for some fucking reason you mongs keep using the word "socialism/socialist" wrong. so here's a little explanation for you:
Capitalism and Socialism are not compatible, they're opposites, Communism IS Socialism (they're not synonyms, Communism just falls under the definition of Socialism). this is why the USSR was called the Union of Soviet SOCIALIST Republics, and not "Communist" republics.
Capitalism: private property of the means of production (the owner of the means of production can keep money generated by the workers who used these means of production to produce things) Socialism: collective ownership of the means of production, in other words abolition of private property (there's no private owner that keeps money generated by a worker, the worker gets the full value generated by their own labour) Communism: end stage of socialism, there are no social classes, there's no money, and there's no state. Social Democracy: social justice within Capitalism through state funded services, most notably: universal healthcare, all levels of education (yes, incluiding university), welfare in general for the non able bodied, partially funded services like transport and utilities in general.
Socialism is not "gibs", it's not "for the lazy", it's the absolute opposite, everyone is equally liable to work, when you think of "gibs" that is Social Democracy.
when you think of Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, you're not thinking of socialists, they are social democrats which is a Capitalist ideology and literally the opposite of socialism. why they call themselves "democratic socialists" is beyond me, maybe they are actual socialists lying to you and portraying themselves as social democrats to lure people in to the left, I don't know, I don't care, the ideology they espouse is Social Democracy.
now that you've been educated try and not use these terms wrong again.
>the worker gets the full value generated by their own labour
How so? That is wrong. Worker gets salary from the owner of the means of production = state. And that salary is usually much lower as you would get in capitalism. I know this, I lived in socialist country first part of my life.
Zachary Bell
for some fucking reason you mongs keep using the word "faggot" wrong. so here's a little explanation for you:
OP
Carter Bell
>not reel soshulism!!1!1!! fuck off nigger
Isaiah Morris
Question, do you know anything about internationalism?
the state is not necessary in socialism, you can have it or you can do away with it. not to mention that if it's the state paying you that doesn't mean there's extraction of surplus value.
literally never said this.
yes.
you read "social democracy" and you stopped? why?
Dominic Barnes
>the worker gets the full value generated by their own labour hasn't the value theory of labor been thoroughly debunked?
Grayson Ortiz
>the state is not necessary in socialism, you can have it or you can do away with it. Just seems like a pipe dream to me. Yeah if you could do it, it would be pretty sweet. I've seen how normalfags work, they do not seem to have the capacity or interest to run things of their own volition
Gavin Flores
no it hasn't, it can't be, since it's the correct one.
>they do not seem to have the capacity or interest to run things of their own volition what are you talking about? who's "they"?
Juan Harris
The people are the state. You don’t get a salary in a socialist system, you don’t get remunerated for your work; you work to produce for the state, the state provides you with resources to survive independently of your work.
Lincoln Williams
this is not correct, not even close, you'd be able to afford things in relation to how much work you've done.
Robert Allen
Well I know nothing, but the few people who have talked about internationalist communism have all concluded with the goal being the death of currency.. Which to me just sounds the more complicated/unrealistic. Can you enlighten me?
Ian Ward
>You don’t get a salary in a socialist system
Then that is something else that socialists countries which existed in history. You should then rename it to not create confusion. In Czechoslovak SOCIALIST Republic there were salaries. And they were not high, you could just survive somehow - if you wasn't a Party member, then you had much better privileges.
Ryan Jackson
>what are you talking about? who's "they"? >no it hasn't, it can't be, since it's the correct one. this is pretty much what I'm talking about. Most people are too stupid to run the world. Your response was essentially 'it's not been debunked because it is correct.' That's not an argument, there's no logic to it at all but you are convinced because it fits your feelings. Why would anyone trust someone with that kind of 'reasoning' in running things? Most people can hardly balance their finances, much less run even more complex operations.
Bentley Sanders
just google labour voucers or labour tokens. you'd have """money""" except it wouldn't be because it gets consumed upon use and it doesn't circulate like currency/money does. you get vouchers/tokens according to how much labour time you've put in.
Jordan Cooper
>Communism: (...), and there's no state.
OP, isn't then that a false promise? You know that in Socialism, the state is stronger and stronger, how do you transition from this to having "no state"? Do you think those people with privileges (Communist party members) will suddenly give their power away? That will never happen, nobody would do such a irrational thing.
Jason Long
Commies think LTV (Labor Theory of Value) is superior to all ensuing theories (like Subjective Theory of Value) because it's more complicated and utilizes extensive unique terminology. Example: "price" and "value" are not the same thing in LTV, and there are several forms of "value" to take into consideration in different circumstances.
Unfortunately, scientifically speaking, this is the sign of an ad hoc, weak theory...it's like thinking there's one "force" that makes apples fall, one that causes the moon to orbit the earth, another that explains Saturn's rings, and still another that keeps the earth in orbit around the sun. In fact, the simpler theory in this case, gravity, explains all of these effects.
The whole point of Socialism is a centrally planned economy and the removal of the free market. If the end goal of Socialism is Communism, the destruction of transferable currency is a necessary step. To do that you allocate resources to citizens as they need them, not in relation to how much they work.
Ian Carter
How does the Labour Theory of Value deal with value being objective to the person? I might pay 1 pound for a chocolate bar that another person would pay 3 pound for.
>You know that in Socialism, the state is stronger and stronger literally just your opinion. your entire post was based on this retarded premise, so I'm not gonna bother.
value and price are different things in marginalism too you fucking brainlet.
Eli Gomez
As I said above, if Communism requires the non-existence of the state, then it is a false theory. The ruling party of socialists/communists will not give their power away... they are after power, anyway. So the "no state" society is not achievable, certainly not in Socialism... socialism itself requires a strong state. I bet you never lived in a socialist country, otherwise you couldn't have such opinion.
Tyler Hernandez
It’s all stepping stones. You can’t just say “welo, we’re Socialist now! No more salaries, no more currency, here’s the planned economy ready to go!”. It’d take a while to transition a feudal/capitalist/whatever society to a fully Socialist one.
Chase Smith
Why don't you be a good commie and go starve.
Nolan Robinson
>>You know that in Socialism, the state is stronger and stronger >literally just your opinion.
No, it is my personal experience. I lived in Czechoslovak socialist republic. The state has big oppressive powers... certainly in the order of magnitude higher than now, when we have a mix of capitalism and social democracy.
Noah Turner
>(there's no private owner that keeps money generated by a worker, the worker gets the full value generated by their own labour) Has this ever even happened in a socialist state?
Xavier Long
>In a free market, competition between individuals seeking to trade goods they possess and services they can provide for goods they perceive as being of higher value to them results in a market equilibrium set of prices emerging.
Direct correlation, not some gay, arbitrary relationship purposely devised to highlight the Labor inputs like LTV so you can arrive at MUH EXPLOITATION.
I’m not disagreeing with you, I think Socialism/Communism at a national level is a pipe dream. It can work locally with small communities, but like you say the examples of Baltic and Eastern European Socialist states show what can happen when corruption inevitably takes hold in Socialist systems.
Jordan Nguyen
why would you pay more than what something is worth? and who would sell you something at less than its value? ridiculous questions m8
in Communism sure, but the guy you were replying to was talking about Socialism, specifically one where there's a state. don't go confusing things that I clarified in the OP.
Oliver Barnes
>why would you pay more than what something is worth? and who would sell you something at less than its value?
Alright cool. What about arms? If the counsel are the only ones armed after the revolution then wouldn't there be an inbalance of power and therefor a type of ruling class? What about rights and expression? What about those who work less efficiently than others who work well? What about differences in working capability (biology) between men and women? >a-user what about.. Obviously I don't consider myself qualified to make questions in order to debate but I hope to see someone who knows the ins and outs of capitalism to debate you on the subject.
Nicholas Harris
Are you baiting? The point of my question is that there is no objective value worth, because people are willing to pay different amounts.
that's under marginalism. under the labour theory of value it's determined with labour content. what you want to pay for something means shit, this is not that difficult to comprehend.
>Alright cool. What about arms? If the counsel are the only ones armed after the revolution then wouldn't there be an inbalance of power and therefor a type of ruling class? wat? no, socialists want guns for the people, everyone would be/should be armed. >What about rights and expression? of what kind? even in repressive states like USSR there was freedom of speech, you could say you hated communism or Stalin, there was no problem with that, there was a problem if you acted on it though, if you rose up in arms against socialism they'd kill you, the same if you tried to factionalize the party (see Trotsky and Bukharin). >What about those who work less efficiently than others who work well? every labour is measured in relationship to the average. if you have a planned economy and the state runs everything, the state knows how many hours went into producing everything, so lets say they know it takes 1 hour to produce 100 watches, and you work as a watchmaker and make 125 watches an hour, you'd get 1 hour and 15 minutes worth of vouchers for every hour you worked, and you'd get less if you worked less. >What about differences in working capability (biology) between men and women? the same applies, with todays technology there's little difference (if any) between men and women for most of the industries.
