Socialism as outlined in Karl Marx’s Communist Manifesto is a little sketchier because it makes a lot of unrealistic assumptions about human nature and is just generally super hard to implement without creating a power vacuum.

Marx's general proposals for the implementation of a socialist government:

Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
Abolition of all right of inheritance.
Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
Centralization of credit in the hands of the State, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
Equal liability of all to labor. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries: gradual abolition of the distinction between town and country, by a more equable distribution of the population over the country.
Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children's factory labor in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production, etc., etc.

Which of those do you think is hard to implement or makes unrealistic assumptions about human nature?

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

So right around step 1 you've got either

A) An Authoritarian state who controls all property with no method to implement such state.

B) An Anarchy where, since nobody owns anything, the influential will go wherever they want and take whatever they want.

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 0 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

A) An Authoritarian state who controls all property with no method to implement such state.

... what?

Abolition of private land ownership in favor of state land ownership is not inherently 'authoritarian', nor is it particularly impossible to implement.

B) An Anarchy where, since nobody owns anything, the influential will go wherever they want and take whatever they want.

You... you do realize that public lands does not mean "First come first serve", right?

Man, this is basic pre-modern society shit. Read up on medieval village commons. Shit, read up on public lands today.

[–] finitebanjo@lemmy.world 1 points 10 hours ago* (last edited 10 hours ago) (1 children)

Let me put it this way: in many places around the world the people are allowed to challenge the state's claim to properties in courts with varying success. Your step one would take that away, so it is leaning in the direction of authoritarian.

But I'm pretty sure Marx was more interested in Option B, I don't think he was interested in using politics to build a strong democracy but rather wanted to topple any current system and hope a firect democracy pops up over night.

"It would perhaps be as well if things were to remain quiet for a few years yet, so that all this 1848 democracy has time to rot away."

"...it happens that society is saved as often as the circle of its ruling class is narrowed, as often as a more exclusive interest asserts itself over the general. Every demand for the most simple bourgeois financial reform, for the most ordinary liberalism, for the most commonplace republicanism, for the flattest democracy is forthwith punished as an assault upon society and is branded as Socialism."

"...the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy."

These are three separate Karl Marx quotes and they're extremely vague, but he has been somewhat consistent that any form of government that is not direct democracy must be "overthrown" or "fought" or "toppled".

[–] PugJesus@piefed.social 2 points 10 hours ago

Let me put it this way: in many places around the world the people are allowed to challenge the state’s claim to properties in courts with varying success. Your step one would take that away, so it is leaning in the direction of authoritarian.

Bruh, in state societies without widespread private land ownership there remains a distinction between state and public lands, and the state can be challenged with regards to ownership or usage rights in courts.

But I’m pretty sure Marx was more interested in Option B, I don’t think he was interested in using politics to build a strong democracy but rather wanted to topple any current system and hope a firect democracy pops up over night.

Reformism was not his first choice, but he mused at several points that bourgeois democracies with strong workers' movements, like the USA and the UK at his time (big RIP to our labor movements), could potentially reform without mass revolution.

“It would perhaps be as well if things were to remain quiet for a few years yet, so that all this 1848 democracy has time to rot away.”

I'm unfamiliar with that quote or its provenance, but considering that the entire point of the disappointments of 1848 was that the revolutions, both liberal and socialist factions failed, and the 'concessions' offered in response by the established authoritarian regimes were nothing more than window dressing (with executions for flavor), thinking that the sheen of that farce needed to fade before further action could be taken is not unreasonable.

“…it happens that society is saved as often as the circle of its ruling class is narrowed, as often as a more exclusive interest asserts itself over the general. Every demand for the most simple bourgeois financial reform, for the most ordinary liberalism, for the most commonplace republicanism, for the flattest democracy is forthwith punished as an assault upon society and is branded as Socialism.”

How is that in any way in opposition to democracy or even reform?

“…the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle for democracy.”

I repeat the second statement.

These are three separate Karl Marx posts and they’re extremely vague, but he has been somewhat consistent that any form of government that is not direct democracy must be “overthrown” or “fought” or “toppled”.

In the long term, sure. If your goal is direct democracy without a state ("Communism"), then the goal is to eventually get there. But Marx was always very clear that intermediate steps were not fucking nothing, and in many cases were necessary.

You may need to jump over the gap on a broken bridge, but better a broken bridge to jump over than the whole goddamn river.