Socialism is the ideal way to go. Change my Mind - Page 21 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

As either the transitional stage to communism or legitimate socio-economic ends in its own right.
Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15012000
SSDR wrote:[usermention=36101](many higher paying occupations that prefer university degrees fire people for divorcing due to socially looking "unstable" or "corrupt").


Please cite examples of this, especially examples of people getting fired for appearing "corrupt" because they got divorced.

Divorce, sadly, has become an accepted norm in our society, and nobody's getting shit-canned for it...
#15012094
SSDR wrote:No one should value anything.

Absurd. We can't help it, we evolved to value stuff, and it's a good thing we do.
I don't want to be valued by anyone. That's social slavery.

Non sequitur.
Value is slavery.

More absurdity.
One being judgmental on how "expensive and nice" something is, like "name brand clothing" is fucked up.

Maybe, but people evolved to value status. Deal with it.
#15012125
@Truth To Power,

People were conditioned (raised, brainwashed, manipulated via media or social norms, etc.) to value things and other people. Some social media websites such as Zionist Facebook manipulated people to value each other according to how many likes and friends and subscribers one has. This is egoistic capitalist culture that is Zionist. And you believing that valuing things is "good" is an useless belief that helps you support something that is used to control people.

I don't evolve to any value status shit. And some other people don't either. So you deal with that.
#15012505
SSDR wrote:People were conditioned (raised, brainwashed, manipulated via media or social norms, etc.) to value things and other people.

No, it's biologically hardwired, because people have to value things and other people to survive.
Some social media websites such as Zionist Facebook manipulated people to value each other according to how many likes and friends and subscribers one has. This is egoistic capitalist culture that is Zionist.

That is an absurd non sequitur, sorry.
And you believing that valuing things is "good" is an useless belief that helps you support something that is used to control people.

People's biological nature can be used to control them. Deal with it.
I don't evolve to any value status shit. And some other people don't either. So you deal with that.

I understand that some people are dysfunctional and could not have survived to reproduce in any society but a compassionate and wealthy modern democracy.
#15012563
Truth To Power wrote:No, it's biologically hardwired, because people have to value things and other people to survive.

That is an absurd non sequitur, sorry.

People's biological nature can be used to control them. Deal with it.

I understand that some people are dysfunctional and could not have survived to reproduce in any society but a compassionate and wealthy modern democracy.


Nobody "has" to value anything. It's not forced. It's just that people are conditioned to think that they need to value things so that they can be controlled by the elites. There is no fixed human nature. Humanity always changes. So you deal with that.

And real consciousness always existed, since every person is different. Socialists have always been around individually, but at a popular level, real consciousness was not widely accepted by societies until the 1800's. Prior to this time period, when slavery, human trafficking, and family economics were common, anyone who attempted to rebel against elites were shamed, shunned, killed, or mocked.

There's people now that have ideas that won't be supported for another 1,000 years. It's just that their views are not accepted since they don't meet the elites' standards of today, since it's potentially a threat to their wealth and control. Go ahead and try to stop them, you won't do anything. So deal with it.
#15012715
SSDR wrote:Nobody "has" to value anything. It's not forced.

Wrong again. If you don't value what helps you survive, you don't survive.
It's just that people are conditioned to think that they need to value things so that they can be controlled by the elites.

Nonsense.
There is no fixed human nature.

Wrong.
Humanity always changes.

That just means there is variation over a fixed substrate.
So you deal with that.

<yawn>
And real consciousness always existed, since every person is different.

Non sequitur.
Socialists have always been around individually, but at a popular level, real consciousness was not widely accepted by societies until the 1800's. Prior to this time period, when slavery, human trafficking, and family economics were common, anyone who attempted to rebel against elites were shamed, shunned, killed, or mocked.

Then how did the Protestant Reformation happen?
#15012776
@Truth To Power,

I personally don't value anything. Realizing what I need first is not valuing. If I choose water over gold, I don't value water more than gold. But why would a capitalist society value gold over WATER? Humans need water. But, humans don't materially need gold to physically survive.

You believing that real consciousness is "nonsense" shows that you think that reality and life are nonsense. Thus, showing that you're not alive.

Why do you believe that there's a fixed human nature? What makes you think that there is a fixed human nature?
#15012952
SSDR wrote:But why would a capitalist society value gold over WATER? Humans need water. But, humans don't materially need gold to physically survive.

The combination of scarcity (supply) and utility (demand).
You believing that real consciousness is "nonsense"

Your nonsensical claims are not real consciousness. They merely reflect your delusions.
shows that you think that reality and life are nonsense. Thus, showing that you're not alive.

Incomprehensible.
Why do you believe that there's a fixed human nature? What makes you think that there is a fixed human nature?

All the failed attempts by socialists, religious cults, despots, etc. to change it.
#15012972
@Truth To Power,

In a capitalist economy, humans would have more demand for gold than for water because capitalist elites taught the masses to love gold, so that they can buy gold for higher prices. Since capitalist economics value gold more than water, people demand to own and sell gold more. The economy makes the people like that. You don't realize that because you lack real consciousness.

"Your nonsensical claims are not real consciousness. They merely reflect your delusions."

- You mad?

"Incomprehensible."

- This is because you don't understand basic terms that are used to educate people who lack real consciousness.

Socialism is not an "attempt" nor an "experiment." This is a reactionary viewpoint of what socialism is.
#15013417
SSDR wrote:In a capitalist economy, humans would have more demand for gold than for water because capitalist elites taught the masses to love gold, so that they can buy gold for higher prices.

You don't seem to understand how absurd that claim is. If gold is only valued because capitalist elites taught the masses to love it, why did they pick gold? Why not zinc, iron pyrites, beef jerky, or peanut butter?
Since capitalist economics value gold more than water, people demand to own and sell gold more. The economy makes the people like that. You don't realize that because you lack real consciousness.

People value gold because of its combination of utility (demand) and scarcity (lack of supply).
Socialism is not an "attempt" nor an "experiment." This is a reactionary viewpoint of what socialism is.

Or what you imagine socialism is.
#15013481
@Truth To Power,

You tell me. Why do many elites pick gold? Because they FEEL that it looks very nice. And they feel this way because societies condition people to feel this way. Scientifically, gold also doesn't corrode.

Demand and the lack of supply exist in non socialist economies. In socialism, these concepts don't exist because they don't need to exist.

150 years ago, one could imagine a man being in outer space. Decades later, in 1961, the Soviet Union made that imagination a reality. In order to improve science and the progress of technologies, people must have excelling imaginations.
#15013996
SSDR wrote:Why do many elites pick gold? Because they FEEL that it looks very nice.

Don't be ridiculous. Flowers look nicer than gold.
And they feel this way because societies condition people to feel this way.

Absurd circular "reasoning."
Scientifically, gold also doesn't corrode.

And has numerous other properties that give it high UTILITY (demand) relative to its SCARCITY (supply), which makes it VALUABLE.

GET IT???
Demand and the lack of supply exist in non socialist economies.

In all economies.
In socialism, these concepts don't exist because they don't need to exist.

They indisputably DO still exist because they also correspond to objective reality in socialist economies -- especially lack of supply.
150 years ago, one could imagine a man being in outer space. Decades later, in 1961, the Soviet Union made that imagination a reality. In order to improve science and the progress of technologies, people must have excelling imaginations.

And on your planet, that might even be relevant.
#15014116
@Truth To Power,

Don't be ridiculous. Flowers look nicer than gold.

Yes many people feel that flowers do look nicer than gold. So why is gold more valuable? Because the ELITES know that gold can't be grown, so they're taking advantage of that. You see how it's not about what the majority feel, it's about how the elites feel.
And has numerous other properties that give it high UTILITY (demand) relative to its SCARCITY (supply), which makes it VALUABLE.

GET IT???

Gold is more rare than flowers because gold can't be grown like how flowers can. In a non socialist economy, the more rare something is, the more it's valued. But in socialism, no matter how rare a material or a natural/artificial resource is, it would not be valued more or less because in socialism, the concept of value doesn't need to exist.
In all economies.

Not in socialism. Socialism operates very differently than capitalism because there is no currency. The concepts of debt, value, credit, and exchange does not exist. And nothing is demanded on a consumer viewpoint because nothing is made to be sold.
They indisputably DO still exist because they also correspond to objective reality in socialist economies -- especially lack of supply.

In a socialist economy, if there was no gold left, the socialist economy wouldn't be destroyed because nothing is economically valued.
And on your planet, that might even be relevant.

Without excelling imaginations, we wouldn't have automobiles, locomotives, aircraft, spacecraft, factories, nor advanced military equipment.
#15014235
SSDR wrote:Yes many people feel that flowers do look nicer than gold. So why is gold more valuable?

Same reason anything is valuable: its combination of scarcity (supply) and utility (demand).
Because the ELITES know that gold can't be grown, so they're taking advantage of that.

<sigh> Sand can't be grown either. Why didn't the elites choose sand?

Your ignorance of economics appears to be comprehensive.
You see how it's not about what the majority feel, it's about how the elites feel.

Value is not about how the majority feels, or how elites feel. It is ONLY about how the two people who want the item most feel.
Gold is more rare than flowers because gold can't be grown like how flowers can.

Gold can be mined. It's scarcer because it is much harder to mine gold than to grow flowers.
In a non socialist economy, the more rare something is, the more it's valued.

Wrong again. Only one whelk in 4 million has a left-handed shell spiral. You don't see anyone bidding up the prices of left-handed whelks, do you?

You clearly do not know even the most basic facts of economics.
But in socialism, no matter how rare a material or a natural/artificial resource is, it would not be valued more or less because in socialism, the concept of value doesn't need to exist.

That is why socialism will always fail spectacularly: no one will be able to figure out what should be produced. Socialists could as easily expend their labor and capital looking for left-handed whelks as growing flowers -- or food.
Not in socialism.

Yes, in socialism.
Socialism operates very differently than capitalism because there is no currency. The concepts of debt, value, credit, and exchange does not exist.

Dreaming. There is no production without value, no division of labor without exchange.
And nothing is demanded on a consumer viewpoint because nothing is made to be sold.

So although left-handed whelks taste the same as right-handed ones, the workers can just decide they'd rather throw the right-handed ones away.
In a socialist economy, if there was no gold left, the socialist economy wouldn't be destroyed because nothing is economically valued.

A capitalist economy would not be destroyed in the absence of gold either. But a socialist economy would be destroyed no matter what the gold situation, because without value, no one would know what to produce.
Without excelling imaginations, we wouldn't have automobiles, locomotives, aircraft, spacecraft, factories, nor advanced military equipment.

Non sequitur.

Logic is not exactly your strong suit, is it?
#15014271
@Truth To Power,

<sigh> Sand can't be grown either. Why didn't the elites choose sand?

Your ignorance of economics appears to be comprehensive.

Sand is not as rare as gold. Plus people walk on sand more than they do on gold. And of course you would say your second sentence, Nazi.
Wrong again. Only one whelk in 4 million has a left-handed shell spiral. You don't see anyone bidding up the prices of left-handed whelks, do you?

You clearly do not know even the most basic facts of economics.

I do not need economics to motivate me to work. This is because I am not a slave unlike you.
Dreaming. There is no production without value, no division of labor without exchange.

You're speaking in a non socialist context. Your beliefs are just aggressive opinions that lack real consciousness.
A capitalist economy would not be destroyed in the absence of gold either. But a socialist economy would be destroyed no matter what the gold situation, because without value, no one would know what to produce.

No capitalist would know what to produce because they love money. A socialist does not need the concept of value for working motivation.
Non sequitur.

Logic is not exactly your strong suit, is it?

This is not a political statement. You're going off topic by calling someone who doesn't support slavery "illogical."
#15095247
Agent Steel wrote:Let's just start with this:

1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods

I mean that's pretty close to my definition but not exactly. It's close enough though.


Then you've already lost. That is not socialism. It's a capitalist's definition designed to perpetuate capitalist propaganda. Lenin even talked about what you described/defined in negative terms.

First of all, as it says, it's a theory (probably Marx's theories but misrepresented) and not a definition of an economic system.

Without elaboration for now, socialism is worker ownership and control of the means of production. "Collective" ownership and control is what was developed in the USSR and China to name two places, and it was what Lenin referred to as "state capitalism". The issue is who controls it. And it's not the workers.

And no, I haven't waded through all the posts on all these pages.
#15095654
SSDR wrote:
Gold is more rare than flowers because gold can't be grown like how flowers can. In a non socialist economy, the more rare something is, the more it's valued. But in socialism, no matter how rare a material or a natural/artificial resource is, it would not be valued more or less because in socialism, the concept of value doesn't need to exist.



To clarify / refine the first statement, I think we need a 'multiplication' of both *exchange values* ('price'), *and* use values (tangible utility, including beauty / aesthetics).

State capitalism / Stalinism *constantly* ran into exchange-valuation problems, and still does, as with Venezuela, because it attempts to *carve out* a mainly locally-*circumscribed* economy, out of the larger global sea of capitalism. By doing so it becomes *difficult* to establish politically-*commanded* currency exchange rates with other / major capitalist currencies, and also suffers from lack of global popular acceptance of its *own* domestic currency because the country is certainly not king-of-the-hill in the global geopolitical context, and is probably also anti-imperialist, or at least geopolitically *independent*. So its currency suffers from inflation, with high black-market exchange rates with major capitalist currencies.

The political *point* of all of this iconoclasm, though, is that the domestic / internal economy for that country *could* be much smoother, internally, similarly to the way any private *corporation* is structured internally, with a *bureaucratization* ('politicization') of internal material movements, so as to generally avoid interfacing with external market exchanges as much as possible.

As long as a political-type pyramid-shaped *hierarchy* can be maintained, all internal economic transfers are tacitly accepted by all, internally (and even externally), and thus no longer require (two-way) *exchanges* for any given transfer. (A manager could readily requisition *materials* for an approved project, from any other division, without necessarily having to 'pay', in cash, in a market-type *exchange*, since the approved project is under an *authority*, the manager's boss.)

This is also the structure and functioning of any kind of *syndicalism*, btw, as in the military, or with a locally collectivized enterprise like a workers co-op. By internally eliminating *exchange values* that entire 'middle layer' of valuated exchanges can be bypassed altogether, in favor of enterprise-defined *use values*, as *qualitatively* defined by managerial *authorities*, with *internal politics* providing flexibility and fluidity, going-forward.

This is the way that *abundance*, particularly, can be handled, so as to get around capitalism's inherent dynamic of 'enforced scarcity', usually through the destructive function of *warfare*, over anything that becomes *overproduced*. (The present-day is notably *different*, with popularly disallowed warfare, so *that* conventionally economically destructive function is now *forestalled*, which is an interesting development in and of itself.)

True workers-of-the-world socialism would just be an *expansion* of this basic corporate-like / Stalinist-state-like bureaucratic functioning, but it would better correspond to actual realities / facts, because the overall 'pyramid' (of relative individual social prestige, or reputation) would be much *flatter* than we're used to seeing, historically, due to historical *caste*-like bureaucratic *elitism*, or *top-down* administration of the workers themselves.

In the absence of caste / class / careerism / heredity / elitism, the 'base' of the 'pyramid' would be much, much *broader*, to enable a broad-based *bottom-up* dynamic of dynamic social planning, with far less institutional *rigidity*, if at all.

However, this is all *prelude* to address SSDR's statement that 'in socialism, no matter how rare a material or a natural/artificial resource is, it would not be valued more or less because in socialism, the concept of value doesn't need to exist.'

I'll actually *beg to differ* on this point, because certainly *use values* (per individual) would continue to exist under any conceivable post-capitalist socialism -- maybe some artist produces a new, novel, ultimately popular *song*, and most people in the world want to *hear* it over and over again. How would this balance of *use value* supply-and-demand be handled, exactly, when there's *mass organic demand* for this very particular material 'supply' -- ?

Should the hit artist be satisfied with *notoreity* alone, since there would, by definition, be no money or commodity-production, or 'sales' -- ? Should everyone else in the world be entitled to get the song for 'free' with absolutely *zero* material compensation to the artist who produced this wildly popular work of art?

Also, relatedly, who mines the gold and who grows and picks the flowers, if such tasks were no one's *first choice* for liberated-labor in such a society? (No *coercion* could be used to force any kind of labor, since there would be *no state*, by definition.)

Or, conversely, what if *lots* of people inherently *liked* to mine gold and grow and pick flowers, to the point where gold and flowers started *accumulating* (hypothetically speaking), because there was not enough *organic demand* to consume such -- ?
#15095657
SSDR wrote:
Not in socialism. Socialism operates very differently than capitalism because there is no currency. The concepts of debt, value, credit, and exchange does not exist. And nothing is demanded on a consumer viewpoint because nothing is made to be sold.



Yes, there would be *no finance*, because there would be no exchange values / currency / money.

But *of course* there would be *organic demand*, as for food, housing, transportation, utilities, entertainment, etc. Would people be *beholden* to whatever happened to graciously be made available to them, solely according to the personal *tastes* of the liberated-producers -- ?


SSDR wrote:
In a socialist economy, if there was no gold left, the socialist economy wouldn't be destroyed because nothing is economically valued.



True, but if 'wealth' in socialism is the *productive implements* (factories, equipment, raw materials) of that society, how would any potential *scarcity* of those production goods be handled, collectively? Who would make the ultimate *decision* that more factories were 'needed', and that such should be *activated* as a 'project' -- ?


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image
#15095658
Truth To Power wrote:
That is why socialism will always fail spectacularly: no one will be able to figure out what should be produced. Socialists could as easily expend their labor and capital looking for left-handed whelks as growing flowers -- or food.



I *don't* agree here, because this kind of contrarian-inspired stereotype of socialism always assumes that there wouldn't even be *civil society*, post-capitalism -- as though everyone would just kind of exist in a spaceless timeless *void*, each suspended in the air at different heights, and immobile, forever.

I think there would at least be *journalism*, and people would look to see what the current trends are, as we do today, at a bare minimum. There would continue to be such a thing as *popular sentiment*, over various matters, and social *norms*.


Truth To Power wrote:
Dreaming. There is no production without value, no division of labor without exchange.



No, this is clearly a *fetish*, and capitalist *propaganda*, that there would always have to be economic *exchanges* for the motility of materials in a post-capitalist political economy.

The *definition* of communism, incidentally, can be summed-up as 'free access' and 'direct distribution', meaning that exchanges (implying commodity-production) would not even be needed. If people personally needed something they could go and get it, whether it's produced by nature or by people. If people *produced* something, it could then be distributed *directly* to others, without requiring any parallel 'return' of value, for it.


Truth To Power wrote:
So although left-handed whelks taste the same as right-handed ones, the workers can just decide they'd rather throw the right-handed ones away.



Actually, *yes*, this *would* be true -- workers would have ultimate *discretion* over their own labor, so what you're describing *could* very well happen, though more-realistically it would have socio-political ripple effects since news about all such productive activity would be in the *public domain*, by definition, and would necessarily be of public concern.


Truth To Power wrote:
A capitalist economy would not be destroyed in the absence of gold either. But a socialist economy would be destroyed no matter what the gold situation, because without value, no one would know what to produce.



Fortunately capitalism has now given us the precedent of *online ordering*, so that consumers could simply 'shop' and decide for themselves what they need and want, from social production.


SSDR wrote:
No capitalist would know what to produce because they love money. A socialist does not need the concept of value for working motivation.



Agreed.


---


Also:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show
Image


https://www.revleft.space/vb/threads/20 ... ost2889338


And:


Emergent Central Planning

Spoiler: show
Image
  • 1
  • 18
  • 19
  • 20
  • 21
  • 22
Election 2020

The vitriol trump spews all day long has had it's[…]

I am sure Trump was briefed on this intelligence […]

And if there is indeed God, I don't think he/she/[…]

@wat0n The cited text says nothing about raci[…]