Time to do it already, Holla Forums. Vote

OP here, works make me retarded, sorry.

Thanks

SFR Yugoslavia is the closest to successful real socialism that we get. USSR is a joke if we judge by socalist standards, but successful by imperialist standards.

Who let the marketfags in?

Yugoslavia was Market """"""Socialism"""""

Its 2017. Don't you know american democratic party is socialist, and you are a bigot, mysoginist, sexist white male?

...

They should have had an option that said "attempt at socialism that was corrupted by its anti-democratic nature and the presence of a bureaucratic class." I don't really buy into this whole state capitalism meme, the socialist state planning model was fine, the lack of democracy and ossified bureaucratic class was not. Regardless I choose state capitalism bc that was closest to my view.

Cute, Yugoslavia triggers power-hungry authoritarians even today. They really did a good job.

I'm an anarchist.

So closed power-hungry authoritarian.

And it produced the best living standards in the eastern bloc. Maybe you shouldn't have such a dogmatic anti-market view, market socialism is chill as a transitory stage.

Its good as a transitory stage but its just co-operative capitalism not socialism.

No. I just understand that even if everything is a cooperative its still capitalism.

Who owned the means of production?

Co-ops aren't socialism read Bordiga.

If I cant gulag everyone that disagrees with me its not "real socialism"

Socialism is tied with Red Fascism. Tankies BTFO'd

i'm to lazy to waste my time reading a meme-tier theorist, just give me the parts where he writes about co-ops

State Capitalism of course
marxists.org/archive/bookchin/1950/state-capitalism.htm
tbf markets are objectively shit

Because it was literally financed with billions of aid dollars from Britain and America and the Western European imperialist countries were in no way afraid of it or its ideology so they gave them easy access to their markets, banks, and even let them dump all their unemployed in the West.

What Yugoslav fanboys can't explain is why it had 70% unemployed towards the end of its existence or why it imploded into the most violent conflict Europe had seen since WWII. On the other hand, the rest of the revisionist East bloc at least had the sense to give up the ghost relatively peacefully and largely refrain from violent ethnic quarrels.

If your evidence that Yugoslavia was socialist is that it had a relatively high standard of living, then you should just go full-Berniefag and claim Scandinavia and Japan as socialist countries, since after all they are relatively egalitarian nations with arguably the highest standards of living in the world.

Friendly reminder that planned production doesn't eliminate the law of value, and thus its still capitalism

as a matter of fact is easier to prove the law of value under a centrally planned economy, that uses labour vouchers and working hours

stay BTFO, planningcucks

No idea why people bring up Bordiga when it comes to coops. I guess it's the read Bordiga meme just going haywire and trying to force it into areas where it's irrelevant.

Either way, the critique of "market socialism" and cooperatives as post-capitalist is as old as Marx himself, and it should already speak volumes to anyone that people who call themselves as such or advocate for coops are generally people who discard Marx entirely, discard him where it's inconvenient or are utopians that haven't bothered to read him at all.

(Marx, Paris Manuscripts, 1844)

(Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution, 1900)

I was joking about bordiga but the market not the workers control the company. Also cooperative property is still private property.

Hungary had basically the same system. Were they also funded by britbongs and burgers?

Reminder that markets are fundamentally exploitive because they preserve socially necessary labor time.

stay BTFO, planningcucks
>Planning doesn't eliminate the law of value overnight therefore let's go with the market method of social organization that can only be governed by the law of value.
The flag checks out. An An-Nhil saying anything intelligent or coherent is few and far in-between.

Stop this slander of Makhno.

Reminder that central planning does not eliminate the SNLT

Reminder that a firm can still outcompete others even when taking more time to produce a commodity than what the SNLT dictates

Reminder that reducing the SNLT exist as a necessity under a market economy, while its up to the bureucrats/the collective to decide if they reduce it under planning

Stay BTFO

provide an argument anytime, planningcuck

The discussion of "planning" versus "not planning/markets" is always a delicate one, because on one side there's retards like that don't understand what value-form is and thus don't understand the communist idea of planning as it occurs post-law of value, and then there's tankies like that think every instance of economic planning under a money-based society at the hands of a red bureaucracy constitutes socialism.

Ergo, both don't understand that planning versus not planning is a false dichotomy, that all market activity involves planning to the beat of socially necessary labor time and that both haven't read or understood much of Marx and both are gigantic faggots that should fucking get to it if they want to understand anything or have anything interesting to defend their ideas with:
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/

Reminder that central planners in a workers state would have everyone work according to there ability and the needs of the people while under market socialism things are produced for profit not needs thus all the problems of capitalism would still exist.

Feel free to provide a system that does eliminate the value-form then

brotip; you can't, because whatever system you propose is nothing but vain conjecture and its at most a system that merely hides value-form in the form of labour vouchers

Feel free to provide an example of a the system that will be able to exactly determine the needs and the abilities of each person

if you can't then your system is trash, because it is simply humanistic conjecture

...

topkek

Communism. Marx outlines a model with labour vouchers, Cockshott and Cottrell provide a model without them, Dauvé provides one with personal credit and an emphasis on communization, et cetera.

The point is that ultimately, communists understand that just like the bourgeois revolutions before us under feudalism, what mattered was the success of their revolution and consequently the development of a mode of production organic to their class interests. This means that while we can hypothesize tons of models and concepts for post-capitalism, things can never be done from the drawing board. The bourgeoisie had its firm-based structures under feudalism with which to do this, while the proletariat can have the party or councils, as we've both seen them in the parliamentary form and Soviets form respectively.

This also means that communists primarily concern themselves with the critique of capitalism and developing ideas for how the proletariat can best organize itself within capitalism as to orchestrate the overthrow of capitalism. This position, theoretically underpinned with a wholly systemic view of capitalism, is what gives us the ease with which we easily discard farces like market socialism as little more than petty bourgeois attempts at injecting personal ideals within the framework of a world-systemic mode of production.

In short, you have everything to win by actually reading Marx, and have already lost everything otherwise; artificially dooming yourself to forever end up nowhere as you reach old age and shitposting on Holla Forums is your only pastime.

Capitalism indeed makes reducing SNLT a necessity in the abstract.

Whatever my dude, Hoxhaism is objectively the Leninist tendency closest to left-communism. There's only two societies that we consider socialist out of all the numerous attempts in the 20th century, yes, even those that used "ML" labelling and symbology but betrayed or misunderstood it in practice. I doubt you've read any Hoxhaist literature or are familiar with the line of any major Hoxhaist party. Most of your knowledge about it probably comes from the bunker memes.

We consider most societies that attempted socialism in the post-WWII upsurge to be le state-capitalism I do know how everyone on this board loves that meme

Sure convinced me.

nice commodified labour, I don't want to build a house, are you going to engage in authoritarianism to force people to work? are you going to send them to the gulag?
lol trash system, glad it failed

nice commodified labour, I totally won't feel alienated manufacturing houses everyday

How, you are just claiming labour here would be free, as you will force workers to alienate themselves or die in the gulag if they don't comply with your plan of building houses
you have failed to provide how you are going to obtain the rest of the necessary productive forces, being thesubject of labour and the mean of labour

the philosophy of poverty strikes again!

you have failed to provide a system that will exactly be able to determine each persosn abilities and needs

top lel

Workers get paid in labor vouchers but the labor vouchers come from no where not from the products of their labor. We can't make everything free because then the vouchers would be worth nothing.

This schtick is getting so old and transparent that even a bourgeois ultra-democratist like Michael Parenti saw through it.
greanvillepost.com/2015/05/23/left-anticommunism-the-unkindest-cut/

*in general 99% of time

All of my kek. The source is Volume 3 of The Third Revolution.
AIDF pls

nice empty term illustrate communism

and none of them work outside the realm of SNLT, commodified labour or value-form, if they do, prove it

cool, we can defince capitalism, yet you cannot define communism

nice, but I am not asking for reading recommendations, we are discussing how the productive cicle of communism works so that you can prove your special snowflake version will eliminate exploitation, value-form and exchange value

I've read Marx more than enough times, and everytime I found the same mistakes in his reasoning
1.- who determines each other needs and abilities
2.- if value is tied to labour time, but use value is an intrinsic value the commodity has, because it can be used, then his axiomatic position that increasing automation and reducing the SNLT decreases value is false, as more values are able to be utilized

this makes sense user, yes

we must make everything free, i.e end private property, in order to eliminate exchange value and thus eliminate the value-form, collective ownership is still private property, as it stops the individual or the group to surrender to the collective

the ONLY way to eliminate commodity exchange is by the elimination of private property, and the only way to eliminate private property is to automate production or engage in gift economies, worker coops are far more capable of working in a gift economy than planned production, since some worker coops already work this way

An example of automation ending the necessity commodity exchange can be found on breatheable air, air as a whole cannot be apropriated, humans can make free use of it, and it is automatically purified by trees, we do not have to pay the trees to purify air, when a cooperative wants to reduce the SNLT in order to reduce labour costs, there will be a time where the worker is not necessary anymore, and at this point the system of commodity exchange can be abolished

Stay BTFO planningcucks

This is a mangled sentence. "Hoxhaism" first of all is only "Leninist" if we treat that term as synonymous to the "Marxism-Leninism" epoch as conjured up during Stalin's seating in Russia. Otherwise, it's only Leninism if we understand Leninism to be synonymous with his NEP/state capitalist policy and his general theory of needing to develop worldwide industrial standards before communist revolution can even occur, which is a wide fucking stretch.

I've read more than enough Stalinoid mythology. I went as far as I could before becoming unwell.

More interestingly, I've read materially-underpinned analysises of all so-called "actually existing socialism(s)" and "socialism(s) in one country" and have found that they, in fact, altered nothing but productive relations. An investigation into pre-NEP Russia, however, revealed what is arguably the closest to a large scale lower communist phase we've yet to see.

marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm
sinistra.net/lib/upt/compro/lipo/lipoebubie.html
sinistra.net/lib/pro/whyrusnsoc.html

Despite the fact that Trotsky was among the first to theorize that ML and derivatives were state capitalism, it's sad because his underpinning for the claim are all garbage which many of his contemporaries and successors defended much better. So much better, in fact, that the best the upholders of ML as socialist can spit out is links to documents in which Stalin says everything was cool and that's that.

This is a pretty shit thread with low energy discussion in which everything's pretty much already been said, so I'm out.

reee my flag

...

1) Read them; literally web search their models and read hundreds of pages of hypothetical models. I'm not here to spoonfeed you.

2) Your butthurt polemics on Marx are worthless if you have nothing to bring up. If you think you're up to the task and have the ability yo actually communicate with people outside of image boards with some decency, hit on r/marxism_101 plebbit (one of the few bastions of non-tankie Marxism 101ing and questioning left) and try your best there (seriously, do this). It's clear you've been incapable of finding satisfactory answers on here, although much more pertintently my thesis is just that you're just a gigantic knuckleheaded faggot who's also either actually illiterate or wilfully pretending have read and understood Marx.

glhf

nice

Lmao 😂 all you have to do is read chapter one to see what a hack he was: theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-after-leftism#toc3

Black is the Narc that all Bookchinites fear.

Low-energy tbh but at least its the consistent historical idealism we've come to expect from Trots, left-coms and other derivatives of the New Left.

I don't know why anybody would think that a society where 90% of the population were peasants who largely hadn't even been proletarianized and still held tenaciously to private ownership and trading was the closest thing to the lowest-phase of communism. Maybe it was the pol pot-tier "military communism" among the Bolshevik side idk

At least in the Stalin period they eliminated privately held peasant property and created the collective farms. Whatever negative things you might have to say about that.

Hmmm yes…except that he didn't. Why do you think that the majority of Trot groups use the term "degenerated workers state" to refer to this or that regime that claims to be socialist? He broke with several people over the issue of state-capitalism because he wanted to be able to criticize the USSR and bolshevism but then sit back and claim to be the best candidate to lead the USSR or the person's theory that would be best utilized there.

More or less, he was an opportunist who wanted to fish in the waters of socialist currents favorable to the USSR and those against it. That's confirmed by the fact that letters to members of the Soviet opposition were discovered by Trotskyist historian Pierre Broué in Trotsky's own archives at Harvard. He claimed that no such ties existed and that he was just a guy "telling it like it is"

Many of the oppositionists that Trotsky had ties to were nasty guys who wanted to bring back the NEP, foreign direct investment, or move peacefully back towards capitalism words they used. It's very likely he had ties to German and Japanese intelligence as various members and the debriefing of Liushkov by Japanese intelligence shows.

Interesting that he wanted to testify before HUAC too huh?

Stalin was indeed a great Marxist who attempted to actually change the world. You can nitpick all you want about but the political and economic line of the USSR got objectively worse after he died. That was contrary to all the expectations about "de-Stalinization" and the "liberal" line of Khrushchev and co. that bourgeois economists of the time and anti-Stalinists alike largely saw in Khrushchev. It was only when Khrushchev and his successors began competing as a great power against the beloved West that be became a hated "Stalinist" again. Trotsky's widow for instance wanted Trotsky and his son rehabilitated after the secret speech.

Wew lad. Not a single valid argument in entire book, just attacks on his person.

Also,
meme tier my AIDF friend

...

>theanarchistlibrary.org/library/bob-black-anarchy-after-leftism#toc3
holy shit. i'm only a third of the way through and bookshit is getting roasted with sourced and fiery precision.

i thought bob black was pure faggotry, like one of the post-left demagogues which is nothing but edgy posturing, but this is a p good read. i do wonder why a tankie would link this considering the same passage you linked also makes some jabs at ml/stalinism.

Can you link me stuff about pre-NEP russian economic structure? Or where in the three things you linked its mentioned?

kys also it tells a lot about Communalist critics that they take Bob Black seriously

Bookshit confirmed crypto-class collaborationist.

>Some anarcho-syndicalists and anarcho-communists have recently written that I do not “believe” in the existence of classes—an accusation that is almost too ridiculous to answer. I have no doubt that we live in a class society; in fact, conflicts between classes would doubtless exist in citizens’ assemblies as well. For this reason, libertarian municipalism does not forsake the notion of class struggle but carries it out not only in the factories but also into the civic or municipal arena.
t. Muhray Bookshit (social-ecology.org/wp/1999/08/thoughts-on-libertarian-municipalism/)

Yeah so whats wrong about that? Are you retarded enough to think that classes disappear once people from a neighborhood sit together and talk? Who the fuck shat into your had? Whats wrong with carrying the class struggle into everyday political life?

Maybe take a break and learn what socialism and anarchism is all about.

Bookchinites again confirmed to be the most easily butt-shattered posters. You feel the need to autistically post pictures of le witty old Jewish man and tell everyone to read his books in every thread regardless of the context. Since this board has become so liberal/no one ever really reads him you rarely run into any opposition, the corollary to that is you sperg out when you actually encounter opposition to his ideas.

Good luck trying to keep Murray "the working class isn't the revolutionary vehicle" Bookchin a staying figure on a board of people who consider themselves revolutionary socialists.

Unlike our Bookchinite brethren I can actually read and recommend books that have points of view opposed to my own. I used to enjoy Bob Black and read quite a great deal of anarchist theory of all varieties back in the day.

Its no wonder that only tankieness can spawn from enjoying Bob Black. Maybe try to bring arguments to the table that are more than getting autistically triggered at Bookchin destroying your precious dogmas.

/leftykike/ is so inept it can't even handle a fucking strawpoll haha

My sides are in orbit. I'd better go join crimethinc and agitate among those budding soon-to-be tankies

Just go and larp harder while imagening to be the historical agent of the working class

...

Zish reminds me *sniff* of an old joke, from eksh-Kekistania: how many CrimethInc kiddies does it *sniff* take to change a lightbulb, and so on?

Anshwer:
There were only two of us, wandering listlessly in the night. The city glowed bright in all of its excess. When we stepped foot in that abandoned warehouse, the first thing we saw was the burned out lightbulbs, hanging from the mold-spattered ceiling. It only took us a couple minutes to switch out that vacuum-filled shell. We hadn’t only made a change in the warehouse, but in our hearts. We climbed up to the roof to watch the stars, cars zipping by like ants, oblivious to the beauty that rests above them. When we woke up to the sun-rise we knew, we just fucking knew, we could could change a hell of a lot more than just lightbulbs.

It's entirely edgy posturing. Don't let your misguided bias against bookchin convince you otherwise. I'll give an example, pic related. Black is pointing out a "contradiction", but what he's merely doing is misinterpreting him intentionally. The social core of anarchist ideas historically has stood in stark contrast to the ruling ideologies, the popular currents of bourgeois culture. The Spanish Anarchists themselves rejected even the most commonplace things like alcohol and tabacco, but were still fully capable of creating a mass movement. This alleged "contradiction" exists only in the mind of Bob Black, and to make this even more absurd he goes on to claim that anarchism has increased in popularity dramatically. Yes, the mass anarchist movement in our society sure is apparent :^) Bob Black accuses him of living in an enclave yuppieism and personalism while he himself lived in New York city, Burlington being a fairly rural and communal town in comparison. The entire book is no better. The best criticism he has of The Ecology of Freedom is that it was not reviewed by academia, as if a work in stark contrast to and outside of academia would be reviewed by academia. Woe to bookchin who does not have buttbuddies like Black does to review his books.

I never see anyone complain when people quote Marx at people, as if Marx is infallible and the only one worthy of being quoted. Please. The fact you enjoyed Bob Black does not speak well of you.

the second and third option are one in the same and designed to divide anarchist votes to give tankies a majority.

You're fucking retarded.

Anarchists do it all the time, especially spookposters.

Scientifically speaking, Marx is less fallible then Bookchine despite living more then a century ago:
marxist.com/karl-marx-bes-scientist-of-all.htm

Hi Holla Forums. Have you said your daily praises to our jew-loving emperor?
Perhaps you should follow the example of his children, convert to judaism!

Haven't you heard the latest consensus? Jews are based, and so is Israel.
t. your orange hero

*Bookchin

fascism with a better moustache

and yet you're not
Hardly. We can argue the merits of DiaNat to DiaMat but you're not gonna like the outcome. If Bookchin does anything, it's not to take away from DiaMat but to include the roles that Hierarchy and Domination play in shaping the society, factors that Marx did not consider seriously enough. Marx's idea of the bourgeois being "revolutionary agents" for capitalist revolution falls flat on it's face when confronted with the fact that bourgeois in most instances (perhaps most relevant being french revolution) were pro-monarchy and actively fought against revolution. It's almost like you've never read Bookchin :^)

Fucker should be hung like the rat he is.

Wholy shit, did you even read that quote? The point is that there are not just class-conflicts or economic conflicts in the workplace, his point is that they also exist in the municipal area and thus points out that cooperatives, even if they are themselves classless, ate themselves going to have economic conflicts with each others and the same goes for economic sectors.

This reminds me of when polacks quote Marx berating the bourgeoisie for engaging in cuckoldry, believing that he's actually encouraging it.

It is all clearly much worse then I thought. It's interesting how Christopher Hill is still the most widely cited historian on the English revolution and he's an anti-revisionist on the position that it was a bourgeois revolution. And the goals of the parliamentarians were hardly that revolutionary when it initially started. The French revolutionary hardly leaves any doubts except that there were some powerful bourgeois on the monarchist side, which is an argument akin to that old bore that if some workers or some section of the working class joins a reactionary movement that proves that class struggle and the theory of proletarian revolution is false.

Here, read some real history books:
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=82D420ADBAA395F81ADD15ED0D63DB49
libgen.io/book/index.php?md5=8F71EC74E399A93ECDEDF79A1B0904AA

good argument.

see

Read trotsky, or Bordiga.

Read Hobsbawm.

...

Never mentions him. Read the relevant article for yourself.
libcom.org/library/were-we-wrong-murray-bookchin
I'll post some of the more relevant parts

Bookchin and Marx are fully compatible, but some reexamantion why the working class got satisfied so easily by socdem concessions is necessary and why Marx was so wrong about the time scale it would take till capitalism fails.

Bookchin just has the advantage of more modern athropology and doesnt have to rely on crude models like Marxs idea of the asiatic production mode.

I wouldn't say fully compatible, but they do have much in common. It's more Marxism that is at odds with bookchin then Marx though.

Hi comrade, could you explain (or link to an explanation) of DiaNat?

Keep it simple pls

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rainbow_Coalition

???

youtube.com/watch?v=_HJNAv-2GFI

Furet was the godfather of French Historical revisionism and started the late 20th century trend of questioning whether the French revolution was "really" a bourgeois revolution. Before him, such a position was not much in fashion as it had been 19th century French historians–and not Marx, who originated the position that it was a bourgeois revolution. Furet too was a rabid reactionary and most Historical revisionists who followed him were also likewise conservative.

Furet is soundly refuted in the 3 books I posted, along with the other Historical Revisionist positions on the French revolution. Since nothing that Bookchin says here is terribly original, and all of it can be found in the writings of French revisionist historians, he is also easily refuted by the books that I linked to.

damn

This is what happens when you have communism, you dont even put the link in the OP.

Face it, you are worthless and dont contribute what so ever to whatever you happen to be a part of.

So many people dont know the definition of capitalism.

Tell me who had the means of production

Depends on who you ask, the leaders say "the people," the people say "the leaders." But this irrelevant as I know this has nothing to do with capitalism, as "state run capitalism" is by definition a contradiction.

So you're not even going to bother to address people he does mention by name, like Perez Zagorin for example? To simply say "this book is the truth therefore you are wrong" is incredibly lazy tbh. I at least put the effort into posting relevant parts from the article I linked to. Also, implying that Bookchin is a reactionary is quite laughable in itself. Truly, anti-bookchin fags are the most intellectually dishonest and most assblasted posters on here.

Okay, National Collectivism. Put in to the pot everything you can, take out of the pot everything you need.
Do I get a prize or something? It's not rocket science.

Easier for me to just repost from r/Communalists

No. Your orginal definition is carefully written to make "state capitalism" a logical impossibility - when capitalism is really just private ownership. Whether or not it's the state or non-state individuals is irrelevant, as it's all capitalism because the workers don't have the MoP.

thats a variant of gift economies, nice, you get it user

you are on the right path, just drop the nationalism spook

Maybe I'm stupid, but this isn't simple enough.

...

Its not my definition, its thee definition. Then that begs the question, who "owns" the state, and if the state is owned by someone owning everything in the land including the people, what separates it from monarchic? something that is expressly different from capitalism.

m8, this is a whole lotta side-stepping to just admit the workers didn't own the MoP.

This is a whole lot of side stepping to admit that by definition state capitalism does not exist. I am not talking about the MoP, I am talking about what is and is not state capitalism, as it cant possibly exist. If it does not exist, then what is the USSR and Venezuela, so on. I dont care who owns the MoP, get that through your iron curtain skull

Lmao, no, I'm not going to do that, I honestly gave his position more time and credibility then it deserved and since there was nothing in there that can't be found in revisionist historians of both-left and right persuasions I see no reason to continue to respond to Bookchin or his sources on this topic.

You evaded the accusation when I said that Bookchin was a historical revisionist and that's because I honestly think that you don't what the major positions or thinkers in the Historical Revisionist tradition are. You're going to have to wade through that debate yourself bucko because I don't have time to debate with the unknowledgeable every event of the French revolution or nuance of the revisionist school in general that Bookchin is cribing second hand.

I never said he was a reactionary, I just let knowledgable lurkers draw their own conclusions about why Bookchin would side with the revisionist position on the French revolution. That was far less then you did when you outright stated that people who enjoyed would turn into tankies!

*who enjoyed Bob Black

**I honestly think that you don't know

Oh, I'm not a nationalist by any means, I just meant preforming it on a large scale, such as a nation.

And thanks user, you're pretty despooked yourself.

this tbh

All you're doing though is posting a link and treating it like it's gospel, not even having the intellectual integrity to site relevant portions of the book that "apparently" debunk what bookchin is saying, and you think this is convincing enough to convince random anons when it's not enough to convince anyone not already part of your dogmatic belief system. Simply claiming something as "revisionist" does not make it so. Put up or shut up, bucko.

But if nature is completely amoral, hierarchical and ruthless; wouldn't the dialectical naturalists want to simply mimic that same type of society? Aren't they just pure Egoists?

How the hell would you ensure everyone takes what they need, and not what they want? How do you organize this system for luxuries?

It was almost the same. Still capital accumulation, still wage labor, still production for exchange… It was no closer to 'real' socialism than Sweden.

riddled with crap javashit and tracking shit.
Poal.me is better

Centrally located distribution warehouse would hold all the goods. Think of it like a grocery store, but owned by the society. All citizens would have some form of ID, or a number assigned. If a citizen were to want food for example, they would input their number. A computer would run a calculation based off of their previous consumption, then factor in things such as weight, height, age, etc. to calculate how much food they would need. Then the citizen would select the food they desired, and it would then be given to the citizen. Of course, it would allow you to withdraw more then just the bare minimum amount of food required to survive, but after a while of getting data from food yields, average consumption, weather patterns, and more, you could dynamically adjust food allotments.
Luxuries would still be produced, but if they were not available a citizen could simply apply to be on a waiting list for the luxury they desire. Obviously certain wasteful luxuries, for example diamond covered solid gold watches, wouldn't be produced.
This allows you to also know how much of an item needs to be produced, to reduce wasted perishables to near zero levels.
This also removes the need for 'not money' money such as labor vouchers.

what they want is what they need

once you stop making use of something it either gets recycled or back to the pool

no property rights

absolutely bourgeoisie

First stage socialist construction under the conditions of a less developed with a more or less numerous class of small and medium producers.

marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/index.htm

marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/

Not sure if you're memeing or if I didn't phrase it well, so I'll just assume I phrased it poorly.
Every citizen would own an equal nontransferable 'share' meaning that they all technically 'own' the warehouse. As a result, they all have a right to an equal portion of the items inside.
No porkies, just collective ownership of the distribution of the means of production.

might aswell add some fake posts with reaction images below

it's a reference to the top post of a leddit thread on rojava which literally said that. it was posted here a long time ago and is in the same tier as YOU'RE GOLDEN and other ribbit epics.

...

People want unreasonable things all the time. Look at the ridiculous shit the top bougies buy.

And while its easy to say 'no ridiculous' luxuries', its not easy to draw a line.

For example not everybody can have a house with a big yard. But not everybody would want that (especially if you can't hire some bottom rung prole to keep it up), do you have some system for deciding who gets that? I can't figure a way to do that barring a shadow market where people have luxury vouchers and select which luxuries they want.

Wouldn't that make luxury producers want to produce less so that their goods are considered more valuable and thus their 'share' of other luxuries goes up?

I assume there's something implicit in your flag about this since you're assuming tech-we-don't-have but I don't know what.

state capitalism

Degenerated workers' state. Duh.