this post was submitted on 06 Feb 2025
115 points (99.1% liked)

Slop.

349 readers
615 users here now

For posting all the anonymous reactionary bullshit that you can't post anywhere else.

Rule 1: All posts must include links to the subject matter, and no identifying information should be redacted.

Rule 2: If your source is a reactionary website, please use archive.is instead of linking directly.

Rule 3: No sectarianism.

Rule 4: TERF/SWERFs Not Welcome

Rule 5: No bigotry of any kind, including ironic bigotry.

Rule 6: Do not post fellow hexbears.

Rule 7: Do not individually target other instances' admins or moderators.

Rule 8: Do not post public figures, these should be posted to c/gossip

founded 2 months ago
MODERATORS
 

live-slug-reaction catgirl-flop

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] sleeplessone@lemmy.ml 12 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It's been awhile since I read the 'festo, but doesn't Marx explicitly call out petty booj "socialists" whose idea of socialism is when everyone become a booj?

[–] Sebrof@hexbear.net 6 points 4 hours ago

Yeah, Marx has a whole section dedicated to them in the Manifesto

...this form of Socialism aspires either to restoring the old means of production and of exchange, and with them the old property relations, and the old society, or to cramping the modern means of production and of exchange within the framework of the old property relations that have been, and were bound to be, exploded by those means. In either case, it is both reactionary and Utopian.

A, somewhat, recent article from Red Sails, The Case for Socialized Ownership explains this critique of petit bourgeoisie socialism. As production under capitalism is already becoming more and more socialized, the answer is to fully socialize the means of production through collective ownership, instead of making everyone 'business owners'. Quoting Engels,

With social production conditioned by modern large-scale industry, it is possible to assure each person “the full proceeds of his labour,” so far as this phrase has any meaning at all. And it has a meaning only if it is extended to mean not that each individual worker becomes the possessor of “the full proceeds of his labour,” but that the whole of society, consisting entirely of workers, becomes the possessor of the total proceeds of its labour, which it partly distributes among its members for consumption, partly uses for replacing and increasing the means of production, and partly stores up as a reserve fund for production and consumption