/lit/ - Literature

>>21719822
Easy rout to understanding why Marx is a big asshole. Dolgoff's book on his best critic, Bakunin.

Marx was a smart guy on trying to figure out the machinations of capitalism, but his horrendous politics and slanderous lowlife character should be made well known to all.
Don't read the Manifesto. These statists are not communists. Kroptkin explains communism far better.

>>21719837
Kropotkin is the worst communist of all
Dont listen to this anon

>Marx...LE BAD even doe he got dat BJC
Communism will abolish profit you braindead nigger

>>21719843
Explain why actual communism is "the worst".
Explain then why Lenin's betrayal is the way to communism-someday

>>21719822
>Does this mean that Marx envisioned a system where 100% of profit goes to the laborers?
No, he actually criticises proudhon for thinking this
>Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society is then conceived as an abstract capitalist.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/download/pdf/Economic-Philosophic-Manuscripts-1844.pdf
Concepts like profit and value cease to exist in socialism.

>>21719858
The concept of value in communism is shifted to the human being and his surroundings. btw

>>21719878
No it's not, the entire concept of "value" becomes redundant in socialism. Value indicates that one thing is "worth" more than another, why would it exist in a society where products are not exchanged with each other?

>Marxism
is dead. The experiment was run and it failed spectacularly.
Neo-marxism and its die-hard zealots are all that's left and it's basically scientology mixed with Gnosticism - pseud edition (it's a cult).
The Frankfurt school is a good place to start, if you must.

If you're more broadly interested in 'leftism' I recommend someone like Baudrillard. Foucault and Deleuze can be okay, too.
Or check out the leftists that aren't really leftists but could maybe be considered leftists depending on your definition like Kaczynski and Nietzsche.

>>21719887
So many memes in one paragraph

>>21719881
"Under socialism" State socialism I guess. But in communism, we are the literal wealth of the community. Friendships, ability to connect, family unites. If there is fighting, and bad blood, "profitability" goes down.
Communism is a world without capitalism, or state, not a world with a lot of social welfare systems in place.

>>21719887
>The experiment was run
it wasn't. Stop talking about things you do not even study

>>21719897
>"Under socialism" State socialism I guess. But in communism, we are the literal wealth of the community.
There is no difference between socialism and communism, the only difference is that the latter is a much more taboo term in bourgeois society
> Yet, when it was written, we could not have called it a socialist manifesto. By Socialists, in 1847, were understood, on the one hand the adherents of the various Utopian systems: Owenites in England, Fourierists in France, [See Robert Owen and François Fourier] both of them already reduced to the position of mere sects, and gradually dying out; on the other hand, the most multifarious social quacks who, by all manner of tinkering, professed to redress, without any danger to capital and profit, all sorts of social grievances, in both cases men outside the working-class movement, and looking rather to the “educated" classes for support. Whatever portion of the working class had become convinced of the insufficiency of mere political revolutions, and had proclaimed the necessity of total social change, called itself Communist. It was a crude, rough-hewn, purely instinctive sort of communism; still, it touched the cardinal point and was powerful enough amongst the working class to produce the Utopian communism of Cabet in France, and of Weitling in Germany. Thus, in 1847, socialism was a middle-class movement, communism a working-class movement. Socialism was, on the Continent at least, “respectable”; communism was the very opposite. And as our notion, from the very beginning, was that “the emancipation of the workers must be the act of the working class itself,” there could be no doubt as to which of the two names we must take. Moreover, we have, ever since, been far from repudiating it.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/preface.htm

>>21719903
>There is no difference between socialism and communism,
Wrong. I just gave you the difference. Have you no imagination?
>marxists.org
I guess not. You've been led down a rabbit hole by the capitalist socialists. You have reached a dead end. You might be autistic and sleep with a toy truck, so I will be easy on you, but you need to understand the opposition now.

Start with a utopian like News from Nowhere and move onto Bakunin/Dolgoff >>21719837
Get well soon, young one.

>>21719915
cute

>>21719900
True. Because this time we have you and you're an infallible giga-brained saint, unlike the last guys who thought they were infallible giga-brained saints. Boy, were they silly.
But not you. Oh, no.
Just two more weeks and the utopia will be here, brothers of the red flag! (it's not a cult, I swear)

>>21719916
Thank you.
"Scientific socialism" is bankrupt. Try to understand humanity's movements better than some asshole like Marx. P. Clastres, James C. Scott, Graeber, all build on the instincts of Kropotkin and uncover far more than Marx ever knew.

>>21719926
>ᴺᵒ nᵒᵎ ᵈᵒn'ᵗ ᵉᵛᵉn ᵗʳʸᵎᵎ
>ˢᵗᵒᵖᵎᵎ
>ᵀʰᵉ ᵐᵃˢᵗᵉʳˢ ʷᶦˡˡ ᵇᵉ ᵃnᵍᵉʳᵉᵈᵎ

>>21719940
>be you
>assmad that a game is rigged
>keep playing
yeah, that'll show 'em

>>21719846
>Communism will abolish profit
How do you do that short of reverting to a trade based economy

>>21719976
Not that anon but producers do not exchange their products with one another in socialism, thus value ceases to exist.

>>21719822
> Does this mean that Marx envisioned a system where 100% of profit goes to the laborers?
No
> the original owner who presumably built it?
...most likely by using laborers and or financiering
> Wouldn’t they be profiting off of his labor?
No
> Would they all collectively incur the risk of ownership that the original owner did?
Yes, which is offset by the risk of the mill failing (and losing their livelihood) or injuring them, which were systemic risks they bore before they "owned" the mill, that they bore with zero upside (besides a fixed wage)
> would the laborers seize the means of production by collectively owning the mill?
at a micro level, yes, but "seizing the means" is more about seizing ports national infrastructure at a macro level
> If so, then what about the original owner who presumably built it?
He's free to lend his hand spinning the wheel with his fellow man
> If one worker worked harder than the others, would he be entitled to a greater percentage of the profits than his comrades under communism?
The hard worker would still receive a greater percentage of the profits in communism than that of the financiers who originally loaned the owner the money for the resources to pay for labor and then completely checked out under capitalism

>>21719881
>Value indicates that one thing is "worth" more than another, why would it exist in a society where products are not exchanged with each other?
But some things are inherently worth more than others? A watch is worth more than a burlap sack because of the time, resources and skills that went into producing it. Seizing the means of production doesn’t change that.

>>21719984
>producers do not exchange their products with one another in socialism
So everyone makes all of their own clothing/food/shelters etc?

>>21719822
Basically, Marxism goes:

>Let's kill everyone and anything that we perceive as anti-revolutionary
>We have the mandate to kill anyone we choose, because you know, revolution.
>Proceeds to create an Oligarchy instead

I'm pretty convinced that revolutionary Marxism was just a way for the Jews to seize power and remove the Tsar.

Notice that the Jews in the US, who now dominate the Oligarchy, are no longer calling for revolutionary causes because they sit at the trough and stand to lose everything.

>>21719992
>But some things are inherently worth more than others?
No they're not, "value" is a concept that is completely superfluous, it is made up, not present in reality, it's a relation that society creates. If value was something inherent in products then it would literally break the laws of physics as the physical components of products would shift and change as their value on the market changes.
>A watch is worth more than a burlap sack because of the time, resources and skills that went into producing it. Seizing the means of production doesn’t change that.
Only in the sense of capitalist society where that watch would go on to be exchanged with something else, which does not happen in socialism.
>>21719997
No, you work what you can and get what you need. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, essentially, what you create you give to society, what you need you take from society.

>>21719990
>most likely by using laborers and or financiering
That’s a pretty big assumption but let’s say it’s correct. The original owner still incurred risk by taking out a loan and building the mill which wasn’t guaranteed to succeed. Why would anyone ever risk starting a business if there wasn’t a potential financial payoff (assuming it’s a real business and not a hobby)?
>offset by the risk of the mill failing (and losing their livelihood) or injuring them, which were systemic risks they bore before they "owned" the mill
Couldn’t laborers theoretically find other jobs if the mill fails, as opposed to the owner who is financially tied to the sinking ship?
>The hard worker would still receive a greater percentage of the profits in communism than that of the financiers who originally loaned the owner the money for the resources to pay for labor and then completely checked out under capitalism
So… would the hard worker make more money than his less hard working compatriots or would they all receive equal pay? If so, what incentive is there to work hard?

>>21720007
>If value was something inherent in products then it would literally break the laws of physics as the physical components of products would shift and change as their value on the market changes.
But the laws of physics help determine value? Iron is more expensive than wood because it is more rare and requires a specialized process to smelt it into something useful. Why would someone trade their iron axe for a single log of wood when the axe is more useful and harder to produce?
>Only in the sense of capitalist society where that watch would go on to be exchanged with something else, which does not happen in socialism.
So do watches not exist under socialism or are watch makers the only people that own them?
>No, you work what you can and get what you need. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, essentially, what you create you give to society, what you need you take from society.
What does that mean for specialized labor though? And what determines “need”? Just basic necessities without any leisure?

>>21720047
>But the laws of physics help determine value? Iron is more expensive than wood because it is more rare and requires a specialized process to smelt it into something useful.
Do you think iron ores are formed with a price tag already embedded in them?
> Why would someone trade their iron axe for a single log of wood when the axe is more useful and harder to produce?
They wouldn't, which doesn't matter as this exchange of products does not happen in socialism.
>So do watches not exist under socialism or are watch makers the only people that own them?
Watchmakers would make watches since they have the ability to. It would be given to anyone who needs to know what time it is.
> What does that mean for specialized labor though?
Doesn't mean anything, all labor is abstracted to a productive expenditure of human labor. Socially necessary labour time. Meaning that if a man takes 8 hours to make a chair, they will be able to get a watch that took 8 hours to make. Because wether the products are "worth" the same doesn't matter, the only thing that matters is the expenditure of productive human labour.
> And what determines “need”? Just basic necessities without any leisure?
What people need to produce and reproduce their existence.

>>21719822
Okay I'm a little rusty but...
>So according to Marx, everything that doesn’t go to my workers is “surplus value”
In my opinion, you shouldn't view these things on such scales. You're correct, but it's more like Marx is studying a weird animal and trying to figure out how it works. Capitalism functions, and is distinct from what came before it. Marx deduced it was defined by the extraction of surplus value via private ownership.

>Marx envisioned a system
It's hard to say what he envisioned in these terms. The destruction of capitalism wouldn't be society as we know it, but with all workers making more money. Marx envisioned the resolution of the contradictions at the heart of capitalism, the conclusion to class struggle (which is what he used as the driving force of history).

What Marx and Engels envisioned was a post capitalist society, i.e. where history moves forward from the contradictions of capitalism like we moved on from feudalism and slavery. The pillars of such a society would likely be destruction of the commodity form, or the trade of commodities for purposes of surplus value, rather than need. Which is why people consider some societies to be socialist because they managed/tried to replace the free market with more controlled, need based systems.

>What about the owner
In terms of Marx we aren't talking about what individual people should do, it's about society and classes on a mass scale. Marx called for workers of the world to unite and revolt against the capitalist system, in class solidarity. Not for individuals, divorced from an organised movement, to murder their bosses and so on.

>>21719822
>>I own a flour mill
>>the mill requires 4 people to operate it
>>I hire 4 people and pay them 8 shekels a week
>>I sell the flour at market for 80 shekels
>>32 goes to my workers, 38 goes to mill maintenance and raw materials, 10 goes to me because I incur risk by owning the mill
Marxism is when the gov takes all the shekels instead of the factory owner

>>21719822
Just read The Communist Manifesto.

>>21720092
>Do you think iron ores are formed with a price tag already embedded in them?
But even in a cashless society, iron would have more value to humans than wood due to its rarity in nature and demand that comes from its useful qualities.
>They wouldn't, which doesn't matter as this exchange of products does not happen in socialism.
So how do people acquire things that they need but can’t produce themselves?
>Watchmakers would make watches since they have the ability to. It would be given to anyone who needs to know what time it is.
But the watch itself is still inherently more rare than something less useful that takes less time and effort to make, and sense everyone needs to know what time it is at some point watches will be in high demand. The watch’s value is derived from rarity + demand. Even if the watch maker gave away every watch he made, he wouldn’t be able to meet the demand of a large enough society, meaning that some people would have to go without watches.
>Meaning that if a man takes 8 hours to make a chair, they will be able to get a watch that took 8 hours to make.
But not all labor is equal, as it may take 8 hours to make an adequate chair but it takes many more hours to make a functional watch.
>What people need to produce and reproduce their existence.
But that sounds like a society with no leisure since the bare minimum required to simply exist is pretty low (~1000 calories a day, water and rudimentary shelter from the elements).

>>21719903
Marxist org is pro trotskyite.

why do retards keep using this site??

>>21719822
Read all of the Austrian Ecomomists.


Including Garbage Rothbard and his Rothbardians. Rothbard Fucking ruined the Austrian School...

also chicago school is garbage compared to Austrian School

Are you sure you are actually incurring risk under the hypothetical system?

>>21720171
NTA, but for Marxists all labor is equal. But difficult to talk on these individual terms.
Theoretically a chair and a watch that both take 8 hours of labor to be produced are of equal exchange value. But in reality we have to include time to train people (which can be reduced to labor hours), unproductive labor, etc. A watch and a chair merely physically embody the labor hours put into them, from the guy cutting the tree, to the guy applying the varnish.

>>21720148
ignore this poster, the manifesto is a pamphlet for retards.
the only way to actually understand marx is to read grundrisse and capital.
if you are too retarded to read capital, use a reading companion or watch david harvey's lectures.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLWvnUfModHP9Ci8M1g39l4AZgK6YLCXd0
Roemer's "Free to Lose" is also good as an introduction to marxism from the analytics. the analytics being marxists that aren't afraid to say that some of marx's ideas are flat out wrong.
"Marxism may be uninfluential in economics for another reason: some of the key economic models and theories that Marxism champions, such as the labor theory of value and the falling rate of profit, are simply wrong." -- 'Free to Lose'

>>21720171
>But even in a cashless society, iron would have more value to humans than wood due to its rarity in nature and demand that comes from its useful qualities.
Value in what sense? It would just be more useful, the term value indicates a exchange
>So how do people acquire things that they need but can’t produce themselves?
They draw it from the social stock of means of consumption
> But the watch itself is still inherently more rare than something less useful that takes less time and effort to make
That does not matter, the only thing that is taken into account is the expenditure of productive social labour
> The watch’s value is derived from rarity + demand. Even if the watch maker gave away every watch he made, he wouldn’t be able to meet the demand of a large enough society
Which is why socialist society needs a high level of productive forces in order to meet societies needs.
>But not all labor is equal, as it may take 8 hours to make an adequate chair but it takes many more hours to make a functional watch.
They can but regardless that doesn't matter, 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. It's an inevitable defect in the first phase of socialism but is remedied later on with the development of productive forces around societies needs and labour going from a persons means of life but instead becomes life's prime want.
>But that sounds like a society with no leisure since the bare minimum required to simply exist is pretty low (~1000 calories a day, water and rudimentary shelter from the elements).
Literally nothing i have said suggests this.

>>21720224
only a brain-damaged academic can could ever come to the conclusion that Marxism engages in idealist drivel such as 'economic models'.

>>21720007
>No, you work what you can and get what you need. From each according to his ability to each according to his need, essentially, what you create you give to society, what you need you take from society.

What happens if people defect? Any mechanism to enforce equal amounts of productive work will essentially amount to money and wage labor by another name. Without such a mechanism many people will just not do anything or not much and only take, especially for unpleasant work. Not to mention what about multiple people wanting the same piece of land or whatever, scarcity?

>>21720329
>What happens if people defect?
Do you know anyone who is currently "defecting" from capitalism?
> Any mechanism to enforce equal amounts of productive work will essentially amount to money and wage labor by another name
Then you don't know what money and wage labour are
> Not to mention what about multiple people wanting the same piece of land or whatever, scarcity?
We live in a post scarcity world and land would be fully used instead of people being packed into cities and suburbs, which is what capital does.

>>21720247
>Value in what sense?
In the sense that it’s rare, useful and people would want an axe more than a log of wood.
>It would just be more useful, the term value indicates a exchange
No, it doesn’t. Value indicates rarity and demand in a world with limited natural resources.
>They draw it from the social stock of means of consumption
What stops people from taking more than what they need? Or contributing less than everyone else?
>the only thing that is taken into account is the expenditure of productive social labour
But making a watch expends more productive social labor than making a chair.
>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
That’s why most people don’t consider an abstract concept like “labor” to be a standard of measurement. How do you quantify labor? Working 8 hours as a chair maker isn’t as hard or dangerous as working 8 hours as a coal miner, for instance.
>Literally nothing i have said suggests this.
It sounds like what your saying is a condemnation of commodity goods since they aren’t “necessary” to survive but correct me if I’m wrong.

>>21720353
>We live in a post scarcity world
this is why no one takes marxists seriously

>>21720353
Defecting from capitalism is just going on welfare or whatever, but this would be much greater incentive since you can apparently have whatever you want rather than poverty level.

Can you explain to me how to enforce productive labor in manner that wouldnt essentially just be you trading your labor for resources, same as in capitalism?

>post scarcity
Goods aren't infinite, there can be no post scarcity. You aren't answering the question, what if multiple people want the same plot of land? Not all land is equal, some is much more attractive

>>21719822
the problem you have is that you understand it, you are not going to make sense of it bc it doesn't make sense

>>21720305
I can’t tell if this is bait or not because I know actual Marxists irl who think economics don’t exist

>>21719998
Only good post in this thread

>>21720390
Lmfao. true. economics is not fake. there are mutiple schools of economic thought including the marxian school of economics which should be given the death penalty

>>21719822
>Or would the mill workers use a portion of their profits to collectively buy the surplus wheat from the farmer
Yes
>this is surplus value
Meh who cares
>wouldn’t the farmer be a capitalist because he owns the land that he grows the wheat on
No. Unless he hires people to work for him, then he would be a capitalist

>>21720399
>Unless he hires people to work for him, then he would be a capitalist
But it’s literally impossible to operate a farm on your own unless you own about 1 acre of land, and even then it’d be back breaking to plow/sow/harvest the entire acre by yourself.

>>21720412
The farm would also be owned by the workers then. Where are you confused

>>21720223
>NTA, but for Marxists all labor is equal
This is why most modern western Marxists think that working at Starbucks is equivalent to being a construction worker or longshoreman. It’s an ideology for people that fundamentally misunderstand the very concept of “labor”

>>21720412
>>21720415
I'm just saying that if 1 person owns the business and he does all the work himself it still technically is the worker owning the means of production

>>21720415
So everything is owned collectively and no one has any private property. Why would a specific worker toil to plow a field that isn’t his and grow crops that don’t belong to him if he isn’t being compensated? Because of a guarantee that all his basic needs will always be met? How can any society make such a guarantee? And why would he care if the farm fails since he gets his needs met anyway?

>>21720367
>In the sense that it’s rare, useful and people would want an axe more than a log of wood.
Again you speak in the sense of exchange, products are not exchanged in socialism
>No, it doesn’t. Value indicates rarity and demand in a world with limited natural resources.
And in capitalist society values takes on the form of exchange value, price, in socialism wether one item could be "worth" more makes no difference, the only thing taken into account is the expenditure of productive human labour
>What stops people from taking more than what they need? Or contributing less than everyone else?
They can take as much as they want, good luck to them in trying to use it all. And everyone contributes less than another person, just by the fact that each person is different indicates that we all produce more or less than another, this does not matter as long as what we produce is productive.
>But making a watch expends more productive social labor than making a chair.
Doesn't matter, it's still produced for society to use. There's no profit incentive to withhold products.
> How do you quantify labor?
Work that creates a product.
> Working 8 hours as a chair maker isn’t as hard or dangerous as working 8 hours as a coal miner, for instance.
They're both socially necessary and both are done by those that are able to do it.
>It sounds like what your saying is a condemnation of commodity goods since they aren’t “necessary” to survive but correct me if I’m wrong.
Commodities do not exist in socialism, i'm just describing society producing socially according to need rather than according to capital.
>>21720373
>Defecting from capitalism is just going on welfare or whatever
retard
>Can you explain to me how to enforce productive labor in manner that wouldnt essentially just be you trading your labor for resources, same as in capitalism?
You don't trade labour for resources in capitalism, you trade your labour for wages that are worth far less than what your labour produced. In socialism where the division of labour and wage labour has been abolished, the only thing that is taken into account is productive labour, where your labour is the same as another regardless of what you make so long as it is productive labour.
> Goods aren't infinite, there can be no post scarcity.
post scarcity isn't when you have an infinite amount, it's when you have the capability to meet societies demands, this has already been met.
> what if multiple people want the same plot of land? Not all land is equal, some is much more attractive
attractive in what sense? that the land can be more profitable? Why would people be fighting over profitable land in a society where the very concept of profit no longer exists?

>>21720417
>This is why most modern western Marxists think that working at Starbucks is equivalent to being a construction worker or longshoreman. It’s an ideology for people that fundamentally misunderstand the very concept of “labor”
You misunderstand what labour is, in capitalist society labour creates surplus value, it does not matter if it's in the form of cutting down a tree or making coffee, both creates surplus value.
>Given the necessary means of production, i.e. , a sufficient accumulation of capital, the creation of surplus-value is only limited by the labouring population if the rate of surplus-value, i.e. , the intensity of exploitation, is given; and no other limit but the intensity of exploitation if the labouring population is given. And **the capitalist process of production consists essentially of the production of surplus-value, represented in the surplus-product or that aliquot portion of the produced commodities materialising unpaid labour. It must never be forgotten that the production of this surplus-value — and the reconversion of a portion of it into capital, or the accumulation, forms an integrate part of this production of surplus-value — is the immediate purpose and compelling motive of capitalist production**. It will never do, therefore, to represent capitalist production as something which it is not, namely as production whose immediate purpose is enjoyment or the manufacture of the means of enjoyment for the capitalist. This would be overlooking its specific character, which is revealed in all its inner essence.
https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch15.htm

>>21720428
>Owned collectively
I prefer the word democratically. The only thing you really need to know about stateless forms of communism is that they believe all forms of organization will naturally become democratic and bottom-up in the absence of a state to enforce hierarchy. Everything else is theory since they can't actually enforce anything without a state, it's left up to the ultimate whims of the free market.

Understand ONE thing. Actual communists believe that communism exists inside of a free market. It is the state which prevents the communism from forming as the state is the arm of the capitalist class

>>21720390
the only claim in my post is that economic models are retarded and that anybody that thinks Marxism engages in the creation of such retardation is doubly so

>marxists.org
Kek

How the fuck can you end class struggle by creating the class with the most power ever?

>>21720437
>stateless forms of communism
Really? Isn't gommunism when no state?

>>21720432
>retard
Not an argument. It is defecting since if everyone did it nothing would work. Thus is very basic, try to keep up.

>You don't trade labour for resources in capitalism, you trade your labour for wages that are worth far less than what your labour produced. In socialism where the division of labour and wage labour has been abolished, the only thing that is taken into account is productive labour, where your labour is the same as another regardless of what you make so long as it is productive labour.
Pedantry. You do trade labour for resources, claims of exploitation dont change this. I'm asking you *how* does the socialist society enforce productive labor. How does it prevent people just doing nothing or very little. How does it get people to do unpleasant jobs?

>post scarcity isn't when you have an infinite amount, it's when you have the capability to meet societies demands, this has already been met.
It will never be met because "demands" are subjective. People want more, and there are inescapably scarce resources like land.

>attractive in what sense? that the land can be more profitable? Why would people be fighting over profitable land in a society where the very concept of profit no longer exists?
Beachfront property in nice climate near other attractive areas vs tin shack in middle of Yukon


I was being polite to you but since you couldnt do the same let me just tell you: you're incredibly fucking stupid. The entire idea is so unbelievably retarded that it would actually be more charitable to assume you're being dishonest than that you're actually so fucking dumb that you cant understand the millions of indisputable reasons its idiotic. Your mind is a sack of worthless mush

>>21720460
>Not an argument. It is defecting since if everyone did it nothing would work. Thus is very basic, try to keep up.
You're trying to impose a impossible scenario as reality
> I'm asking you *how* does the socialist society enforce productive labor. How does it prevent people just doing nothing or very little. How does it get people to do unpleasant jobs?
Because society as a whole has never just collectively stopped functioning and producing, socialism is where a persons labour goes from their means of life into life's prime want
> It will never be met because "demands" are subjective
And you accuse me of pedantry
> People want more
Want is not need
>and there are inescapably scarce resources like land
There are entire swaths of land that are unused because they are all owned by a select few, in socialism land would be held in common and commonly used
> Beachfront property in nice climate near other attractive areas
so just purely aesthetics
>I was being polite to you but since you couldnt do the same let me just tell you: you're incredibly fucking stupid
Did your feelings get hurt as well? Do you want a bandaid?

>>21720452
You're asking so many questions about how a stateless society works. The answer will always be the same. It is without a state. Nothing enforceable. Whatever the fuck happens is what happens.

>>21720488
>stateless society works
It wouldn't.

>>21720485
>society has never stopped functioning
Yeah because there are incentives for people to work your fucking imbecile. Where are the incentives if you can have whatever you want for free?

And you still are avoiding the question and acting as though its ridiculous to point out people are not going to agree on who gets to live where. You're a braindead faggot like every other communist probably an ugly weak freak too

>>21720488
Including people creating states LOL

>>21720485
>Want is not need
No, that's not how it works. If I can have more, I will have more. Who can stop me?

>>21720503
>Yeah because there are incentives for people to work your fucking imbecile
True, i forgot that the profit incentive is just a inherent part of the world, that must be why i automatically get money deposited into my account when i catch a fish,
> Where are the incentives if you can have whatever you want for free?
The incentive of living life, going outside, being apart of a community?
> And you still are avoiding the question and acting as though its ridiculous to point out people are not going to agree on who gets to live where
probably because it's nonsensical and inherently rooted in how capitalist society functions, i asked you why people would fight over it and you just brought up better looking views.
>>21720521
> Who can stop me?
noone i guess, good luck hoarding 200 chairs and 1000 watches and not being instantly ostracized for being a fucking weirdo.

>>21719822

>>21720452
What a reply. Yes it is

>>21720502
It has, it does, it will

>>21719998
This

>>21720524
>moor
My nigga

>>21720523
>instantly ostracized
I'll just kill them. Who can stop me?
>>21720528
Pipedream.
>it has, it does it will
Kek

>>21720523
People work in exchange to get stuff
>The incentive of living life, going outside, being apart of a community?
Ah yes this will make people do 8 hour shifts of manual labor if they can get the same stuff without needing to work.

I did not say nice views, location is another aspect as well as the buildings on the property themselves

You should genuinely kill yourself

>>21720528
How's 9th grade? Go simp for niggers

>>21719998
Why is the flag half-mast?

>>21720525
Then why are you saying "stateless form"?

I still can't believe these morons come here for validation.

>>21720539
>People work in exchange to get stuff
In capitalist society people work to survive, in a society where that is no longer the case then people will work to express their own humanity
>Ah yes this will make people do 8 hour shifts of manual labor if they can get the same stuff without needing to work.
is manual labour such a boogey man for you? in socialist society this labour would also include housework and the like, just labour in general. You do what you can for your community and take from that community what you need.
> location is another aspect as well as the buildings on the property themselves
noone owns buildings in socialism.

>>21720559
>In capitalist society people work to survive, in a society where that is no longer the case then people will work to express their own humanity
LMAO, imagine saying this unironically.

>>21720559
This unbelievable faggot is really arguing that people would lay bricks for 8 hours for fun. It is inposisibem to overstate what worthless pieces of lying shit communists are

>no one owns the buildings
So you're even more retarded than I thought possible. How exactly are you going to decide who lives where at what time

>>21720565
imagine being so disconnected to what makes one human that the very idea that people produce for anything besides a profit is just simply unimaginable to you

>>21720559
>express their own humanity
>>>/r/eddit.

>>21720571
You're brainwashed from all of that marxist.com koolaid. Get out of leftroonpol before it's too late.

>>21720571
You know that you can do all of those in capitalistic societies, right?

>>21720581
>The less you eat, drink and buy books; the less you go to the theatre, the dance hall, the public house; the less you think, love, theorise, sing, paint, fence, etc., the more you save – the greater becomes your treasure which neither moths nor rust will devour – your capital. The less you are, the less you express your own life, the more you have, i.e., the greater is your alienated life, the greater is the store of your estranged being.

>>21720583
Is this one of those marxist.org quotes you regularly spam here?

>>21720541
Says the guy who doesn't read, doesn't understand history and has zero imagination to figure things out on his own.

I blame the corpo-state education/entertainment complex of course. All the information you need at your finger tips, yet you choose to buy into their narratives so willingly.

>>21720571
Yes comrades we will clean restrooms out of our sheer love for life! Day after day we will clean the poop, even if the people we do it for decide not to work at all!

>>21720583
But zoomers are reading more books.

>>21720586
It's a quote on how private property constantly destroys the real social human community and I haven't been on this board since last year
>>21720589
you are absolutely fucking seething

>>21720587
>doesn't understand history
How fucking ironic.

>>21720596
You have absolutely zero(0) argument other than pretending incentives don't exist and people will magically do unpleasant stuff even if they dont have to

>>21720596
You say this every thread.

>>21719998
That sounds more like the French Revolution, you know?

Read modern marxist analysis. Stay away from the shameless tankie tards too. Not because their radicalism is false but because they’re cringe and living in the past just like neo nazi faggots.

>>21720601
>pretending incentives don't exist and people will magically do unpleasant stuff even if they dont have to
have you ever done something you didn't like but did it anyway because you had to in order to function?
>>21720603
The last thread i was in was the asoiaf one.

>>21720612
Uh-huh. Who are you kidding?

>>21720612
>you had to in order to function?
Wow so a direct incentive to do it? How does laying bricks or cleaning restrooms for other people remotely resemble this when you explicitly don't have to do those things and can still get what you want and spend your time however you like?

>>21720607
any suggestions? all i know of are the analytical marxists.

>>21720583
>it's another 'marxist confuses the universal and timeless problem of greed with capitalism as a trojan horse to proselytize then institute his gay totalitarian cult' episode
>it's another 'marxist thinks the solution to greed is to ban the idea of ownership because banning things always works out so well' episode
>it's another 'marxist thinks the solution to people disobeying is to re-engineer them like they're lab rats and he's an infallible enlightened God who can do no wrong and always knows best' episode

>>21720622
Leslie feinberg for maximum brainwashing.

>>21720621
>Wow so a direct incentive to do it?
This is pedantry on an unimaginable level, it was very clear that in the context of this conversations subject incentive refered to profit incentive and when i brought it up earlier >>21720523 you didn't reject it but explicitly bring up incentive as referring to getting something in return. Might as well pontificate about how hunger is an incentive to eat.
> How does laying bricks or cleaning restrooms for other people remotely resemble this
most people clean their own homes.
> when you explicitly don't have to do those things and can still get what you want and spend your time however you like?
You do have to do those things just in order to function, this is like saying you don't have to wash dishes when you finish eating.

>>21720598
It's true, anon. We came from not-states, Ancient, antique, medieval, renaissance, reformation, revolutionary but excepting only the modern age have all had a majority, though ever dwindling, population living only marginally within the state sphere. Many still live this way. It is traditional and normal. Read the book I suggest or keep silent on things you don't know.
Have a nice day.

>>21720639
FOR OTHER PEOPLE RETARD
The entire thing is predicated on the assumption people will do all this stuff for others, not themselves. The brick layer doesnt just build his house

God youre a fucking idiot

>>21720652
>The entire thing is predicated on the assumption people will do all this stuff for others, not themselves
It was never predicated on doing things specifically for other but on productive human labour. Brick layers do what their society needs as all labour becomes directly social.

>>21719822
>another trannymunist thread
wow you guys have no shame.

>>21720639
>most people clean their own homes

"Their own" is kind of important to this statement. People have an incentive to take care of things they own. Why don't you clean up pic related from the kindness of your heart.

>>21720660
>Brick layers do what their society needs a
Why? Why would they you tremendous retard? What is the incentive?

>>21720664
> Why don't you clean up pic related from the kindness of your heart.
Because i'm not a plumber
>>21720667
They'd do it because society needs it to be done.

lol

>>21720681
>They'd do it because society needs it to be done
Do you unironically not understand how braindead you sound? That's not a reason

>>21720587
2 more weeks comrade.

>>21720703
It is a reason, it's not a reason to you because a sense of community is completely alien to you.

>>21719822
>What incentive does the farmer have to give up his surplus crop if he isn’t compensated
the secret police come in the night and kill his family if he doesn't

>>21720681
>They'd do it because society needs it to be done.
But YOU won't.
>Because i'm not a plumber
Of course you're not. You're a card carrying party member who... does what exactly? Other than huffing your own farts?
>>21720709
>because a sense of community is completely alien to you
You're clearly projecting since it sounds like you think 'a sense of community' is everyone being your slave.

>>21720709
You genuinely believe people will choose to clean restrooms while others get to do enjoyable prestigious work(or not work at all) out of a "sense of community"?

>>21719822
You forgot capital depreciation and other input costs (rent, raw material, power, maintenance). Read.

>>21720715
>You're clearly projecting since it sounds like you think 'a sense of community' is everyone being your slave.
A sense of community is a society that is not hindered by private property as capital goes against social needs. A higher mode of social organisation.
>>21720716
There's no choice about it, labour is done because it needs to in order for society to function, if a damn is broke, if a bridge collapses, if a wall crumbles or if a toilet clogs then those who can fix it will because that's what's needed for society to function.

There is no division of labour in socialism, people do the work that they have the ability to do

>>21720735
Jesus christ, you're like an indian phone scammer who only reads from a script.
>totally not a cult btw

>>21720735
>There's no choice about it, labour is done because it needs to in order for society to function
Who though, who specifically will do it? Everyone can clean a restroom.

>There is no division of labour in socialism, people do the work that they have the ability to do
Unintelligible gibberish. Not everyone will do 5 minutes of every job every day, so obviously there will be division of labor

>>21720747
>Who though, who specifically will do it? Everyone can clean a restroom.
Anyone that is able to do it, if it needs a plumber then a plumber will do it.
> Not everyone will do 5 minutes of every job every day, so obviously there will be division of labor
People will not be limited to one trade or job, it limits creativity and freedom, in a highly developed socialist society, there won't be a need for such high concentrations of labor. If people want to specialize, they can, but they won't be forced to by wage labor.

>>21719822
>Communist Manifesto
Quran for rootless atheists

>>21720771
>Anyone that is able to do it, if it needs a plumber then a plumber will do it.
Are you purposefully avoiding the point? What if nobody wants to do it?. Would you be volunteer to be the designated toilet cleaner?

And what you're saying is still division of labor even if people have multiple jobs.

I love how marxist threads attract the most amount of seething in this shit board. And it really is because marx rightfully analyses society and people without using the gay metaphysics everyone around here is so obsessed, but only using the pure copeless material reality we live in

>>21720807
Its because communism is the dumbest fucking thing ever conceived of and its proponents are allergic to honesty or clarity

>>21720784
>What if nobody wants to do it?.
nobody wants to wash dishes when their finished eating or throw out garbage, but they do it because it has to be done for society to function.
>And what you're saying is still division of labor even if people have multiple jobs.
You don't know what division of labour is, it's not just when people work on a task. The division of labour is how capital forces populations to specialise in one specific section of labour to the point that it never touches any other as wage labour forces them to stay in one section.
>>21720807
It really is shocking

>>21720807
Only if communists were the kind to clean the disgusting bathroom themselves instead of insist the “community” will do it

>>21720815
People wash their own dishes because they dont want to live in filth. We've been through this already. That is doing it for themselves

That's the Marxist retard defintion of the term which in classic Marxist fashion obscures rather than elucidates. There is still an objective division of labor occurring

I notice you are incapable of answering the question about whether you personally would volunteer to clean toilets

Fucking faggot

>>21720022
Lol mf who do you think opens a factory? Do you think a poor worker just walk out of the bank with a lown with the millions needed to open a factory? A bourg. only opens a bussiness when he is 100% sure he will not fail and even if he fails he can find a way to regain the money lost or if he looses the money he knows it wont affect him. The worst "risk" a bourg. is taking is having to be just another worker like the people he explores, and even then he has connections to find work earning 6 figures. You dont understand reality

>>21720047
>Why would someone trade their iron axe for a single log of wood when the axe is more useful and harder to produce?
If you have an axe and a criminal has a gun pointed to you, demanding a piece of log, what has more value for you. Value is totaly arbitrary

>>21720807
>And it really is because marx rightfully analyses society and people without using the gay metaphysics everyone around here is so obsessed
correct.
marxism is the spiritually bereft attempting spiritual enlightenment and the results are as comical as the premise.

>>21720823
> People wash their own dishes because they dont want to live in filth
The same principle goes for society

>That's the Marxist retard defintion of the term which in classic Marxist fashion obscures rather than elucidates. There is still an objective division of labor occurring

> This division of labour [...] is not originally the effect of any human wisdom [...]. It is the necessary, [...] slow and gradual consequence of [...] the propensity to truck, barter, and exchange one thing for another. [...] This propensity” to trade is probably a -necessary consequence of the use of reason and of speech [...]. It is common to all men, and to be found in no other race of animals.” The animal, when it is grown up, is entirely independent. “Man has almost constant occasion for the help of others, and it is in vain for him to expect it from their benevolence only. He will be more likely to prevail if he can appeal to their personal interest, and show them that it-is for their own advantage to do for him what he requires of them. [...] We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages. [...]

>“As it is by treaty, by barter, and by purchase that we obtain from one another the greater part of those mutual good offices which we stand in need of, so it is this same trucking disposition which originally gives occasion to the division of labour. In a tribe of hunters or shepherds a particular person makes bows and arrows, for example, with more readiness and dexterity than any other. He frequently exchanges them for cattle or for venison with his companions; and he finds at last that he can in this manner get more cattle and venison than if he himself went to the field to catch them. From a regard to his own interest, therefore, the making of bows, etc., grows to be his chief business

>“As it is the power of exchanging that gives occasion to the division of labour, so the extent of this division must always be limited by the extent of that power, or, in other words, by the extent of the market. When the market is very small, no person can have any encouragement to dedicate himself entirely to one employment, for want of the power to exchange all that surplus part of the produce of his own labour, which is over and above his own consumption, for such parts of the produce of other men’s labour as he has occasion for ...”

Is Adam smith a retarded Marxist now?

>I notice you are incapable of answering the question about whether you personally would volunteer to clean toilets
Because everyone who does housework already does, do i also have to make a point that i cook my own food?

>>21720807

>>21720850
The same principle absolutely does not go for society because if some random public restroom is dirty you can just avoid it.

The definition of division of labor by Smith you just posted would apply to your imagined socialist society you dumb fuck

>Because everyone who does housework already does, do i also have to make a point that i cook my own food?
How imbecilic can a person even be. For the last fucking time it is about volunteering to do stuff for other people, not for yourself. Would you volunteer to clean public toilets? Not your toilet

>>21720823
Cleaning toilets or working on microchips. You would have the same standards of life. I would clean toilets if it meant working six hours a day, knowing that my work actually benefited society, i will have food, clothes and house for me and my family and that i will have the time to spend with my them in free public events

>>21720869
What about the people who don't work? Do they get to enjoy the free public events, too?

>>21720865
>The definition of division of labor by Smith you just posted would apply to your imagined socialist society you dumb fuck
No it would not as commodities do not exist in socialism, thus wage labour and the exchange of products do not force the division of labour
> For the last fucking time it is about volunteering to do stuff for other people, not for yourself
This isn't volunteering, this is socially necessary labour, the fact you think that doing literally anything that isn't in direct immediate service to yourself is "volunteering" says alot about you

>>21720848
Spiritual enlighment = feeding, educating and housing everyone. Meanwhile in your gay indian society a few privileged priests autistically masturbated their egos whoile doing nothing and the majority whithered away in absolute misery

i wonder how many anons ITT have read capital

>>21720877
It is literally volunteering you pathetic faggot. You don't have to do it, it doesnt directly benefit you, but you do it anyway. Your entire imagined society is based on everyone volunteering since you've said nobody has to work to be given what they want.

You obviously think you're too good to be the guy who spend this time cleaning public toilets but you wont just state this because it shows how fucking stupid the idea is

>>21720884
kek

>>21720875
If you have a reason, yeah. If not you will go to the gulag. Not working means you are a parasite and is actively sabotating the country and the community

>>21720894
What if you claim your calling is to produce prose poetry and it takes you all day to write 4 lines. Do you get away with that

>>21720894
Okay, then how do we keep track of who does and doesn't work in an efficient way that doesn't require millions of people whose sole job it is to check if people are working?

>>21720893
Cuba is infinetely better than india. Communist China is better than tao te ching China. What happened? They didnt meditated enough? "Spirituality" is absolutely useless

>>21720890
>It is literally volunteering you pathetic faggot. You don't have to do it, it doesnt directly benefit you, but you do it anyway.
By this notion fixing a pothole in a road that's causing damage to cars is volunteering. Helping clear a tree that fell on a road is volunteering as well?
>Your entire imagined society is based on everyone volunteering since you've said nobody has to work to be given what they want.
I'm describing a society where production is dictated socially and not by capital.
>You obviously think you're too good to be the guy who spend this time cleaning public toilets but you wont just state this because it shows how fucking stupid the idea is
Because like i said the division of labour does not exist in socialism, that kind of labour specialisation would not exist. It has nothing to with wether one feels above it, it's just you being slow on the uptake while also being a seething faggot.

>>21720884
>Spiritual enlighment = feeding, educating and housing everyone
let me guess: you won't be the one doing any of this, right?
you'll just be demanding that it 'happen'

>>21720917
Yes it is volunteering if you dont own the road
>dictated socially
Meaningless gibberish. Who actually decides?

The toilets have to be cleaned. Someone has to clean them. You can continue to lie through your teeth and play with semantics but you cant get around this. You arent going to volunteer to clean them, nobody is. Ok maybe some 1 in 1000 hyper altruistic person will, those people are already doing similar things in our society anyway. There arent enough of them

The best you can do is that 8 people do 1 hour of toilet cleaning rather than one person doing 8 hours, but people still need to volunteer to be the toilet cleaner.

It is unreal how badly you need to be shot in the face

>>21720901
Maybe? I cant tell exactly how it will happen in the future. Marxists are materialists, not idealists. It means i cant sell you things that didnt happen yet, only analyse what is going on now and in the past.
>>21720903
Communism is not about profit seeking. You can absolutely procrastinate and be shitty in your job, but it means that people you are working with will shun you and get angry at you BECAUSE YOU ARE ACTIVELY DETERIORATING THEIR LIVES. Theres no reason to not work effectively in reality, you are only doing it because you know you are being exploited and your work means virtually nothing. Let me put in a way you would understand it: would you work harder if you knew you are benefiting white kids by building them schools?

>>21720940
You haven't answered the question. The people who don't contribute - the jobless - how do we keep track of them?
Let's say everything is free; I can walk into a grocery store and take whatever.
How does anyone know if I have actually worked?

>>21720940
> I cant tell exactly how it will happen in the future.
Yeah you know why? Because its fucking retarded. It is very amusing that you attempt to turn this total lack of concrete plans into a fucking virtue by saying "we aren't idealists".

I also like the implication that people being annoyed at you is a sufficient mechanism of enforcement for a complex society lmfao

>>21720920
Everyone will be equaly materially. Why would i dont do "bad" jobs if i have a house, a family, education for my kids, healrhy food everyday, acces to healthcare and workers rights by working?

>>21720951
>Everyone will be equaly materially
and how is this achieved/enforced?
>Why would i dont do "bad" jobs if i have a house
Then who would do these "bad" jobs? Do messes suddenly and miraculously clean themselves? Does food magically appear on plates?
You have to be either trolling or completely divorced from reality.

>>21720950
No, its because you cant predict the future your retard. What? You want me to sell an utopia? EVERY communist revolution is different because of the difference in cultures and material realities. You want to hear there would be managers reporting workers and they getting shot or going ti the gulag? Everything could happen in different parts of the world. Mao made the revolution with the peasants when marx said it wasnt possible. Communism is a science you retard. Not religion or one of your dreams

>>21720951
How will material equality translate into eg housing. Tear everything down and build only identical homes so everyone gets the same thing? Even then what about location ?

>>21720946
How do we keep track of the jobless today? The homeless? Seriously what kind of question is that? In 2023 you think it isnt possible to track someone?

>>21720970
Every communist revolution is just a group of assholes becoming tyrants and doing retarded central planning actually. Maybe if you werent completely braindead then this combined with the complete absence of concrete plans would make you realize communism is a joke. Both theoretically and practically

>>21720970
>>21720951
Oh, you're a chink attempting subversion.
Nice Engrish.
>>21720976
So who would be doing this? A... totalitarian surveillance state? I thought the ebin revolution was stateless, classless etc.

>>21720973
Basically, planned economy (we already do this in capitalism before misescells appear)
What can happen is: the homeless would be put in the spare houses the rentoids exploits, mansions, etc. Then people would build the houses and everyone would be relocated there (thats basically what happened in the russian revolution). I am not an expert in theory but in china they are building apartments, and their idea is to build an "ecology" in these places with easy accesible parks, florests, schools, hospitals. And this is because china is a giant place with giant population. It will happen differently in different countries

>>21721023
China literally has billionaires who own 10 enormous mansions and rural peasants in huts

>>21720986
I am eastern european, and with a lot of nostalgia for the ussr. Yes a state exists in communism to destroy these kinds of class contradictions like working half assedly, then the state will become obsolete and dissapear

>>21721035
>phase 1: totalitarian slave state with no property rights or any kind of rights whatsoever
>phase 2: ??????????
>phase 3: a utopia as imagined by the lowest common denominator
Seems legit.

>>21721045
They always admit in the end they just want tyranny

>>21721029
The china situation is difficult and polemic in marxistt circles. I know you are not willing to listen but i will explain anyway for those that are. Basically China is developing its productive forces to achieve communism, something that marx said it needed to be done and that lenin created the nep for. Of course "liberalizing" your economy will bring some contradictions back, but it needs to be done and nobody doubts the fact that china enjoy decades of nonstop economic grow. Even so, chinas capitalists dont enjoy the same kind of freedom the other countries capitalits enjoy. They are forced to comply to the party demands and economic planning. And somethibg funny china does is to always be raising its public funding and public constructions

>>21721045
>i NEED to have the right to be a fucking parasite and prejudicate to life of others with my lazyness and bad character or the country is authoritarian

>>21721059
>They are forced to comply to the party demands and economic planning. A
This is also true in the US. Maybe not as much but there are all sorts of regulations, quotas, etc.

Anyway regardless of what you believe about their future they are currently not an example of equitable material distribution

>>21721054
He must be baiting. This is retarded even by commie standards.

>>21721070
>two people enter into a voluntary contract with each other
>communist: AHHHH FUCK NOOO AHHH HOW CAN THIS BE HAPPENING AHHH SAVE ME NIGGERMAN YOU HAVE TO GIVE ME AND MY FRIENDS TOTAL CONTROL OVER THE ENTIRE ECONOMY WHAT NO THIS TOTALLY ISNT WAY MORE UNFREE AND OPPRESSIVE THAN A CAPITALIST MAKING PROFIT

>>21721091
No, its not true in the usa. First, the usa is bourg. controlled, second, the regulations and quotas are small wins from the working class and they are bound to disappear (like some are right now) when the bourg. dont find it interesting anymore. Learn about lear aristocracy, your a clown for the us rich. In china the party controls the bourg. with majority sharing in its companies, strict corruption hunting and tight commands and planning. China wanted to have the biggest railroad system and they did it in 10 years or less. I never said they are currently an example of equitable material distribution, but they are walking to it no doubt. Things got much better for the working class no doubt (again)

>>21721111
Voluntary in capitalism means or you accept being exploited by me in a degrading job or you live in the streets experiencing absolute misery and inhumane conditions

>>21721160
>AHHHHH THOSE PEOPLE ARE HAVING TRANSACTIONS
>THEY'RE ACQUIRING PROPERTY
>NOOOOOOOOOO! I NEED TO KILL THEM AND TAKE THEIR STUFF

>>21721148
There are a fuck ton of regulations and quotas and they're just increasing idk what you're talking about. Its basically just rent seeking by the DNC and RNC, mostly the former since the RNC are clowns who exist to lose

>china will be le classless and stateless one day
Sure whatever, but it's no use as an example now

>>21719822
>An apostate Person of the Book & an industrialist banker walk into a bar with Malthusian British funny money with the intention of finessing socialist and anarchist movements into something permanently stultifying continental european powers to the benefit of Perfidious Albion
The first esoteric truth of Bolshevism is 'Nothing is true, and everything is permitted' -- it's a bald crab barrel scramble to secure demagogic power through technical administration of the mob. Marx literally says nothing about 'equality' or 'egalitarianism'. "To each according to their need ..." -- ancien regime status quo ante. There's going to be champagne socialist WEF brahmins and they'll make you beg for it. Also bad readings of Hegel. WALLA. Alternatively just see Bakunin on him.

>>21721160
>degrading
Oh stop crying. In commie societies you also have to work "degrading" jobs but you aren't even allowed to leave one and pick another

>>21721070
>falling for a blatant Nigerian prince scam where the scammer takes your freedom and humanity because you want free stuff and hate the rich but also fuck poor people
Can't make this shit up.
Communism is fucking hilarious.

>>21719881
>Value indicates that one thing is "worth" more than another, why would it exist in a society where products are not exchanged with each other?
Surely when I can choose between spending my time growing herbs in a garden, or spending time painting, I am choosing between these alternatives. My time is still an absolute measure of what I value. And if society as whole is not producing enough of a certain commodity to satisfy the needs or wants of the people, someone will need to spend their time producing those commodities. But given that they didn't already do it of their own free will (otherwise the commodity deficit would not have occurred), what exactly incentivizes this change?

>>21721054
Mf do you really think the government doesnt know who are unemployed right fucking now?
>no but i want to be a parasite piece of shit
Not possible, work to survive is a reality of life. Or you work to improve the society you are living in or you get shot. Everything wrong in capitalism stems from the fact that theres a class exploiting people while doing nothing. If you are in the developed world and still have the courage to NEET you are a triple parasite (your parents, your society, people from other societies your country exploit) and deserve to be SHOT ON SIGHT. Thats not marxism, just my opinion

>>21721191
>muh exploitation
Incorrect. It's a mutually beneficial voluntary agreement

>countries your country exploits
Your country is not shit because mine is not. There is no relation whatsoever you just suck

>>21721170
A lie, plus everyone with degrading jobs in communist societies have virtually what everyone has: a home, a family, food, acess to education and healthcare. This is having most than almost all countries in the world and the majority in the usa

>>21721207
>communist societies
Can you name one?

>>21721207
Anyone in the us who wants those things can get them unless they're some kind of psychotic in which case theyd be fucked regardless

>>21721201
>Incorrect. It's a mutually beneficial voluntary agreement
>>21721160
>Your country is not shit because mine is not. There is no relation whatsoever you just suck
Read about superprofits. Imperialism 101

>>21721220
No I dont think I will. There was nothing much wrong with colonialism at all and it should have continued for everyone's sake

>>21721191
>amoral people exist and do bad things
>so let's let a bunch of bureaucratic psychopaths establish a totalitarian slave state
>that'll teach those pesky NEETs a lesson

>>21721213
Source: your ass

>>21721228
Lol, thats what you took from our conversation? Maybe its better for you to continue to read about advaita and other metaphysical drivel, communism it not for neets and other parasites

>>21721247
Communism is for psychopaths and deluded retards. Sometimes both at once

There will never be a complex stateless classless society. Its just fucking idiotic. All commie revolutions will just be tyrannies with ludicrously stupid central planning like Mao killing all the sparrows

>>21721247
>didn't understand my post
>immediately projects his inability to understand
kek. yep, classic commie.

>>21719822
Marx was a spiritual nigger, who thought everyone deserves handouts from people that are actually successful.
Practically everyone who follows communism/marxism is an idiot who fails to contribute to society in any significant manner, so they figure their only chance at a luxurious life is to get it literally handed to them.

>>21721228
We could also just remove the laws protecting the plebs and organize a few nice hunting safaris. Would reduce greenhouse gas emissions, too.

>>21721247
>communism it not for neets and other parasites
>only defended by neets and parasites

>>21721271
Marx was just a Rabbi weaving talmudic sophistry, they literally can't help themselves.

>>21721279
Kek all those millions of neets in china and the ussr

>>21720542
the mcdonalds embassy in kabul had fallen

>>21721296
>all those millions of neets in china and the ussr
Will you commied decide it China is or isn't communist?
>USSR
failed state that hasn't been a thing since the 90s

>>21721260
Capitalist companies already literally plan their production your absolute retard
>>21721268
So what are you exactly trying to say? Capitalism have bureocracy, capitalism have the means to know who is unemployed and do something to help them but they dont. A state is necessary to end the class contradictions slowly, you cant just maje a revolution one day and enjoy anarchy in the other. I literally dont understand what do you want from comunism, the possibility to not work?

>>21721309
Goalposting much lol
>its just neets and parasites that defend them
>but workers all across the world defend it
>b-but it failed eventually, or something...

alright anons, i know nothing about communism so are there any good authors who have written irrefutable works on what life within communism is actually supposed to be like?

i have a hard time imagining how anybody within a communist society could be bothered to create anything original without themselves having some kind of inner psychological struggle

>>21720829
>lown
Come on, man

>>21720836
That’s not arbitrary though, you just value your life more than the axe

>>21721318
>this guy is so inconceivably stupid he thinks a single company operating in a market is the same thing as planning an entire market
You could not be more of a faggot, literally impossible

>>21721326
>Goalposting much
Lol
>It doesn't need to exist
>it doesn't need to succeed
lofty goals indeed

>>21721333
I am working here while i answer. Not bothered enough to write right answers to a bunch o baiters

>>21721349
Were not baiting. We are telling you you're a retarded faggot with absolute sincerity. Many people would shoot you if they could get away with it

>>21721339
it literaly is dependent on the circumstances, think a little
>>21721342
all companies does it, you stupid. do you think the menagers roll the dice on how much they will produce every time?

>>21721377
We have a genuine 90IQ person here. This isnt your garden variety midwit communist, this is an actual stupid person. He literally cannot model the concept of a market well enough to understand why it's not the same thing as a company

>>21721330
Pic related also applies to commies.
They're almost right, but also dangerously wrong in all the worst possible ways.
It's basically a quasi-Buddhist enlightenment philosophy enforced at gunpoint. Or at least it's branded that way. Really it's just a bunch of narcissists who were enlightened by their own farts wanting to play God, as evidenced by the fact that they enforce their 'enlightenment' at gunpoint and will kill you if you don't show them your complete devotion to 'the party'.

>>21721390
Based

>>21721389
for the maximun proffit seeking everyone needs to be planning all the time, i used the company as an example. nobody mindless extract and produce things and hope for the best

>>21721407
The company responds and adjusts to demand in the market and price of materials. The market itself as a whole is not structurally equivalent to a company within the market. What you're saying is like saying that an animal and an ecosystem are the same thing, and because the animal makes decisions based on it environment that means the entire ecosystem could be directed somehow from above

>>21721390
what a shitty quote.
>communist are right, life for the workers is horrible, but dont do nothing, actually pray for jesus or something, and dont organize with your equals for the love of god, its you alone in the world and the jesus christ guy

>>21721424
why are you so obsessed with the company example? you dont undestand planned economy, its not organized "from above"

>>21721443
Because it is an actual 90IQ thing to say. I sometimes forget what actual dumb people are like so thanks for reminding me

>>21721330
why does anyone create anything original? even under capitalism, it's hardly /only/ because of profit.
it's because of a couple of reasons:
1) validating existence - "i want something people will remember me for", "i want to have an actual impact in the world", etc.
2) inspiration - "objects X, Y, Z... inspired me to create my own object because of how it relates to me"
3) aspiration to improve - "object X is good but I have some ideas on how it could be improved"
you would have to be soulless to really do something 'purely for profit'. most people at least attempt to explain why they like doing what they do in some capacity.
to answer rhetorically, what inspired you to create this original post?

>>21721059
It's wikipedia (I know...) but I thought this was interesting description in the page for "socialist market economy," particularly the third paragraph starting with "Cui Zhiyuan"

What's interesting about it, other than the technical details, is that it doesn't rule out planning nor markets. Markets here are seen as just a tool, that the level of planning should correspond to the level of social productivity that you have achieved, and in the absence of sufficient productivity, then it's reasonable (if "regrettable") to make use of markets, not viewed as sacrosanct that planning was in the USSR or in the way that markets are in the United States. I really think they've "done it," they've found a way to make socialism "work" but it happened through tortuosity, it had to "fail" in the 20th century for that to happen.

>>21719822

>>21720821
You realize that most public restrooms are disgusting because people have zero incentive of being empathetic since theirs zero sense of a community. If I was an asshole that every time I went to my local gas station, I purposefuly piss on a toilet seat and the floor for a laugh. I don't have to clean it up since someone with a shitty wage would could just clean it up, and I wouldnt have any need to care for who they're and their place in society. Then the next time I go to that restroom as long as no one recognizes me and I don't know them, I can just do that anytime I'm there, all while I dont notice the piss I did before.

I highly doubt in a socialist or communist society, that behavior would even happen more than twice. Because their no concept of value, only the amount of labor one does for themselves and community. You would be pissing on the floor and seat while keeping in mind that the guy who works at the gas station solely to provide a service to his community, through his empathic nature and because he finds meaning out of that labor. Most people would stop doing that behavior real fucking fast if they arent a piece of shit. But, if I were to keep doing that anyway, that's pretty strong grounds of everyone to treat me like shit since it means I don't care about my community and the people living through a system of empathy that constantly provides for one another, a system that I also belong in. It would also mean Im presenting a sense of superiority on another human being. The man who works at the gas station, who also sometimes cleans the toilet would be correct in thinking I think Im superior than him since I can't do something as simple as cleaning up for myself after I was given access to relive myself for zero incentive. The gas station worker will also probably try to connect with every person they know that comes by their gas station pump since he would like to be able to know who to come to for a chair or some other useful object or service of living. People would find out really quick if I were the one causing trouble to the gas station worker and the people who occasionally clean the restrooms. No one who treat me well well unless I stop that behavior, I'll probably be shunned by my community, and not one will care about me until I make things right.

>>21721649
>I highly doubt in a socialist or communist society, that behavior would even happen more than twice

>>21719998
Ah I see you're an idiot.

>>21721712
>T. man who never lived in either(inb4 China)

>>21721744
I havent lived in Hobbiton either

>>21721767
>Communism/socialism is akin to fictional setting#12234
One the most oldest ad homin tactics from npc capital shills.

>>21721790
Well they both only exist in books

>>21721816
So you saying it wasn't real communism? Therefore communism didn't kill a single person?

>>21721223
>There was nothing much wrong with colonialism at all and it should have continued for everyone's sake

How many bananas did you tally today? Oh, didn't make quota? Guess you're losing an arm, sorry champ

>>21721823
It was a tyranny by people calling themselves communist. The commies own defintion is "classless and stateless" and it. Unlike commies I dont fetishize words so I don't give a shit what you call it so long as you consistently refer to the same concept with the same word

>>21721831
I know Leopold was a dick but that's just one guy. It's not like Africa was any better before, it was just bantus genocidng their way across the continent instead of euros

>>21721823
>they called it communism, therefore it was communism!
>north korea calls itself democratic, therefore it is democratic!
believe it or not, communism isn't when the government does stuff.

>>21719822
Marx whole book is either satire or a work of a person who has a low IQ.

Here is the summory of Marx
>If you assume that the world and people behave like I say, then...
Marx literally just created a fictional group of people who are the "good guys". He called those people "working class". And now everyone outside the "working class" is bad because MUH ASSUMPTION!!!

The problem is you can't summarize the criticism against Marx more, because every deeper explanation required writing whole books, because of how garbage Marx is and how it's scientifically proven that his ideas are garbage and literally unrealistic garbage fiction.

Also I doubt that any "Marxist" has ever read Marx bullshit. Marx writing is absolute low IQ garbage. Marx has no idea how to write and his whole text feels like he just wrote shit without really giving a fuck what or how he wrote a few paragraphs earlier.

>>21719900
You didn’t hear about this?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/20th_century

This thread keeps going in circles but the commies’ argument basically boils down to:

>In my perfect society there will be no such thing as human greed or laziness or coercion. Everyone will get along and do as they’re told because… because they just will ok?! Also we won’t get there all at once so in the meantime I’d be the one running things because I’m the smartest and wisest and know what’s best for everyone, and anyone who dissents will get shot (and their wrecker families too). Now shine my shoes, comrade.

>>21722026
t. hasn't read capital

>>21719822
Marxism is popular among souless people because it's ultimately a cult to nothingness. If you start questioning it, there are no answers for anything, not even proposals. Marx himself had no clue how to make a socialist society and economy work, so he said the answers will appear by themselves after the revolution. Marxists are inherently mud people, and mud people have an inherent urge to go back to the mud. Existence is unnatural for them.

>>21720735
This sounds like labor will only be accomplished when shit hits the fan.
Imagine if there is a plumbing company, but the people working there don’t want to be plumbers. Every single one of them wants to be an artist, an actor, a musician, a writer, etc. Capitalism, and the need to survive, forces them to do this work they don’t want to do, and they spend their off-time pursuing their passions, and maybe when they save up enough money and capital, they’ll quit the plumbing business forever.
Overnight, the communist revolution happens. The plumbers are set free. They all quit their jobs as plumbers, and pursue their passions full time, knowing their needs will all be met.
A persons house floods, and they ask the plumbers to go and take care of it. None of them want to, so none of them do. Luckily, as we live in the post-scarcity world, that person simply moves to another house, and the original house is condemned.
Then the same drama happens at another house, then another house, one by one. Eventually, the streets are flooded with sewage the whole neighborhood is unlivable. Finally, the plumbers realize they HAVE to fix this problem, in order for society to function. They fix the problem, and then go back to pursuing their passions.
Is this unrealistic? Why couldn’t it happen? A neighborhood in a world where houses are all free and not exchanged could probably go a few years, maybe decades, without plumbers at all.
But There is a major issue of disasters not being prevented, because yeah, maybe someone will take on a big project for the sake of society as a whole, but who is going to do tiny menial upkeep for the sake of society?

>>21720877
>commodities do not exist in socialism
What? Items don’t exist? Materials don’t exist? Objects don’t exist? Things don’t exist?

>>21720976
If I live a very large community, will I simply need to know every single individual person?
If I provide a good or service, and someone walks in my establishment or inquires about my services, I don’t know who they are. I don’t know what job they do, I don’t even know if they work. That’s fine, I don’t need to know, because it’s not my business. I don’t need to know anything about them.
But if I now have a moral duty to shun the jobless, how am I supposed to keep track of them? Will there be a database of all people in the community, and I’ll have to scan every single face in order to know if I can serve them or not?

>>21721296
They weren’t millions of communists. They were millions of people being held against their will by a small elect clique. The secret police, gulags, and mass surveillance were all necessary, as without them, the millions of people would simply organize and kill the communist party members. This is also why anybody who had the means to defect defected.

>>21721649
So does every single person need to recognize every other person in their community?
What if a truck driver is an asshole. You’ll still need truck drivers under communism, I assume. If you still need trucks, that necessitates the existence of truck stops.
I don’t wanna work at a truck stop for my entire life, but I take one shift there cause society needs me. A truck driver pisses on the toilet street. What are the odds of me ever seeing that truck driver ever again? They’re almost zero. Will every truck stop have to be monitored to prevent truck drivers from being assholes?

>>21722265
If that ever does happen of a guy being a jackass like that, then it's an exception, not the rule. Like my post said, if we had our system is like this it discourages people to act like that in the first place, becaus if that guy is a truck driver that means he probably does that as his main means of labor. You'll see that guy again, and you can screw him over if he doesn't set things right. Only the worst of the worse would do something like that.

On another note, if you're religious, think of how restrooms are almost always pristine shape. Their the element of God/God's are watching, of course, that does play a part, but people are willing to be more accommodating because of the environment. No one is going to trash a church restroom, than come back to church as their teaching empathy and not being selfish. If our system was like this their would still be assholes doing stuff like for sure. But the environment of our society plays a major role of making them able to know how shitty they are. I bet people would still have to clean up a restroom once in a blue moon, but the chance you see that fucker that did that is probably very high.

>>21722215
>What? Items don’t exist? Materials don’t exist? Objects don’t exist? Things don’t exist?
Exchange value embodied in purportedly useful things—as the social reflection of wage labour for the purpose of surplus value reproduction—doesn't exist in Socialism according to your interlocutor.

But obviously neither of you have read Marx as in a lower form of communism or "socialism" workers approach themselves as an object of exploitation as relations of human conduct exceeding necessity become more and more common.

Neither of you have fucking read enough.

>>21722362
The odds of me running into a random truck driver is pretty much zero. It’s a giant world out there

i miss butterfly so much

>>21722399
Why

>>21719822
>So according to Marx, everything that doesn’t go to my workers is “surplus value” (to my limited understanding) derived from “surplus labor”. Does this mean that Marx envisioned a system where 100% of profit goes to the laborers?
In case of socialism - yes. Communism is a different matter.
>If so, how does the mill continue to operate without the farmer just giving it the wheat for free? What incentive does the farmer have to give up his surplus crop if he isn’t compensated? Or would the mill workers use a portion of their profits to collectively buy the surplus wheat from the farmer?
Managing a mill is a job. There is no implicit requirement for the manager to have the rights of ownership and collect profits. The portion of the income and surplus required to be paid to the manager can be evaluated by some form of socialist authority.
>And wouldn’t the farmer be a capitalist because he owns the land that he grows the wheat on?
Farmers are small time bourgeoisie already.
>Furthermore, would the laborers seize the means of production by collectively owning the mill? If so, then what about the original owner who presumably built it? Wouldn’t they be profiting off of his labor?
True. Seizing property is profiting off another at some scale, significant or not. It's not, however, implied that seizure must be through compulsion.
>Would they all collectively incur the risk of ownership that the original owner did?
Yes, in socialism the risk is still present.
>If one worker worked harder than the others, would he be entitled to a greater percentage of the profits than his comrades under communism?
Under socialism - no, he is given his share and it is not affected by his productivity. There are no profits under communism since there are no money.

Communism assumes a state of technological development we haven't reached yet.

>>21722403
Retardation

>>21722403
Is there money in communism?

>>21722409
No

>>21722377
Then you can write down what he looked like or what his truck looked like, for the next person to take notice. Maybe theirs a way to inform other gas stations of how theirs a disrespecting trucker take if you know what route he has to take. There are definitely ways for the guy to be noticed if everyone in society believes in the of system of socialism or communism

>>21722403
>technological development
It's not truly a stateless society if AI is ruling over you and determines what's right and wrong.

>>21722410
Then how do you know how much you need to produce of each thing?

>>21719998
Absolutely right. There is a huge distance between Marx's failed economic theory and marxist political movement. Commies are motivated by the simplicity with which marxist propaganda promises them unspoken wealth, abundant gotslops and unending orgies. It's a way for smarter sociopathic individuals to command ape-minded masses. There are big parallels with catholicism and islam, the people are different, but the concept is the same.

>>21722408
Point out specific things

>>21722419
>determines what's right and wrong.
Lol, AIs are already being manipulated by their owners so they would be more pc.

>>21722421
By thinking hard enough, they figured out some mathematical formulas.

>>21719822
>Help a retard understand Marxism
Well that's easy - try reading Das Kapital, and then I'll be here to answer your questions.

>b-but I own a flour mi~
You're on /lit/. Read the book.

>Does this mean that Marx envisioned a system
He didn't. Read the book.

>>21722092
Not a single real communist believes that they should run everything. That's literally the exact opposite of what they want. They want workers as a unified group to get what they deserve and not get exploited by a few people. If any "communist" truly believes that they should run everything, then they're just a fascist in disguise. Then you would be correct in calling them morons and shunning them. They would be spouting the ideas of communism but would just like to be Stalin. The best part of communism is that a community of workers dictate the shape of society for everyones benifit, not some greedy goblin trying to fill his pockets with green as people starve to death

>>21722428
How socialist mode of production would look is irrelevant that's not the point. Point is dismantling capitalist social relations.

>>21719822
It will never work, no matter how many "books" you read.

>>21722432
>By thinking hard enough
Kek

>>21722432
How exactly? How can you even make a formula to predict the demand of a brand new product, for example?

>>21722441
The community cannot manage anything without a figurehead, and he'll probably work the most. If that's the case, then figureheads should deserve more, right?

>>21722421
Labour notes. It's not money.
>>21722432
No.

>>21722417
So is there going to be a database of everybody who pisses on a restroom seat? That every single person in the world will have to know and memorize?
Cause, there's no division of labor. I'm not a truck stop attendant, I'm just the fellow who realized the truck stop needed attending to at the moment. I'm going to have to make sure every single person who might at any given moment work in a truck stop (which is literally everyone, as anyone could possibly find themselves in the situation of living near a truck stop which needs to be attended to) is aware of this situation

>>21722455
The same way we can predict sales right now. You study the markets and you come up with a estimation.

>>21722467
>You study the markets
What markets? I thought in communism there is no money.

>>21722467
when people say studying markets, they are studying a market that exists under the capitalist model. I.e., a market which uses money. Unless you can explain what "study the markets" means in a communist society, the phrase itself is meaningless

>>21722475
There was one retard before talking about "stateless form of communism" lmao.

>>21722475
They'll just think hard enough to come up with a solution.

>>21722475
>>21722477
Don't listen to him he is wrong. In lower socialism there will most likely be labour vouchers representing the amount of simple/compound labour you worked.

After the productive forces developed you can even have product distributed according to need but that's only a theory but that's only a theory and wishful thinking. The reality is that you will recieve in return the amount of labour which you give, and this will be decided by whatever the new institutions of the emerging society.

>>21722492
will I be able to exchange these labor vouchers for whatever I want? like, if I need a watch or something, and I'm not a watchmaker, I'll just give someone some labour vouchers in exchange for a watch?

>>21722497
Yes you give him an amount in kabour vouchers representing the time it took for him to make the watch, plus training and experience according to skill level because watchmaking is not simple labour but compound labour accumulated over time.

>>21722463
Personally if I was in that situation it would piss me off but I do it since it's accommodating to everyone else using the restroom, it's a part of the work, and the chance of it even occurring (or happening again if I take the labor again) is really low. The keeping track of a person is only really a thing if someone's main job, meaning the only piece of labor a person does is working at a gas station, than yeah remembering what the fucker looked like is something I would absolutely do if that guy comes back again. Other people who have the same job can take notice of the description of an individual being a nuisance to every gas station worker along the same path/route. The taking notice of a couple of bad apples really isn't that hard. Plus, if someone wants to be petty, you can always just lock the restroom again for a long period of time and tell any other trucker driver who wonders why they can't use it that it's because such and such looking man ruined everyone's privileges. Truckers talk to each other all the time and have a sense of community with people who take the same route, they'll be infighting for the fucker who ruined restrooms for everyone for a certain gas station

>>21722510
>representing the time it took for him to make the watch
Doesn't this reward lazy workers?

>>21722492
>In lower socialism there will most likely be labour vouchers representing the amount of simple/compound labour you worked.
So... money?

>>21722510
>more complexity and time=more labour vouchers
So how's it any different from money exactly?

>>21720197
How did Rothbard ruin the Austrian School?

>>21722512
If you don't think the amount of time it took to create that product is necessary then you can refuse the product and go to court over it.
>>21722516
Doesn't circulate.

>>21722419
>no response
Guess AIfags are proto-communists in disguise, since they want to replace everything with it.

>>21722522
How will it not circulate? The watchmaker has my labour vouchers, and he also has unfulfilled needs. He gives my labor vouchers to someone else, they give them to another person, and before you know it all our labour vouchers are circulating in a vast economy

Start having sex and making money if you’re even considering wasting your short life on this mental retardation

>>21722522
>you can refuse the product and go to court over it.
What sort of courts can exist in a stateless, classless society?

>>21722522
>If you don't think the amount of time it took to create that product is necessary then you can refuse the product and go to court over it.
But that doesn't make the system more efficient. It only adds a layer of bureaucracy to it, but people are still incentivized to be lazy, including the lawyers and judges handling these cases.

>>21722522
>an apprentice makes more vouchers than his master because his lack of experience naturally means he's slower
>the court finds this explanation reasonable
What kind of backward system is this? It's absolutely retarded.

Marxists unironically think that after the revolution they will throw all the economists into a gulag and force them to come up with a way to make their retarded system work

>>21722554
I don't think they're able to truly fathom how many jobs and simple facts of life would suddenly disappear if their system was actually put in place

>>21720432
>There's no profit incentive to withhold products.
Why would anyone make more than one watch for themselves if after they can just go back to making bread because it's easier.
Where is the incentive for more watches to be made? How can ppl get watches if there is no one to make them?

>>21722532
The labour vouchers you give to him represent HIS labour now, and you expended your labour hours on what is now the watch you have.

Some people suggest to have a state issue vouchers but I do not see any reason why you won't be able to issue vouchers yourself.

>>21720432
>> Working 8 hours as a chair maker isn’t as hard or dangerous as working 8 hours as a coal miner, for instance.
>They're both socially necessary and both are done by those that are able to do it.
Why or how would anyone go mine coal instead of making chairs?

>>21722459
I personally don't think a figurehead communist society works that well since it is very similar to a monarchy in a many ways (the idea of their always being a good king lasting forever while maintaining the stable government is a bullshit system of government). But of one that did work really well (can't remember the name of the small African country rn) the leader never got more power for the sake of power, if he did that it would give a go ahead for the citizens to know he can't be trusted and he would be taken out of power. He never even attempted this, he just made sure he was a unifying symbol for the peoples wants of a more fair society, after their feelings of being exploited in their history and he would mostly make sure the government wouldn't be too powerful,stopping any corruption if any occurred, and making sure that what they government needs to do is actually happening (homes, clean water, and basic rations).You presume that any figure head of a communist party would be power-hungry and would want more because he has to work the most labor. But if a leader of a communist party starts to show signs of being power hungry, then I don't think of that as traditional Marxist ideology. It's just fascism disguised as communism (think of Hitler using the disguise of socialism to make a authoritative regime that didn't accommodate to every citizen). As soon as someone even thinks what you're describing and is putting it into practice, than that "communist" society was failed for the start, the people didn't do a good enough job of seeing the signs that their figure head never believed in communism/socialism from the start.

>>21722535
I don't understand why a court or even a government wouldn't exist in a stateless society. Stateless and classless are synonyms. When Marxoids talk about the state, they mean it as an organ of the ruling class. Even early socialism will still have classes, the distinction would be that the 'state' will be an organ of the ruling proletariat.
>>21722537
Then give your labor vouchers to someone who's labour is worth your time. You can sue people over shit products in capitalist states too you know?
>>21722550
Same to what I said above.

>>21720485
>so just purely aesthetics
Cali beaches are not just aesthetically different from Wisconsin cold hellholes.

And even if they were, people are still driven to good anesthetics.
Without competition, how does anyone decide who gets what?

>>21722566
>but I do not see any reason why you won't be able to issue vouchers yourself
Don't you think people would just lie and vastly exaggerate how much they work? But there's another problem. Your system is already stupid even if it worked as intended, but you're assuming there will never be shortages, so prices remain consistently. If there's only a limited amount of bread, for example, but everyone wants some, then what is stopping the baker from asking for extra vouchers? Maybe it only took him a couple hours to bake the bread, but since it's a premium item, people will offer him much more than that.

>>21720546
Because I'm not autistic and I wanna make it clear to everyone what I'm talking about

>>21722550
>>an apprentice makes more vouchers than his master because his lack of experience naturally means he's slower
Also I already said here >>21722510
>plus training and experience according to skill level

>>21722578
How can a government exist in a stateless society?

>>21722566
Oh no, I understand that, I only used "my" to emphasize the chain of possession. I really should have said "my former labor vouchers," but we can't undo what has been said.
Let me rephrase it though. I have labor vouchers. Many other people have labor vouchers. All of us need watches. We go to the watchmaker, and all buy watches using labor vouchers. What used to be our labor vouchers represent his labor now, we expended our labor hours on what is now the watches we have.
The watchmaker takes his labor vouchers, and starts buying other things. I am a butcher, he gives me some labor vouchers for meat. Another is a plumber, the watchmaker gives the plumber some labor vouchers to fix his toilet. The watchmaker is going around town getting goods and services using labor vouchers. Everyone else, who is not the watchmaker, does the same thing with their labor vouchers.
They are now circulating in an economy.
>Some people suggest to have a state issue vouchers but I do not see any reason why you won't be able to issue vouchers yourself.
I immediately issue myself $1000000000000000 labor vouchers

>>21722585
No, you're just retarded. Your post directly implies that there are more forms of gommunism.

>>21722570
Oh yeah, like lenin, or mao. Oh wait...

>>21722578
So there will be classes, got it. It's just not gonna be ebul crapitalists who exploit the shit out of your soul, they'll just be gommunists instead!

This whole thread sounds like labor will only be accomplished when shit hits the fan.
Imagine if there is a plumbing company, but the people working there don’t want to be plumbers. Every single one of them wants to be an artist, an actor, a musician, a writer, etc. Capitalism, and the need to survive, forces them to do this work they don’t want to do, and they spend their off-time pursuing their passions, and maybe when they save up enough money and capital, they’ll quit the plumbing business forever.
Overnight, the communist revolution happens. The plumbers are set free. They all quit their jobs as plumbers, and pursue their passions full time, knowing their needs will all be met.
A persons house floods, and they ask the plumbers to go and take care of it. None of them want to, so none of them do. Luckily, as we live in the post-scarcity world, that person simply moves to another house, and the original house is condemned.
Then the same drama happens at another house, then another house, one by one. Eventually, the streets are flooded with sewage and the whole neighborhood is unlivable. Finally, the plumbers realize they HAVE to fix this problem, in order for society to function. They fix the problem, and then go back to pursuing their passions.
Is this unrealistic? Why couldn’t it happen? A neighborhood in a world where houses are all free and not exchanged could probably go a few years, maybe decades, without plumbers at all.
But There is a major issue of disasters not being prevented, because yeah, maybe someone will take on a big project for the sake of society as a whole, but who is going to do tiny menial upkeep for the sake of society?

>>21722583
>Don't you think people would just lie and vastly exaggerate how much they work
Capitalist society has the same problem people pay obscene amounts of money for products mass produced by slaves in India, that however is not the question.
You can tell how much labour was put into a product by simply looking at it. A cheap garment does not feel the same as an expensive one. Nor does a rolex look the same as a g-shock. It's funny you the examples you are using are products made by artisans which can take a variable amount of time for each and every single artisan. In a factory, products are standardized in their production times.
>but you're assuming there will never be shortages, so prices remain consistently
There is no price because goods are not manufactured for a market, they are produced according to social need. If everyone wanted a rolex, you quite literally would not be able to sell to the highest bidder because your item does not have a price, but labour hours put into it.
>Maybe it only took him a couple hours to bake the bread, but since it's a premium item
Premium items require more labour time to produce, they may require scarce materials that take more time to obtain, or require more skill (which is time) to produce.

>>21722583
Not the same anon but
>Don't you think people would just lie and vastly exaggerate how much they work?

It depends on what the person does but if someone makes chairs. But lies on how many chairs they make as long as their is a basis for how many chairs he usually makes in a week or a day, people are going to know if he's lying for vouchers. If the guy isn't going through something emotional, mental, or physical he's going to get ostracized by the community. This goes for pretty much any job that produces something tangible or a service that people can notice.

I have a question. How does Marxism protect itself against a selfish ruling class?

>>21722566
>but I do not see any reason why you won't be able to issue vouchers yourself
If there's not a state involved issuing the money, then who is going to take it out of circulation? Will vouchers just circulate forever? If the value of the voucher is always the same (the hours of labor), then do you understand why this would cause hyper-deflation in a matter of months?

>>21722615
>But lies on how many chairs they make as long as their is a basis for how many chairs he usually makes in a week or a day
You're misunderstanding what the communist anon is saying. He's saying we should be paid by our hours of labor, not by how much we produce, so there's no need to lie about how many chairs you made, just about how much time it took you to make them. Maybe you can make a chair per day, but if you say it took you two, then I don't think anyone will suspect you're lying. I doubt most people even know how much it takes to make a chair. Personally I have no clue. I could be easily scammed.

>>21722598
You're just proving why I think a figurehead type communism sucks. Mao did a lot of fucked up stuff that outweighs the good he did, and Lenin fucked everything up by not doing anything against Stalin when he had the chance and not encorpating Marxism ideology into his party. Most people who criticize communist are just talking about the ones that wanted power above decent living for proletariat's. Communism isn't just smug power obsessed assholes masquerading as leaders for the people when they do the opposite

>>21719822
Man politics are so fucking boring. Like, what are you trying to accomplish by reading bunch of books about politics? Are you gonna become a politician? Please.

>>21722587
Because government isn't what Marxoids mean by state.
>>21722591
>They are now circulating in an economy.
They are not circulating they are just representing labour hours. It's literally impossible to have more labour notes than the amount of time that you worked.
>I immediately issue myself $1000000000000000 labor vouchers
If you issue yourself 100,000 hours worth in labour time vouchers people will ask you where the fruits of your labour are, once they realize you have done jackshit, it would mean you have produced no value, and your vouchers are useless. They would demand their goods back.
You don't even need communism for this.
https://youtu.be/NVf91idUwE8
>>21722608
Yes there will be classes in early socialism, I don't know anyone who has ever denied this.
>>21722623
States never take money out of circulation. The amount of money in circulation is always going up. Likewise when a product is made or a service is being provided it means peoole will be expensing their labour time, therefore the amount of labour notes will always be increasing. But again these don't circulate because they REPRESENT the simple labour time you have put in.

>>21722635
>Communism isn't just smug power obsessed assholes masquerading as leaders for the people when they do the opposite
Most of you are exactly like that. You're not gonna fool anyone here.

>>21722609
>Is this unrealistic? Why couldn’t it happen?
You almost had it. You articulated the logical following events to their ends and triped at the finish line with the preposterous assumption that the plumbers will just do their job, and everything will be hunky dory and easily fixable after massive infrastructure collapse.

This shit is what happens when ppl are shielded in academia for so long they have ZERO perspective on the insanely MASSIVE complexity involved in supplying/maintaining the modern world.

If even half of the specialized workers who maintain the country stoped for 5 years, the degradation of the infrastructure and the loss of unpassed on tribal knowledge would devistate America to a second or third world nation.

Let me explain it to you in a way your naive cityworldly mind can understand. Watch dirty jobs. All of it. Watch it and understand that it is a small amount of the mountain of labour and skill needed to keep you out of the stoneage.

>>21722613
>Capitalist society has the same problem people pay obscene amounts of money for products mass produced by slaves in India
Well, no. They are not lying about how much it costs to make, that info is usually easily available. And since communism doesn’t use the labor theory of value, nobody says “this money is for the labor that goes into making it.” Everyone knows it’s being bought due to brand name or supposed quality or supply/demand, not labor.

>>21722633
Ok
>>21722618
Because their isn't one, the whole point is that it isn't one or a select few who control something
. It's a community of proletariats that work together. If their was a group of people trying to make an upper class, they would probably be lynched on the streets since their people who want to exploit others for their own ease of living

>>21722613
>Premium items require more labour time to produce
It has nothing to do with labor time. Something is premium because there's high demand for it and a limited offer. Picasso was extremely fast. On a good day he could easily paint several paintings. But despite that, most people would rather have a Picasso that was painted in a day than a shitty painting that took the artist a year to make. Problem is that premium items are by definition rare. What if two people want a Picasso but there is only one at the art store? What is stopping me to offer a year of vouchers to get it?

>>21722645
Yes yes and then they'll give up their privileges and power like nothing. I heard that a lot.

>>21722645
>Marxoids
Why are you dissing yourself?

>>21722645
Do you not understand what the term circulation means? It just means moving around in a closed system. Think of your blood circulation.
The labor vouchers go from watchmaker to butcher to plumber to clothesmaker, everyone has them and we’re passing them around to each other for each other’s goods and services. This is circulation.

>>21722645
>States never take money out of circulation
They do. Money is constantly being burned. The total amount of money does increase because a discrete amount of inflation is necessary to avoid inflation. When central banks don't control circulation, then inflation goes out of control and you end up like Venezuela or Argentina. No one wants that. To say it's okay to have hyper-deflation with vouchers because hyper-inflation is possible with money too is bafflingly retarded.

>>21722648
>Everyone knows it’s being bought due to brand name or supposed quality or supply/demand
Private sellers lie about their products all the time. Give me a break. In communism, someone might lie about the amount of labour time put in. Both issues are solved in communism and capitalism the same way. The legal system of the state.
>>21722650
>It has nothing to do with labor time
>Brings up Picasso
Picasso was at a Paris market when an admirer approached and asked if he could do a quick sketch on a paper napkin for her.

Picasso politely agreed, promptly created a drawing, and handed back the napkin — but not before asking for a million Francs. The lady was shocked: “How can you ask for so much? It took you five minutes to draw this!” “No”, Picasso replied, “It took me 40 years to draw this in five minutes.”

So again, it's labour time.

>What is stopping me to offer a year of vouchers to get it?
In communism paintings aren't produced to be sold on a market. If you want a painting from someone you can request it personally but you cannot sell a dead person's paintings to make a profit. There is no market.
>>21722653
No one said they would give up anything.
>>21722658
Same reason chuds call themselves chud.

>>21719822
Why won't you ask this on >>>/pol/?

>>21722646
>most
I've never met a single person who was communist or socialist who wanted to be a leader of everyone. If someone started talking smart rhetoric on socialist or communist theory, but said, "This would work but a few people need to be in charge until it starts working". Than I know they were talking out of their ass or they have brain damage. That's like if two people who believe in democracy are talking about how great it is but one of the guys says this before he leaves, "Yeah, the idea of democratic voting is great but me and my friends votes should equal 10,000,000 instead of one and everyone knows who we are and everyone loves us and wants us to pick who should be president everytime". No one fucking talks like that. Anyone who is able to understand in a decent to deep level how their preferred idea of government should work doesn't agree with the exact opposite of their ideology.

>>21722666
>So again, it's labour time.
So a guy who has been baking bread for 40 years can ask for 40x vouchers than the guy who has been baking for just a year? Why would anyone get bread from the older baker then?
>but you cannot sell a dead person's paintings to make a profit
Who is stopping it? Is there a police that goes around stopping people from selling an item for vouchers?

>>21722663
>is necessary to avoid inflation
to avoid deflation*

>>21722666
The audacity of you trannies calling others chuds.

>>21722666
The point is that they wouldn't just give up their power.

>>21722676
>Is there a police that goes around stopping people from selling an item for vouchers?
No. A police won't be efficient enough to stop black markets from arising and the police has always been corrupt and servants of the capitalists. We will have a system of cameras and drones monitoring every inch of the country to make sure there are no anti revolutionary movements.

>>21722674
>muh personal experience
You don't get to see the whole picture, because it doesn't align with yout views.

>>21722683
kek, spoken like a soulless moron. That's why we should kill all commies.

>>21722660
Circulation would imply you can turn labour notes into more labour notes. You won't be able to. It's not money.
>>21722663
No they don't. If they did then debt wouldn't always be going up. States (banks) NEVER takes money out of circulation. They simply raise interest rates and it stops people from taking loans, which causes stagnation in the amount of circulating money. Money itself however is not actually taken away from circulation.
>>21722676
>So a guy who has been baking bread for 40 years can ask for 40x vouchers
You don't have to give it to them.
>Who is stopping it? Is there a police that goes around stopping people from selling an item for vouchers?
The fact that there is no market.
>>21722679
I didn't call anyone a chud. I am a chud. I am also a marxoid.

>>21722688
But why would a chud defend commietrannies?

>>21722673

>Why won't you ask this on >>>/pol/ ?
Not the anon who made the thread, but do you really think the 99% of pol users who believe that Jews control the entire United States and that their trying to make a unified world government and that this government is trying to steal the blood of infants for Satan. That certain groups of people that aren't white are demons made manifest on earth and need to be killed. That belive Hitler was a good guy. Are people who are going to have a meaningful conversation about communism or even question the ideas because they're curious about the ideology in a somewhat productive fashion?

>>21722682
I don't care for that. Someone will always have some kind of power over someone. This is only a question of envisioning what an early post capitalist society would look like.

>>21722666
>state
>in a stateless society

>>21722692
Cuz marx was cool and niggers drool

>>21722688
>The fact that there is no market.

>Person A has rare item that took 500 days to make
>Person B offers 500 vouchers for it
>Person A says no
>Person B offers 1000 vouchers for it
>Person A accepts
How is that not a market? How do you stop that from happening?

>>21722693
>That belive Hitler was a good guy
But he was, compared to communists.

>>21722696
When I say state I mean the legal institution of the society. When Marx and Engels mean state they mean the organ of the ruking class. When Hegel talks about state he means the common will.

>>21722697
>a homeless kike that lived on neetbucks is cool

>>21722693
>That certain groups of people that aren't white are demons made manifest on earth and need to be killed.
They don't say that. They just hate niggers, like everyone else in 4chan who isn't a social media tourist.

>>21722688
>You don't have to give it to them.
Does the baker decide how many vouchers each bread is worth or is he forced to sell it for the labor time + his experience?

>>21722698
>Person B goes to the legal institution to report unearned labour vouchers
I mean it would even be in their self interest to do so, if they're not getting this hypothetical 'rare item' anyway.

>>21722693
>That certain groups of people that aren't white are demons made manifest on earth and need to be killed
/pol/ is extremely diverse. What the fuck are you talking about.

>>21722697
Chuds do not defend trannymunists, falseflagger.

>>21722705
>a homeless kike that lived on neetbucks is cool
Yes
>>21722710
>Does the baker decide how many vouchers each bread is worth
Technically the people deciding are those giving him the labour vouchers.

>>21722693
I can see your nose

>>21722718
I've been on /pol/ since zim zam and I still lurk occasionally

>>21722721
>Technically the people deciding are those giving him the labour vouchers.
Then labor time and the actual worth of each voucher has no direct relation. How is that different from money? If it takes you 8 hours to make a cake, but people are only willing to pay for 4 hours, then the cake is worth 4 hours and not 8.

>>21722721
>Yes
Good goy.

>>21722687
I'm not a fucking echo chamber moron like you, if make sure all the time to hear all points of view. I sometimes watch Tucker Carlson even if I think he's a godamn idiot making America worse, read points of view of people online that associate with consertive ideology or libertarian idealogy even when I know I disagree with it. I make sure to understand the fallacies that people make, I make sure I know the biases of news outlets I don't know, and if I don't understand something I make sure to do research of all types that isnt incredibly biased. I do all this shit to make streghten my personal beliefs even if its insufferble, becuae guess what I dont want to be an echi chamber sheep who can only look through a small shallow lens of the world.

Not a single time have I heard a socialist or communist believe they should be in control of a country. Just because you heard some fat fucks on 4chan say something purposefully stupid on here to piss off as many people as possible for YOUS. Or to make dumbfucks like you to belive communism or socialism is actually doing the complete opposite of what people want. If someone unironically says something like that towards you, they like to see how much of a reactionary moron you really are to believe the bs they're saying.

>>21722721
>Technically the people deciding are those giving him the labour vouchers.
Isn't that just old fashioned capitalism?

>>21722726
>Then labor time and the actual worth of each voucher has no direct relation
You don't produce the cake for a market though. You produce it for use. That is, you don't bake the cake for someone until they request it.

>>21722726
>How is that different from money?
Because they are vouchers. Not money.
>>21722730
No. Capitalism uses money. Vouchers are different.

>>21722727
Marx fought for the rights of working class Europeans. What did you do for the white race, anon?

>>21722736
>Marx fought for the rights of working class Europeans.
He didn't do shit and his braindead followers became responsible for millions of human deaths in just a few countries under a century.

>>21722732
>You don't produce the cake for a market though. You produce it for use. That is, you don't bake the cake for someone until they request it.
So are there no stores in communism? You just knock on someone's door, ask them if they happen to have a cake, they tell you that luckily they do and it took them 4 hours to bake them, so you tell them, well, here you have a voucher I issued myself after I did... something... for four hours, and they give you the cake? Is that how communism works?

>>21722733
>they're different, because.... I-IT JUST IS OK??

>>21722738
>He didn't do shit
Is that why the Feds were always keeping an eye on him? Because he 'didn't do shit'?
>his braindead followers became responsible for millions of human deaths in just a few countries under a century.
The followers of Jesus did the same. It is necessary you seperate a man from his followers.

>>21722736
>Marx fought
>Marx
>fought
see >>21720524.

>>21722743
>it's ok to not to blame the perpetrator because of his followers
You're braindead.

>>21722740
You will probably need to ask for the cake in advance. You can issue your labour vouchers yourself (this is how it was done in medieval markets) or you can have an authority issue them. The point is that labour notes just represent labour time, they are not a commodity in itself and cannot be multiplied into more commodities.

>>21722688
>Circulation would imply you can turn labour notes into more labour notes. You won't be able to. It's not money.
What? If you don't even know what a simple word like circulation means, what are the chances you have ever understood anything else?

>>21722715
Yeah, it's somewhat diverse, but that doesn't change the fact that the majority of post are just racist white guy talking points like how everyone non-white needs to suffer for being inferior or is just straight up white supremacists conspiracy theory talking points about how the world is fake. The amount of Asian flags I've seen that agree with an assumed racist white American that whites are better is off the freaking charts

>>21722745
He organized workers and in that pic it says he armed them too.
>>21722747
>blaming Jesus for the crusades

>>21722751
How can something which is not a commodity circulate?

>>21722755
>butwhataboutjayzus
Keep digging.

>>21722759
No what you are doing is magical thinking. There is no logic. It's like blaming adam smith for the Vietnam war.

>>21722755
>in that pic it says he armed them too
With capitalists money. And he nevet even fought himself. Wow, so much for commies.

>>21722732
>You don't produce the cake for a market though. You produce it for use. That is, you don't bake the cake for someone until they request it.
This sounds incredibly slow. So you go to a baker and ask them for a kilogram of bread, but since he has no flour (because he hasn't requested it), he must first go to the people who process it, but they don't have any because they have not requested the necessary wheat yet, so they have to go to the harvesters and ask them for it, and by the time you get the bread it's been two weeks.

>>21722761
>j-just don't blame my messiah marx for bad stuff
Not a religion btw.

>>21722754
And you spam blacked porn in retaliation, right?

>>21722762
>With capitalists money.
Lots of capitalists read Das Kapital and gave favorable reviews for it. Marx even says that in his introduction to Das Kapital.
>And he nevet even fought himself.
He was too busy being in the library and attending meetings.
>>21722765
Do you know how the supply chain works in a supermarket? The division of labour is exactly the same way.

>>21722688
>Circulation would imply you can turn labour notes into more labour notes
You cannot literally turn money into more money either. Money actually depreciates. What you can do is to invest money and get a profit, if you're lucky, but I see no reason why this couldn't be possible with vouchers. It's just how bartering works.
>buy a watch made by the best watch maker in the world for 50 vouchers
>the watch maker dies
>now people in the black market are willing to pay you 500 vouchers for the watch

>>21722772
>Do you know how the supply chain works in a supermarket?
Didn't you say there were no markets and products were exchanged for vouchers only after requesting them? That's not how supermarkets work.

>>21722772
>He was too busy being in the library and attending meetings.
He only somehow survived because a capitalist showed mercy on him. Also, give me a break. Those things do nothing to the working class.

>>21722775
This is not possible with vouchers. Since there's no money there's no market, so you literally cannot sell a product for vouchers.

>>21722782
>without money, there's no market
Your statement sounds moronic.

I'm starting to think the communist anon is trolling us by pretending to be a retarded commie. He's too dumb for this world. He can't be a real person.

>>21722791
He's in every commienigger thread so I doubt it.

>>21722645
>It's literally impossible to have more labour notes than the amount of time that you worked.

>spend 500 hours making a watch
>someone gives me a 500 hours voucher for it
>that person drops it and breaks it
>the watch no longer exists, but the 500 hours voucher will be in circulation FOREVER

Can you see the problem?

>>21722770
Nah, I used to post pictures of Dan Schneider and Henry VIII. If you post black porn, their brains regurgitate the same anti black talking points they repeat day after day. If you post pathetic fat white losers despite them being rich in the systems they were/are part in. They realize they're somehow more pathetic since they don't have comparable amounts of money, aren't looked at by many others (notice that the two men are fat and sex pest but are atleast famous), and have to come to terms with shitty white people of old and new. Try the same idea if you really want to piss people off

>>21722803
The voucher is not in circulation. It's a voucher, not money.

>>21722806
I'm pretty sure Dan Schneider is jewish.

>>21722795
He must be autistic or something then.

>>21722814
Nothing on Wikipedia, YouTube, etc. Schneider is also a popular last name in many European.It has orgins as a Jewish last name but I've never heard someone on pol call that out

>>21719822
Those points are adresses in Das Kapital.

>>21722809
What happens to the voucher once it is used?

>>21722809
Can you explain why a voucher is not in circulation but money is?

>>21722972
It belongs to whom it was given to.
>>21722985
Because you can't use a voucher to make more vouchers, but you can use money to make more money.

Wow. Nearly 400 replies.

>>21719837
So yes, once again. Unless you’re studying economics, there’s no reason to get into Marx.
If you’re a socialist, there’s no reason to understand economics. So read Bakunin.
Proudhon is interesting to some degree, but uneven and he changed his mind often enough. Stirner tells it like it is, but doesn’t get too deep into the inevitable workings of collectives. Worth a read too, but start with Bakunin.

>>21722972
Vouchers are stamped used, like any coupon would be.
>>21722985
Same reason. It is issued to you. A would-be robber cannot use it, it rests in no till, is not stored in a bank. It is proof of your labor only.
In a perfected society with a free economy we wouldn’t even need it. But it’s use can be employed for the distrustful early stages