Moderate Democrat here with a question on wealth distribution.
I don't know much about socialism admittedly, so I was wondering if it's true that socialism would force doctors to make the same amount of money as a janitor? I've heard many conflicting things ever since the 2016 election and while Sanders claimed to be a socialist, many of his views seemed to be more of that of older democrats like F.D.R.
I am usually a 4chan Holla Forums user but I have been told that Holla Forums is cancerous so I admit that my political knowledge is minimal at best.
Pic related is my political compass score. Being a Democrat I thought I would be closer to the left.
From each according to his ability, to each according to their needs.
The idea is that socialism is a vehicle to Communism and not an end in and of itself. To some it is, whom we typically refer to as 'State Socialists'. The majority of people here (From polls I have seen) believe in Anarcho-Communism, which skips over the idea of forming a revolutionary vanguard party (read up about this) but they typically support anything that involves liberating the means of production from Capitalists and things that give workers more self determination. What Marxist-Leninists and Ancoms have in common is that they both believe in class conflict with the eventual goal being stateless, non-hierarchical communism. Marxists like vanguards though.
Wealth redistribution is tricky and often happens in a revolutionary atmosphere, which can get really shitty really quickly. I suggest reading up about Makhno's black army and how they conducted revolutionary expropriations of Capitalist property and redistributed it.
Also we're not really after your toothbrush. Personal Property=/=Private property
In communism, we try to overcome the value form in its entirety, so we don't even have to think about how much someone owns, because everybody would have access to commodities the same way, as long as they are not scarce. Sure, there might be some reward systems in place for people who contributed to society in special ways, to give them rare luxury goods etc.
As for the transitional stage towards communism (first-stage communism, socialism), which might be more relevant for you: No. That's retarded. There are clearly several theories about the inherent value about types of jobs it there (social responsibility, personal responsibility, level of physical effort, level of difficulty, etc.) so it's clear that not everybody can earn the same. However, we might reevaluate some of the more ridiculous salaries of CEOs, not by just cutting their salary, but to entirely restructure the internal organization of firms. Basically, a CEO earns so much because the company is privately owned.
Sanders is a Social Democrat. Social Democracy is a welfare state leaving capitalism in place(redistribution of wealth). Socialism wants to overthrow the capitalist system through worker ownership of the means of production and elimination of the market. Examples for socialism would be Cuba until the death of Castro or the Soviet Union until 1956.
1. Replace modern government with local face-to-face assemblies which confederate to scale up 2. Economy is organized through an electronic planning application which calculates on the basis of supply and demand in material terms and organizes production to best fit what everyone demands (see: Soviet Cybernetics thread) 3. Firms as we know them no longer exist - no one owns means of production and work ceases to exist as a category distinct from daily life (a photonegative of how work today governs your life even outside of the workplace - ever had the boss call you at home, ask you to work overtime, etc?) and people instead do work with them to earn bonuses on the scarcest of items (we will likely never produce enough gold jewelry to satisfy everyone's wants of it, so perhaps distribution of such luxury items to those who do the most necessary work makes the most sense; it's also possible to imagine a communal usage of scarce resources on the basis of social norms as has been done for most of human history, from the earliest hunter-gatherer tribes right up to the feudal communes such as the Russian mir, which existed from ~500 AD until 1931) 4. As inferred from above, money ceases to exist. People freely take what they need - "from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs". The issue of a janitor being paid the same as a doctor is a nonstarter because both of them would enjoy the standard of living typical of a modern doctor, if not better. You'd be surprised at the sheer productive capacity of modern society once you look at the numbers. Then you get angry and dejected over how inefficient and irrational this whole system is. There, communism within a modern socio-technological context (probably the most similar widespread ideology to what's described here is left communism, ultraleft Marxists critical of Lenin and the USSR from the very start, more specifically the communization current within it) Also, this isn't a bad post: We agree. He's not a socialist, he's a social democrat. The only democratic socialist who has ever held true to his promises and set about creating socialism was Salvador Allende (president of Chile, 1970-1973), who called himself a Marxist and was overthrown by a CIA-backed coup.
you're already asking the wrong question
And why do you support free trade? What's so good about producing everything in Chinese sweatshops? What's so good about putting your fellow man out of a job because he can't compete with somebody who's working for $0.2 an hour?
Thank goodness you support the reduction of your countrymen to the status of a precariat and the locking of the whole world into poverty. Millions of Third Worlders are driving down wages and half the world is toiling away in sweatshops; the world is being partitioned into international capitalist overlords and billions of slaves… but those are but footnotes in history, the end of which is gay marriage.
A Nazi making a decent post? This world seems upside down.
"Dude, all Marxists are Leninists, they are, like, just, you know, statists. They all totally want, like, a vanguard party. What's a council communism? What's a German/Dutch left communism? What's a theory?" t. Anarchist
Very subtle OP, well done.
I mean, your post is pretty good, but that bit about marxists all wanting a vanguard is just completely wrong, comrade. Sorry to sound so hostile.
Councilism is a dead tradition, and future working class struggles are likely to take the form of something similar to the vanguard party.
I couldn't give a fuck about niggers as long as they stay in Africa you lefty cuck.
somebody forget their shitposting flag?
oh no wait this whole thing is a Holla Forums ruse I understand
Doesn't matter; the anarchist was wrong and needed to be corrected.
It's national socialism, after all, and not national ''suck the cock of the almighty job creators"-ism.
NatSoc means putting your own people first, but that doesn't mean I approve of every calamity that befalls someone else. True: the thought of 100m Chinese working in sweatshops and living in cages doesn't keep me up at night, but it's not therefore A-OK in my eyes. I also do not approve of the wholesale enslavement of humanity for profit.