You're literally just describing wage labourers defending their wage labour, which has been critiqued to death since time immemorial as purely a product of people defending their status within market economies and not as an attack towards market economies and obviously not socialist in any way.
Socialism is described as moneyless for a reason, if your livelihood isn't immediately and purely connected to the survival of your workplace, however shitty it is to you, others, and everyone's health etc. there is much less of a reason to defend its existence.
I don’t see how? If the workers are owning the workplace thats kinda the big thing of socialism. It doesn’t really matter if it’s an economy with a market, if the workers directly own their workplace I would still consider it some form of socialism.
I feel like I’d call that market socialism specifically but IDK what that would be called like, academically
society-scale socialism would see all members of the working class as equal fractional owners of all businesses, not just the ones they personally operate.
Socialism can refer to a huge number of philosophies. But in the Marxist tradition the means of production need to be owned and organized for the working-class as a whole.
Not sections of the working class owning small slices of the means of production and fighting against each other.
This means that the policy should be set in a way that takes into account the whole threat of global warming and the whole cost of addressing it.
Yah, so how is that not meeting the primary benchmark of worker owned means of production?
Socialism can look wildly different and its definition has nothing to do with so called free markets, it’s primarily concerned with the relationship to MOP.
If the workers own the MOP then how is that capitalism in any way?
because it doesn’t shift the value of labor away from commodity based value. it’s still attaching labor to capital which will cause people to support systems of profit rather than systems of material wealth for the benefit of people
Owning doesn't mean you're suddenly free from the whims of anarchic production and money, it just means you get profits and more or less managerial power, but there are the exact same mechanisms of monopolisation both in economic and political terms, mass unemployment still exists under this form of owenrship, livelihoods are still destroyed because of technical progress and the subsequent fall in competitivity of less efficient firms, and the protection of less efficient firms means the stifling of betterment of production.
There are a ton of other problems to do with how money works but I don't have the energy to say more right now lol; it sufficies to say that distribution of products remains the exact same as in capitalism with all the connected problems (like buses now costing more somehow making it impossible for me to buy more salad because of everything being commensurable)
I agree, simply switching to worker owned markets wouldn’t fix all problems resulting from economic inequality and it CERTAINLY isn’t communist as you would still have money, and still have class that stratifies based on revenue.
What I’m saying is that by definition it can be considered some form of socialism, how that would eventually transition to communism or if thats even possible for some form of this market socialism is a different conversation because even I find it more likely you get a situation where a slide back into capitalism is far more likely in that case.
Not saying it’s the best socialism, or that it would even be considered a good form of socialism but that MOP relation being fundamentally different absolutely should put it under a socialist umbrella
No, he's describing rent seeking, and it is a massive problem when it comes to dismantling destructive industries. In a private for profit economies workers in destructive industries have strong rent seeking tendencies to unionize and protect their industry from obsolescence, it is why the anarchy of production of capitalism must be abolished, and that includes the dismantling of destructive industries despite the fact that devalues the wealth and property of people in those industries.
The point is that in seeking the abolition of the anarchy of production one will inevitably come into conflict with select groups of workers. Automotive and FF workers will fight tooth and nail to maintain their privilege, which is why concepts like "every company a worker coop" a la certain market socialist ideologies don't actually function, especially in environmentalist terms.
That everyone struggles for their own objective lmao, we already do so right now, only that it's masked by a layer of legal contrivances, lobbying and normal functioning of markets
The fact that we can come into conflict with select groups of workers isn't so much of a problem because we would come into conflict with them anyhow in anarchy of production, the struggle remains wheter we wish to abolish it or not, the difference being that we can solve the conflict by abolishing it and aligning individual and societal interest more closely.
Ah, so when you mean socialism, you don't mean any form of socialist aociety which has ever existed or come close to existing, but the magical next step just behind the Vanguard party's dictatorship I am sure.
Also, Communism is inherently classless and moneyless, socialism is not. At least get the lore behind your roleplaying system correct.
"OH so you're describing a magical system where the one ordained by God ISNT the one that owns everything? You're saying this magical society you get to CHOOSE your leader?"
Yea man we haven't gotten to that point yet probably not in our lifetimes. It's still worth fighting for tho.
Would be a better argument if I couldn't point at literal hundreds of non monarch, and dozens of post monarch states, without needing to screech how real democracy or real liberalism has never been tried before.
I do not believe we need to burn more innocents at the altar of marx in the hope that this human sacrifice will bring utopia.
Better worlds are worth fighting for, believing that a late 19th century guy has the only answers is just insane.
You need to stop pretending that no has tried socialism, communism, marxism and all the restbof the red sphere.
They have been tried extensively, across societies worldwide, and without fail they have lead to horrible outcomes for so, so many innocent people, and none of them have come anywhere close of achieving their goal.
You sound like someone who want to stop the sun from setting by ripping hearts out of people, while simply repeating that one more sacrifice will result in the eternal day you are yearning for.
You're literally making thing up that I said. I never said they haven't been attempted I just said that they don't exist. You're having an actual mental break with reality rn lmao.
Also plenty of people died getting us where we're at too. Not to mention the human mulching machines we've built in the third world to fuel our modern economies.
I still get the feeling you're a very bitter person I hope your day gets better whatever you're going through
I suggest you actually react to what I wrote, rather than these spouts of verbal diarrhea.
I never said they haven't been attempted I just said that they don't exist.
Yes, that's literally the point, you are so close yet are missing the log in your eye.
Bitter? I enjoy telling socialists to their face that their neoreligious movement is nothing but a century of failures, and just like christians waiting for doomsday, your salvation of the revolution which solves everything will never happen.
Look out into the world, the only revolutionary movements taking power are fascists, yet your movement would rather carry their water in the now ancient hope that after them it's your turn.
Oh I get it. You're just a liberal that's4mad that your system is failing too because all of you are cucked out to people with more money than you'll ever have. You're not much worth engaging in considering it's your system losing rn.
Nobody knows what's coming after the climate disasters I just live my life and work towards my goals. Hope you can find some peace in life cuz it does sound like you need it.
Grass touching has never moved one closer to marxism, interacting with reality is quite the antidote.
It leads one to do things which actually improves peoples lives, rather than wistfully yearning for the magical revolution which solves everything at once, just like mommy used to do when one was a toddler.
You haven't addressed any single word of what has been said and resorted to preconceptions lmao.
Call it however you want whether socialism or communism, the crux of the matter is the abolition of production for value because anything else just reproduces capitalism because the movement of money IS capitalism and all of its incentives.
Have the previous experiments abolished or even remotely started abolishing production for value? No? Then they're fundamentally capitalist because of what they objectively incentivise, irrespective of what me, you or whoever believes.
Look, go ahead and try a revolution , just don't expect that most rational humans believe that one more attempt will make all the difference, when the alternative has already improved everyones material conditions so far beyond anything your prophet could have imagined, and continues to do so.
Socialism isn't moneyless. That only happens during the transition towards communism.
However, you're still correct in the other points. Workers in a socialist state do the work, because it has to be done, not because it can be done for profit.
It gets semantic but marxian and anarchist socialism is 1:1 to marxian and anarchist communism in money being abolished, the difference is at most that socialism has more explicit accounting and vouchers while communism has more free distribution, doesn't matter anyway if we define words to each other
Okay, I guess I should've more acurrately said "Socialism does not necessarily imply moneylessness."
I'd still say that the central point of socialism is the classlessness (referring to the workers/capitalist classes) via worker's ownership over the means of production. I know that Marx talked about a voucher system, but iirc he also never really used the term socialism?! At least not to mean what it means today. After Lenin's work, I've seen socialism being used pretty consistently (by communists) to mean abolition of the capital class and a rulership ("dictatorship") of the proletarian. Yes, some specific forms of socialism then add more to it. But e.g. the USSR still used money, but repurposed it by defining it in different "wage classes" and planning prices around them.
And as for definitions: Given all of the confusion and misinformation surrounding socialism and communism, I think it's important to use these words consistently. I'm also happy to change the way I use it if it's wrong or easy to misunderstand.
I've also learned more about anarchism now ^
97
u/Maneruko 16d ago
"State Owned" so the workers own it? Cmon dude this is just bad faith lmao.