I don't care about building a classless, stateless society 50, 100, 1000 years into the future. That's a tomorrow problem. I want better working conditions, direct democracy, and civil liberties in the here and now. If this makes me an evil Lassallian reformist, then so be it.
>>2459506>I don't care about building a classless, stateless society 50, 100, 1000 years into the future. Same
>I want better working conditions, direct democracy, and civil liberties in the here and now.B-but I don't wanna work, or vote. I just wanna goon to loli hentai without worrying about being put in jail by the same christo-fascists who raped kids on epstiens island…
>>2459506>I don't care about building a classless, stateless societyThen you don’t care about freeing mankind from the oppressors, from the slaver. You sound like a liberal who their private wine collection smashed.
>That's a tomorrow problemThat statement comes from a place of privilege many do not have.
>I want better working conditions, direct democracy, and civil liberties in the here and nowYou will achieve none of this under this mode of production. Rule of capital will win in the end. And you might as well be 100% with your demands, because the capitalist will be willing to spill your blood for each step you take.
>>2459511>Good thing that’s not communismNever read Marx award.
>but neither are your utopian delusionsI'm asking for China meets Switzerland. These are both countries that currently exist right now in the real world.
>that can only be achieved on the corpses of billions in the imperial periphery And yet, someone, China manages without.
>>2459514>>2459537To clarify, I don't want to be stuck in the "building up the productive forces" stage my whole life. I exist under capitalism. I want to move on to socialism. Communism is too far into the future to care about.
>>2459575>you don't want these things to include all of humanity, but why are you stopping midway to advicate these things under national lines?I do want them to include all of humanity, but I also know that, within my lifetime, that's unrealistic.
>you can simply hustle into becoming a bourgeois and get 90% of what you want.What I want is a society that is more equitable as a whole. Even if I were doing materially well, I know I would still be dissatisfied.
>>2459586So you will be satisfied knowing that the vast majority of humanity is exploited, but not if that also includes your countrymen
So, you're a national socialist in the literal sense?
>>2459582>To clarify, I don't want to be stuck in the "building up the productive forces" stage my whole lifeYou are already stuck in that stage. There’s only one way to leave it.
>I want to move on to socialism. Communism is too far into the future to care about.Socialism and communism are the same thing. There was no differentiation between them created by Marx. The terms mean the exact same thing. You are to begging to stay in the capitalist mode of production, that is what you are truly saying.
>>2459587>Productive forces will be building up under socialism towards communism thoughThere is no difference between communism and socialism.
>>2459597I'm being realistic, pragmatic, even. I'm not thrilled about socialism in one country, but I know that socialism worldwide won't happen within my life. My hope is to fix things as much as possible where I live, and to make a sharp shift to a growth model like China's, that doesn't harm other countries around it.
>>2459606What I'm saying is that I don't want to sacrifice things like democracy or civil liberties in the name of the "greater good". You can say I'm being utopian, but I say it's the opposite: I have concrete things that I know factually can be achieved in the here and now.
>>2459619>What I'm saying is that I don't want to sacrifice things like democracy or civil liberties in the name of the "greater good"You didn’t have those things to begin with, and therefore do not have anything to lose in the first place. You live strictly under the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, under the rule of capital. The only form of democracy you can hope for is bourgeois democracy.
>You can say I'm being utopianYou are worse than that if you can believe.
>I have concrete things that I know factually can be achieved in the here and now.You have naivety, ignorance, and delusion. You have little awareness of your surrounding or even what knowledge you possess.
>>2459606Wrong. Socialism is bourgeois and Communism is proletarian, as Engels explains in 1888 preface to the Manifesto of the Communist Party: …we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand, the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances. In both cases, men outside the working-class movement looked rather to the “educated” classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions and had proclaimed the necessity of a total social change called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of Communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian Communism of Cabet in France and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, Communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; Communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
>>2459630Depends. Some places in the world may in fact skip this stage. Otherwise yes, it will.
>>2459632>Socialism is bourgeois and Communism is proletarianThe term was not originally bourgeois, it simply became so after thieving liberals took it.
>as Engels explains Engels explained that the term was stolen by liberals and advised revolutionaries to refer to themselves as communists to better separate themselves from those sought to perpetuate the current mode of production. And he was correct in doing so.
With that said, Marx still not differentiate the two terms and use both of them himself. There is no wrong in reclaiming the term from the liberals even as we still prioritize the use of the term communism over it.
>>2459511>better working conditions and civil liberties are utopian delusions that can only be achieved on the corpses of billions in the imperial periphery please explain to me why. im not talking about why voting for your local social-democrat is tacit support for imperialism, sure, granted. i want to know why it is apparently materially impossible to improve the conditions of proletarians and otherwise immiserated in the first world
which you just assumed the OP was in btw without human sacrifice.
>>2459698>I'm just not ideologically committed to the long term goalThen you aren’t committed period.
>I don't want to wait around building the productive forcesBuilding productive forces isn’t waiting around
>I want whatever is possible with what we have nowNo, you don’t actually. You want to do nothing and persist in this mode of production. You want to slow down development of the movement. We wouldn’t be having this conversation otherwise.
>>2459712>Then you aren’t committed period. To communism, no, but to socialism, yes
>You want to do nothing and persist in this mode of production.No I don't.
>>2459722>To communism, no, but to socialismThose are the same thing
>No I don'tYeah, you do. You wouldn’t be here otherwise. You came here expect something from the posters. A supposed middle ground. And yet you will get nothing but a lecture instead.
Unique IPs: 21