Careful about stuff like this. The word "oligarch" always presents some liberal conditions by distancing the fundamental issue of private property from attention. Middle-class people are integral to this system because they have a vested material interest in maintaining property as well as the violence necessary for it to exist; they aren't "oligarchs" any more than the thousands of multi-millionaires are.

It is also contradictory to socialism to attribute systemic inequities exclusively to the actions of select individuals, not a system of power organized around property.

Edit: I'm seriously disappointed by the amount of uneducated mansplaining going on here, I won't be responding to any more comments from this community.

In general, I'd argue the correct way to look at this would be from class interest perspective. What it really comes down to is whether your labor is the primary source of your income or whether it is your capital. If you're in the former category then you're a worker and you have common interest with other workers. If you're in the latter then your interests are directly opposed to those of the working class.

This is not a very usable understanding. How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people. Material interests aren't as simple as "workers for workers, owners for owners," it describes the intersecting and even contradictory ways in which people navigate this system to achieve or maintain their own level of material security. Similarly, the kind of class analysis you just described is bereft of any explanations for how race, gender, sexuality, indigeneity, or ability intersect in class dynamics; there is a reason we don't do it this way.

Wouldn't a home be personal property, not private? 401ks might be a better example?

Greetings, Comrade!

I would also like to offer a slight clarification: not "oligarchs," but the bourgeoisie; not "workers," but the proletariat. That is, if we are following Lenin.

Do not forget that, under a capitalist system, the proletariat consists not only of workers and peasants but also of the intelligentsia—doctors, teachers, researchers, engineers, and the like.

The middle class, too, is for the most part part of the proletariat.

The bourgeoisie, meanwhile, enriches itself through "surplus value." Were it not for this surplus value, then—firstly—all goods would be twice a scheaper, and—secondly—all global financial institutions would be abolished as unnecessary.

Careful about stuff like this.

We are not speaking of liberalism; we are speaking of the bourgeoisie, which is a parasite on society.

How do you make sense of people whose labour is the primary source of their income and who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.

As I understand it—judging by the name of this community—we are discussing socialism.

Under socialism, there is no middle class. In the USSR, a manual laborer earned a higher salary than an engineer or a doctor—unless, of course, the latter was a professor.

If a worker performed their job well, they received an apartment free of charge.

As for what you are writing about socialism—viewing it through the prism of capitalist terminology—it strikes me as, at the very least, both strange and incomprehensible.

There's a spy in the base

Yes, someone else here clarified that this community is more of a roleplaying thing. I didn't know that before commenting.

English is not my native language. I would appreciate it if you could be more specific. What do you mean by "role-playing games"?

Most socialists I engage with are interested in **pragmatic action
**

Are they keen on thinking about private property and "the fundamental issue of private property from attention?"

Am I understanding you correctly?

This is my first time engaging with this community (I think) and it is surprising to see comments like this. Home-ownership was used here because it references real, commodified material resources (land, shelter, etc.) which is only able to be owned by someone through specific social and property relations. While a 401k might be another example of private (I'm not sure what distinction you're referencing, but it certainly isn't materialist) property, as in a material thing that individuals claim exclusive access to, its dependency on financialization and abstraction from material value makes it a bad example for how property ownership specifically functions in relation to material resources and social/political systems.

who also have a material interest in the maintenance of private property, such as home-owning middle-class people.

Vladimir Lenin regarded private ownership of the means of production—land, factories, and plants—as the primary source of exploitation and social inequality. He was convinced that it had to be abolished and transferred into the hands of the state (as public ownership) in order to build a classless socialist society.

Roleplaying games are a form of entertainment where people will act in the role of some fictional character, typically in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons.

My use of it here is both as a joke and a genuine expression of disappointment in the lack of real engagement with socialist scholarship and ideas I've seen in this brief interaction.

"fictional character, typically in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons."

I already mentioned that I am not a native English speaker. I don't know what "in a fantasy world, with others; like Dungeons and Dragons" means.

" in the lack of real engagement with socialist scholarship and ideas"

Then again, I don't understand what—in your view, or in the opinion of your socialist friends—constitutes "socialist scholarship and ideas." I would be very interested to hear this, particularly as someone who lived under actual socialism and remembers perfectly well what it is and what it looks like in practice.

And please also clarify: what exactly was it about my words that made you laugh? Even if I am a "role-player"—as you put it—I don't mind.

Greetings, and agreed on all points.

How's this pragmatic action been working out for y'all. Last I looked western countries are speedrunning fascism at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_property#Personal_vis-à-vis_private_property

On that note, I’d recommend that you not take the writing of a white man from over 100 years ago as your only understanding of socialist

I know you won't read my reply, but I'll answer anyway: it's very simple. Lenin is the only person in history who successfully implemented socialism in practice—there is no one else like him. Stalin was Lenin's successor.

Lenin and not Lukács

I studied Lenin in school.

I haven't read Lukács. He wasn't popular here. Back then, people here were still studying Marx and Engels.

and anarchist scholarship

In my view, this is largely utopian—which is probably why Lenin abolished the party. That said, I do like Kropotkin’s ideas; in a certain sense, they resonate with the principles of socialism.

It seemed very simple under true socialism: in exchange for your conscientious labor, you received an apartment for free. You could live in it—and after you, your grandchildren could live there, and so on—but you could not sell the apartment, because it was state property.

Pragmatic action is not possible without socialist scholarship. You can't take effective action without understanding how systems of power form in the first place, and how to organize effectively to combat them. Understanding class interests is at the core of that. How anybody could think they could skip understanding the problems before solving them is beyond me. The results in western organizing really do speak for themselves though.

I told you recently that the understanding of socialism in the West—and my own understanding of it—are two different poles.

That guy is very smart and well-read, but what he says... really surprises me.

When I read his first post, I didn't even understand which camp he belonged to... because a person cannot defend oligarchs while being a socialist. To me, that is nonsense!

Lenin and not Lukács if they’re so into Leninism? Have you ever asked yourself that?

Google just came to my rescue—I had absolutely no idea who Lukács was.

"György (Georg) Lukács was not studied in the USSR as an independent thinker due to his affiliation with 'Western Marxism,' his departure from the dogmas of Soviet historical materialism, and his open criticism of Stalinism. His ideas were considered dangerous to the established Soviet ideological doctrine."

Do you understand now that socialism in the West and socialism in the USSR are two entirely different things?

haha you’re so annoying. Jesus.. You know you can block entire instances on here right?

What you'll find is that understanding of socialism in the west is largely shaped by the CIA, meaning that there is no actual understanding.

To be honest, I read through a massive amount of text there—it’s all so impeccably written, yet the essence of it keeps slipping through my fingers... It reminds me a lot of an LSD trip... ))) "The truth is out there"—just like in The X-Files... )))

Mind you, I don't mean to offend anyone; I am, after all, just an ignoramus... complete with a beard, felt boots, and a balalaika... reeking of stale vodka.

Please, don't judge me too harshly! )))

I'm talking about that guy up above who got offended and doesn't want to reply.

Sounds good but who’s going to organize all the infrastructure that makes all these jobs possible in a functioning society? The people? They’re too busy doing all the work..

On the off chance this is serious.

The government.

You mean… the oligarchs?

In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement. The government is lobbied by capitalists whose goal is their own profit.

The government is those very oligarchs.

Dictatorship of the proletariat

looks at the comunity name
Mmh socialism...

Sorry, I'm getting confused here. To me—based on what I've read here—the concept of Western socialism looks more like reformed capitalism than socialism.

No, the government. "The government" as you likely imagine it is in fact made up of 2 components.

1. Is the government: The organ of administration and organisation necessary in all advanced societies.

2. Is the state: The organised arm of class rule. This exists so long as class antagonisms exist.

"The oligarchs" (the bourgeoisie) are an issue due to the fact that in capitalist countries they control the state and rule over the other classes. The aim of communists is to seize control of the state and then wield it to repress and proletarianise the bourgeoisie until only a single class remains. Once there is only one class, the proletariat, and all the means of production are publicly owned the state withers away (ceases to exist) as there are no longer any class antagonisms, however the government as an organ of administration and organisation remains as it is necessary to oversee and organise all of the publicly owned goods and services.

Western socialism

Good thing I'm a Chinese communist and not a western socialist.

In a capitalist society, this is impossible to implement.

Obviously but I wasn't talking about capitalist society.

Reformed capitalism is, in fact, not socialism, you are probably thinking of social democracy

Reformed Capitalism, Social Democracy, Western Communism, Eurocommunism... Same fucking bad shit. There are nuances, all fluff.

Either go Communism or go home. The West is a failure.

plants do all the growing thus all the food should belong to plants

*takes a rip off a bong*

Me. Elect me!

Administration. There's a huge difference between administrative labor, and entitlement to the fruits of labor via private ownership of the means of production and distribution.

Those who have labor as their primary source of income, but own capital and thus desire a maintenance of capitalism, are petite bourgeoisie.

This isn't a LARP community, theory and practice mutually reinforce each other. You cannot effectively practice without theory, and theory without practice loses its grasp on reality.