Can someone explain to me how socialism is supposed to lead to

File: invisible-basketball.jpg (43KB, 375x490px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 375x490px

>>2426339
Not even Marx knew that. That's one of the major holes in Marxist theory.

>>2426339

1. SOCIALISM DOES NOT LEAD TO COMMUNISM.

2. SOCIALISM, AND THE STATE, ARE NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE; ACTUALLY, AUTHENTIC SOCIALISM CAN ONLY FUNCTION WITH THE STATE —PARTICULARLY, WITH A NATIONALISTIC STATE—, OTHERWISE, ANY INCIPIENT SOCIALISM DEGENERATES INTO SYNDICALISM, OR INTO DEMOCRACY.

>>2426423
I don't want your opinion I want what to know how people who believe socialism dissolves into communism explain this

>>2426438
>socialism leads to total equality
>abolish classes and money
>live in a workers utopia

Something like that. How socialism leads to total class equality is the hurdle nobody has gotten over.

>>2426339
The state is meant to enforce existing economic hierarchies. This benefits capitalism in the sense that the state protects private property. Under socialism, property becomes collectively owned by persons who are using the property (for example, workers in a factory that manufactures x item own the factory as a cooperative, or persons living in an apartment complex own the building collectively). I am guessing that the idea is that eventually as the culture changes, state intervention is no longer needed because people voluntarily adhere to this order. It's like libertarianism, where everyone just agrees to the rules and lives harmoniously. This is obviously not how things would work out, and socialism has never worked in the idealized way I have outlined, and never will work in this way. But that's pretty much the idea.

>>2426473
Based on what >>2426449 is saying the state is supposed to dissolve after there is an absence of class and money and common ownership of stuff like you said. Now I'm wondering if the argument is that the state has become obsolete once that stuff happens and it just stops being a thing. If that's the case then people wouldn't need to unanimously agree to it since it would be obsolete. But why would that make the state obsolete? And why would nothing else that isn't obsolete (other than communism) replace the state?

>>2426339
>socialist society/state upgrades technology to slowly transit to fully automated luxury communism

>>2426503
>slowly transit
explain how that transition happens

Marxism, socialism and communism doesn't work.

>>2426511
Marxism and communism don't work.

You can't possibly say socialism doesn't work, idiot.

File: socialism work.png (26KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 480x480px

>>2426519

>>2426528
>I don't really understand what socialism is: the post

>>2426507
Advancements in technology like Al and 3D printing is happening everyday. With the state ensuring these technology can be accessed by everyone, so that people have the means to create a post sacrity world. When that is done, there is no need for a state unless for external threat of course

>>2426423
>>2426473
>>2426545
Smart

>>2426501
1. I imagine that the idea of the state dissolving is supposed to be a gradual evolutionary process. Kind of like more deregulation/tax cuts (the conservative equivalent of "smaller governement"). People don't just get together one day and decide "Okay everyone, no more government anymore! Only communism from this day forth, guys!".

2. Like I said, I am not a communist and I don't think it would work at all. I think for the same reason libertarianism or any kind of anarchism fails is absolutely, as you have said, that another authority would take the state's place. But that is irrelevant since the beehive collectivist mentality you need to make socialism/communism viable is simply absent in humans.

>>2426556
>>2426579
do you guys disagree with each other on anything

Dude if you give the state absolute power the state will slowly wither away!

You would think it would just turn a absolute state, but that's not the case according to Marx. Trust him on that!