u/IndieJones0804

I ask because I'm trying to write various types of societal systems and want to see how they may mesh or not.

Of course, for an economy to be considered fully socialist it will need to have abolished the commodity form. I'm not aware of how that would be done other than by nationalizing industries (if there's a different way that doesn't involve state ownership I would like to hear about it). But in order for state ownership of industry to be considered socialist, the government and it's sectors would need to be highly democratic, something that can't exist under theocracy.

So my idea would be that instead of being fully socialist, this hypothetical country would be market socialist. The government would be theocratic or generally authoritarian, but they wouldn't control any industries, and the economy would be made up entirely of worker cooperatives so that workers own the means of production.

The theocratic government would still have major influence over society in terms of culture and social interaction, but workers would have adapted already to owning the means of production, so it may be difficult for the government to take control themselves and create a state capitalist theocracy.

This is assuming that parents aren't really doing anything to help, and we simply have to rely on what can be done in school.

The main thing I can think of would be to introduce a new system in school, where we either have a single long time slot or multiple short time slots, where as much stimulation detox would need to happen as possible.

Kind of like recess, except everyone is required to remain quiet and do things like meditation and just general non-simulating activities.

It wouldn't fix the problem of gen alpha and likely gen beta having a awful attention span, but maybe we could prevent the problem from getting worse than it would be.

By putting the flair as "To Marxists" I assume most of the people referred to there consider themselves MLs.

TLDR The soc-dems are taking over the party and eventually could get money out of politics like they advocate for, and so if the bourgeois can no longer use their money to influence politicians, then what incentive is there for the now soc-dem controlled democratic party to represent the small fraction of the population that is bourgeois? I don't think there is one, so why wouldn't they now be a non-bourgeois party / a party that represents most of the American proletariat?

I don't really understand why people think it's impossible for the democratic party to be transformed into a non-bourgeois party, we're currently working on and seeing the party be taken over by people who are at the very least social democrats. And one of the main things the social democrats in the party are working to do is get money out of politics, and they personally don't take any corporate PAC money, and so eventually if/when the social democrats overthrow the party establishment and take over the machinery, I imagine one of the big things they will do is mandate that the democratic party will no longer receive any more funding, donations, corporate PAC money, or any money from the bourgeois, and mandate that all their candidates do the same.

And eventually, when that dem party takes over the federal government, they could probably get money out of politics entirely, making it so candidates for office would get mostly equal amounts of funding for running a campaign either from the government or from some kind of system where everyone gets an equal amount of money to specifically donate to candidates for.

And so when eventually the new democratic party gets money out of their own party and out of politics, wouldn't that mean that we could end up at the point where the social democratic leadership of the party decide to willingly represent the interests of the working class since they no longer have an incentive or want to represent the bourgeois? The republicans will still probably be the party to represent the bourgeois since the bourgeois are still a voting block even if they're a small one, but at the very least the democrats won't have to pander to the bourgeois anymore.

and while they wouldn't yet be a socialist party, they wouldn't be a bourgeois party, since social democrats are still anti-bourgeois. And naturally over time we would likely see more any more pro-working class / socialist policies being adopted, until eventually the party pretty much officially becomes socialist.

I don't think I've heard what this term is for feudalism, but I know that Capitalism is widely known as being "Private ownership of the means of production"

For socialism and communism though Ive heard a few different definitions.

For socialism I've heard it be defined as Worker ownership OTMOP, or as Social ownership OTMOP.

And for Communism I've heard the definition as being Communal ownership OTMOP, Common ownership OTMOP, and I think I've heard of the term Societal ownership OTMOP.

Now to me, the terms that make the most sense would be Worker ownership for socialism and Communal or Common ownership for communism, because since socialism is supposed to be a steppingstone to communism, having only those who work, democratically owning the means of production makes sense as a steppingstone to eventually having everyone in society collectively owning the means of production.

What doesn't make sense to me is socialism being called "social ownership", because in my mind "social" just sounds like another word for communal or common, in terms of our relationship to the means of production, and so i honestly don't see how you would be able to differentiate socialism and communism at all.

I know Marx called them upper and lower stage communism since they are pretty similar systems in terms of the fact that unlike capitalism where only like 1%ish of the population owns TMOP, in socialism and communism most or all people would own the means of production. But they are still two different systems, so having a definition that sounds like the same thing as the other system seems redundant, and at that point why do we have two separate names at all?

You might as well just have it be Feudalism-Capitalism-Communism, and just mention that between Capitalism and Communism you'll have a tiny transition period.

I know historically Spain and other European countries like France have had major syndicalist movements as opposed to the socialist and communist movements elsewhere.

But even after WW2 when syndicalism decreased in popularity, Spain seems to have a still surviving syndicalist movement, and the CNT seems to be one of the biggest syndicalist organizations in the world. And so, it makes me think that Spain is still probably the most likely candidate for implementing syndicalism as opposed to the traditionally advocated socialism and communism elsewhere in the world.

We have terms like Eco-Socialism, Libertarian Socialism, Democratic Socialism, Left Communism, Anarcho-Communism, Eco-Anarchism, Anarcho-Feminism, Anarcho-Pacifism, etc.

But I don't see why we would need many of these terms. I feel like its pretty much a given that Socialists, Comunists, Anarchists, and leftists generally would be in favor of feminism and women's right, we're all for protecting the environment, we're all for democracy at least for societies where the state still exists, adding the word libertarian seems pointless since moving society leftward objectively means we're moving towards a more libertarian/liberated society, and adding "Left" before Communism is absolutely pointless because communism is universally know as a left wing ideology. Are we implying that there are Right-Communists? because the only ones i can think of would be tankies, and they aren't communists.

My understanding is that Minarchism is essentially just Anarcho-capitalism, except the state still exists, but its only function is to use the police and military to protect property right.

However, now that I was thinking about it, couldn't you basically do minarchism, except instead of only protecting property rights, it only exists to make sure workers are democratically running the businesses, and to make sure there aren't any owners / new bourgeois members popping up?

I ask because I'm trying to come up with a list of theoretical post-capitalist societies, and by post-capitalist I mean classless, as in the bourgeois are abolished, not necessarily that commodities and markets are abolished.

I was just doing some political research and I came across this interesting candidate for Washington state's 10th congressional district Tenth Vote | 2026. And what he's running on is that he wants to create a system for which the registered voters in his district would directly decide which way he votes for every bill in congress.

How the system works is basically every single one of his registered voters would receive an account for the "tenth vote" website, and every year they would 500 "shares" of the congressional vote, those 500 shares equal to the average number of congressional votes that happen per year.

And what you can do there is you can use each share for each congressional vote the happens, or you can use all 500 shares to vote on a single vote that is important to you, or you can do something in between, where you could appoint 10 shares to this vote, 5 shares to that vote, and maybe 100 shares to an important vote. Or if you don't care about politics, you could simply decide not to use it.

What the site would look like.

What this does is create a new system of republican democracy that is mixed with direct democracy that I think is really interesting. And I think it makes for an interesting theoretical movement.

Like potentially in an alternate or fictional world, you could see a movement or political party / block that's made up of candidates who promise to use this system for their congressional votes regardless of their own personal feelings or beliefs. This could make a populist movement that eventually takes a majority of or at least a big chunk of congress.

Eventually though, if it's decided that this system should actually become the new system for how congress functions, and it becomes mandated by law, I think that eventually over time people would realize that voting in senators and representatives has become pointless, since there's no longer a need to have them vote on your behalf since almost everyone in the country now votes for congressional bills.

What I think this would lead to would be the abolition or restructuring of the legislative branch, where now all the bills that would go to the executive branch to be signed into law would be voted on directly by most or all of the country. And so now instead of having mid-term elections, elections would only really happen to elect the president and state governors.

I don't quite know yet how you would determine what bills would be proposed and voted on, but I'm sure you could design a way to do that so we aren't constantly voting on AOC laws proposed by 0.1% of the population or something.

I believe i heard on kurzgesagt though i don't remember the details, but from what i remember they said that if humanity is able to fix or get rid of the genes that cause aging, the healthiest among us could potentially live to be 1000.

This makes me wonder about all the various logistical and societal consequences of having a lot more people living a lot longer. However right now im curious what this would make the average lifespan be, because living to be 1000 is something I could only imagine being something the truly dedicated would work to do.

My guess would somewhere between 200 and 500, though i don't even know if the kurzgesagt estimate is accurate so maybe its still much smaller, like maybe 180?

I don't really know if such a thing would be possible. I think we can probably cure/prevent humanity from being susceptible to and hurt by almost every existing disease in the future, either through mass vaccination like with smallpox, or through the widespread genetic engineering of fetuses against viruses.

However, I'm not sure about future, not yet existing diseases. the idea would be that we could genetically engineer people's immune systems to be much "smarter" at figuring out what things are harmful to the body and what isn't, though I'm not sure if it would be possible to make it be able to detect every theoretical disease. and I'm very much not knowledgeable in medicine.

My first idea would be countries or societies that have a libertarian leaning culture. Places where the population tends to be pro-gun and more in favor of market economics. Places such as in the US, specifically Alaska, The Great Plains, and Rocky Mountains regions, And maybe Australia and Switzerland?

One of the biggest things holding capitalism together is capitalist realism, which is basically the idea that people have a really hard time trying to imagine what the world would look like if it wasn't capitalist.

So im wondering if you know of any stories that try to depict what various post capitalist systems may look like. Examples being Socialism, Market Socialism, Guild Socialism, Communism, Syndicalism, Mutualism, Gift Economies, Library Economies, etc.

Those are the post capitalist systems im aware of, and im wanting to try to depict them in my own writing, so if anyone could tell me about any media / stories that depicts real post capitalist systems i would appreciate, also if you know about other post capitalist systems im not aware of please tell me those as well.

And to clarify, im not talking about Soviet type aesthetics, those only use socialist aesthetics but don't accurately show what Socialism would actually look like.

This is something I've never quite understood. My understanding is that Socialism is largely considered to be made up of two parts. Worker ownership of the means of production, and abolition of the commodity form. And specifically, if you do the first and not the second, that would be considered Market Socialism.

Now to me, I feel like market socialism, or the first half of socialism i mentioned, is the most important part, and incredibly transformative in and of itself. My view of what a market socialist state would look like is basically we would have most of the same government structures we had before, except it is the law that each and every business must reach a certain minimum amount of internal democracy, meaning the workers would have to come together every once in a while to vote on things like electing a manager, electing a CEO (though the position of CEO would quickly be abolished after a while since now everyone should see it's a completely unnecessary position), and voting on how much everyone gets paid.

Now, because the workers at every business are mandated to collectively and democratically own the businesses, that means that there literally couldn't be a bourgeoise anymore, since no single person could own the means of production unless they work alone, and so we've officially reached a classless society.

And to me, this is the most important and fundamental part of socialism, without a bourgeoise to exist, the government can no longer be influenced by a group of people who are astronomically wealthy to pass laws that favor them. meaning the government will now truly be democratic and controlled by the people broadly.

And so with that, I don't really understand why abolition of the commodity form is considered essential for socialism. Sure, it would be a nice thing to have in some cases, like in the case of necessities like healthcare, transportation, bare minimum housing, basic groceries, etc. But i don't see why it would be necessary to do those things for it to be considered socialism, especially if it's full abolition of the commodity form, because I feel like there are some things in which the existing commodification is fine, things like luxury goods and generally things we don't need to survive.

Sure, in the future we could experiment with making a society where commodities don't exist. But I feel like the abolition of the bourgeois that is achieved under market socialism is so fundamentally transformative for society, that I feel like socialism should probably just be defined as that. The abolition of the bourgeois via the democratic control of the means of production by the workers at every company.

I don't know much about wicca in the way of details. All I know is that there are two gods, 5 elements, a focus on the year and cycles, witchs will usually have a personal alter that I don't quite know how it works, and they also have a "book of shadows" which as i understand is a personal notebook where you experiment and write down how to do different spells, and then of course there's spells, which aren't like turning stuff into frogs or whatever, but rather spells to try and bring about good outcomes in life.

Is most of what ive said here correct? And do you have anything to add for writing wicca and wiccans?

I know that Romani is divided into different dialects and I'm not sure how similar they are to each other. Plus google translate isn't the most reliable translator.

I was trying to find the translation for "New" and it gave me "Nevo", which to me sounds like a stereotype of a non-English way of saying new, but I don't know.

My understanding is that slavery in the United States was starting to phase out anyway during the founding period, but thanks to the invention of the cotton gin, slavery was able to continue be a worthwhile industry for another century. And of course, you get the civil war and subsequent abolition of slavery.

But after the civil war and after reconstruction, as I understand, the former slaves of the south actually mostly continued living under similar working conditions, except this time they could actually get paid and had freedom of movement. This was the case because having just been slaves, they didn't really have much power to be able to change their own economic situation, so they basically just continued living and working the same jobs they had before.

But eventually, over a period of decades, black people were able to very slowly improve their own situations and the semi-slavery conditions largely phased out.

This makes me wonder if the civil war and abolition of slavery had not happened, would slavery have still been phased out by the turn of the century like the founding fathers assumed would happen around their time?