You are entitled to the fruit of your own labor!

I'm not sure a barter economy would work so well, even under fully automated luxury communism.

is that supposed to help your argument?

it wasn't really barter either. mostly the village elder distributed shit, or there were just ritualistic rules about it

Nobody except red fascists supports that OP. The way most societies would do it is direct democracy is used to decide how the value is distributed.

R E A D G R A E B E R

Incas was central planning on steroids and they were the greatest culture on the Americas pre-yuros. Pre incan cultures used sea shells as a mode of exchange so the incas purposely decided that moneyless centrally planned state was better than markets.

No, you're entitled to whatever can be made at large enough scale for anyone to have it if they want.
You are part of the community.
No. Either anarchism or consensus building.
You wouldn't have to labor all that much. Machines are capable of doing most work. You pitch in a couple hours a week to dothe few things that can't (or ideally, working to allow machines to take more labor of the back of the collective).

A moneyless society makes automation our friend, rather than a threat companies use to prevent minimum wage increases.

Moneyless distribution systems were by far the most common, and barter economies as you imagine them have literally never existed in the entire history of the world. Read Debt: The First 5000 years. It debunks the myth of barter pretty solidly. It's also well written and engaging, written with 21st century normies in mind, unlike most of the dry, 120 year old academic theory posted here.

That is literally what OP is talking about. Collectivism is not individualism.

Glorious Inca socialism

Hmmmmmmmmm

This is why communism hoodwinked everyone on the radical left in the 19th Century, and convinced them it was the only model for socialism, while destroying the very premises of socialism.

Before then socialism just meant the worker getting his surplus, which is solved simply by abolishing private property and replacing it with occupancy and use, and collective management in factories and business.

This whole common ownership of the means of production by society as a whole, is just a way of hoodwinking people away from actual socialism, and making a spooky concept into one big capitalist that takes away your surplus because the "general will" did so.

It's pure Rousseau liberal bullcrap masquerading as socialism. Communism was a mistake.

said so.

Even better is being able to decide with the workers involved in the actual production you are engaging in, and some random faggots elsewhere not having a say just because they are part of "society".

Actual socialism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "communism" >>>>>>>>> crapitalism.

Collective management by workers >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> society deciding everything >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> porkies deciding everything.

lol

This is why market socialism AKA JUST PLAIN SOCIALISM BEFORE YOU FAGGOTS CAME ALONG is the real deal, and con you nism is a big pile of doggy poo poo.

Proudhon had it right to begin with.

HMMMMMMMMMMM!!

hmmmmhurrdurfhmmmm

The best locality of all is of the ones actually involved in producing the things in question. I shouldn't get a say about things I'm not involved in, otherwise I'm just part of some distributed porky.

Arguments are not required for ridicule.

The short summary (not to replace reading the fucking book, this is just a summary of chapter 2) is that at a local level, most communities were either communist, where goods were given freely to those in need without any tallying of debts expectation of reciprocity or a "gift economy", where goods were given freely with an expectation of reciprocity and mental tabulation of debts.
Barter was only ever used when dealing with strangers and enemies: either people who you expected you would never see again, or people who you expected might kill you. In the gift economies, it was considered extremely to repay a gift with another gift of the same value. The concept of equivalent exchange was taboo, as gift societies were built on a concept of mutual indebtedness. To return a gift of equal value was to say "I don't want to see you again, our debts are cleared, you are a stranger/enemy to me".

Interesting, vol sperging out here.

well first off, not everyone needs to work. This should be a good thing, but in both a capitalist system and your system it's a huge problem.
The means of production should be owned by cooperatives entrusted to make their product common enough for anyone to stop by and grab one if they so choose.
And the moment you go to pick that thing up, it is your personal property.

However, the means of production can be personal property if they can be mass produced as well. I.e. table saws belong to the carpenter's co-op until they can be effectively mass produced. The moment we can make table saws for everyone who wants one to personally own, the co-op surrenders their monopoly over table saws.

Consider shitposting less

No? So the whole moral argument behind LTV falls apart?
1 porky stealing my labor vs whoever the fuck decides they are in my "community" stealing my labor… hmmm
"consensus building" aka mob rule. I am so glad for the tyrrany of the majority, thank you so much slurp slurp slurp
Trying to bribe me out of objecting to people stealing from me?

Oinker, plz leave

They say it isn't stealing because everything you create belongs to humanity since humanity created you. But everyone in this society agrees to the terms since all they're really doing is modifying the social contract.

sweet jesus i had no idea True Communism was this batty
how did we wind up here from a room full of german anarchists

Idiot. And yes, the LTV is supposed to fall apart in communism. It eliminates the difference between value and exchange value. What a worker gets is precisely the value of what he puts in.

There is no need for any agreement. You get out what you put in.

What? The idea behind the LTV was that private property is tantamount to theft because others are benefitting directly from your labor at your expense.

In a moneyless society, everyone in my community benefits from my labor, and I get nil from the product of my labor. Dress it up in fancy propaganda all you like, what I receive is wholly divorced from my labor.
Full on doublespeak.

There it is again.

No, you do not "get out what you put in", that would be market socialism. Here you "get out" precisely what your community (I am part of planet Earth, however, most of you would agree that if I called myself Planet Earth and tried really hard to move plate tectonics I'd be crazy) deigns to give you. There is a reason so many of you are handwaving this problem away with post scarcity.

You don't keep the product of your labor in a market, you superficially so but your giving up what you produce to a social body (the market) and getting what you consider to be a fair compensation.
You can give up your labor to a different social body (the community) and recieve compensation you consider fair. And, potentially, if there are gauranteed basics of living (land, food, healthcare etc) you have a genuine choice if whether you want to withdraw your labor from society and do your own thing it move somewhere else.
This is assuming the socialist society was democratic, self-critical, and able to develop and solve problems. Your post assumes that it would not function well, in which case yes it wouldn't be able to provide good compensation or the choice to withdraw your labor or leave.

Yeh, pretty much.
how hard you work has very little bearing on your value. Value comes, first and foremost, from scarcity. If you work all day doing some menial task, your labor isn't any more valuable that that of literally fucking anyone else who can do that menial task as well as you or better.

whatever you do on your own time is all yours. Fuck, i see no reason why (if there's an unused machine at your local co-op) you can't just hop on and make something for yourself for shits and giggles. This is assuming the raw materials aren't particularly scarce as well.
and if there's enough of a product for anyone to have it if they want, that includes you. You get exactly what you want.

wrong. consensus building is, in fact, the opposite of mob rule. representatives nominated by all affected groups in a situation are brought together to state their own goals and must all agree to the prospect of seeking a consensus (i.e. everyone agrees on the measure, not 51% or some stupid bullshit). They are given free reign to change the law they are discussing and when they have something everyone agrees on, it's brought forward to the people to see if there's anything that a significant portion of the community has objection to. from there it either passes or the objecting parties nominate new representatives to sit at the next meeting.
whatever you want to have is yours as long as you're not being a greedy fuck about it. the remainder goes to anyone else who wants their shit (also remember that work can be a very fulfilling thing. a lot of people LIKE to build things. a lot of people LIKE to farm fields. a lot of people LIKE to perform. work can be a joy in itself when you're not forced to do it).

pic related can be bought in bulk for pennies a piece even with the artificial scarcity found in a capitalist system. these are single chip computers that you can hook up sensors and actuators to (and if 5V isn't enough to drive the motor or whatever you can use these to drive BJT's) and then program to do essentially whatever you want.

This chip in particular works in basic, which is easy for beginners to learn.

This is the same argument capitalists give to the poor - If you don't like it, why not just find another job that compensates you better?

(me)
also no.

...

Spooky.

LTV isn't a "moral argument" either.

Why not get some firing squads and boot up some forced labor? They're not taking anything from them dood, labor is valueless as you stated :^)
top handwaving, the maaaaaaaaaaagic of post scarcity!
Fair enough, but there is absofuckinglutely zero guarantee ANY local government would work this way. How about NO ruling bodies? Oh right then the moneyless society would fall apart from free rider/tragedy of the commons
Which is ofc subject to the decision-making ruling body of my community.
Oh fuck you. You and I both know it will work like this:
The ruling body decides how much I need to work before they start threatening me with cutting me off from community resources. This is of course dependent on how popular I am within the community and how many strings I can pull.
Might as well hang "arbeit macht frei" above my house. Work isn't drudgery, it can be fun! Now get back to work or you're out on your ass.

You do know that the tragedy of the commons was an argument AGAINST common ownership in a capitalist system, not a socialist/communist one, right?

Read this
socialistvoice.ca/?p=316

Educate yoself

Communal ownership of the commons functioned effectively for over a thousand years. It's only when productive property is placed under the exploitation of private ownership do we see actual destruction of "the commons."

Saving these.
Sauce? I need to fucking read this book.

Fine then, free rider problem. There is some work that is more necessary than it is attractive to potential workers. Whether that be one specific job or just labor in general, let your imagination run wild.

because that would be abhorrent?
labor isnt valueless. and people's freedom is very valuable.

food, water, shelter, etc. can easily be made non scarce. same with most of the shit you actually interact with. i would need a specific example of something you think can't be made for everyone who wants it to continue this angle of discussion further.

the point is to make the system that way.
well it starts with someone asking why you need 40 fucking chairs when they distributed more chairs than they produced last week, and if your answer is "i just want 40 fucking chairs for no reason in particular" then they might decide you're being a greedy fuck. As a general rule, resource distribution is controlled by the co-op involved until a shortage exists. at that point we get a consensus building measure between the co-op and the people they're supposed to be providing goods to.

only if there is a scarcity of a vital resource that no surrounding community has the surplus to fill. and at that point you really are a lazy fuck if you're unwilling to farm fields for the sake of survival.

Are you honestly saying, though, that you would be perfectly content sitting on your ass all day and mooching off everyone else? There is absolutely nothing in this world you want to be good at? There is no form of labor you have done in your entire life that you honestly enjoyed?

fucked up the greentext:

the same can be said about literally fucking any government system.
the point is to make the system that way.

Im aware, that why I said it's only a meaningful choice if you can retract your labor from producing for the social body (building 100 chairs to sell or for state warehouses) and not starve/ have meaningful choice of going somewhere else

Accumulation of capital and government fuckery (inflation).

It's just without value, right. Fuck, has porky been giving me charity this whole time?
Citation needed, if this were true and the cost of production were effectively nil, competition in the market would have already driven the cost of food down to nothing - there would be free food dispensers next to public water fountains.
Finally, someone who agrees with me. Good thing market socialism is compatible with anarchism!
Unrealistic.
I STILL do not want my "needs" dictated to me by the fickle public. I know right and fucking well how crowds can play favorites.
or if they don't like me or want to spite me
What I am saying is, I want to determine this for myself, not have some fucking "community" decide for me what is too little or too much.

True, just starve all niggers.

guy A spends 8 hours digging a ditch
guy B spends 20 minutes preventing a nuclear meltdown
guy A certainly did something of value, but not nearly as much as guy B.

well first off, there is very little competition in the food market. second off, we produce more food than the entire population can eat, a good chunk of it gets thrown away.

there are, we call them trash cans where im from.

the United States: a republic made up of a collection of 50 semi-sovereign republics. but there's no guarantee that any of those 50 would ever be republics, right?

if we can produce enough to have however fucking much you want, then whether it's a "need" is out of the question.

yet you're advocating for anarchism…

If the entire community comes to a consensus that you're an asshole, chances are there's a reason for it and you should probly GTFO before they start making you GTFO.

like i said, not everyone is even going to need to work. You very well could sit on your ass until you decide there's something you want to do with your life.

...

A)This is in a market where there is incentive to produce more. I sincerely doubt we will produce as much if the entire food economy is reduced to hobbyists.
B) A good chunk of that is logistics.

Funny you should mention the US, it once operated on a total consensus basis and they got rid of it as soon as they could (read: very slowly) because achieving consensus took forever and almost nothing got done.
More post scarcity handwaving.
No ruling body means no power over me
"Ruling bodies are inherently moral because of muh consensus magic." In reality a vast majority of local governments do not operate in this fashion.
Well until Star Trek replicators are made, I'll stick with market socialism, thank you.

there will always be incentive to produce food. and we can automate far more of the process than we do now. And there will be incentive to automate more of it if people weren't afraid of losing their jobs.
correct. transportation is an issue. but it can be made far more efficient.
also, watch this:
youtube.com/watch?v=tCwMt2sngnM
im actually considering working for these people. see that bin of ugly potatoes? those are given to their employees and most just end up rotting away because they don't eat all of them.

a slow government is a good government except in times of crisis.

post scarcity is a thing. we're actually almost there. The problem is artificial scarcity made by profit seekers.

and no power over the 5 people who want to ream your ass because "they don't like you."

If you have had enough of a negative impact for everyone to think "fuck that guy," i don't even know why you would choose to stick around.

i already responded to that. if The US can manage to make every state in it a republic, then i think you're full of shit.

actually, their carrot machine is much better
youtube.com/watch?v=fEemerXP_hk

I read a WP article about it, and they make it sound like it is mostly either farmers throwing surplus crops out that they over planted to hedge against future problems with harvesting, pickiness with how produce looks, or otherwise problems with logistics.

What grocery stores throw out is supposedly a pretty small proportion of the whole thing, and then it claimed that American families actually throw out shitloads of food. Something like up to 40% of the stuff they buy, they throw out.

So it sounds like if anything, a portion of the population actually has too much food, while the food producers also don't always see the right amount of demand for their product so they will throw out up to 10% of their crops outright because it was just a bet against future bad conditions. And then there is the ugly food.

For the former, being the surplus, I'd say that you can clearly criticize this as a market inefficiency, since "demand" can basically be "effective demand", which puts into question how many people would use that food if it was available without the money standing in the way. I personally know plenty of people who eat shitty, spartan meals, despite the article's claim that food is so cheap now people throw it out because of how plentiful it is.

As for the latter, I don't know what to make of ugly food. Don't know if people would want it in a different economic system either. Especially if they had the choice. I bet it would be offered, at least, if there wasn't profit to be made, but people would probably try to go to the grocery store earlier than others in order to get the nice looking produce.

Have you considered being less spooked?

Why such a long discussion for a dumb misinformed and simple to solve question?

pls email [email protected]/* */ if you're a cat named sakamoto and want a cute furret to lick your paws
Shane McMahon is the patron saint of spot monkeys. A match like the Survivors Series 5v5 is perfect for him 'cause he can just get his shit in and then let the other wrestlers do the rest of the heavy lifting, as long as he stops potatoing people.

Basically, I'm okay with him doing his bullshit high spots, but spare me another singles match with him in it. Please.

She needs to improve her promos, but, yeah, she's probably the best female wrestler on the roster, at least until Trips starts recruiting more joshis and pushing them on to the main roster.

To me this is why I like leftypol, even if easily baited. These discussions actually make you ponder, if even a little bit.

pls email [email protected]/* */ if you're a cat named sakamoto and want a cute furret to lick your paws

My man

I saw Russian flag on it. No matter why

You know, I actually read Infinite Jest. Learned more about drugs and tennis than I ever wanted to know. Can't claim I enjoyed it much, though.

Now, Gravity's Rainbow? That's actually a great book, all memes aside.

I just googled for a soundproofing picture. I have no idea what I should be using.
So what am else am I suppose to be using?

Is Rajang still the stronkest?

It's on my backlog. Probably gonna hit it after finals.

...

I'm guessing the difference is that in the current version, Claus is absolutely dead, and it's just the ghost of him that's stuck.

In the original, he was probably still half alive.

Did the historic Meada Toshiie or that other guy he is at the same time have a history of constantly retreating like this?

Dude. Thanks. I'll find those refs and be back soon.

You're welcome to go back at any time.

You tell him that once he has a knife in his hand

Kek

What the hell are you even trying to say, you meme-spewing fuck? Do you have any thoughts that are your own? Try using them instead of stock-thoughts you absorbed from the internet.

Sorry user, I'm afraid I don't know. An user reading through the book posted them about a year and a half ago at this point. He seemed to be rather enthralled with it, though. Iirc it paints a very vivid picture of American society before the advent of Europeans.

I wish you luck in finding it.

The idea is that you produce and receive enough from your community. Say you're a farmer for example. You take as much wheat as you need from the harvest and then send the remainder to be distributed according to need. You receive other goods from your community. In this sense, hoarding of your goods produced is pointless. You receive what you want so why would it be necessary to hold on to your goods in the hopes of exchanging for more? In this sense society acts as a single unit rather than constantly competing and opposed interests of individuals. It also means work is actually voluntary rather than being """"voluntary""" in the ancap sense.

If one believes Marx then this would be a later stage of communism after the labor note system is no longer necessary. I'm not a marxist but this seems rather practical. Start off with a non-accumulative currency, maybe a welfare system. Then eventually move to a moneyless society. A certain degree of abundance is necessary to do away with money.

tbh I really hope this board does not give way to marksocs again. It makes me sad to see leftypol being pro-money and pro-market

same with fucking cigs too

solution: ban smoking/burning anything in public places

Non existent in Australia unless you sell the property to cash out straight away on their death.

Inheritance tax in europe and the u.s is the biggest fucking scam in history. Pay tax entire life on everything earnt. Guess what? Someone else can pay that tax again!

lol

diet coke, no tea coffee or alcohol, well done steaks
you cannot trust this.

What seriously makes you believe a literal billionaire is that clueless or has never interacted with foreign leaders before?

In the long run it's cheaper than not supporting them.

I'm not completely sold on the LTV, but this isn't what Marx was talking about when he referred to value. He was trying to trace how the labour timex expended to sustain us is exchanged in a capitalist economy. Saying "value comes from scarcity" is not different from me saying "value comes from the material process behind commodity production". Trying to "define" value is completely and utterly pointless. Price can be determined by scarcity, Marx was pointing out how equal expenditures of human labour are technically commensurable, and that the material forces behind those expenditures of labour was more of a determinant of a price than just utility or scarcity. But because of forces like scarcity, prices will necessarily diverge from expressing equal expenditures of labour. The point of this was to show:
1. The working class is ultimately doing most of the labour in society and is generating most of the "value", regardless if they realize it or not. They are objectively expending more labour to produce commodities as a conglomerate than the Capitalist as a conglomerate
2. We aren't able to actually allocate the labour power of society properly due to market forces and this is what leads to crisis
Obviously Marx's arguments were much more detailed than that, and he used the "value" argument to describe the cause of phenomena like how capitalist will try and automize jobs and "de-skill" labours to try and have more people producing more use values for him that can be sold on a market. But Marx was never trying to quantify value, he was simply observing the very real societal relationships that result from how our economic relations are structured.

Again I'm not really sold on the LTV as I'm struggling to grasp finer points of value theory, but this is the essence of what Marx was saying.