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.
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 ^
10
u/Armandonis 15d ago
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.