Link: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy (academic philosophy reference): “A socialist economy features social rather than private ownership of the means of production…” Link: https://iep.utm.edu/socialis/ Chat GPT Quote: None of the standard definitions of socialism define it as “taking over the world by socialist states.” That idea describes a particular revolutionary strategy associated with some Marxist-Leninist movements or state foreign policies, not the definition of socialism. The definitional core across Britannica, Stanford, Oxford, Merriam-Webster, and the IEP is social/public/collective control or ownership of the means of production. Your turn. You post any sources you have that indicate the primary core tenant of socialism is the take over of the world, or the removal of all capitalist states, or whatever wording you wish along those lines, and I will counter with three times the sourcing, all credible, all with links. Hint, focus on Leninist philosophy; it'll give you some good ones, and then you'll be stuck. On this Elliot you provably and identifiably incorrect. You've added a few more insults to the post, which haven't been quoted. Try to calm down a bit.

It depends if the ego takes the collective good into its own survival. Which BTW has examples. Much like a good relationship will take the other's happiness and survival as part of their own.

You'd think.

Agreed. Bureaucracy is usually the way to put power in the hands of people and regulate both corruption and dictators or oligarchs from gaining too much control. So yes, boring the system into submission is a very effective tool Are you willing to design a framework protocol on any particular grassroots idea that can be advocated for or implemented, just the basics in a document or post? I understand you won't whip one out of your hat, and it will be inherently flawed or missing pieces, but as something for consideration and refinement. Because I want you to understand your mind is 1 in 10,000 or more and if you can't start it, we are waiting for our philosopher king.

Firstly your conflating marxism with socialism. It's one branch of it. However, Marx did not propose a plan to “take over the world” or replace all countries as socialist states. He analyzed capitalism; he was not a geopolitical strategist. This is a call for solidarity, not an overthrow of governments or a change to the world order. The idea of a coordinated global revolution was a Leninist idea. Had you set off on that or quoted him, this would be a different discussion. This is a 20th-century concept, not a 19th-century one. Marx's belief was the class struggle was an inherent struggle in all capitalist societies. Not something that needed outside interference. That it would occur naturally, which is somewhat idealistic. Secondly i've given you what socialism means: The most basic meaning of socialism is to replace the means of production. Taking it from private to public. This is the most core tenet of socialism. Do you honestly dispute this? Because we can but its not an argument you can win. Socialism is extremely fragmented and multifaceted and someone who hasn't done a lot of reasearch always risks getting details wrong. I do too, because there are so many opinions and branches in it. Stating its fragmentation is a much better angle of attack or its viability than the one you are currently pursing. Labelling good and bad, cults and psyops, its just not going to get this conversation anywhere.

I honestly thought TCP/IP protocol was regulated, but on investigation, its only regulation comes about because its the most popular and if people don't want to isolate, they connect to it. That's interesting, I wonder if something similiar can be adopted before the below is even considered, as that's more 'my doubts' based on the current reality we live in. Focusing on protocols is certainly a smarter way of addressing division. There are certainly hurdles to this, self-interest and ideological purity being two relevant to the discussion. I do like the carrot approach. If we had leaders of sufficient development and media institutions supporting him/her, then this could be done. I am not sure it can be done without a governing authority, but it was with TCP/IP. I suppose a big enough collective or group of companies could do it for job guarantees for example. It requires influence, either billionaires, a collective will from businesses and/or at the moment acceptance by the media holding people in a sort of divisive stasis based on lack rather than abundance, extraction rather than regeneration. Although on a smaller level it could be done, and might spread by example. Without a larger backing, it may be held in place or suppressed. If someone shouts the word "socialism," there is an instant army ready to attack an idea, even if its designed as a capitalist system. Still maybe a larger focus on protocol will yield better outcomes.

The most basic meaning of socialism is to replace the means of production. Taking it from private to public.

I want a balanced system where socialism is considerably more integrated than it is now. This isn't the insult you think it is to me, as I am not strongly ideological; I am more systems-based. At the moment socialism is vastly underrepresented, so I advocate for it. In an alternative reality, if capitalism was ignored, suppressed and sidelined I'd propose more of it within the system. Of course I want the benefits for me personally, but also collectively for the poor and homeless, who are not only neglected by society because socialist values are vilified, but in the American mindset, criminalized and actively loathed by many fanatical capitalists. You see contradiction; I see compromise, integration, and a better-functioning society, filling the gaps that exist within it. But then you advocate for isolationism and division at every opportunity, which is increasingly the American way. Attacking other perspectives different from yours and trying to vilify them.

You edited this in afterwards: 1, People chant all kinds of crap. 2, Marx implicitly rejected what you are assigning to his ideology. He called it a national struggle. 3, Now you are moralising. I'll give it a go, it should reduce the discussion to purely state green and below, which means I can switch off my brain. You're in a liberal cult. Liberal say things like: “Free markets” In practice liberals interfere in markets all the time. Bailouts, subsidies, trade protections, IP protections and patents, interest rates manipulation etc. I am not arguing against this either. Slogans are not reality. If this is your definition of a cult, the entire world is a cult, because I guarantee you everyone on this forum has as contradictory slogan in their own head. Including you.

Do I agree an ideology likes to engage with a similiar ideology? Yes. Because people like to interact with others who share their beliefs. Though Marx didn't argue this, or that mixed systems shouldn't exist. Marxism as a whole believes capitalism would be superseded with socialism, but never that other forms of governance could not exist. I tend to agree that more socialism will be brought in to a balance, but it'll take another 1,000 years. Do I agree this ideology wants to impose this over others? No. Marxism does not dictate a program to impose itself on the entire world. It doesn't claim this achievable either, because it wouldn't be. Marx's goal was to say capitalism had contradictions, which created a class struggle. He believed that advanced enough capitalist societies might shift into socialist ones. I tend to agree, with caveats, that they become closer to being system based, rather than ideological, integrating all elements of existance, which is superior. He believed socialism might become the global means of production, which is somewhat naive given human nature. As I said I am not a Marxist. Here is another Quote: The German Ideology, Marx & Engels: “Communism is for us not a state of affairs which is to be established, an ideal to which reality will have to adjust itself. We call communism the real movement which abolishes the present state of things.” This explicitly states the opposite for you. He also stated: A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy: “No social order ever disappears before all the productive forces for which there is room in it have developed.” Meaning societies cannot be made socialist. Though you dismiss transition, its a critical phase in his ideology. The Communist Manifesto: “The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” A single imposed global order doesn't fit his own words.

No, Marxism recognises states and the struggle within them, especially the period of transition. I'll GPT some quotes for you rather than open a bunch of books. Karl Marx, Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875): “Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.” Friedrich Engels, Anti-Dühring (1877): “The state is not ‘abolished’. It withers away.” Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (1848): “The proletariat of each country must, of course, first of all settle matters with its own bourgeoisie.” Same text, same section: “Though not in substance, yet in form, the struggle of the proletariat with the bourgeoisie is at first a national struggle.” ---- End Quotes It concludes with a better line than I had. That Marxism argues class is more fundamental than nationality, which I personally believe to be true. Not that states exist or don't matter.

Marxism does not claim the state immediately disappears. There is obviously a transitional phase between capitalism and communism. If we are talking hundreds of years from now when I am long dead, sure. Socialism in a broader context, however, does not have this end goal within it. I think if you talked to 100 socialists, you'd get 5 that envisioned a stateless future, at least anywhere soon, but that's just my experience.

Yes, but its not my primary ideology. I am more centralist on the socialist spectrum. I prefer to bring all four poles into a balance but focused on the people living in a country over anything else. To answer the obvious gotcha you are likely building up to: Marxism does not argue trade should cease. The ideology recognizes trade predated capitalism. Exchange between societies is inevitable if we want a stable world.

Would you apply this to more liberal, decentralised forms of socialism? Without centralisation we rely more on regions, localities, or the populations themselves to value regeneration. Which i'm personally not against. The whole Brexit, Nation vs Europe debate largely sidelined me as I prefer a county-level control to be increased; i'd be happier with a federal model across Europe that increased the local power over nationalist power. But that is a different discussion. What is the factory incentivized to do? Is good, but to include all elements, you cite UBI, local currencies, local concerns etc, economies need to be modelled on the local level to address the actual concerns people face. Doing this top-down as you suggest can be flawed from the start, UBI might work well for a local economy or hurt it. There are downsides to local or regional control, more arguments, increasing bureaucracy, independence movements, and regions risking becoming more imbalanced in relation to their neighbors (but this last one happens anyway in a system favoring national governance).

If you mean trade. Socialist states can trade, for example, resource agreements or maintaining currencies to barter with others. Many countries have multiple currency stockpiles they don't actively use domestically. If you mean I hate capitalism. I don't hate it, I see it as having an outcome that inflicts more suffering than the alternative. Also I don't dictate what others choose to do, nor should we as a country. Isolation makes for a more dangerous world, prone to fear and mistrust. Trade helps give nation-states a reason to cooperate rather than engage in force and violence towards each other and also a method of negotiating beyond the barrel of a gun.

I'm not advocating any one particular group is well run or successful. This was in response to 'people don't start socialist communities'. I pulled the top 20, I mean there are tens of thousands I could likely find with some poking around.