Really makes you think

Even if I did want to redistribute wealth, which is not socialism, it would still make no sense, because the money I would give away is already being taken by unethical corporations, and my own due is not being given to me by capitalists.

It would be extremely painful.

Did you scan that? Have a source?

You're a big guy

...

C-C-C-COMBO BREAKER

shiggy diggy yada yada

and then i forget to sage myself

shame

Robert Tressell's Ragged Trousered Philanthropists. Great great book. Would recommend to anyone interested in getting into socialism.

Can't redistribute wealth if you don't have it.

Also

...

This poster is wise, and he/she is my nigga along with Fatty Wilde.

...

...

...

said the mormon and the vegetarian….and they were then called a hypocrite by other people around them

kek

The actor gives the action meaning, padawan.

Wait wait wait wait wait, you don't use the newest app?

Not exactly, Vegan Capitalism and Mormon Capitalism are both achievable in civil society alone. Capitalist Socialism is impossible because of the way private property functions (how politics is arranged) and hence Socialism is an inherently political cause.

Production and workers, am I right?

Its not about moral duty. Its about the fact that society is collapsing around us and it would be far more efficient if a handful of people didn't have power over nearly all of the resources.

Yes it does. Hey Xexizy, please give us your nice house and headphones and all these bourgeois accessories. You must redistribute especially after your failure you bourgeois piece of shit.

:U

Wew
Are alt-rightists the most spooked people in the world?

Dumb oversimplification. A socialist economy will always generate a surplus, which unless is directly consumed by those who produce it, will be distributed equally according to need. Ofc this is very different from the 'dude all corporations should give 10% of their income to the poor' meme form of redistribution, but a socialist economy will involve distribution from overproduction either via a state or a multitude of councils, syndicates, communes, etc.

So, you are fucking liberals then.

But that won't fix inefficient administration. In fact it even seems to make things worse as you are going to suffer for the lack of centralisation and the desire of communes to secret hoard resources like in times past and mistrust of other communes.

"will be distributed equally according to need"
This is not a communist society we're talking about, a socialist society. Why not let the workers keep the surplus w/ sizable tax?

Is it meant because of hoarding? I don't think a single worker is going to be able to hoard millions.

What do you mean by "directly consumed"?

W E W

...

TOP KEK

It's not the socialists who are afraid of centralization, not even some of the leftcoms around here; it's the anarchists.

If it's actual socialism – I mean the real thing, that we haven't seen yet – then hoarding is pointless. What's the point in hoarding goods and services that cannot be exchanged for profit? Otherwise, "hoarding" means capital accumulation. Until we're at socialism commodity production will still occur, and those commodities will need to be exchanged for profit in order for the firm, co-operative or not, to survive. A co-operative will be more democratic than a capitalist firm, where the boss or board of directors appropriate surplus value and then reinvest it or distribute it amongst themselves as dividends, but it will nonetheless be subject to market competition and exchange. So in all likelihood, those workers will chose to reinvest most of it and grow the business until it becomes a monopoly. What happens after a monopoly is established with a co-operative is anyone's guess, I don't know of any occurrence of it before. But, speculating, if monopolies, and thus cartels or syndicates, are established across all industries, then the basis will be there for them to start producing for use, not exchange. So it could be the start of socialism.

Directly consumed means what it says: if the producers aren't using the all products of their labor themselves, in their immediate community, then there's a surplus which can be exchanged for things that community lacks. This is basic stuff, Rebel.

This question makes no sense, first of all I think you mean "exchange for other commodities" and secondly, why do you think markets/exchanges and socialism are incompatible? Mutualism, market socialism for example. Money still exists under socialism you know. It's still got exchange.
Money wouldn't exist under communism.
Socialism simply means collective, democratic, or worker ownership over the means of production. All other considerations should become null after that for deciding whether it's socialistic.

"Immediately"
Soooo, no keeping a tin of beans you made in your cupboard for when you get hungry?
"Directly consumed" is a nonsensical term by the sounds of it.

Since you say this is basic stuff, and because I'm evidently so ignorant, how would you define socialism for a simpleton like me?

And by the way, I think Marxian economists like Wolff might disagree with you on what you think socialism means if you reject the simple premise that it is worker ownership of MoP.

youtube.com/watch?v=a1WUKahMm1s

Money is indeed a commodity, but it's unlike any other. That's another issue, though.

I strongly disagree. You mentioned mutualism and that is appropriate, but workers' control is not the alpha and omega of socialism. It's a simple inversion of the Soviet model, which largely stopped at the abolition of private property.

It's not. If a community is only meeting the needs of its own subsistence, then commodity production is impossible.

Firstly, get over yourself. Secondly, it's three main things (in no particular order): the abolition of private property; the abolition of commodity production; and finally workers' control.

Wolff is allowed his own interpretation. From what I understand, he wants to use market "socialism" as a stepping stone, which is fine. I just disagree with the terminology – socialism, to me, involves production for use (or need) not exchange. And I would not reject that it involves workers' control.

Isn't that le ebil gommunism meme tho?

but if money is a commodity, and it exists within socialism, can you deny that surplus value can be exchanged for money by the workers themselves?

I agree, but democratic, collective or worker ownership is the defining feature of all socialist systems. Thinking about the levels of taxation, whilst important, it seems to me a caveat when discussing the merits of the system itself.

Can you cite its usage in a context that makes sense?

That's a false dichotomy. You said *all surplus value not immediately used* would be given to the community, distributed equally. We're not talking about barely meeting the needs, or to what extent there is taxation or taking surplus value.

Did you get this from a specific source, or did you decide this yourself? I can't move on to talk about Wolff until you answer this, either. Where are you getting this information from?

And actually, given that the simplest definition is usually the best one, can you tell me what a society where the MoP are owned democratically or by workers would be if *not* be socialist? If it's true that that is not all it takes to become a socialist society?

Rebel, why do you tripfag?

The same reason you use a flag.

Rebel, even I know that's dumb! A name is much more specific than a flag and yet it says less about your position in total.

does it?
People know all my positions on most things by now, so when they see the name they know I'm a Kierkegaardfag catholic who likes post-keynesian economics, which is a lot more informative than a flag. They also know I'm not a marxist nor an anarchist. I'd say it's more informative

Plus, it's fun to look at, just like a flag

I don't use a flag to be recognized, I use it to put my post in context of my somewhat beliefs.
Sadly there's no Communist-Transhumanist flag so I have to use this.

This is easily the most autistic thing I have seen on this site.

Yes. I'm still not aware of the specifics of your particular views(I ignored you for the most part), but if an user throws on an ancom or leninhat flag I've got a fairly good idea of what they believe.

there you go, same reason.

Well, most people do know what my hot spicy opinions are when they see the name. You don't know the specifics, but you know more than you would from a flag, I'm sure.

Yes. Not everyone follows your posts around to make them coherent unto your name. Besides, people just see your flag and assume Rebel anyway.

But it's not the same reason. I'm still pseudo-user while you actually tripfag. Everybody can put on the same flag.

well, of course they don't, but they're bound to remember some of what i've said before.

Eh, maybe you're right.

Isn't that a bad thing? No responsibility for what you say, shouldn't people knowing who you are give you an incentive to contribute better?

Not really tbh. You're a christfag with socialist beliefs/sympathies. I got that from your flag, all I get from your name is that you've got cancer and read more theory than a teenage boy who paints plastic men.

And that's you specifically. My beliefs would be more telegraphed if I started using an ancom flag than if I started namefagging as "Comrade Bigdick", at least for the initial few months or so.

If we're producing for use rather than exchange, I doubt that money would be necessary, but as to what could replace it? Better minds than mine have failed, so far.

In the case of the co-operative, if workers realize the full value of their production sold on the market, they can take the monetary form of their surplus, and then reinvest it or distribute it amongst themselves, or perhaps both. Whatever they decide.

Be careful here. Stalinists, for example, regularly claim the USSR had all these features since it was a workers' state. Ownership is too broad a term.

If you're not producing a surplus, you don't have anything to exchange, nor do you have a division of labor for that matter. Humanity hasn't been in that position since before the neolithic. My mistake for following up what someone else said.

No, I didn't. I already said that co-operatives decide what to do with their surplus. You're giving me a headache.

I really don't want to talk about Wolff, so I'll keep those cards down. If you disagree with my position, how about you state your own opinion?

Like I said, it could be mutualist. It's the libertarian socialists who don't mind markets, I've found, and the Marxians like Wolff. There is a point of disagreement between Marxians and Marxists – and it's over the market, amongst other things.

Well on imageboards tripfagging amounts to attention-whoring. Not being an attentionwhore is kind of the point to imageboards.

Kek'd a little. Poor Muke, now he'll be the butt of every joke about theoretical illiteracy.

Having an identity shifts the focus from what you're saying to who you are. The reason I like anonymous imageboards so much is because one's ideas count for more than the image you project or who you're friends with.

You haven't demonstrated that there will be no exchange however.

You definitely doubt incorrectly. Definitely. I don't know many socialists, economist or otherwise, who think that.

No, it didn't. It really, really didn't. Wtf. Pic related.

What on earth? What the actual fuck?

Yes you did. You said when workers don't "immediately use" (specifically you said directly consumed then defined it as such) surplus value it will be taken and distributed equally. That's what you said. Don't go back on it now.

And I still see *no* citation to the definition here, and I'm getting rather annoyed at this game of yours, so how about you put up a reason for defining it like that?

I define it as worker/democratic ownership because 1. that's how everyone else has agreed to define it 2. that's *the* distinction from a capitalist system

Mutualism is a form of socialism.

Rebel, you literally haven't read a fucking thing, yet you claim to know how everybody else "has agreed" to define socialism. Holy fuck I can't believe I wasted my time trying to educate a useless piece of cancerous shit like you.

Fucking purposefully misreading me too. What the fuck did I expect from talking to you? KYS.

False, and you know it, saltyfag.

lmgtfy.com/?q=What is socialism

Never mind, I take that back: you are literally that stupid.

This, actually. When I use my trip I'm less likely to flame and be an asswipe.

Does it really? I don't understand this argument. Most attention tripfags receive is negative anyway.

I don't think I'm projecting any particular image until I have news to report about my activism in Puerto Rico (which itself would be its own justification for using a trip). Rebel might be but only because of his videos.

Keep running your mouth hotshot. Maybe try making use of that dank anonymity and start again afresh, be more honest with yourself next time

They receive more negative attention because tripfagging is for attention-whores. I can give my point without giving a name, so it stands on it's merits as opposed to my reputation.

What's so autistic about it?

t. Every gommunist ever