just keep it civil, let's try to have proper conversations.
for the record, socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.
if you talk about welfare states (social democracies) as if that was socialism I'm going to ignore your post.
So you're an Argentine normie?
Are you white?
Lurk more newfag
depends on what you call a normie.
I'd say yes, I am.
depends on what you call white.
we don't use "white" as a race, I'm of european descent, my skin is beige and pink.
Are you white?
Checked, so why see you hear and not Facebook or a normie website?
I'm curious as to the draw that lead you hear as a normie.
*here maybe I should go to sleep
How do you feel about the fact that almost all workers are nautral born losers and their situation is entirely their fault?
How do you feel about the fact that most workers will become obsolete in this ceuntry and most of them will be rightfully killed since they will become only an unnecessary burden to people better than them?
>why see you hear and not Facebook
I'm not 120
I have normie friends that I talk to about politics every now and then, and I'm part of socialist chat groups in whatsapp and whatnot, but it is better to discuss this sort of thing outside of an echo chamber and people here tend to be the opposite of what I am.
>How do you feel about the fact that almost all workers are nautral born losers and their situation is entirely their fault?
I'd disagree.
unless he's born in wealth, the worker is obligated to be a worker ALWAYS.
the fact that some of them get to own means of production later in life (these are rare, very rare cases) doesn't change the fact that they were workers once, so your claim is rather paradoxical.
>How do you feel about the fact that most workers will become obsolete in this ceuntry
if they don't get genocided, I'd be perfectly fine with it, socialism is scientific and automation fits perfectly fine in it.
>most of them will be rightfully killed since they will become only an unnecessary burden to people better than them?
what makes these people "better" exactly?
and a workers genocide would be pretty bad, but I think it is fair to assume that a workers revolt would ensue, making it a literal class struggle.
>socialism is scientific
what's so funny?
Testing
If you had your way, what role would you aspire to post revolution m8
How does socialism tackle the Tragedy of the Commons problem.
proxy works fine m8
I don't think I understand the question.
but if you're asking what I'd like to do under socialism (post capitalism) that'd be the same as everyone, be a worker and live my life without somebody stealing the money generated by my workforce.
socialism requires democracy.
there are different ways to achieve this, but let's assume it's achieved through making the population legislate instead of having representatives.
in that way, the common good would be legislated, and the government would enforce the common good.
after that it's just a matter of education, if you're born in communism, you'll want common good to succeed and the state would be unnecessary.
That's why socialism must go through dictatorship phase first, but at it's time it is easy to fuck it up, like in USSR post 1955.
Democracy is a thing that must come naturaly - more developed and educated average person is, more democracy is allowed, so people don't fuck longterm needs for momental desires.
>without somebody stealing the money generated by my workforce
If you're not literally making money, what exactly are you talking about?
wage labour under capitalism is theft.
the worker sells his workforce to somebody else so that this somebody else can make a profit off the worker's workforce, this happens because the worker doesn't own means of production, and the capitalist does, so the capitalist is allowed and does steal from him.
welcome back user
>Implying workers are not paid compensation for their time and effort.
Yeah ok mate. So if we were in a post capital world tomorrow and your workforce was not being stolen. What do you take home at the end of the day (realistically)
>socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production.
Why do you assume most people want or should want such ownership?
Ownership implies responsibility when things go bad, having to make tough decisions and be accountable for them.
Most people don’t value ownership as such, they are fine owning things that provide them utility and aren’t risks, but people generally prefer to offload as much risk as they can, even if it costs them some utility.
If it wasn’t already the case, Workers would gladly pay someone to make important decisions and shoulder the risks of failure. Even bourgeois do this, pay long others to manage certain risks.
Worker just wants to labor, go home to family, not be stressed about tomorrow.
We have this even in feudalism.
Worker is not exploited by capitalist, if there were no capitalist, worker would pay someone to be responsible. Worker doesn’t want input on decision making unless he knows he is right and decision maker is wrong, and if he knows he is right he doesn’t want to be drowned out by a sea of also wrong collective owners in some vote.
What socialism and even capitalism really are is that the kings and then the capitalists got sick of themselves being hated and held accountable for their various failings even though that responsibility comes with the throne or the pay. So just as worker wants to offload responsibility to leader, leader tries to offload it back to masses.
So today’s decision makers set policy based on endless polls and marketing analyses. If their decision is bad they say “Well we researched what you wanted us to decide then made that decision so really it is your fault for wanting something you wouldn’t like” - so we have now this absurd procession of wveryone trying to offload responsibility and avoid blame while still clinging to power.
E.g financial crisis socialized losses by printing free money to bail out rich people -
What I’m saying is socialism/communism are based on the
false assumption that everyone wants or should want the power and responsibility of ownership and that therefore noncollective ownership = exploitation.
But workers would rather be ‘exploited’ than share responsibility for ownership. They even get value from being able to complain about decisions while avoiding any element of the process.
>Implying workers are not paid compensation for their time and effort.
if they were then the capitalist wouldn't be able to make a profit off their employee's workforce.
>So if we were in a post capital world tomorrow and your workforce was not being stolen. What do you take home at the end of the day (realistically)
the money my work was worth, and not less, since there's no capitalist taking a cut of the value generated by my workforce.
there's so much wrong with this post that I don't know where to start.
>Why do you assume most people want or should want such ownership?
so that nobody else can take money generated by their own workforce.
>Ownership implies responsibility when things go bad, having to make tough decisions and be accountable for them.
what are you even talking about?
collective ownership just means that you get the full value of your workforce, you're not a shareholder of a company.
>Worker doesn’t want input on decision making unless he knows he is right and decision maker is wrong, and if he knows he is right he doesn’t want to be drowned out by a sea of also wrong collective owners in some vote.
you just described democracy, if you're against democracy that's fine, but don't speak for others
How much weed do you smoke? Which day of the week do you shower? How long have you been unemployed?
So if I understand this correctly, in you idea of a post capital socialist world, the capitalist bosses are a class removed and the workers replace them as the new owners of the capital who share the profit of their workforce fairly amongst eachother as a sort of pay rise? But other than that nothing changes?
capitalists/bourgeosie/private owners of the measn of production/employers would cease to exist as a social class, there would only be workers.
you don't share the profits of your work with others, you keep the entirety of the value of your work.
if you make shoes and they sell for a profit of $100, then you get the $100 for those sold shoes.
>But other than that nothing changes?
depends, what "other" things are you talking about?
collective ownership of the means of production is a big change on its own.
>false assumption that everyone wants or should want the power and responsibility of ownership
again, what responsibility? what are you even talking about?
What you seem to be saying is everyone will effectively be self employed running their own business solo. 100% risk 100% reward. No?
what? solo? no, collectively, this is not that difficult to understand.
everyone owns the means of production, you work in a factory, you get paid the entire value of you work since that factory has no private owner.
>be socialist
>fail 15 times
>want to fail 15 more
lmaoing at your life Jose
what are these 15 times you mention?
every single socialist country is/was either an economic or a cultural hellhole with authoritarian rulers that can't bring prosperity to the populations or not socialist anymore ( china, not that they are well off now )
Fuck your shitty ideology pushed by the richest and worst people the world has to offer and plastered as some short of revolutionary theory when in reality you have fucking democrat mainstream candidates admiring your bullshit
You are a disgrace to political discourse and you might as well just go live in a socialist shithole existing today in Africa or North Korea and let people fight for a better future, and not for a futile political fight that will literally net no gains
And don't even try to tell me
>AKSTSUALY USSR WAS VERY SUCCESSFUL IT HAD SPACE AND SHIET
people were miserable, many were imprisoned, many were dead, noone had money and it was hitting record famines with a daily diet of 900 calories and when it ended it blew up like all hell and made several scarred states that still can't get their shit together
And all that was made in the back of 60 million dead
A person's effort in work is, in other words, the means of producing. So instead of selling my workforce to a employer for an agreed price, I'm duty bound to give my workforce for better or worse? Sounds like a rotten deal.
>noone had money
except for the new royal class, Stalin and his chronies which were literally oozing wealth
>So instead of selling my workforce to a employer for an agreed price, I'm duty bound to give my workforce for better or worse?
what? workforce is not means of production.
other people can't use your workforce, only you can, it's not private property, it's personal property.
again, your workforce is not means of production.
so because some socialist countries collapsed (most of them due to foreign capitalist sabotage) you write it off?
>every single socialist country is/was either an economic or a cultural hellhole with authoritarian rulers
literally wrong.
you don't want to have a discussion though, you seem like a child repeating phrases you heard.
Respectfully disagree. Workforce is the means in which things are produced. If you don't work, nothing is produced. No?
>(most of them due to foreign capitalist sabotage)
it's never your fault you queers, it's always the big bad capulists and their evil agenda, because you can't seem to make a state work for more than 80 years without ending in huge bloodsheds while also being kept alive with said bloodshed. Your best examples are shitty Cuba and their drug cartels, while their people literally cheered when castro died and yugoslavia which kept up some resemblance of economic success due to not being total retards when managing all the capital they stole but also ended in bloodshed
Stop giving yourself excuses and pats on the back
Your whole ideology is literally based on the philosophy that everyone should get shit just for the sole reason of existing, without taking in mind how much each said person can individually give to society
It is literally a mathematical well
Without meritocracy you will never have development, that is literally it. For better or worse
Now I am not saying meritocracy can't be tricky but as human beings we must work in the frame of our nature and try our best to limit the shitty things man has the capabilities to do. And that comes mostly with the sense of community, same goals, religion and race homogeny which you fucks fight to your death against. So what is it, why do you want to ruin society
>If you don't work, nothing is produced. No?
yes, but socialism wants to abolish private property.
private property in socialism are means of production that you own but can have other people work for you, so that you can profit off their work.
you can't make people work your workforce, unlike a machine in a factory, therefore workforce is not private property, it's personal property.
you can play all the mental gymnastics you want, this is clearly explaind in socialism.
>european
>Socialistă
God I hate Europeans
you're not arguing about the ideology, you're talking about the states that were socialist.
I'm not gonna argue about this because I can name you a shitload more countries that have unbelievable poverty, crime and corruption under capitalism, but I don't use those shitty countries as example of capitalism not working, I attack the entire concept of capitalism.
>Your whole ideology is literally based on the philosophy that everyone should get shit just for the sole reason of existing
what are you even talking about?
>Without meritocracy you will never have development, that is literally it.
capitalism isn't meritocracy.
if anything, socialism is much more of a meritocracy.
>And that comes mostly with the sense of community, same goals, religion and race homogeny which you fucks fight to your death against.
socialism has nothing to do with race or religion, you clearly don't know what you're talking about.
OP go read about guys like Claude McKay and Max Eastman. They were you a few decades ago.
Every pro-communism “intellectual” who actually experienced it ended up disillusioned and many did ideological 180s. You commies always say the same dumb shit and never evolve. If you thought this through you wouldn’t be a communist in the first place.
I love that all of your responses don’t explain anything or formulate any logical arguments. Instead it’s just “no u” and “ur dumb”
Yes but the thing is you cannot name a single successful socialist nation.. very convincing. (He’s going to name a nation like Sweden which isn’t socialist to try and show an example of socialism working)
It’s cute reading your diatribes against the “employers”. Your ideology makes total sense dude, the employers are just piggy backing off of the hard workers. That’s why it’s so easy to run a business, all you need to do is hire people who show up and you’re set... yep..
>you can play all the mental gymnastics you want, this is clearly explaind in socialism.
Im not a socialist nor have I studied it. If you can't resolve some honest inquiries into the idea then I'm not going to accept it as a whole because you say it's explained elsewhere skirting around the premise.
Can you expand on the the difference between private and personal property, to me they are one in the same. It seems you have some nuance where they differ in some significant way.
Argentina was one of the world’s wealthiest nations before your golden age of Peronism, boludo. Necesitas usar tu cabeza mas, porteño joven
Fuck off
Juan/Rodrigo/Manuel, whatever the fuck your name is. You're not welcome here.
marx literally has a whole segment about religion in his transcripts
>I'm not gonna argue about this because I can name you a shitload more countries that have unbelievable poverty, crime and corruption under capitalism, but I don't use those shitty countries as example of capitalism not working, I attack the entire concept of capitalism.
Everything in this world has good and bad ofcourse, but it is obviously looking at the recent history of the world and what you call "capitalism" as opposed to communism has had a quite big success on alot of fronts. On the economic it is incomparable
On the cultural we are starting to see a huge collapse in capitalist western states but I would argue that is the fault of democracy paired with capitalism
And even with some cultural decay the last 30 years capitalist countries are still above communist ones on almost every front
>capitalism isn't meritocracy socialism is
How is being born into labor and a certain amount of money guarranteed from the day you are born meritocratic
I am not arguing if meritocracy is a magical thing that only does good, but the free market is meritocratic in the most basic sense
While socialism is not "from each according to his abilities to each according to his needs" is a famous quote of Marx
I literally agree with alot of the criticisms of capitalism, while hardline disagree on your proposed solution which leads to a more autocratic society with less freedoms and more cultural decay than even the most monopolistic cancerous states like the USA can't dream off
think what through? why would I give this up?
I literally replied to everything.
he keeps arguing about countries and their qualities rather than the ideology, I pointed that out.
he described socialism as "you get free shit lmao" so I asked what he's talking about, because that's not socialism.
he talked about meritocracy and I pointed out capitalism isn't a meritocracy for obvious reasons (being born in wealth means you're wealthy), and socialism is more of a meritocracy since if you want money you literally have to work for it and can't have other people work and generate wealth for you like in capitalism.
he said socialism is against religion and some racial bullshit, when it has nothing to do with either.
It’s also funny he talks about how socialism always failed because of “capitalist interference” while ignoring the decades of Alinsky style communist subversión the West has been subject to.
Ironically even with all of this, despite its faults, the capitalist west is a great place to live. Meanwhile Venezuela is simply not real socialism.
Why are your girls so cute? Also why do you want your once rich nation to become even poorer and drive your Pasco to 100-1usd?
>an't have other people work and generate wealth for you
>being an employee and making your own job is not working to the communist mind
literally autistic
>(being born in wealth means you're wealthy)
this is meritocratic in a biological sense since you are the most close thing to your parents society has to offer therefore their wealth is best suited to be managed by you (virtually the same person who generated) than some shadowy government entity
>he described socialism as you get free shit
I literally didn't you faggot, stop puttin g words in my mouth. I just said that a socialist state feels the need to give services to anyone that can work regardless of the fact that they can give or do give less to the state than another person that gets the exact same pay out
The Argie youth got hit with subversion real hard. Lots of drugs, lots of FB profile pics celebrating abortion
>socialism is the collective ownership of the means of production
>t. LARPing lolberg
He doesn’t realize capitalism performs all the duties he is saying socialism is intended to handle in a much more antifragile way.
The USSR has 23 million prices that had to be manually set every day. Worked great!
>Yes but the thing is you cannot name a single successful socialist nation
depends on what you mean by successful.
>He’s going to name a nation like Sweden which isn’t socialist to try and show an example of socialism working
you clearly haven't read the OP, which is a very short one by the way.
>That’s why it’s so easy to run a business, all you need to do is hire people who show up and you’re set...
literally never said that, stop strawmanning.
I have no nunances, it's just that socialism is talking about means of production when it mentions "private property".
personal property is everything you own that only you use, other people can use it too so long as they're not generating value with it, like a videogame console, a friend of yours can play it, it's still yours, and there's no money being generated.
personal property includes basic stuff like your house, furniture, tv, phone, clothes, etc.
private property is anything you can have somebody else exploit for a profit, machines, tools etc, incluiding land, you can't own land in socialism.
other people can't use your workforce, it's yours, therefore your workforce isn't part of the means of production, and since it's your personal property you should be able to get the full profit of whatever it creates.
>marx literally has a whole segment about religion in his transcripts
that's marxism, a specific ideology,
that'd be like claiming capitalism is against heterosexuals because somebody's specific capitalism ideology says "only homosexuals are allowed to live", it'd still be capitalism, but hating heterosexuals wouldn't be an aspect of capitalism, just that retarded specific ideology.
>How is being born into labor and a certain amount of money guarranteed from the day you are born meritocratic
a certain amount of money guarranteed? that's not socialism, it's very simple to understand, just 7 words: "collective ownership of the means of production", that's socialism
Yeah, too bad they didnt get hit with the glorious capitalism subversion like us giving them massive rates of obesity, consumerist identity, foreigner worship, stagnate wages, elections won by money, ect
>that's marxism, a specific ideology,
that socialism, an ideology made by karl marx
>collective ownership into means of production
>literally born into a collective that has ownership over means of production regardless if I do anything to deserve it or don't
lomao
>massive rates of obesity
>commies trying to portray obesity as a capitalis "issue" when it is literally the fact people have so much food under capitalism and they don't manage their intake well
>consumerist identity
>written by a PC
ahhahahahahah
>stagnate wages
>still 100000x times more money than any communist state
>elections won by money
>there are elections
why are you so fucking easy to debunk
I never said always, I said most of the time it's because of foreign sabotage.
>Meanwhile Venezuela is simply not real socialism.
there's still private ownership of the means of production, so yeah, it's literally not under socialism.
>Also why do you want your once rich nation to become even poorer and drive your Pasco to 100-1usd?
I don't, I want people to be better off than under capitalism.
>being an employee and making your own job is not working to the communist mind
I don't know if your english or what, but that didn't make any sense.
>I just said that a socialist state feels the need to give services to anyone that can work regardless of the fact that they can give or do give less to the state than another person that gets the exact same pay out
>I just said that a socialist state feels the need to give services to anyone that can work regardless of the fact that they can give or do give less to the state than another person that gets the exact same pay out
this is wrong*
I’ll glass you cunt
You are a disgrace and the reason we aren't a first world country
Ok.. so can you demonstrate a working example of Socialism in action?
Aguante guey
Why won't your country keep its grubby commie hands off the falkland isles?
>>being an employee and making your own job is not working to the communist mind
BEING ABLE TO INVEST IN YOUR OWN ENTERPRISE AND MAKING CAPITAL OF OFF MANAGING A CORPORATION IS CONSIDER NOT A WORK BY YOUR RETARDED STANDARDS
WHAT DO YOU NOT UNDERSTAND
YOU LITERALLY SAID
> you literally have to work for it and can't have other people work and generate wealth for you
SO THAT MEANS THAT HAVING AN ENTERPRISE AND BEING THE BOSS OF A CORPORATION IS NOT WORKING
HOW STUPID ARE YOU LITERALLY
>zat is lwong
not an argument
Whats your opinion of National Socialism?
>that socialism, an ideology made by karl marx
imagine being this uneducated.
Marx didn't invent socialism, he wrote the communist manifesto, and many other things.
socialism is much older than him.
again, socialism is just seven words: "collective ownership of the means of production", you can't add anything less to it, unless you're talking about specific ideologies that fall under socialism.
Marxism is socialism, but socialism isn't just marxism, not that complicated.
>literally born into a collective that has ownership over means of production regardless if I do anything to deserve it or don't
ok, you're being retarded on purpose, have fun.
We want to protect it from Islamic invasions
Yea this retard thinks management is a minor part of the success of a business. Considering he is from Argentina which has been devastated by the policies he espouses, it all checks out. The boludo has no business acumen or any experience to speak of
Are you shilling for worker co-ops? If so, why do you think it is that in a capitalist society, workers co-ops which are fully legal and would theoretical attract the best workers due to all of its profit going to wages rather than shareholders be
near non existent and seemingly unable to compete with jew tier companies?
Are you saying that i cant comment on the degradation of culture into a global identity based on consumtion while usung a computer?
>food
Yes, the average person is retarded and unable to resist shit food it seems
>we still make more than poorfag countries
Wow great. I will still never own a home
>we still have elections
Wow i love choosing between two people who have both been brought out by the chinese
lmao I don't even know what an estonia is
>defends irrelevant islands in the Mediterranean and freezing part of south america
>gives away home island
Ebin
>ok, you're being retarded on purpose, have fun.
NOT AN ARGUMENT
IN A COMMUNIST STATE YOU ARE BORN INTO A SETTING WHERE YOU ARE ENTITLED INTO STUFF WHETHER YOU ARE EXCELLENT OR LITERALLY THRASH TIER
>socialism is much older than marx
the word being popularized and the ideology written down on paper is not older than marx
The attack of the "proletariat" vs a royal class is older yes
>socialism isn't marxism
There are scales sure, but in a realistic sense, socialism is closely related to marxism in most fronts
>own the means of production
So, a monopoly?
Is everyone welcome to live in your socialist utopia and able to make use of the welfare state to the fullest extent without contributing to the economy at all?
>From each according to his ability to each according to his need
What happens if your country is inundated with 60 IQ Africans with zero human capital?
Waiting for OP to show us examples of effective socialist governance.
Kek
>Yes, the average person is retarded and unable to resist shit food it seems
yes they aren't, and they are getting punished for it and now most western states have declining obesity rates, now the most obese states are arab ones with new found wealth
That is just the cycle of any human behavior
>i will still never own a home
I am sure the mansions people lived in commie shitholes would service you just fine
and I am not defending democracy, I just think it is stupid to make an argument pro communist by saying " elections are won by money " when you are not even for elections to begin with
all elecitons are won by demagoguery and money since the first democracy in Greece
>Socialism is just seven words: collective ownership of the means of production
So the modern day corporation is also socialist. There are multiple owners holding stock in a company that holds the means of production.
Where does this collective start, and where does it end? Are Africans entitled to the means of production of your country Argentina?
>Socialism destroyed your country and you are all going hungry
>Not real socialism
Hahahahahahaha
>yes they aren't
yes they are****
Sideways Austria when is Fujimori coming back? You Indios need a Japanese to rule over you
WRT obesity in the USA it’s predominantly Hispanics and blacks that cause the rate to be so high. If you only count European Americans it’s on par with Europe’s numbers
Why did you move from Marxist Kibbutz-socialism to national socialism, Moshe?
Thanks for clarifying. I do have another question to follow on. If my home is my personal property where I cook meals to live. Food is of course valuable. Since I can sell some of that food to my neighbor who he pays witch his wages from the shoe factory, is my kitchen by default considered private property and therefore nolonger personal property?
I know this is specific, but I don't think it would be uncommon or unrealistic to propose occuring (I'd do it because I'm a mad cook). Sure others are not entitled to have me cook for them as my action to cook is my own workforce and I alone eat my meal. But if I want to sell a meal, I'm entitled to 100% of the profit of my labor. What if I want to continue hosting my poker nights with my mates where we play for money? Are these actions punishable? Or is anything that can generate money not personal property or do you have to first make money from it for it then be forfeited?
>Are you saying that i cant comment on the degradation of culture into a global identity based on consumtion while usung a computer?
yes, i am literally saying that
If you are so against the consumerist identity why don't you go live in a mountain and have self serving food and products. Why are you taking part in it
"communism for thee, not for me goy" - Jews 2018
What is your point here?
I use a computer as a tool. This isnt consumerism.
Do you now IMPA in Buenos Aires? It's a empresa recuperada. I made some sort of Internship there. It is owned and collectively managed by the trabajadores. At least in theory. They had a group of people who fulfilled administrative tasks. But decisions were supposed to be made collectively in assemblies. But there are so many decisions to be made and made quickly you cannot ask all the workers all the time. And even when the workers were asked they lacked the knowledge the administrators had to make informed decisions. Both things gave the managers pretty much the same powers of their collegues in privatly owned businesses.
Furthermore, just as
said, the workers didn't care. They wanted to work 9 to 5, go home and don't have to deal with the intricacies of running a business. They didn't even schedule assemblies anymore because no one cared for one.
Of course tue administrators earned more. But how do you estimate their works value? At the end they got what they were willing to do the job for. And that's not all. The sales people earned much more, because they had the relations and contacts the collective needed to sell their products.
So in the end: collectively owned but not egalitarian at all. It was just the same as any company. That was a hard lesson to learn for me.
working? as in currently existing?
you'v got Cuba, the Zapatistas in Chiapas Mexico, Novorussia, there's ample debate about China and North Korea.
and I'm probably ignorant of many others, can't know everything.
don't like it one bit
>Considering he is from Argentina which has been devastated by the policies he espouses
when has Argentina been under socialism?
co ops still require investment, most workers can't invest in shit since they have no capital.
that's why co ops are rare in capitalism as opposed to private property.
for a monopoly to exist there has to be private property, which doesn't exist in socialism.
>welfare state
are you saying that socialism is welfare state?
read OP
>From each according to his ability to each according to his need
that's Marxism's final stage of communism, not the definition of socialism.
>muh Protestant righteous abstinence
This isn't an argument. We don't owe a particular arrangement of relationships for what it may have brought us in the past.
Are you really going to make me add Greece to my filter list because you're such a cuck?
Oh man I sure do like some classical socialism :^)! are you related to Che Guevara? that man is my hero, though I don't like what he said about negroes very much, POC are our class brothers in the upcoming revolutions. I've already got all sorts of communes planned out in my head for the different economic activities pertianing to the geographies in both North and South America
Visit Bariloche.
DO IT.
Plenty of small and medium business are built up from very little capital and progress to a larger business. Why couldnt a co-op be built up thw same way
>I use a computer as a tool. This isnt consumerism.
other people use other products as a tool, this isn't consumerism
>what is your point
My point is that any human behavior in a free setting will be used to a certain extent and either be accepted and adapted or be stigmatized and disregarded. This is the only way for a certain type of behavior for a society to truly reject or accept and the reason why hardcore authoritarianism and outlawing of certain behaviors you don't deem worthy end up backfiring in a lot of cases. Now I am not saying that we should all be free to do whatever I am just saying that for a society to truly go forward you need certain freedoms. Which communism lacks by the way, in the market and in the literal sense
>that's Marxism's final stage of communism, not the definition of socialism.
Marxism's final state is a stateless socialist utopia, where a man can fish in the morning, hunt in the midday, read philosophy in the afternoon, and waste his time on Jow Forums in the evening.
How can you consider a hammer or a toothbrush a personal property, when in cummunism there's no property?
What is difference between personal property and private property?
If private property covers means of production, what stops me from disassembling a mean of production and claim the parts to be my personal property?
Why would you waste resource producing more than say (hypothetically) 1 hammer/toothbrush per 7 persons?
How can one cultivate and harvest crops to personal use, when there's no personal property to be used for farming in cummunism?
How do you allocate public land for this personal farming?
Who allocates the public land used by the collective?
The ten Planks of Communist manifesto:
#8 "Equal obligation of all to work. Establishment of Industrial armies, especially for agriculture."
> Equal obligation
How can a stateless and non-hierarchical society enforce this?
> Your work-time is equivalent to everybody else's work-time
Am I forced to sit and drawn hentai for as long as others work in factory, if I don't want to do manual labour as an artist? Will my hentai comics have high labour value the longer I sketch it? How is an artist's LTV defined?
If "... each according to his needs", what stops me claiming to acquire 70% of goods to suffice my 120kg fat ass' needs?
How can anyone else define how my needs are sufficed?
How can a collective deny me coming over demand 70% of goods that others have gathered through hard manual labour, while I can provide them only hentai sketches? We are living in non hierarchical society after all, right?
How is Theft defined in cummunist world, when there's no property in non-hierarchical society you can steal from others?
How are decisions made in cummunist utopia? By majority vote? That sounds hierarchical desu.
How do you force the majority's resolution on minority in a society without a hierarchy or authority?
How can you stop minority from implementing their own solutions?