The question of socialism is one that has typically been reduced to Marxist theory. Yet socialism is certainly not reducible to Marxism and so socialism deserves careful and responsible deconstruction indeed.
We need commence by asking what socialism is and furthermore what the question of socialism ought be? First, why does anyone need socialism? Those rightly concerned with how socialism was historically hijacked and abused for anti-democratic purposes of Frankist totalitarianism need consider why anyone would consider themselves in need of socialism anyway?
The question of socialism is thus essentially epistemological as in Jewish Critical Theory rather then hermeneutic (pseudo-religious) as in Frankist Communism.
The two major meta-ideologies of industrialization were socialism and patriotism. Both emerged from aristocratic ideals of selfless service to others in European nobility and both eventually transformed into populist mass movements as to varying degrees hijacked by Frankist intelligence sects. The fact that nationalism and Communism have become discredited is well deserved yet this should not preclude us from recovering the noble origins of patriotism and socialism.
While patriotism and socialism may superficially seem at odds are both in fact essential to liberal democracy in that both offer solidarity within a community as bound by external borders. What is after all the welfare state other than patriotic solidarity considering how borders delimit the communal solidarity?
As systems of rural social security (whether based upon religion, kinship or feudal relationships) were destroyed by brutal urbanization under the economic terror of industrialization did socialism and patriotism emerge as human zoological herd behavior in search of reconstitution of community.
Industrialization destroyed kinship and social media subsequently destroyed friendship IRL to the point where a study found that Americans on average have 1,5 friends IRL and so did friendship largely come under the ownership of Facebook Inc.
Liberal democracy represents a successful reconstitution of lost community and so socialism, patriotism and liberalism are the three main elements constituting liberal democracy. These three elements of liberal democracy rather effectively counterbalance each other.
Identity politics generally has rightly been discredited, yet identity politics represents precisely the industrial zoological search for return to primordial community.
The answer to the question of socialism is that the various searches for lost community are essentially patriarchal pursuits of males subconsciously looking to socio-biologically inseminate a maximum number of females. The patriarchal question of return to the womb thus needs be recast in terms of return to communal gynocentrism.
Recasting socialism from primitive phallocentrism to socially sophisticated gynocentrism is thus the essential question and so needs classism become supplanted by training humans generally in gynocentric court etiquette as continually updated and developed by insights of intersectional gender science.
In economic terms did the very material need for socialism emerge due to the state permitting economic structural oppression in the perceived interest of industrialization. Had however international law been adapted to the challenges of industrialization would there certainly not had been any need whatsoever to condone the systemic economic abuses of economic structural oppression as rightly criticized by socialists. What the socialists did not realize was however that international law should have simply been amended for the purpose of outlawing abuse others for economic gain.
What then is that sought after community? It is a community of patriarchal hegemony of male sexual, economic, social and psychological exploitation of females and surely is seeking such parasitism a most unworthy pursuit indeed?
The challenge for anyone concerned with the question of community as humans after all are herd animals who tend to be uncomfortable in the absence of community is therefore the very gynocentric reconstitution of community as actually subconsciously desired by males wishing for, yet certainly lacking the social competence and psychological skills for inseminating large numbers of females.
The question of socialism is thus essentially a feminist one and so need we consider how community may be reconstituted in terms of gynocentric social standards that will satisfy the gynocentric desires of persons of all genders.
What is “supply and demand” really? “Supply” essentially constitutes sublimation of female intimate desire for males while “demand” essentially constitutes sublimation of male desire for females. Why the imbalance then? It is well-established in economic science that ethical economic behavior strongly correlates with low risk and high chance of success while unethical behavior strongly correlates with high risk and low chance of success.
In international affairs is there a so called realist school of international relations and an opposing idealist school of international relations. Both are typically usurped by Frankist intelligence sects whereby naive idealism is used to promote cynical realism. Democratic realism offers a better balance between realism and idealism in that both are subjected to and delimited by noble virtues of liberal democracy.
The challenge of feminism is thus to conceptualize gynocentric communitarianism as a far better balance between socialism, patriotism and liberalism than as offered by production of discourse of ethnocratic bureaucracy in structurally nationalist statehood.
The key to transforming economic relations lies in outlawing social pathology in male gender and also limit the proportion of male births to initally 5% of all human births and much later reduce the proportion of male births much further than that. Males who compete for females excel in vice while females who compete for males excel in virtue. Limiting the proportion of females will reverse the economics of demand and supply whereby demand will need to keep apace with supply rather than the other way around.
How then would a gynocentric economic system look like? First, would it be an economy of competition in virtue (Talentism) rather than an economic system in competition in economic abuse (Capitalism)? Second, would it be an economy of gynocentric honor whereby economic vice could effectively destroy the offender’s brand?
We are in fact already there as Capitalism is rapidly becoming supplanted by Talentism. What is needed is optimal transparency whereby all economic transactions worldwide become fully public and transparent indeed. This means that all current physical (and distinctly unhygienic) currencies need become supplanted by one single global electronic currency. Making all economic transactions exclusively electronic, fully public and fully transparent as fully documented in real time online will serve not only to end all types of crimes of economic nature but to end parallel semi-legal practices of corporate misbehavior.
We need further consider how to build gynocentric communities where males are raised to be become Prince Charming in realization of gynocentric prophetic intimate imagination in accordance with feminist court etiquette. Multiple answers towards a diversity of gynocentric frameworks of feminist communities of desire are needed that will appropriately and diverse realize the human gynocentric desire for social, physical and psychological intimacy in zoological community.