So how are you guys going to make people stop using money?

the entire point of socialism is to enable him to be a pizza maker if that is what he chooses and finds fulfilling

Depends on the region, some of us will use AK47's, in other regions they will use AR15's.

Who says he would get the same if he was a pizza maker? Obviously different people will ave different wants and needs. Each individual person will want different things out of life and communism will allow them to pursue what they want to do.

I know, but why would anyone choose to be a doctor then? You have to study for years to get qualified. John won't want to be a doctor just to help people. People aren't as generous as you think. Why do you think there are still homelessness problems? I don't see Leftists doing anything about that problem because no one is that generous. Homelessness and unsustainable population seems to increase because of socialism, conversely.

So do you just go on the honor system and say "don't take too much" or what?

Meritocracy still exists under socialism. I don't know who planted this idea in your head that "socialism = equal pay". I mean, how the fuck does Cuba manage it to actually have a surplus of doctors?

A lot of people study science for years and shit and in their jobs they are payed with a shit wage.

lolwat. Homelessness was non-existent in the Warsaw pact bloc.

All you said was a lie. Socialist countries have zero unemployment and zero homelessness. This was never achieved by capitalism. And again, Cuba exports doctors because they have too many of them.

Also, funny how you keep posting Nazi pictures while complaining about debt considering Hitlers economy was entirely fueled by a ponzi scheme (Mefo-Wechsel) and foreign debt.

Speaking of surgeons and doctors, we need to automate and replace doctors with robots / AI.

The most important skill or natural talent for a doctor is rote memorization and a supercomputer will always do that better. But we need advanced AI to to make up for what we refer to as "critical thinking" skills via deep learning of artificial neural networks.

Learn about post-scarcity and full automation.

why would anyone choose to be a pizza maker
generosity doesn't have anything to do with it. what, do you think communities are just going to do without doctors? do you think life in socialism will just be capitalism with different people in charge?
because programs to build homes for people have been gutted and existing homes are made to stand empty for the supposed profit of the owner
what exactly do you think "socialism" is
there is only so much a person can take of any given thing before it becomes useless. depending on what we're talking about, food for instance, one can only store so much or eat so much. if you're rolling up to the commune granary and taking more than you could possibly use to the detriment of the rest of the commune then i imagine they'd sanction you in some way.
one person on here suggested a system rather like the seed ratio on torrents, where taking more means getting progressively less over time, but producing more for the commune or city or syndicate or whatever will allow you to take more, or something similar to that, which I think is an interesting idea
since everyone theoretically has access to these necessities, food, water, shelter, education, etc, there is no direct coercive force that someone can use to extract production from the labor of others, so you're limited in regards to what you can "put in" based on your own relative productive ability
so, in regards to that at least taking more than you can use would ultimately be detrimental to yourself, socially and "economically," so to speak

those are pretty bold claims and so i'd like to politely request a source

Socialists. Higher paid people get taxed more so lower paid people are more equal in income.

Do you consider the Warsaw pact bloc to be Communist or Socialist on Holla Forums?

So do you consider Cuba to be Socialist or Communist then? I'm confused on what you guys consider to be true Socialist or Communist countries. Do nordic ones count? Venezuela? The USSR? Vietnam? NK? China? Can you give me a quick list so I know which ones aren't so I can argue better? I don't want to mistake your examples. I consider all the ones listed either Communist or Socialist, by the way.

Please watch: youtube.com/watch?v=u6XAPnuFjJc
for a short overview in the latest research into what motivates people

Socialism has nothing to do with equalizing income or taxes.
Most people here probably wouldn't even consider them socialist.
Again, certain people will claim that Cuba is or was socialist and others on here will say it is state capitalist.
No, social democracy is still capitalism.
No, most people, except for MLs and a few others, would say those were state capitalist.

they aren't taxed more so that they're "more equal," unless you're some kind of liberal faggot that believes equal pay would somehow eliminate the inherent class contradictions within the capitalist system
it depends on who you ask and what ideological current they follow. in general, no, they weren't socialism proper because for the most part they didn't move to eliminate class society, money, the market, private property (as opposed to personal property), or put the productive forces of society into the hands of the workers. however, with that in mind the october revolution is considered to be a genuine socialist revolution that, much like the french revolution before it, encountered such circumstances that eventually derailed it. slavoj zizek (and i don't know if the term originated with him) calls it "really existing socialism," in that its socialist roots definitely influenced the soviet union's evolution, and there were some kinda sorta herky jerky attempts at some socialist ideals, so while materially or ideologically there was nothing about them that was socialist (and there are plenty of people that will reject them outright because of that), they were still attempts at creating a socialist society

i'm sure there is alot about this answer that others will object to but that's my current understanding, and so i hope if i'm in error they'll speak up and correct me

some argue that a truly socialist country cannot exist, at least in the way most people understand what a country is. internationalism is an essential hallmark of socialism, and some might say a major reason the ussr failed to achieve or build socialism was the policy of "socialism in one country." much like capitalism, socialism isn't something than can "exist" or "be tried" in isolation. there are also various theories surrounding this and i am unable to go into each one, but i think mostly the idea is that none of us can be free until all of us can be free
so while you've had various countries try to achieve this ideal, none have yet been successful–for numerous reasons–and on their own none can be successful, and so global revolution is needed

Fucking use google for fucks sake, the definition of socialism and communism are easily available.

Socialism: worker ownership of the means of production
Communism: a stateless and classless society

How could you possibly expect to understand something you clearly haven't researched at all?

The studies in that video don't have a consequence for doing things badly in a job, like being fired. It's hardly a good experiment.

So everything is just using the "it wasn't really communism" excuse?
Class is literally about income and that is something most socialists want gone.

Then how do you go about removing that? Who decides what is private and what is personal property? Marx?

Absolutely incorrect.

...

You should use your search engine of choice to find out what the socialist definition of class is. It has nothing to do with income and instead is the relation one has to the means of production.
It's not a hard distinction. If it is used by workers to produce commodities while their labor is exploited then it is private.

Class is about ownership of private property, not how many moneys you get.

...

Communism has never existed, so it's perfectly valid.

Class is about private ownership of the means of production.

Private property is the idea that sufficiently wealthy people can buy the means of production. No one decides what is and isn't private propety - it has a clear definition already.

So small bussiness owners are the same as the owners of MegaCorp?

What if some guy buys a knife and sells wood sculptures? Does that count as "means of production" and "private property"? How wealthy is "sufficiently wealthy"?

yes

OP is clearly shitposting but he is not banned.
Another OP makes a thread about pic related and its anchored.
Quality board.

Small business owners are petite-bourgeoisie, They are still of the bourgeois class.

OP is asking legitimate questions, he's not doing anything wrong.

I'm not that guy, but I have a question for you.

To what extent are we sure of our production power, when it comes to food and especially clean water, especially in the long run? Of course we are now producing more than enough food, and we still have enough water to keep anyone alive (although we are not really doing so), but for how long will this be sustainable, without drastic changes? Have we actually solved agriculture and water purification?

Of course I know that a negative answer wouldn't be a prop for capitalism, for it implies that in case of caresties even more people will die, since resources won't be shared equally, so just know that I'm interested in a pragmatical answer, rather than a ideological one.

That makes zero sense. Even if they're not successful and making ends meet they're still the same as companies that have monopolies. I think your definition of class needs a little bit of tweaking if you actually think this.

the country with the highest concentration of physicians in the world literally pays them less than cab drivers lol

No one has said that class is about success or size. It is about relationship to the means of production. Someone who owns a local grocery store and someone who owns a massive corporation both own some means of production. They both exploit the labor of those who work there. What problem do you have with this way of analyzing class exactly? There are the propertied and the propertyless, a brainlet could figure it out.

Yes mega mc'dic corp and mom and pop mc'dic are the same hence both bourgeoisie

What if he's the only employee? You guys make no sense.

Then no one gives a fuck

But then he still has "private property", you're contradicting yourself.

they're part of the ownership class, but in terms of scale mom and pop's can't compete with supconmegacorp. generally they're divided into the petite bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie respectively.

he's been polite and asking relevant questions, so what's the problem

to be honest i can't give you a definitive answer. the effects of climate change make projection difficult, and what's true for some place today might not be true tomorrow. i've also heard things like that we'll be out of phosphates for artificial fertilizer within 50 years, but i can't say. currently from what i can see we'll be facing significant problems in the years to come one way or another, but they're problems we can potentially manage the sooner we begin addressing them.

they both engage in the same system of exploitation and capital accumulation. under capitalism, you either become a megacorp or you die, and you can see this in the vast economic wastelands of the united states where wal-mart or whatever moved in and destroyed the local economy

if he's getting by entirely by his own labor then he's not bourgeois. my artist friend isn't bourgeois because he has a computer and tablet and sells his art. the critical element is control of and to the means of producing the necessities for replicating daily life.

Thats not private property because he does not use it to exploit labour from someone else

He's not extracting surplus value from anyone else so most of us here would be okay with him.

They are not, it is a widely established fact that the USSR didn't have unemployment between the NEP and the end of the 80s.

pravdareport.com/russia/economics/14-03-2013/124070-ussr_unemployment-0/

The Soviet constitution literally gave you a right to work. It should be obvious that unemployment is an artifical, capitalist phenomenon that didn't exist before capitalism and will disappear under socialism. That there was no homelessness should be self-explanatory.

That's social democracy, not socialism. Socialism doesn't have taxes.

I'll try
socialist
socialist
socialist
Not socialist, has a big private sector and it's not a workers state, it's a social democracy
lol no, social democracy
no, state capitalist
state capitalist

The definition of private property has already been posted here multiple times. If someone is just using their personal time to make knick knacks for some extra funds on the side, they are not bourgeois, they aren't exploiting the labor of others.

Mautist bein shit as usual.

So the difference is in someone agreeing to help?
Why?

Well unlike others in this thread I'm actually able to give me him concrete examples and consistent definitions he can work with. Literally four different posters with a different abstract definition of worker ownership of socialism screeching "google it!!" at him

private property stands in opposition to what was historically known as the commons, or communal property. english peasants (just for example) had access to tracts of unowned lands called the commons. however, between the 15th and 19th century (approximately) the landed aristocracy embarked on a gradual program of enclosing the commons and taking ownership of it.

so you have common property, which is productive resources that people need to live and which everyone is free to take from, private property, which is productive resources etc but with exclusive rights to those resources at the discretion of their owner, and you have personal property, which would be your farming implements, home, and other effects that you yourself personally use.

You faggot really had to add that webm of "the ultralefts favorite tourist guide", did you?

because they are not agreeing to help, they have no choice but to help unless they want to starve to death, and this is only because someone has either claimed or been granted ownership over some vital element of survival. you cannot live except by the whim of another, who has the "right" to rescind that muh privilege at any time, for any reason, whatever the cost to you.

Because if someone is working for an owner then their surplus value is being extracted and their labor exploited. If someone is in their own home painting and selling their work then there isn't any labor being exploited(directly)

No unemployment on it's own isn't necessarily a good thing if quality of life still sucks. Hitler had practically no unemployment as well, you know. What matters, in the end, is quality of life.

Teens get jobs all the time and they usually don't have to pay for their own stuff. The person in question could also start a farm if food is an issue, no one is preventing that.

If they really cared about that, they wouldn't be working in a place that exploited them. Or they would make their own business where people aren't exploited. They are free to sell their own sculptures.

That's a funny joke

Damn lemme live that life.

they don't "have to pay for their own stuff" because their parents pay for it, who have to either work or let them and their family starve.
is it just that easy to start a farm? a snap of the fingers and you're self sufficient?

their choice is to either be exploited or starve.
another snap of the fingers and voila, you have a business. i had no idea it was so easy. you can't have a capitalist enterprise where exploitation doesn't occur, because that exploitation is the central mechanism by which capital is extracted and accumulated. gates and jobs were only able to make those billions because their workers didn't get it. instead they were paid a tiny fraction, and the rest goes to the top, usually to people who did no work themselves for it, or whose work couldn't possibly be in proportion to their reward.

You can make a business right now were you can split the wages evenly.

I'm not seeing teens starving because they don't buy food, their parents do. People can get jobs because they want stuff, not because they need it.

There isn't such a thing as a business that doesn't exploit people. Profits are derived from exploiting workers.

It's not about being good or bad, but unemployment is a problem as it necessitates welfare systems, and it's also wasted labor potential. The less unemployment there is, the less longer is your workday. In the Third Reich in 1935 there were still 1 million unemployed, and also that number could only be achieved due to military draft and mandatory labor (Reichsarbeitsdienst). The USSR actually had a labor shortage.

Regarding the quality of life thing, please don't compare Switzerland to Cuba. Compare Cuba to Haiti. Socialism has to work with the material conditions it's been given, and it just so happens that almost all the countries that had a socialist revolution were shitholes. Also, a short look at the life expectancy in the USSR compared with the life expectancy in capitalist modern Russia should, together with other data, imply that quality of life is indeed better under socialism.

How are people exploited, exactly? Work = good result. That's how nature functions. Animals need to work to pull grasses out of the ground to eat. Predators work to catch their prey.

Aren't doctors then exploited by your own definition?

most people who try and become doctors for muh money don't last very long in med-school.

it's an awfully comfortable life you must have, where you can just make a business or start a farm, snap! just like that.

the wage ratio isn't the problem, but the entire system that makes wages necessary. wages are an expression and symptom of the exploitative system of capital, but they aren't what makes the relationship exploitative.
yeah? and? their parents are wage workers and have to either submit to exploitation or die.
except they can't just "get jobs," because access to those jobs is controlled by the private property owner. if everyone could just "get jobs" then there wouldn't be a jobless or homeless problem.

We won't make them stop. Automation will kill off Capitalism.

Yes. Communism is just human evolution, automation will remove the need of currency.

They are exploited if the value they produce goes to someone who did not do the work. This is how capitalism functions

it's been explained to you several times now.

replace currency with labor vouchers

He didn't even take off his glove or look him in the eye. Haha!

Hitler was such a cucked-manlet.

- destroy the mints
- eliminate banks
- trade away jewelry or put it in museums

(same meme reaction)
Like nah I can't, the majority can't… what are you some kinda rich kid who don't know that not everyone has lots of money. Businesses are expensive and by definition exploit the workers, a proper response might be a commune or co-op

You really are a spoiled kid aren't you.

That's the impression I'm getting, too.

Communism is about sharing that stuff. "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is not the philosophy of "keep what you yourself produce", If you truly think that, you're probably more of a libertarian than anything.

It's not exploitation if it's agreed by both parties that it's fair.

If we ever become a hive mind, then Communism might work. Until then, I don't see it happening. The logic is too wonky and naive otherwise.

Nice projection. I didn't even get to eat lunches in school 90% of the time because my parents started a business at the time. It's only now starting to pay off.

Lol, the nigga that had to google the definition of socialism is trying to tell communists what communism is about.

Do I need to bring out the meme again?

Yeah I ain't seeing anything to contradict what I said. All I see is some rich kid who wants to cry.

Even if your bullshit "I couldn't even eat school lunches thing" was true, the fact that you're not absolutely furious with a system that says a poor child cannot eat because they don't have enough monopoly money is pants on head retarded.

And don't even go posting 40k shit, you spoiled liberal nignog. The only thing thicker than your shitty paints is your skull if you think that any free market lolbertarian policies would do anything than turn into fedualism with ™ plastered everywhere.

Which is why people still barter and still use gold as currency. It never ended.

You dont have any arguments.

how is this relevant?

Collectivise all means of production and stores and make labour vouchers the only valid form of payment in those stores.

No use for money if you get paid in labour vouchers and you can only buy things with labour vouchers.

That seems to me a rather unorthodox definition of work you have there. Would you call what a mass-murdering cannibal does work? The animals you mention directly consume the result of that "work". When a human individual directly consumes the result of their actions (preparing a meal you eat yourself, repairing a thing you use yourself), the issue of alienation and exploitation doesn't come up. Do non-human animals pay rent?

Heres the thing, we should all just kill each other over it.