ITT. Responses to liberal questions

ITT. Responses to liberal questions.
a. because there's no point to doing that when you can take the stuff you're trying to get in the first place
b. because i'll crack your skull open for trying to create artificial scarcity to exploit people

"Everything" isn't free. "Everything" has control over it transferred from private individuals to the commons, specifically the people that live on it, work it, are affected by it, or otherwise need it to live. The product of which is apportioned out by democratic means via the community and according to their ability to provide as well as their assessment of the social need of the individuals within their community.

You can't just go and take all the gold in the world and hoard it. That gold belongs to the people that dug it up and processed it. Nor can you just go to the communal storehouse and take all the soybeans and then create artificial scarcity because they aren't your beans because you didn't make them.

Human beings always share when scarcity is removed, even at the expense of time and energy for themselves. For example, now that it is possible to create infinite copies of digital media, people spend time, energy and bandwidth sharing them. Beyond the initial copy, none of them gain anything from sharing in this way, yet millions do it. This invalidates the liberal argument that people only act in their short-term rational self-interest. That only holds for impoverished societies, such as those that were analyzed by the original bourgeois economists. The bourgeois economists made the mistake of generalizing their observations about behavior in their own circumstances to the whole of history or attributing it to a static "human nature".

...

I'm also politically illiterate and came here to learn more about lefty shit

What would be a better way to describe socialism?

I usually just shorthand socialism as democratic control over the MoP. That way it sounds a lot more appealing to Americans.

Why do you make it sound like you're sugarcoating? That is literally what socialism is.

Because it's not socialism. Eliminating the capitalist class does not completely change the process of capitalism and will still result in a system with crises of overproduction and wealth accumulation.

Ah, ok. Can you explain what is missing from that definition then?

Socialism is collective ownership of the means of production. Democratic control is a part of it but that's not all there is to it cause you can vote on shit without actually owning any part of it. Owning shares in a company is not socialism as you don't actually own any of the means of production, but a part of the actualy entity iteslf in a legal sense. Entities are not a means of production as I can't build a physical bridge out of legal entities cause….you know…..that's just metaphysically impossible.

worker/community (the community is made up of workers) control over the means of production, with production of use-value as opposed to exchange value. (you don't buy a house with x number of dollars/labor-hour-vouchers, you are guaranteed a house as long as you don't flat-out refuse to work when you are capable. The more wealthy the society becomes, the more can be guaranteed even to those who don't work, starting off with free bread for example.)
More difficult/valuable laborers can have access to additional goods/services as reward for contributing more or innovating, with the long term goal of organizing work so that reward isn't necessary and people work because they enjoy it, and enough of a surplus is created so there is no need to restrict access to what is produced. Then you've transitioned from socialism to communism.

Thank you very much. I have another question. I don't know jack about the stock market, but does it have any place in a socialist society?

nah, there's no market in socialism
well, history could prove me wrong and the closest we get to socialism is what I said + a small market for goods and services not deemed necessary for socialist production exists simultaneously.

I'm gonna sound retarded, but could you define "market".

So necessities would be:
- food
- shelter
- healthcare
- education
Am I missing anything?

Socialism and markets are not logically incompatible concepts. The SFRY is literally proof that socialism works, but the contrarian fetish for central planning has led to this being brushed under the rug by tankies.

inb4 muh IMF, this was after tito died before naming a decent successor. The USSR went neoliberal in its own death throes but apparently that doesn't count because muh dialectics.

competing entities exchange goods and services, trying to get the most value in exchange for the least.
you start to get into a philosophical discussion at this point, as technically I'm "exchanging" my labor to the state for what the state remunerates me in (food, shelter, transport, etc). But the market has a different character. For example, houses on a market can be produced by banks with the intent to produce exchange value. Buyers can then purchase the houses with the intent to sell them as the prices go up and make a profit. The more they do this, the more the price goes up and more there is an incentive to buy houses to sell later. When it turns out there are far more houses than people to buy them for their actual use, and not just as a store of exchange value, the bubble pops and the gap between exchange value and use value is demonstrated. Whereas this kind of speculation for profit wouldn't happen in socialism.

And to your second question, all the inputs and machinery required to produce those things would be necessities. But You could consider anything a necessity if the people wanted to.

Market socialism should be tried, and a cooperative economy should be tried. I'm not opposed to those things.
I just think central planning should be experimented with as well.
I'm not opposed to markets categorically, they can be used to pro-human ends. I just think automation will make them unnecessary in the long-run if we want communism and post-scarcity.

The average liberal is extremely averse to direct violence, almost always preferring and nearly celebrating indirect violence. That's not going to win them over. They won't hurt someone when they could have someone else do it for them and cheer them on.

You're either grossly oversimplifying or you simply don't know what you're talking about.
Corporate ownership structures are complex, but generally speaking owning shares gives you the right to receive profit from the means of production and vote on how they are used.

Your criticism sounds a bit like

They need to be taught that the only reason we have law and order is because of the threat of violence.
You don't break the law because you don't want to go to jail
But what if I break the law and refuse to go to jail?
They will use violence to force you
Its the same basic principle, but they seem to think its ok when the existing order does it, but not when a hypothetical other does.

In a truly free society, the individual would take it upon themselves to impose violence when necessary.
The problem with truly free societies is that many people will have different opinions about what "necessary" means. But ideally that would be agreed upon by a public and democratic decree.

So basically ancap meme society but without private property?

Holy shit these memes are endless

That's what real freedom means, baby.
Obviously you need some restrictions in order to have a functioning society at all, that's why we have laws and unwritten codes of conduct.

...

I would like to know how to answer this one. Although I would work because I know thats necessary to keep society functioning, I have no idea how to make normies work.

This is obliviously true. Only retards that support a moneyless economic system would deny this.

Working for wages is strongly embedded in culture worldwide. We couldn't abolish it overnight, but with post-scarcity it is eventually possible. I think we would first have to maintain a wage system - albeit with a very high minimum wage - phase from money to labor vouchers, and then eventually once everything is in place and the state is already withering + most shit jobs are automated, we can achieve a sort of self-checking moneyless economy.

Also point to the fact that for most of history, humans worked for free, to keep the collective functioning.

"What is church volunteering?"

This isn't "answers to flailingly try to appease liberals". It's something that you should follow up with how the current system is a result of them beating the heads in of others.