OLDFAG THEORY: (materialist) doubt over collective ownership of the MoP qua transitional period

Something approximating UP actually exists: Think of the economy as an input-output table. There are very few things that enter production of everything else (and some of these also enter into their own production). Revolutionaries "only" need to take over this thing, not the dragon-dildo factory.

Your assumptions about how much people are formed by the existence of brands I find rather cartoonish.

I don't think you're giving human ingenuity enough credit. Given shitty tools we can make better tools. Keep in mind that human society had to create tools from nature to begin with, and we didn't use to have the access to information that we do now. If anything, I think the real problem here is that many people are unaware that ideology is built into our tools (best example being planned obsolescence). The tools are an important part of the superstructure to recognize and defend against - in transitioning to socialism we need to build tools suited to the system instead of building a system to suit the tools. There will probably be significant resistance to this process especially since under capitalism we have all sorts of industry standards that make this system more "efficient".

Rolling back the development of industry (in terms of its sophistication and practices, not its technology) will be an important step anyway. I think most leftists understand that we could fulfill the human needs that are fulfilled right now with much less labor - because of faults in the process like overproduction and because of faults of intent like making useless chunks of plastic so shit like lootcrate can exist.

But what about the MoP used to build that factory? This is what needs to be focused on so that we can repurpose or demolish and rebuild factories suited to the products made under socialism.

Not entirely true - there are some people who want to build socialism right now as alternative to capitalism within the capitalist system. On its own this is of course doomed to failure because a capitalist enterprise can always out-compete a worker cooperative. Cooperatives are sustainable in the medium term (before they start stepping on capitalist territory) though, and can be used both as a resource network via syndicalism to support a revolution and as a model to build the new societies from. You are right to criticize the simplistic notion that we will just seize the factories and continue production under democratic control and that everything will be fine, but it is possible to look at the economy strategically and figure out which MoP are important to seize, which can ultimately be destroyed, etc. For instance, weapons factories are important because of their immediate relevance to offense and defense, but your example of smartphone factories would not need to be seized and could eventually be torn down or repurposed.

Pretty sure I already addressed this, but I'll restate it. We need to selectively seize the MoP - in part as a matter of strategy regarding value to the revolution, and in part to make it easier to rebuild the economy in a way that facilitates socialism. To do that, we should focus on the MoP used to build factories (construction, machinery, etc.) so we can build new socialist factories.

I'm not sure that follows, but the MoP directly involved in churning out products for a capitalist system are definitely not conducive to a socialist economy. They're not made to adjust to social needs, for one, instead remaining operational constantly until they have produced as much as the marketing department thinks it can sell.

I'm not sure why you need a state for this. What you need is some kind of network to connect laborers to collectives that have a use for their labor. Meanwhile, people who are knowledgeable about waste management can be connected to this kind of factory farm to figure out how to un-fuck the land. Again, the way you ultimately fix the problem is to use the MoP that build the MoP that build the products. With socialism we can restructure farming so that it doesn't involve this kind of concentrated waste. I'm no engineer nor ecologist but I imagine farming should be more distributed (just like a lot of features of a settlement) instead of cordoned off into a particular Zone so that capitalism can more efficiently maximize the efficiency (at generating profit) of the enterprise.

A lot of people live where they do because that's where the work is that pays well enough for them to live. Workers would probably be glad for the opportunity to move somewhere else and to take part in the process of deciding where to build the new (socialist) MoP. I doubt that given the choice between "salvage this shitpile" and "move to a new workplace where you will not only have control over its production, but your input will go into its initial design" that people will need to be coerced into choosing the latter. This is one of the gifts of late-stage capitalism - workplaces have become so awful that if presented with a socialist alternative, the workers would be masochistic fools not to take the opportunity (and this would be obvious to them). What socialism has to do is invert the labor market - laborers have the power and can decide which collectives live and die by choosing at which they labor. It's not the ultimate system, but it's a huge improvement that will get us that much closer to full communism.

This. We need to sow the seeds of dissent toward capitalism and show workers that socialism is not just possible but preferable to them.

IN ORDER TO SUCCEED AT SOMETHING FOR A REASON OTHER THAN CHANCE, WE NEED TO CONFORM OUR NOTIONS TO REALITY
We can't just snap our fingers and have socialism. We also can't seize the state and instate socialism. This fails internally. When anarchism fails, it's because it fails externally. The important lesson here is that statist and anarchist leftists can benefit from cooperation. Anarchism can build socialism and communism more directly, while state socialism can do defense better. For leftism to not just survive but beat capitalism, we leftists need to get over our infighting and unite in solidarity. Once capitalism has been vanquished, then we can let our different proposed systems be tested in reality. Combining different systems into a united front helps shore up the weaknesses of any given attack we make and makes it harder for capitalism to fight the left. Right now they're playing whack-a-commie, knocking down revolutions wherever they pop up. Leftist revolutions of any flavor need to explicitly band together to make this harder.

Excellent summary of what I wrote here that ties the idea back to OP's thesis better than I did.

The means of production are not static. They are constantly being altered and replaced to better serve the purposes of their owner. The same will be true of socialism. Equipment will be changed and replaced to produce a better product.

Just because a factory is designed to create shitty smart phones does not mean that it could not be used to create good products. Hell, it takes to make commodities as lousy as they are. Look at automobiles. They are more complicated than ever, but they are built to fall apart as soon as the warranty expires. However the same factories used to produce vehicles that could run for decades. All it would take for them to do so again is some new machines, which the factories are going to have to get in time anyway.

Here you go.

One Last Thing: OP, you should think of factories or MoP in general as a product in itself. The companies who build factories sell to the capitalists new MoP as a product. Production has been commoditized, in other words.

*it takes extra labor to make commodities as lousy as they are

I'm actually touched that someone gets it. This has been one of my long term brewing anxieties vs. the left mainstream.

This is actually known as programmable matter. It is possible with nanotechnology. The idea is create millions of nanometer-scale computers which can be shaped into various forms through computation. The actual implementation of this would require advanced artificial intelligence algorithms some of which are already being developed.

Even programmable matter won't stop capitalism though. Capitalism is a social formation, not a technological one. There is nothing that necessitates the existence of capitalism but we inflict it upon ourselves a society, because we are stupid.

My point wasn't at all focused on brands as such but how cap. market forces create enterprises and their MoPs that are directly opposed to each other, that are basically meaningless or even hindering outside of such economic environment, so when post-revolution we try to take them over we basically relegate one group of proles against another, undermining collectivity as such!

MP4s are counterrevolutionary

your mom is counterrevolutionary

Yeah man a bunch of disgruntled workers that never had the tiniest bit of experience with self organisation lead by some populist will clearly be able to create socialism, I just cant wait for Soviet Union 2.0

There's no reason why they can't

Might as well be an ancap tbh

This would have to be implemented everywhere simultaneously.

One factor in the down fall of socialism is that some of the people pine for consumer goods. A black market develops, eventually the goods are counterfeited by the state, until the state relents and imports the goods directly. Planned obsolescence is a way to control for this eventual decline in market demand. Products nowdays that are more fragile than the iron typewriters you'd see 70 years ago are designed to be more biodegradable.