Simple question

how do you define/qualify socialism and where did you get the definition/qualifications

worker
ownership
of
the
means
of
production

any other answer is bollocks

workers owning the means of production

The end of private, hierarchical ownership of the means of production and the replacement of such with worker's ownership over the means of production.

...

Removing 🍀🍀🍀them🍀🍀🍀 from power and and invading Poland.

It's when we take your toothbrush and fuck your waifu.

This.

Worker ownership of the means of production and their exploitation for use value (planned use and consumption) as opposed to exchange value (trade motivated by value form).

^this

Communism is a mode of production based on immediately intelligible relations of free and equal people producing use values, and this directly social production is consciously subordinated to society as a whole via a centralized system of planning of production, as labor becomes just another life activity until it emerges as the prime expression of human creativity and source of individual meaning.

fug, meant to respond to OP

So communism is a system whereby people are programmed to live to work?

Communism is the state of material plenty to such an extent that the material needs of the individual are so prevalent as to be effectively worthless, thus freeing the individual from as much onerous and/or compulsory work as possible in order to free them to pursue the objectification of their own efforts.

In effect, freeing you from having to work at McDonalds so that you can pursue whatever sort of work it is that you wish to pursue, because now the necessities of life–shelter, food, clothing, education, et cetera)–are no longer arbitrarily rationed at your expense, but instead are a guarantee of society.

friendly reminder central planning authorities still engage in an exchange value judgement

Repeating this in every thread you post in will not make it true. Why don't you actually trying reading Capital?

...

Elimination of the distinction between surplus value creators and surplus value appropriators.

The first chapter of this book made a persuasive argument to me that worker "ownership" isn't quite descriptive enough.

This tbh, until money becomes obsolete the state still has to set commodity prices. Not quite a market since the entire thing is managed by the state, but it still requires the setting of prices and determining appropriate exchange value.

so whenever I shift money between my 2 bank accounts I'm actually trading with myself?
The more you know!

ladies and gentlemen, leftcoms

Does this guy even realize how stupid he looks?

Suace? I think I've seen this from some doujin before

kek

it's not tho
and even if you choose to define exchange that way, and not as many agents bargaining prices to maximize their own value and competing with eachother, that's not an argument against the establishment of that kind of arrangement, your just changing the definition of a market. Even If we agreed that democratically decided apportionment of use values is a "market" we're still advocating it.