In a socialist society how is one rewarded for their labor...

In the very beginning, you're probably still paid with classic currency, except salary are decided not by your boss but collectively. After that come some kind of labor voucher, or whatever system measuring value of labor (also collectively decided, unless we somehow find a way to objectively measure the value of one's contribution). Once we reach post scarcity, the question stop making sense but this is not really socialism so to speak anymore…
For the "collectively determined part", if you listen to anarchists, it would be the whole commune deciding, market socialism woud let each coop make its decision whereas ML would probably establish state wide rules.

this, only anti-social property-fetishist would complain about receiving the same amount of potatoes, butter etc as someone else of equal need.

If you want to compete, compare videogame speedruns. Livelihood shouldn't be distributed unequally solely to please the ego of some crybabies.

How would we know how much to produce to satisfy everyone's needs, how do we know if we're not over-producing or under-producing?

I'm not really a fan of market socialism since it requires socially necessary labor time, and upholds laws of value.

Supercomputers and algorithms.

Demand? If the distribution center needs more food they contact the state bureaucracy/worker coop/worker's council and raise demand. The coop at the end then raise demand on labor. Vice versa if they're overproducing.

this would require very quick efficiency and response time, no? How can we be sure that workers will respond quick enough to high and low demand signals?

Do such algorithms or computers even exist right now? How would we know if it is properly accountable for?

That depends on who you ask, since each branch has a tendency to assert that their branch is the best and everybody else needs to be gulaged. Imo the best option is for the various branches to form their own parties and run for government democratically within the context of a socialist constitution that outlaws private or non-worker ownership of the MoP.

Well, no, not really. What are these products that are subject to high variance in demand that are also so life crucial that high response time is important?
I also can't see which process that is very reliant on quick response time wherein this isn't easy to implement.
Food production does not vary very much. Proper planning will also ensure that there is some abundance. In any case most food production (Produce, e.g.) is pretty slow on the grand scale of things, so even today they have no way of acting in anticipation of short-term high/low demand signals should they occur. They can only act in broad strokes.
In a market society, this is fixed by import when production is too low and export when production is too high.
I don't see why this can't be the case as well in socialist society, given that there is socialist societies with whom one can inter depend.

No more than in capitalism. Your local supermarket already has to adjust its demand to its furnishers to the demand of its clients. The furnishers have to adjust their demand to the factories to the demand of the supermarkets. And so on. All of this doesn't happen automatically by the magic of the market. Capitalism already requires people making statistics, previsions and plans at every level of the production.

I would honestly be incredibly annoyed if I was a really good cook who'd happily cook for the entire community, but a couple of people stole all the creme fraiche to eat raw with spoons. Shouldn't I be entitled to all the creme fraiche if I can make better use of it?

Look at how it works today. If you work as a cook in a restaurant to earn your wage, you will indeed be entitled all the crème fraîche so you can do your job. But you won't own the crème fraîche and you will still have to obey it's owner.

So if 80% of the creme fraiche takers in my community one day decided to feed their rations to the dogs, would I have to order a bigger shipment for the next month so that I could have as much creme fraiche as I needed to make my food? Isn't that exploitable?

Well yeah, you can order a bigger shipment. But if crème fraîche is scarce, you probably won't have it given what you did with the previous one.

I don't see the point you're trying to make, really.

My point is that some people would make better use of the resources available, and the policies should reflect on that. Everybody shouldn't be given the same amount of everything

well boy isn't it a good thing that literally nobody has ever said that everybody should be given the same amount of everything

>>>/gulag/

Society doesn't exist to protect you from being annoyed. A part of growing up is learning that sometimes you have suck it up for the greater good.

Correct me if I'm wrong here, but dosnt Marx say that labour vouchers are determined through not only time but also intensity? That would account for differences in productivity, surely.

That makes no sense whatsoever. It has to be backed by the value of the goods produced

So, what does this quote from Critique of the Gotha program mean then?

"But one man is superior to another physically, or mentally, and supplies more labor in the same time, or can labor for a longer time; and labor, to serve as a measure, must be defined by its duration or intensity, otherwise it ceases to be a standard of measurement."

Is Marx saying that it has to be duration or intensity for everyone all the time and that's it, or that a worker can choose to be measured on either for a case by case basis?

I think the latter would make more sense.

Read Nazi Germany's economic program. If your labor produces more value than your colleague's labor do then you get rewarded more than them.

In a socialist society, people own the fruits of their own labour. They make their own reward.

The whole point of communism is to get rid of value.

That's impossible. You have to ban all forms of barter then. For as long as people barter, an arbitrary value of goods will always exist

No. In a socialist society, nobody owns anything anymore. That's why it's called socialism, because everything belongs to society as a whole.

No I dont give a shit about their economic program.

Yes.

Yes, that's what communism is.

How are you going to uphold those laws? How do you differentiate between barter and gifts?

so either nazi germany had zero growth in trade value and what Hitler said was true, or he was lying and it was a capitalist state, the talk about "socialism" was a smokescreen of sophist bullshit.

seeing as nazi germany's trade value increased it seems to be the latter.

Define growth of trade value.

Yes Nazi Germany was the definition of state capitalism. The people traded with each other and the state traded with the global market

So I can take it all? Or will I be killed for that? Surely there is at least some informal limit.

How do you plan to barter when you don't own anything, nor does the person you're intending to barter with? And why, when you don't need to barter to get what you need anyway?

That's in communism, not socialism.

If you build a chair that you place in your kitchen and nobody says anything, then you own that chair. If you have an apple that you're about to consume then you own that apple and you can trade it for something better if you want. Who's going to stop you? The black market will always exist, so therefore trade will always exist.

You might get what you need, but if you trade what you have you can get something better.

I don't think anyone could stop you trading a cup of sugar to your neighbour for a few slices of bread, but what kind of trade do you see going on that would pose a threat of reintroducing capitalism? People can't trade labour vouchers so whatever it was would have to be barter, and people could get whatever item they wanted from state depositories anyway. What kind of trade do you think would be endemic?

If you and your comrades work at a factory that produces more valuable goods than anywhere else, then you and your comrades have the power to steal from the factory and trade the goods for something else or you can sell it to other countries and get real money that you can use to buy things that nobody else can get a hold of.

You can also take bribes and give the highest bidder first priority on the goods that you produce

You're basically kings

First of all, you can't have socialism in one country: socialism will be global (you partly explain yourself why in your post).

Now, let's take into consideration this future global socialist society. You say you will appropriate something without getting caught, then somehow contact someone who has also appropriated the exact thing you want without getting caught, and then barter with him (because of course you also have the exact thing he wants). All of this in a society where you, your partner, and everyone else can get everything they need for free.

I know the interest of discussing an extreme case to test the limits of a theory but come on, at this point this is becoming ridiculous. You just assume that everyone will always want to trade for the sake of trading, which of course is false.

This is why discussing with communists is retarded. Your theories would only work within the framework of global communism but global communism is unachievable without first having nazism, but commies see nazism as the greatest evil in the world. Fucking useful idiot. Gas yourself.

Are you equating having socialism in one country to nazism, are you retarded?

This is either a sublime trolling or … just another day on Holla Forums.

You need to first gain political control over 1 country. Then you need to break free from the international bankers and issue out your own currency that's backed by labor, then you can conquer the world. There's literally no other way. Your idea of a vanguard state will always be invaded by the capitalists because there's just too much money to be made in fucking your shit up

No there isn't. Good luck with taking away one million cartons of milk or some thousands of gaming laptops

...

What does this have to do with Nazis? They were literally the bitch of banks even in 1945.

The only power that actually broke free was USSR.

And your point is?

In communism you let your guard down and submit to your enemies

Why exactly do you think they broke any more free than the nazis did?