Put Your Money Where Your Mouth Is - Socialist Mutual Aid Society

Why not create an organization for the redistribution of wealth? Wouldn't that be a logical choice considering you want the redistribution of wealth? At least several celebrities are claiming to be socialist now. Wouldn't it optimal to take advantage of this virtue signalling?

You could do other things with the society like create co-operatives as well to employ your members as well as create communes for them to live at. I'm sure I'm not the first to think of this idea but why isn't it a very common idea among socialists?

Attached: say-yes-to-socialism.jpeg (1280x720, 150.63K)

Other urls found in this thread:

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism
twitter.com/AnonBabble

...

We don't want to redistribute money. We want to seize the means of production and abolish capitalism.

Attached: 1526447375142.png (582x458, 202.15K)

So then you're communists? I thought that was the distinction between socialists and communists. At least that's what a communist told me.

why doesn't Zig Forums understand socialism lads

Socialism is a mode of production wherein the means of production are collectively owned, and a number of ideologies belong to it (Anarchism, orthodox marxism, revisionist marxism…)
That's my definition of socialism

Simply redistributing wealth is not the same as changing the mode of production. Contrary to what Americans may believe, welfare is not socialism.

I didn't imply that at all. Generally if you don't have money to give you don't give money.

Communism is The End of History
Socialism is how we get there

It has several definitions apparently.

merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

Definition 3 fits my definition most clearly. The redistribution of wealth is somewhere between capitalism and communism.

Marx used “socialism” and “communism” interchangeably. Lenin distinguished between the two, calling socialism the initial phase where the proletariat form a workers’ state which serves to abolish class society (what Marx would have called the “Dictatorship of the Proletariat”) and communism being the stateless and classless society that emerges once class society is abolished and the state withers away.

In more recent times, people have taken to calling the welfare state, or really whenever the bourgeois state does anything above and beyond its basic function of protecting and enforcing class society “socialism”. These people are idiots.

How does one enforce a classless society without the state? The desire to be unequal is human nature. We accumulate resources for the purpose of mate selection. Women have a clear and undeniable preference for rich and successful men.

I believe they did a study of women who lived in the soviet union. The women reported more orgasms. I have a theory surrounding it in that when everyone has equal wealth it screws up women's ability to gauge the value of a mate and so she is therefore more sexually aroused at what would otherwise be a low earning man.

rewording #7273627 of "HUGH MAN NAYTUR"

Yes meme on without ever confronting the argument. There's hard evolutionary science that indicates women are wired to be aroused by high earning males. In essence what this proves is that we're evolved for certain types of mate selection like most species. What this also means is that men will strive to be unequal for greater mating opportunities. We're evolved around mate selection and nature does not give one shit about equality. Nature favors winners.

Post-1900 socialists ruined socialism.

Statelessness doesn't imply a lack of enforcement, just a lack of enforcement by a body separate from and above society. Organised workers would carry out such enforcement themselves.

The rest of your post is a non-sequitur.

Then the question then is do people want to live in a egalitarian society? It wouldn't be the first time a country reverted from a socialist one to a more capitalist one. Russia after the fall of the soviet union for example, Communist regime collapses and a capitalist one springs up. Even China has adapted to make their economy more capitalist despite the fact they're still ruled by a communist party. Certain organizations within this communist society could break off and adopt capitalism. This system needs to have a state or the end result may be civil war. At best the most skilled workers will flee the country for greener pastures. You forget that every single communist country had to build a wall to keep people in.

The argument has been addressed a billion times by even the most smooth-brain leftists. You can maybe use google, or read some theory.

Could you point me in the right direction?

...

Communism doesnt want to acheive absolute equality, an idea Marx and Engels thought was incoherent and inconceivable, but to abolish class distinctions through overcoming the social ediface of class, private property.

Marx in ‘’Critique of the Gotha Program’’ stated that equality was a notion that had its place in the Jacobin movement, but in the context of the socialist movement can mean so many different things that the word shouldn’t be used at all. Marx even said that advocating for “equality in classes” is stupid because the phrase implies the continued existance of classes, except now these classes are “equal”, whatever that means. Engels in the ‘’Anti-Duhring’’ thought that absolute inequality was impossible because things in reality are different and no matter how much differences between things are mitigated, absolute equality for everything is an impossibility. To Engels, we cannot, nor should we, level a mountain to make the lives who live on the plains “equal” to those that don’t.

Well, first of all, your argument presupposes a specific form of social organization, and rather than confronting that social form, instead characteristics that arise from it are naturalized, essentialised into things themselves.

This isn’t to say that there is no essential humanity, a human nature, but that human activity is constituted socially. Due to social and productive organization being essential features of the human condition, human beings have the capacity and the agency to transform and subordinate nature to their will, which means that not only is the physical translated into social terms, that material foundation is reconstructed by the very forms of social organization that arise from said foundation. Arising from a physical infastructure is a social superstructure that constitutes its material base.

if this is true (it isn't), how do you explain those guys on welfare that slay insane amounts of puss?