"Communism only works on a small scale"

Ain't nobody got time for that

Imagine if you will:
Its pizza night at your place, theres about 6-10 of your closest friends.

Jenny doesnt like mushrooms
Will hates pineapple
Ahmed cannot eat any pork or pork tangible products
Simons a vegetarian
You have your own tastes etc.

You guys talk it out for a bit and generally come to some form of consensus.
The system works!

Imagine an entire city: its pizza night again and a million people accross the city want pizza, we live in the marxist utopia, how do you think this actually plays out?
The city needs flour, yeast, milk, butter, cheese, meats, vegetables, ovens, etc

We havent even gotten to the food preferences yet. No one owns businesses, everyone is charged with propping up the ad hoc pizza creation and delivery infrastructure, all money was burned in the revolution.

There is no delivery because no one *wants* to be a pizza deliverer. There is no pizza cookers cause no one *wants* to be a pizza cooker. So you all make it at home. But wait who milled and stored the flour? Who built and maintained and installed the oven? Do you see how much MORE you have to think about for something as dimple as fucking pizza night to happen?

thanks >>>/liberty/, but we currently do have enough computers for that.

t. Reddit brocialist

Each according to his ability, each according to his need works in a small community with primitive means.

How it does not run into the calculation problem when applied on a global scale (What are the needs? How do we make sure people do not take too much?) has yet to be explained.

Why do right wingers always come up with retarded scenarios and analogies?

Reddit are the ones who complain about "brocialists". This is the brocialist hangout place.

Cockshott argues for neo-Athenian democracy in that book. By that logic, he's an anarchist (lol). The economy (and larger decision making) is meant to be decentralized and networked by computers, much as the Internet originally was designed to be and was for years before it was taken over by a few ISPs and a few big sites.

Is a framework, not a fucking policy.
youtube.com/watch?v=BNxSHcQqiMc

...

Or, you know, you could just use computers. Big data and all that.

The corporate multinationals have already set the system up and are already using it, we merely have to seize it from them.

Automation, my dude. The delivery vehicles are self-driving, the kitchens are automated. It's been well established that these higher stages of communism are a futuristic society that we need to build up to, not something we can establish tomorrow.

Now what does it practically mean?

How are my needs determined, how much can I ask for, who and how will my job be determined?

It doesn't. Only Revolutionary Praxis can determine the Revolutionary future.

You just conquer the world and then things will sort out themselves which it will because it is your intention that they will even though it never did it when you worked from that premise…

It's dialects, I aint gotta explain shit.

...

lrn2realpolitik

Any LeftComs can give me some backup here? Probably not because Euro's asleep.

Take whatever you want - "to each according to their need"
Work however you want, so long as you can - "from each according to their abilities"
Stalin's USSR wasn't just not communism - it was its total opposite. The first self-described libertarian, Joseph Dejacque, was an anarcho-communist. Marx himself was a libertarian - he believed in the total realization of individual freedom by removing material constraints on it.

During revolutions, strange things happen in the social order, things which autonomously repeat themselves even in the absence of communists and anarchists to direct them. For example, delegative-democratic workers' councils form - they were known as suveti in 1903 Bulgaria, soviets in 1905 and 1917 Russia, comites trabajadores in 1910-1920 Mexico, rate in 1918 Germany, vilnikh radyy in 1918-1921 Ukraine, rady robotnicze in 1905, 1918, and 1956 Poland, consigli di fabricca in 1919-1920 Italy, comhairle oibrithe in 1920-1921 Ireland, sūwéiāi in 1926-1927 China, hyeob-uihoe in 1929-1932 Korea, comites trabajadores in 1936-1938 Spain, szovjeteket in 1919-1956 Hungary, sovietique in 1871 and 1968 France, cordones in 1973 Chile, shoras in 1978-1979 Iran, radnicki (or radnicko samoupravljanje as the formal term for their self-managment) in 1952-1988 Yugoslavia, and pesniyar in modern-day Rojava

There's even a whole interactive map of them across the world during the series of uprisings between 1917 and 1927.
libcom.org/history/interactive-map-workers-councils-1917-1927
In fact, one of the major trends in left communism, council communism, is based specifically around a praxis involving workers' councils, which tend to form organically.

That was actually very materialist of the tankie, and I'm impressed by that. Normally, I'd expect for them to call for the reestablishment of the USSR - that would be idealism. Read Kropotkin or Marx. They both give materialist accounts of what communism is.

ITT

ffs get real and shut the fuck up

That'll be one sportscar, five flat screens TV's for every bedroom in my mansion, two jacuzzi's, a marble kitchen and a walk-in fridge stuffed with blue fin tuna.

I'll spend one hour a day working as a wine taster.

Now explain to me how they can form global system that solves the calculation problem. I'm genuinely curious, I've thought about it myself but could never envision a model beyond a small, self-sustaining community.

same is true of capitalism

More of an anarchist than a leftcom, tbqh. But sure.

Download it and 3D print it. Fully automated communism is already possible. Fully automated luxury communism is maybe 5-15 years away in terms of technological possibility, to be quite realistic.

You'd be surprised at how little you know about this world before you start reading. You have the entire Internet at your disposal, and yet you choose instead to argue with people to confirm your own bubble of reality which you were brought up to believe in. You're a sad, little man.

Okay so, follow that automation timeline for a moment comrade jetson.

Lets say you have a self maintaining automation service for everything you need to do ever, what does that look like? How is that not a technocratic overlord?

Ill just jump into my 3d printed clothing and eat my 3d printed pizza that was downloaded from?

Oh right you dont realise that keeping the *INTERNET ALIVE* REQUIRES PEOPLE TO HAVE FULLTIME JOBS?

shit taste tbh

Just describing the needs that would be encountered by this system.

My dude
This man gets it

That might actually be possible a hundred years from now if we establish the quasi-communistic system laid out in the Soviet Cybernetics thread. The proposed system works upon the basis of an app which intakes supply and demand info in an in-kind fashion (instead of abstract costs, you have 15 cars, 200 pieces of bread, so many chips for this type of computer, etc.). It determines what is needed in terms of components for various goods to drive prices for everything down to 0 (using a non-circulating currency paid out for doing necessary work, with prices being tied by the calculator directly to scarcity). The calculator then uses linear optimization of the input-output tables (formatting of the inputting data) to drive as many prices as possible to 0. In other words, production is utilized to meet human needs and prices are maintained only for scarce goods. Already, many things cost close to 0 in terms of actual production costs (from start to finish) and only cost something because each firm down the chain wants a profit. Most prices are markups.
Go look at the cybernetics thread, but don't post in there. Better yet, just read this essay. But you won't read the essay, will you? I just had this exact argument 2 days ago with a bunch of ancaps. Are you the same one?

He's an illiterate idiot.

You sound like a child.

Pls

When Pakistan had a crack at communism (or as far as they could go on the American leash) they nationalised natural gas and made it free.
People would leave gas burners on all the time, literally. Why? Because free gas was cheaper than matches.
The old "people don't value free stuff" meme is actually true. Why? Because deep down, most people are cunts.

Capitalism really is an amazing system in every way. It has surpassed in a few hundred years the achievements of all previous societies many times over. In fact, it has done so to such a great degree that it has finally made materially possible that which has been the stuff of idle day dreams for past generations.
Also, you didn't read the whole post, did you? This isn't some farfetched utopian idea for the future. It's already here, for the most part. It just requires assembly.

It's just an app which coordinates stuff. It's Bitcoin, but communist. Why do other burgerstanis (you're obviously one of us) see anything high-tech used for coordination and immediately think "OH NOES, AI WILL CONTROL US!!!1!1!!!". Stop watching Terminator on repeat and study computer science. FFS.

ITT

What do you think maintains the app
Not burgerstani fag lol

I refuted that in the post right above yours. Of course you're going to screencap this retarded straw man and not my own.

It's an open-source system being worked on right now. Do you mean that it's an emergent consciousness or something? It's just an objective function which can be modified by democratic decision or changes in buying behavior.
Oh, it's retarded

Then the app will continually keep prices just above 0 and it'll be ersatz communism anyways because the Law Of Value will have been abolished and the distinction between life and labor that is work will have disappeared.

Do you have a fucking alternative? How long do you think our current corporate aristocracy's gonna hold?
Should we just pull a Kaczynski and go live innawoods because logistics is too hard?

Let me tell you a tale that ill get your little pinko boner to full blown hammer and sickle mode:

The industry is moving toward full blown automation of all software and network based maintenance.

Kek

been hearing that since ww2

And the Oil Industry stopped it.

Hey man Im with you, corporate interests should be removed from the government

There should be a separation of state and corp in tbe same way there is the US separation of church and state.

Personally socialism and captialism should be in eternal adversarial gridlock to keep each other in check.

Yes, but the big sales pitches are happening all over the world in boardrooms everywhere.

...

Lol I'm just repeating your own arguments back at you.

said some fag after ww2

a lot of things stopped it. capitalism can't function in full automation mode. that's why you see highly automated plants here and there and nothing else. the moment even 10% of a country's economy is subject to full automation you're gonna see those heads rolling.

delocalizing is more profitable and depending on how much time you have on your hands you can delocalize multiple times between two countries.

thats what im saying, the old centralized vs decentralized debate is dead because if the planning is done by computers, whats the difference? math doesnt care if its done on a network of computers or one really buff supercomputer

Cybernetics guy here, I'd rather pull a Kaczynski or simply kill myself rather than live under an all-powerful AI overlord and live out "I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream". Luckily, no one proposes that except for the pseudo-STEMlord Howard Scott.

Except for that it could actually happen because of neuromorphic computing making first inferential programming and then full-blown AI possible. From there, progress will continue exponentially as always and all jobs will be obsolete. Take from that what you will.

Why would you take socdem when communism is not only possible, but desirable from the standpoint of preserving humanity? Capitalism has failed miserably in a way that no other system has - it now endangers the human race going through its daily motions. All arable soil will be gone by 2070 at current rates of depletion. Sea levels are rising and will displace billions of people, 700 million from China alone (you think the Syrian refugee crisis right now is bad?). Nuclear weapons are proliferating. Global transport of people and commodities, combined with the overuse of antibiotics, has made superbugs possible which will make the Spanish Flu look like the common cold. At any moment, the methane hydrate in Siberia could start coming out of the permafrost at accelerating rates and warm the planet up to 40 degrees Celcius for thousands of years, the same process which killed 95% of all life in the Permian-Triassic extinction event; no humans would survive at all. As the population climbs ever higher globally, it only sets the stage for a bigger fall of all humanity. We're in deep shit, man.

Ah, ok. Yes, that's true.

There won't be what we consider "the government" in 50 years, just various hired mercenaries serving different interest groups. That's what you're fighting for by being the useful idiot of the right, no alt-right morality or austrian praxeological market justice is going to stop it, only an organised mass political movement looking out for the interests of humanity as whole.

i'm not objecting to any of that. in fact we probably could've automated some of the industry even 30 years ago. it's not gonna happen under capitalism is what i'm saying.

But what's different this time is that inferential programming and its development of AI allows you to easily automate sets of tasks, as opposed to individual ones. We can already build anthropomorphic robots with physical capabilities far exceeding those of humans. What's lacking is the software (and computing hardware, although that's about to be fixed). When we get there (and I know we will - I work with AI and know people involved in other aspects of it, such as material science), robots will be so much cheaper and less probl_ematic than humans at doing their work that no human will ever do manual work again. It will only be a matter of time until no human ever does intellectual work again. Assuming we communize now and finish the home stretch towards humanity-serving AI, it will be a society with its own problems from the very start, but one which I would gladly take over over today's.

choose over today's*

People say a lot of retarded things, just ignore them.

what i'm trying to say is that these efforts are stifled by the nature of capitalism. to put it very simply, you need people to sell stuff to and the bourgeoisie isn't interested in impoverishing you to the point that you can't buy stuff, i.e. taking away all the primary and secondary sector jobs. there's a reason i brought up delocalization: in many western countries it's increasingly difficult to find jobs in these sectors (unless you'll work for a pittance, e.g. immigrants) largely because they're outsourced to other countries. A lot of people think it's because of increases in automation but this is the real reason. Now let's say your firm produces car doors and you bring your capital somewhere else: you do it to produce at a cheaper cost, but you're gonna sell in the same country you're from, almost surely at the same price. This only works if the people there can buy your stuff, i.e. if they have jobs. This is why a lot of bullshit jobs (i always like to bring up telemarketing) have been appearing since the 90's, and even those are starting to be outsourced.

i have no doubts at all that we can achieve what you propose if we have a revolution tomorrow… thing is we won't.

Mhm, I see what you're saying. What I'm saying will happen unless the consolidation of capital under MNCs to staunch the declining rate of profit completes itself, though, in which case you're going to be right. To that end, there are already some technoporkies like Bill Gates with the same view as me proposing stuff like taxing the machines on the basis of productivity and having a UBI. It's going to be a rough few decades up ahead, and I have no doubt that whatever comes out of them (be it Gates's hellish entrenchment of the current neoliberal reality, an individual-destroying tech singularity a la Land, individual-liberating FALC, or the extinction of humanity by one of several ways) will last for centuries, if not practically forever.

quite honestly i have a sort of sick curiosity to see this happen. I really think UBI is the best shot for people to realize how insane this system is. i'm no accelerationist by any means but i really have a feeling that if someone implements it it will be a huge disaster and it could spark a revolution… it's gonna be horrifying but the more i think about it the more this seems like the only course short of a new global conflict.

I always thought of it as finally completing a process which has been going since the late 1970s of taming and pacifying the proletariat before turning it into a foie gras duck. It disgusts me on every single level.

How is UBI a disaster? To me it seems like the common sense policy of the modern era. Like Social Security and Minimum Wages in the 20s.
It could have unintended consequences like costs on luxury items going through the roof because of increased demand and so on but it seems absolutely essential in the age of technical unemployment with the death of retail and transportation jobs, alongside an aging population.
The UK is a good example of what an austerity-gig economy looks like without such safety-nets.

Then they dont work and dont have pizza. Their choice. Gov organizes everything, but suddenly they dont do employment, resources, etc?. People in the pizza places choose preset pizzas anyway, you wanna special make it yourself. One factory makes frozen ones/builds vendor machine that bakes them and its done.

That's precisely the point of why it must be stopped. It's a bandaid on capitalism which could prolong it just long enough for it to drive climate change and all that stuff to an irreversible end (if we're not already past that point for sure - we might still be able to extract CO2 and methane from the atmosphere while pumping water from the Arctic sea floor to the surface to regenerate the ice).

Oh my fucking god kill yourself

This is a fucking kindergarten tier analysis of the world

Communes can be small :)

Informal communism only works on a small scale. Giving gifts actually doesn't mean that people don't have expectations about each other. My impression is that people who talk about gift economies jump back and forth between actual small-scale social systems with loads of customs and expectations and tit for that and the "free shit lmao" definition.

I agree with that. I can't speak for everybody else, but I am for giving people consumption points according to work done. (Society would still be different from capitalism in that there wouldn't be personal income from asset ownership.)

The small scale is fundamentally different from the big scale here not just in terms of sheer amount of information, it is a different type of decision. The small group only gets one pizza, right? So, if they are a bunch of dorks and decide formally, we are talking about a single-winner voting method. But the city doesn't order one big pizza, so if we don't have talk show where people talk about their pizza feels trying to get sympathy from those who make pizza, but we actually use a more formal system for requests, I would rather use a proportional multi-winner system.

There are voting systems developed for electing people proportionally without relying on any sort of party structure. Some of these methods are over 100 years old, I am talking about the Single Transferable Voting family of methods. There are also variations of Approval Voting and Range Voting that have re-weighting. You could use something like that to poll people on their preferences for pizza, ice cream etc.

For those who are not familiar with what proportional means when it comes to STV: Let's start simple, with the Plurality single-winner method where every voter can only mark one candidate, and the candidate receiving the highest amount of marks wins. The actual preferences of people are often more complicated than that, a person can have a first choice, a second-most liked candidate, and so on - that is, a ranking. Under Plurality it can happen that a group of voters who are the majority all prefer a set of candidates to the rest, though there is no consensus among them which one is the best. If this majority of voters gets together, they can decide to all pool their votes to support one candidate from the set and make that candidate the winner, no matter what the minority does. There is a criterion for voting methods that use ranked ballots as inputs, the Generalized Majority Criterion (sometimes called Mutual Majority). A voting method passing that criterion "detects" when a majority of voters ranks a set of candidates above the rest and automatically selects the winner from that set.

There is a method for electing several candidates called the Single Non-Transferable Vote. Again, every voter can only mark one candidate, and here the candidates with the most votes win. Suppose there are three seats, a candidate supported by more than a quarter of voters will surely get the seat; if there are nine seats, a candidate supported by more than one tenth of the voters will surely get a seat, no matter what the other voters do, and so on (you see the pattern?). Similar to the single-winner situation, if a subset of voters of that certain size that is big enough to get a seat gets together and finds a compromise to support, that compromise will get a seat. And again, just like in the single-winner case, there are methods that take ranked ballots as inputs and that "detect" such groups of voters and finds a compromise for them, so that they will get representation.

This means you can also use STV (using the Droop quota) to poll people on their pizza preferences. If five pizza designs will be implemented, and over 1/6 of the people voting are vegetarians who will rank any vegetarian pizza above the rest (they don't need any further agreement within the vegetarian set or non-vegetarian set, just that vegetarian is preferable to non-vegetarian), then at least one of the winning designs will be vegetarian.

If I'm supposed to live equally, or roughly equally to everyone else in society, I would probably do whatever I can to game the system in my favor.

I would for sure take great efforts to allow myself to actually live a better life than the common rabble.

Secretly, of course, but why in the world would I, or anyone else capable, have any desire to live like some sort of peasant?

They're dirty and disgusting.

They're poor and pathetic.

I'll do whatever it takes to live a better life than some moron plebeian.

Nice reddit spacing.

Because the automated services are owned in common and directed democratically.

How exactly does advanced, automated systems necessarily lead to some kind of autocracy?

continuing my brilliant post from

If, on the other hand, I am not supposed to be equal, if I am treated like total shit,

WELL THEN

I won't try to game the system. Of course.

That's how my reasoning goes.

Because I am a massive retard. Seriously, I have the papers to prove it.

My parents are siblings.

I actually fundamentally disagree that it won't happen under capitalism. There's a huge profit incentive to automate things more and more and the private sector funds a metric shit-ton of research in this area.

speak for yourself

here's a reason why the top of the power-pyramid is dominated by sociopaths.

This incentive has always existed under capitalism. However, it's also what drives the system to crisis, you idiot fucking rosakiller. Capitalism is structurally incapable of advancing automation to its conclusion because the system of commodity production simply cannot handle it. The system will break down and retard its own progress in order to avoid hitting that point.

First time Ive ever spouted this unironically

The advanced system becomes the autocracy.

Yeah and I'm the loon for extrapolating the trends of what leftists argue for to arrive at a sensible tangible and realistic outcome.

Im not even right wing ffs Im just pointing out why these are bad ideas. But apparently individual liberty and advocating for personal responsibilty is too fucking much

Kek

Open source

Kek
My sides.

How will you reconcile the fact that the entirety of the working population will need to be taxed to oblivion to finance it? It's already hard enough to convince people that it's a necessity to pay retirement and healthcare for people (hell, there's people complaining about money being spent for infrastructure that they use), let alone for a social program that will basically divide the population into two huge chunks of "workers" and "not workers".

Also UBI is almost dystopian because the government can decide who gets it and who doesn't. Check out what happens in countries which have a lot of unemployment and unemployment compensation. There's people out there who got nothing to live on because they missed a call from the job office. The government can literally just tell you to go do whatever they want or they'll take it away. It's definetely going to happen with UBI too.

Also you downplay the effect of the rise in prices. There's a reason most late stage capitalist countries have an unemployment problem: you literally need poor people to not turn money into toilet paper.

That's why I think UBI will be a disaster if it ever happens, and I kinda hope it will, but at the same time I'm confindent porky knows it and will keep it at bay at any cost.

Honestly I don't see how it can without it resulting in heads mounted on pikes. I mean the fact that it happens somewhere doesn't mean that it will spread. In fact the existence of sparce, fully automated factories seems to me like a good way to scare people into doing the same thing forever.

I'm sure uber drivers are scared shitless of self driving cars… That alone is a good reason to keep researching them. Doesn't mean they will become prevalent.

wait what? just order different pizzas if there's that many people are you retarded?

You didn't make a single argument against him. Well done, you totally showed everyone.

The point is theres a lot of work that goes on behind the scenes to keep the Internet running just a whole fuckton. You have no fucking clue.

But youre not in a capitalist society you are in a marxist society.
There are no businesses

What matters is that we have a system to organize production, which is what I'm proposing. It's an alternative to capitalism based off what tools we have at our disposal because capitalism is about to kill off the entire human race if we let things go on. The market is a system of organization which fulfills the same basic purpose. You've made exactly 0 arguments.

You know the organic system of exchange of goods and services for cash works pretty good, maybe youd be better off working towards dismantling the massive finance industry… but even then thats a necessary evil in order to fuel the means of efficient production.

With this kind of """non hyperbole""" why my silly arguments stating that capitalism is only an economic tool to facilitate the exchange of goods and services and that tearing it down will mean regressing back to the fuedal dark ages. All that just to comfort your fucking feefees is completely mental.

What really gets me fucking roling in the aisles talking to people like you is I fucking came up with literally every idea you throw at me when I was like 7, and by the time I followed every plausible conclusion from that reality we mostly end up in a situation outside of iur own control, effectively imprisoning ourselves within a system of ehich we no longer have the capacity to escape. I just find marxism cute and silly

...

Captialism is such an easy concept to grasp, even fucking monkeys pick it up.
What's your fucking excuse.

Just open a book, I'm sure opening a book occurred to you when you were 7.

Capitalism isn't "a system of exchange". The guy who defined the word "capitalism" (Pierre-Joseph Proudhon) was for a free market of worker-owned firms and low-to-0-interest loans from community-run mutual banks, what he termed "mutualism". Capitalism is a very specific thing which only came to be between 1810 and 1825, when it had its first crisis and was thus inaugurated in whole (as crisis is an integral part of capitalism, used for clearing out old physical capital). By the way, markets have not existed for most of human history.

Under a planned 'socialist' economy, things are generally shit because planning the entire economy from the top-down in a large system is very hard and inherently autocratic.

Under a market capitalist economy, things are shit because of the private ownership of wealth by a few aristocrats that force everyone to be wageslaves for their entire lives, owners stealing the value of their employees labor like parasites. This system is not just inherently autocratic, but exploitative as well.

Why have either of those issues? Markets are a great way to organize a large, industrial economy when you have scarcity, with no need for a central planning authority, and the socialist/mutualist definition of property by occupation/use makes it so everyone receives the full value of their labor, without any capitalist parasites living off of the backs of workers, eliminating that form of tyranny and exploitation.

In our current technological state, this is a good system. It's also a good system to be a transitionary step to FALC, as the worker/owners will want to boost their productivity using machines while working less, pocketing all of that new productivity, without having to worry about the wage cuts or technological unemployment that results from automation under capitalism.

Why there aren't more mutualists and MarkSocs?

Maybe it's because I've been reading more Bookchin, but I'm sure it working on the large scale isn't really the point. So saying it can't work on a large scale is beyond the point. I seems to me that if the basic units of society were to change to an organizational model to set them on the course to Communism then everything above it would fall into place. When the local communities seize their local means of production and coordinate it through workers or local citizen councils then the whole complexity issue melts away, at a town or city level I'd suggest that no single part of the larger whole would go about totally disconnected from one another anyways, so on personal levels needs and wants can be communicated on a mouth-to-mouth basis.

You could probably break it down further too, but that's something I'm willing to say would be something to work out when we get there. If anything something like this may or should be handled in a way that the system can be adjusted to suit unique local factors.

I just finished the book The Tipping Point, which somewhere half way through it begins discussing a organizational model being put into practice similar to this. GoreTex or something was its name, I think. But the thing is everyone was referred to as an associate withing the company and every time a factory or shop grew to beyond a hundred and fifty people they'd split the factory and build a new one nearby where the new hundred-fifty new associates go. And the entire company for the most part functions very well, even who'd be called its 'owner' doesn't even recognize himself as one.

what difference does that make? Why can't one group of people produce multiple pizzas? also what the fuck is a marxist society? a society dominated by capitalist relations is as much a "marxist society" as one in which goods are produced and distributed by communist relations.

Capitalism is not markets. Markets are a system independent to and separate from capitalism.

Capitalism is defined by the absolute ownership of property as defined by inheritance, and enforced by the state. This means that someone who owns a business can use the fact that they own the business via inheritance to do absolutely no work, and still profit by paying his employees wages that are lower than the value for the business/owner that they produce. The employees cannot make their own businesses, because the capitalist notion of property by inheritance makes it so only a small minority have the capital (property, money, etc) to actually purchase the tools/property/means of production for running a business. This surplus value theft resulting from the capitalist notion of property is the defining characteristic of capitalism.

A direct example of surplus value theft, one easy to understand, is rent. Suppose you have two men. One man, the capitalist, owns a farm, which he bought with money inherited from his parents. The other man, the farmer, was born too poor to buy his own farm. The farmer therefore rents out the farm from the farm's owner. The farmer toils away on the farm, growing wheat. But because the farm is owned by the capitalist, the farmer must pay him a shitload of money as rent. The capitalist does no work, and lives off of rent money from the farmer. The capitalist is therefore living like a parasite off of the labor of the farmer.

A more common example of surplus value theft is wage labor. For a farm, this means that the capitalist would take all of the wheat grown by the farmer for himself (after all, he 'owns' the property), and pay the farmer less money than what he sells the wheat for. This profit has no basis in the labor of the capitalist, as the farmer has done all labor, and is therefore theft of surplus value from the farmer.

The capitalist becomes rich, although he has done no labor, but the farmer remains poor because he does not get the full value of his labor. This is because the capitalist owns the property where the labor occurs, and not the laborer.

By redefining property as property by use/occupation, the farmer gets ownership of the farm and therefore the full value of everything he produces. The capitalist cannot profit off of the back of other people's labor and therefore must do his own labor to get his food.

Ad markets to this new notion of property and you have mutualism/market socialism.

Over one billion facebook faggots have the time for the most boring kind of shitposting the world has ever seen.

Lel

And please, don't be dense, we both know we are using capitalism as a shorthand for a free market system. You fucking clown lol

You contradict yourself. You jump back and forth between capitalism = markets and capitalism = means of production are privately owned. That type of fallacy is called equivocation.

Either stay with capitalism = markets, in that case you can't be against the mutualists and many other people on the left and even far left, as they are on the same side as you apparently in wanting "capitalism" in that sense. Or stay with capitalism = means of production are privately owned, in which case you would have to make an actual argument as to why you believe that must be a logical prerequisite for all possible functioning rationing and production-planning systems.

Socialism works large scale but communism? Not for long. I think the state is inevitable for you will always have an authoritarian hungry for power trying to take over and feeble minded people who would rather follow them than lead their own lives. If not from within you have invasion from the outside and if the whole country is so organized that it can handle an outsider that basically is a state anyway.

Ahahahahaahaha

Waiting for an answer to this post:

dude he was a strawmanning troll, he's not here anymore.

Because it's true. Or more correctly - it requires small scale and certain type of people.

Let me give you an example: The most stable type of collective community without private property is by far Israel's Kibbutz settlements (there are reports of Sanders spending times in one in his youth). It is populated by Jews that (aside from relatively high Autism Level) have historical and biological connection to communism, it's revolutionaries and hold fondness of Marxism. Communities are relatively small and run successfully for long periods of time. People living there temporarily are generally sent by B'nai B'rith and other organizations for purpose of political training for the outside world (propagating socialist ideas) and democratic elections are held to establish best potential leaders.

It is a blend of Zionist and Socialist ideology that established them at the beginning of 20th century. Today, only a small fraction of Israel lives in such settlements, and they are to my knowledge exclusive to Jews, often being populated by merely few hundred people (which would give validity to theory of individuals being able to care by up to around 100). In theory, such settlements could be established elsewhere, should few hundred people team up and purchase a large chunk of land.

tl;dr - predisposition to successful life without private property is based entirely on spooks.