as far as I know communism drives towards anarchy, which is legitimately a method of exacting equality because if there is no structure and everyone is dirt poor in primitivism and anarchy then well there is no economic class

and true that, there can be many ways to define a class in society, intelectual capacity, practical skills, physicla prowess.

and id argue that those clases do exist, but to a lesser extent than say economic

yeah pure communism is anarchy

but the goal is not to make everyone dirt poor and primitive

Post labor society

Is the end goal of communism

huh

didn't know that

not primitivism then ig

Socialism is the belief that men are inherently good and equal. That it is the social stratification that causes the evils in society. So if men shared the means of production then inequality would be eliminated which would create a good society.

Social democracy tries to do the same, but by redistributing wealth through social programs.

Haven't I already told you repeatedly in extreme detail why this analysis of socialism is completely wrong?

Socialism is not "everyone is equal", this is far from a consensus in socialist theory. Socialism is collective ownership of the MOP. Even the phrase 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their need' strongly implies not everyone is equal.

You're confusing historical materialism that leads to the perceived injustices of capitalism with the theory of socialism itself.

@εïз irma εïз you haven't told me that

We had a very lengthy discussion where I explained why welfare capitalism is not socialism.

It's in the name. Welfare capitalism.

Yes, but you never said that

We never brought up the topic of equality

That's because I'm refuting your egalitarian reductionism of socialism, not that welfare capitalism is socialism.

I've already proven you wrong on one point. Now I'm proving you wrong on another.

Why would I repeat myself again?

@εïз irma εïз well perhaps I am confusing historic materialism with socialism, but that's no fault of my own as that is the philosophical roots of socialism

So you're confusing the problem with the solution.

Seems like a pretty big faux pas, and very much your fault.

"Redistribution of stuff" is not the end goal or Marxian socialism.

The inequitable distribution of stuff is a result of capitalism.

They're distinct ideas.

So whats the end goal, in your opinion

I'm not a Marxist, but Marx wanted a society where everyone is free to pursue their own interests.

And they maximize their productivity by doing what they enjoy.

Excess production is distributed to those who don't have.

That's why there is no need for a state or capital in communism.

Such nonsense theories

If rightoids really wanted to attack communism they should first actually understand it. Once you understand it instead of regurgitating boomer propaganda it's a million times easier to tear apart.

Socialism is not the solution to materialism, it was materialist in conception.

No one enjoys true labor

Historical materialism is a distinct concept from materialism.

Historical materialism is that material conditions result in stratification and exploitation.

Literally has nothing to do with materialism vs. spiritualism.

Leisure and providing for family is the only motivation for the sort of productive capacity marx describes