[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, I am not avoiding any political discussion. I am making responses to most of your statements or questions. YOU'RE avoiding the political discussion because you keep twisting words, your responses are not responding to what I am saying, and you're still not answering my question: Why are you a socialist? Is it that hard to answer?

Look, SSDR, I'd really prefer if you'd stop replying, and I've said the same earlier.

I'm not interested in validating or legitimizing your politics by treating you as a regular participant here, after your atrocious behavior in our exchanges up to this point.

"Egomaniac, this isn't about *you* -- it's about your *politics*, and, no, I'm not trying to impress you." Well you keep twisting words, I never said that you were trying to impress me. You see how you're once again, twisting words.

I'm not twisting *anything* -- you're using a subtle form of character assassination with these baseless accusations of yours.

"You omitted the 'And who *decides*...' line from your quoting -- you're not answering my questions, so I'm not going to answer *yours*, as in the next block:" Those who work for the socialist state/administration would decide who "gets in" and "gets out." Anyone can get in as long as they work, don't cause trouble, don't attempt to rebel, or cause terrorism such as planting bombs in subway stations. Now, answer mine.

This is not an answer -- you're simply begging-the-question. 'Those who work for the ... administration' are obviously 'in', but we have no explanation for how *they* got-in or who, exactly, they answer to regarding their own professional behavior. Try again.

This illustrates the inherent *problematic* with your elitist-bureaucratic approach to a post-capitalist political economy -- you're unable to define how *authority* would be established, because your approach is *unrealistic* and *idealist* since it's just something you thought-up in a minute without any regard to potential *functioning*.

"So: How would your concept of 'administration' operate regarding its own membership and members?" In terms of who's in it, well the existing members would do various interviews, psychological tests, political tests, basic written assessments, and once the people who want to join pass, they then go through various trainings, and take lots of psychological lessons/classes so that they don't get corrupt. The members are confidential, NO ONE is famed, and no one is allowed to know who's in my socialist administration to protect their privacy and personal lives. Any member who gets corrupt, is abusive, or shows favouritism will be removed immediately.

So you *do* want to be a strongman, Stalinist-type leader with ultimate authority. Nothing could be *further* from socialism. Note the elitist *secrecy* and lack of accountability to the public, too.

You've straight-out denied being a Stalinist, so how would this authoritarian-state-collectivism administration compose itself through time, into the future? Corruption and abuse will be prevented as much as possible. Anyone who abuses the administrative position in society, or anyone who abuses the socialist system in general, will be removed. You cannot change someone. If you try to change them, they will think that you're "brainwashing" them (just like how neo-Nazis think that socialists are brainwashing people through the ZOG, or how religious fundamentals think that socialists are brainwashing believers into worshipping a rebellious satan). Non socialists cannot live in a socialist society. They must be removed from the society, or else they could rebel or react against socialism, and cause crime (neo Nazi crime rising in the DDR during the 1980's).

The socialist state will make sure that everyone that has administrative power, is a socialist to the heart! Death to slavery. Long live freedom.

How exactly is 'everyone' to *have* administrative power, then? It takes more than just a one-line statement saying-so.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, "Look, SSDR, I'd really prefer if you'd stop replying, and I've said the same earlier." Why are you a socialist?

"I'm not interested in validating or legitimizing your politics by treating you as a regular participant here, after your atrocious behavior in our exchanges up to this point." Yeah man u don't need to act like a bossy christian.

"I'm not twisting *anything* -- you're using a subtle form of character assassination with these baseless accusations of yours." You make up a lot of shit and you twist words a lot.

" but we have no explanation for how *they* got-in or who, exactly" The current socialist state coordinators would accept them into the socialist state.

"you're unable to define how *authority* would be established" Coordinators are protected by the police, and the military.

"So you *do* want to be a strongman, Stalinist-type leader with ultimate authority. Nothing could be *further* from socialism. Note the elitist *secrecy* and lack of accountability to the public, too." This has nothing to do with socialism. Stalinism is not elitism, you fucking anarchist.

"How exactly is 'everyone' to *have* administrative power, then? It takes more than just a one-line statement saying-so." I didn't say that everyone would have administrative power. I said "everyone that has administrative power, is a socialist to the heart." This means that everyone who is in the socialist state (so not the WHOLE population, just the people in the administrative power) would be a true socialist. You see how you keep twisting words?

You have your real name posted on your username, and if that is a real picture of you, then you look like an anarchist. The vibe you give is very anarchist leaning. You seem to make others feel alone due to the lack of encouragement. You seem to have a bossy attitude, and have Christian leanings. You're a web administrator on RevLeft, which is an anarchist website. And you don't seem to be convincing at all. And me saying this to you doesn't mean that I am trying to be your boss.

And telling you that you make no fucking sense doesn't mean that I am making a "baseless accusation."

Go ahead, twist more words. It won't get you anywhere.

[ckaihatsu]

" but we have no explanation for how *they* got-in or who, exactly" The current socialist state coordinators would accept them into the socialist state.

And how did the current / first state coordinators get their positions?

"you're unable to define how *authority* would be established" Coordinators are protected by the police, and the military.

So how is this formulation any different from the current, *existing*, *capitalist* state?

"So you *do* want to be a strongman, Stalinist-type leader with ultimate authority. Nothing could be *further* from socialism. Note the elitist *secrecy* and lack of accountability to the public, too." This has nothing to do with socialism. Stalinism is not elitism, you fucking anarchist.

I'm not an anarchist. Socialism should *not* be done on the basis of nation-states because then each country requires some kind of technocratic-like hierarchy and you're far from clear on how such power-positions would be filled.

"How exactly is 'everyone' to *have* administrative power, then? It takes more than just a one-line statement saying-so." I didn't say that everyone would have administrative power. I said "everyone that has administrative power, is a socialist to the heart." This means that everyone who is in the socialist state (so not the WHOLE population, just the people in the administrative power) would be a true socialist. You see how you keep twisting words?

So, to *parse* your meaning, those with administrative power would be employees of the state.

You have your real name posted on your username, and if that is a real picture of you, then you look like an anarchist. The vibe you give is very anarchist leaning. You seem to make others feel alone due to the lack of encouragement. You seem to have a bossy attitude, and have Christian leanings. You're a web administrator on RevLeft, which is an anarchist website. And you don't seem to be convincing at all. And me saying this to you doesn't mean that I am trying to be your boss.

Well, you're wrong about me just as you're wrong about what politics to implement. You're a state-capitalist because you'd be content to have market relations among these micro-nations, all over the geographic landscape.

And telling you that you make no fucking sense doesn't mean that I am making a "baseless accusation."

Go ahead, twist more words. It won't get you anywhere.

You can stop anytime. I'll be sticking only to the *political*-minded content that you may provide.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, The first state coordinators would be the socialist revolutionaries who revolted against the previous conditions they were under (monarchy, empire, capitalist republic, fascist dictatorship, etc.).

"So how is this formulation any different from the current, *existing*, *capitalist* state?" A capitalist state has capitalist agendas and beliefs. A capitalist state defends private property rights, protects currency and the medium of exchange, and creates "national debts" so they have an excuse to control the workers. A socialist state is against currency, private property rights, forced family institution, and has no medium of exchange, since in a socialist society, debt and currency do not exist. A capitalist state oppresses workers who rebel against capitalism, people who lose their jobs to abusive employers, and those who go against private property rights (such as a young woman refusing to marry for her parents whom she's relying on in terms of employment and food, so her parents kick her out, she refuses to leave because she doesn't want to be homeless, so the capitalist state sends police to arrest her due to refusing to leave her parents' home because her parents want to kick her out - For Example). A socialist state oppresses domestic terrorists, slackers, system cheaters, and those who refuse to work. A capitalist state is conservative or liberal, while a socialist state is truly progressive.

"So, to *parse* your meaning, those with administrative power would be employees of the state." Basically in your words/eyes in most ways yes. Those with administrative power make up the state, they're the reason why the socialist state would exist. The state would prevent dispute among everyone in society, and handle those who refuse to work.

"You're a state-capitalist because you'd be content to have market relations among these micro-nations, all over the geographic landscape." You first called me a "Stalinist" and a supporter of a "collective bureaucracy." You viewing me as that makes you more of a Trotskyist. Since Trotsky leaning socialists view nations like the DDR or Czechoslovakia as "Stalinist" or a "collective bureaucracy." Now, you're calling me a "state-capitalist" which is what an ultraleftist would say. You were giving a Trotskyist viewpoint, now you're giving me an ultraleftist viewpoint.

If there are two different socialist states that co exist together in the same planet, their exchanges' relationships wouldn't have "market relations" since they wouldn't trade with a medium of exchange. If two different socialist societies traded with each other so they could have the natural resources (or labour hence if one nation has a much smaller, or less talented population than the other) that they want or need. There is no "market(s)" because there would be no currency, international debts, nor the medium of exchange.

"You can stop anytime. I'll be sticking only to the *political*-minded content that you may provide." Why are you a socialist? You're still not answering my question.

[Zionist Nationalist]

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, The first state coordinators would be the socialist revolutionaries who revolted against the previous conditions they were under (monarchy, empire, capitalist republic, fascist dictatorship, etc.).

Okay.

"So how is this formulation any different from the current, *existing*, *capitalist* state?" A capitalist state has capitalist agendas and beliefs. A capitalist state defends private property rights, protects currency and the medium of exchange, and creates "national debts" so they have an excuse to control the workers. A socialist state is against currency, private property rights, forced family institution, and has no medium of exchange, since in a socialist society, debt and currency do not exist. A capitalist state oppresses workers who rebel against capitalism, people who lose their jobs to abusive employers, and those who go against private property rights (such as a young woman refusing to marry for her parents whom she's relying on in terms of employment and food, so her parents kick her out, she refuses to leave because she doesn't want to be homeless, so the capitalist state sends police to arrest her due to refusing to leave her parents' home because her parents want to kick her out - For Example). A socialist state oppresses domestic terrorists, slackers, system cheaters, and those who refuse to work. A capitalist state is conservative or liberal, while a socialist state is truly progressive.

Well, your definition of a 'socialist state' is definitely too moralistic for my tastes -- you'd have to put the cart before the horse, in terms of what's materially available and to whom such social production goes. (If a post-capitalist society only had to use 2% of its population in agricultural work roles, for all food production for the entire society, would you, as an administrator, really look towards adding a percentage-point, to 3%, among those considered to be 'slackers', 'system cheaters', and 'those who refuse to work'? If so, then this is work-as-punishment, requiring an endless state apparatus, instead of just distributing all available food, etc., on a human-needs basis.)

"So, to *parse* your meaning, those with administrative power would be employees of the state." Basically in your words/eyes in most ways yes. Those with administrative power make up the state, they're the reason why the socialist state would exist. The state would prevent dispute among everyone in society, and handle those who refuse to work.

Yup, you definitely are a moralist in your politics.

I could see this kind of apparatus and practice as being valid for a *workers state*, to repress the bourgeoisie, but after the revolution is over such moralism wouldn't objectively be warranted anymore, because the formal workers state apparatus would no longer be empirically needed, thus making any such *retention* of a state apparatus even *more* moralist, while being entirely superfluous at that point. You're reinforcing the standard anarchist distrust of *any* workers state with your own proposed, endless, *nightmare* implementation of such.

"You're a state-capitalist because you'd be content to have market relations among these micro-nations, all over the geographic landscape." You first called me a "Stalinist" and a supporter of a "collective bureaucracy." You viewing me as that makes you more of a Trotskyist. Since Trotsky leaning socialists view nations like the DDR or Czechoslovakia as "Stalinist" or a "collective bureaucracy." Now, you're calling me a "state-capitalist" which is what an ultraleftist would say. You were giving a Trotskyist viewpoint, now you're giving me an ultraleftist viewpoint.

No, it's a valid point, however you'd care to label it -- why allow market dynamics (which necessarily imply commodity-production at that level) to continue for *international* material relations? That's not socialism.

If there are two different socialist states that co exist together in the same planet, their exchanges' relationships wouldn't have "market relations" since they wouldn't trade with a medium of exchange. If two different socialist societies traded with each other so they could have the natural resources (or labour hence if one nation has a much smaller, or less talented population than the other) that they want or need. There is no "market(s)" because there would be no currency, international debts, nor the medium of exchange.

So you're suggesting *barter*?

If so, then you're about equivalent to any propertarian ('libertarian'), because the markets would still be *implicit* -- bartering uses implicit *exchange values*, such as Basket B for Basket A, but what would prevent Micro-Nation A from holding-out and not-accepting Basket B from geographically-adjacent Micro-Nation B -- ? Nothing. Micro-Nation A could wait and see if there are *better* offers, maybe Basket C from far-away Micro-Nation C, which offers more stuff in trade than Basket B from Micro-Nation B. The ethos would no longer be about supplying human / humane need, but in appropriating more exchange value from any given trade / barter.

"You can stop anytime. I'll be sticking only to the *political*-minded content that you may provide." Why are you a socialist? You're still not answering my question.

Initially, when I went to college I was interested in finding out how the world worked, and I immediately gravitated to *sociology*. I got politicized during my first year there, over the first Gulf War in 1991, jumping into the protests that flooded down the main street on campus. I soon joined a revolutionary organization and got a very good political education while paying dues and participating on a weekly basis. I continued after graduation as well.

A *caricature* of a potential post-capitalist society.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, So you're more socially liberal? Because you think my ideal model is "too moral?" You think that most drugs should be legal, and that clean living is oppressive? "you'd have to put the cart before the horse, in terms of what's materially available and to whom such social production goes" Well, food is more important than video game controllers, or cruise ships? You need to eat in order to have the energy to play video games or go on a luxurious cruise. You don't want to starve on a cruise lol.

"(If a post-capitalist society only had to use 2% of its population in agricultural work roles, for all food production for the entire society, would you, as an administrator, really look towards adding a percentage-point, to 3%, among those considered to be 'slackers', 'system cheaters', and 'those who refuse to work'? If so, then this is work-as-punishment, requiring an endless state apparatus, instead of just distributing all available food, etc., on a human-needs basis.)" Well, the more food that is available, the better. In my ideal socialist model, productivity should be as high as possible, so that the standard of living is the best for all. Plus, if everyone who can work, works, then the current workers who aren't slacking could work less (if you're not into a higher standard of living).

"You're reinforcing the standard anarchist distrust of *any* workers state with your own proposed, endless, *nightmare* implementation of such." I strongly dislike anarchists. I went for a walk today and I went to two stores just to look around for fun, and that area that the plaza was in was very anarchist, radically liberal leaning. There were a lot of druggies, annoying sarcastic people, and people who look like they have lead poisoning. I surely wouldn't want to live with them or deal with them on a constant, hourly basis. I am more socially conservative compared to them, I like clean living, decency, respect, and quietness.

"No, it's a valid point, however you'd care to label it -- why allow market dynamics (which necessarily imply commodity-production at that level) to continue for *international* material relations? That's not socialism." Well if there's two different socialist societies who wouldn't want to unite for internal reasons, they would still need to exchange natural resources in order to maintain the best survival that they could. Recorded stats on what is given or exchanged helps track things down, helps with productive coordination (you need to know how much steel you have in order to know how big the apartment flats are for example), and makes sure that no part of the world is in extreme poverty.

"Initially, when I went to college I was interested in finding out how the world worked, and I immediately gravitated to *sociology*. I got politicized during my first year there, over the first Gulf War in 1991, jumping into the protests that flooded down the main street on campus. I soon joined a revolutionary organization and got a very good political education while paying dues and participating on a weekly basis. I continued after graduation as well."

- Well you sound more like you're a socialist by the brain, rather than by the heart. You didn't get into socialism until you were at least 18? You do know that many far left wing movements on U.S. university campuses are anarchist, radically liberal leaning? You also do know that American universities don't teach socialism in a socialist viewpoint? American universities teach socialism in a capitalist leaning viewpoint, so that people can get traumatized of socialism, so that they can dislike socialism. They subconsciously condition you to hate socialism, and to not understand what socialism really is to the heart.

Let me ask you a few questions:

- How do you feel about people using each other? Didn't people use their mothers while they were in their wombs?
- How do you feel about name brand clothing?
- How do you feel about weddings and funerals? Doesn't it make you feel alone that you have to act a certain way around certain relatives? Doesn't that feel oppressive?
- How do you feel about the Americana money obsessed culture? Doesn't money make people corrupt in the brain?

I think there is a difference between being a western Marxist scholar, versus being a socialist by the heart. I am not saying you are one or another, I just liked to point that out.

[SSDR]

@Zionist Nationalist,

- As long as technology isn't fully automated, humans will always need to work. Regardless of the politics.
- All basic necessities are free. In a capitalist viewpoint, you work for free, you live for free. Money makes people messed up.
- Gay sex has nothing to do with socialism. It also has nothing to do with your personal life.
- You believe that everyone being treated equally is bad? Why?
- A 'diverse' population has nothing to do with socialism. There are socialists who support diversity, and then there are socialists who are against diversity.
- You don't want psychos off the hood streets to have guns, do you?

Some people need family values to motivate them to work. Some people need religion to motivate them to be good people. Some people need currency to motivate them to work. People like that are not socialists. If those oppressive things don't exist, it is only oppressive to a non socialist because non socialists need those things to motivate them to work.

[Zionist Nationalist]

As long as technology isn't fully automated, humans will always need to work. Regardless of the politics.

this is not the point the point is that socialism goal is to have some sort of utopian society where everybody are equal and not working or working partly

All basic necessities are free. In a capitalist viewpoint, you work for free, you live for free. Money makes people messed up.

this is not the way things work in a modern society
those things may be free out ther in nature but you got to pay cash for those stuff to get to your home or else you should do farming and hunting just like in the old days

Gay sex has nothing to do with socialism. It also has nothing to do with your personal life.

this was a joke. since leftists are pushing the gay agenda so much in recent years

you believe that everyone being treated equally is bad? Why?

people should be treated equal in most cases. its not a black and white issue
militaries shoulnt draft women for combat operations as women arent physically capable of such tasks
retards shouldnt be treated equally because they are retards.
I dont care about gays doing whatever they want if they just stop trying to force everybody to accept them
Scandinavian countries especially sweden are crazy about this they teach young children that being gay is ok and that a boy can be a girl what kind of bullshit is that. being gay is not ok no parent would want their son to be a faggot sorry thats the cold hard truth

A 'diverse' population has nothing to do with socialism. There are socialists who support diversity, and then there are socialists who are against diversity.

this was also some sort of a joke there isnt really problem with diversity as long as its not being forced on us
unfortunately these days its being force everywhere

You don't want psychos off the hood streets to have guns, do you?

I dont want the government to have a complete control of all weapons because this is a very dangerous situation

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, So you're more socially liberal? Because you think my ideal model is "too moral?" You think that most drugs should be legal, and that clean living is oppressive?

Yeah, I tend to be liberal / progressive in my social attitudes, but I also know that there's a *trade-off* to that kind of social attitude, as with an increasing lack of cohesive social *culture*, as for revolutionary-political trajectories. I'd personally rather keep the personal and the formal-political 'realms' as separate as possible, but this isn't always how things work out, of course.

"you'd have to put the cart before the horse, in terms of what's materially available and to whom such social production goes" Well, food is more important than video game controllers, or cruise ships? You need to eat in order to have the energy to play video games or go on a luxurious cruise. You don't want to starve on a cruise lol.

Correct, and I'm *not* suggesting any kind of skewed priorities for society, as you're imputing.

You've side-stepped my *point*, which was a critique of *your* position: Moralism, and a willingness to impose relatively *subjective* administrative actions onto the population -- de facto rule, basically.

If a year's worth of food-supply was finished and ready to distribute to people, would *you* *withhold* such food from some certain people, for the sake of administrative purposes / discipline?

"(If a post-capitalist society only had to use 2% of its population in agricultural work roles, for all food production for the entire society, would you, as an administrator, really look towards adding a percentage-point, to 3%, among those considered to be 'slackers', 'system cheaters', and 'those who refuse to work'? If so, then this is work-as-punishment, requiring an endless state apparatus, instead of just distributing all available food, etc., on a human-needs basis.)" Well, the more food that is available, the better. In my ideal socialist model, productivity should be as high as possible, so that the standard of living is the best for all. Plus, if everyone who can work, works, then the current workers who aren't slacking could work less (if you're not into a higher standard of living).

Okay, this is a better rephrasing, one that I concur with. (I do happen to favor goal-setting and potential *increased* standards-of-living for more people, compared to capitalist society, but that's just my own personal political opinion.)

Now, since I see that you're not-addressing my sample scenario, how would you potentially *enforce* your professed anti-slacker policy / politics? It sounds like you're not going to *withhold food* as a punishment, so what recourse *would* your administrative state have, for the sake of administrating?

"You're reinforcing the standard anarchist distrust of *any* workers state with your own proposed, endless, *nightmare* implementation of such." I strongly dislike anarchists. I went for a walk today and I went to two stores just to look around for fun, and that area that the plaza was in was very anarchist, radically liberal leaning. There were a lot of druggies, annoying sarcastic people, and people who look like they have lead poisoning. I surely wouldn't want to live with them or deal with them on a constant, hourly basis. I am more socially conservative compared to them, I like clean living, decency, respect, and quietness.

Now you're sidestepping *this* point of mine by shifting the context to one of lifestylism.

You sound *exactly* like the kind of person / politics that anarchists are so wary-of -- the politics of an imposed state administration that never goes away, even after its time is up and its purpose is outmoded by the actual full-liberation of all humanity, enabling full collective organizing and open-access to all material implements and natural resources for humane social production.

"No, it's a valid point, however you'd care to label it -- why allow market dynamics (which necessarily imply commodity-production at that level) to continue for *international* material relations? That's not socialism." Well if there's two different socialist societies who wouldn't want to unite for internal reasons, they would still need to exchange natural resources in order to maintain the best survival that they could. Recorded stats on what is given or exchanged helps track things down, helps with productive coordination (you need to know how much steel you have in order to know how big the apartment flats are for example), and makes sure that no part of the world is in extreme poverty.

Okay, I agree in spirit, but I myself happen to be concerned about the *logistical* environment for such supply-chain-type distribution, as within a workers state during the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat.

You're not at all describing how *use values* might be (socio-politically) valued in a workers state or beyond -- if one locality requires steel for apartment buildings, for example, while having no iron ore deposits of its own, what is that needed steel supply *worth* to the people of that locality, and under what social terms should it be provided to them from without? (By extension, what if *many* localities require steel for apartment buildings, but the immediate supply of steel from elsewhere is *insufficient* -- which locality / localities should receive the immediate supply of steel, and why?)

(In my 'labor credits' model each locality would publicly provide a locality-specific daily demands list, mass-aggregated by rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.) from its residents' individually-prioritized daily demands lists. In this way, related proposals / policy-packages from *all* requesting localities -- as for certain, limited supplies of steel -- could be compared side-by-side, and the respective collective strengths of mass demand could be discerned across all competing localities. For instance Locality A might only have a peak of 1,092,871 tallies for 'steel for apartment buildings' in rank position #2, while Locality B may have 1,091,659 tallies for 'steel for apartment buildings' in rank position *#1*. Which locality would win-out? At face-value, Locality B would, due to a higher peak rank position, that of #1, compared to Locality A's #2 peak rank position, but, depending on implementation, other factors could be taken into account, such as a longer duration of sampling, as for over two weeks / 14 days, or maybe a run-off for close calls like this one, etc.)


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

Spoiler: show

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

Spoiler: show

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


---

"Initially, when I went to college I was interested in finding out how the world worked, and I immediately gravitated to *sociology*. I got politicized during my first year there, over the first Gulf War in 1991, jumping into the protests that flooded down the main street on campus. I soon joined a revolutionary organization and got a very good political education while paying dues and participating on a weekly basis. I continued after graduation as well."

- Well you sound more like you're a socialist by the brain, rather than by the heart. You didn't get into socialism until you were at least 18? You do know that many far left wing movements on U.S. university campuses are anarchist, radically liberal leaning? You also do know that American universities don't teach socialism in a socialist viewpoint? American universities teach socialism in a capitalist leaning viewpoint, so that people can get traumatized of socialism, so that they can dislike socialism. They subconsciously condition you to hate socialism, and to not understand what socialism really is to the heart.

The revolutionary-leaning anti-Gulf-War movement at the time was quite substantial, and there were well-known professors (two, at least) who provided ongoing political support to the movement throughout. I also had these two professors in my classes, which overlapped nicely.

Let me ask you a few questions:

- How do you feel about people using each other? Didn't people use their mothers while they were in their wombs?
- How do you feel about name brand clothing?
- How do you feel about weddings and funerals? Doesn't it make you feel alone that you have to act a certain way around certain relatives? Doesn't that feel oppressive?
- How do you feel about the Americana money obsessed culture? Doesn't money make people corrupt in the brain?

I think there is a difference between being a western Marxist scholar, versus being a socialist by the heart. I am not saying you are one or another, I just liked to point that out.

Okay, noted, and life under capitalism is certainly messy and lacking in workers-collective control.

I tend to think of all of these issues as being decidedly *lifestylist*, so I don't think there are any *universal*, one-size-fits-all, policy-type answers to *any* of them. It's far more important to concentrate on the *struggle*, particularly class struggle, so as to get to a workers state, and communism, as quickly as possible, from where we are now.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, "I'd personally rather keep the personal and the formal-political 'realms' as separate as possible, but this isn't always how things work out, of course." Well you have to understand that personal topics and politics mix together a lot, hence I can tell what ideology one has based off of their personal traits and characteristics. People in the Antifa tend to be annoying, manipulative, sarcastic like, and sloppy. Ultraconservatives tend to be all about proper, and jentlemen like. Tea Party supporters tend to be hillbilly like, ignorant, and deludded. Those are some of my general observations. Do you have any socialists in your family/background?

"If a year's worth of food-supply was finished and ready to distribute to people, would *you* *withhold* such food from some certain people, for the sake of administrative purposes / discipline?" Yes, to criminals, slackers, terrorists, right wing extremists, domestic abusers, money lovers, and annoying anarchists.

"Now, since I see that you're not-addressing my sample scenario, how would you potentially *enforce* your professed anti-slacker policy / politics? It sounds like you're not going to *withhold food* as a punishment, so what recourse *would* your administrative state have, for the sake of administrating?" Well I really didn't say that withholding food is my main punishment. The main administrative tactic that I support is forced labour in labour camps, torture, then the death penalty. There should be no prisons since this allows criminals to live for free, and not suffer true consequences (besides dealing with other prisoners via prison fights and gangs). Prisons are to not exist in my model.

"You sound *exactly* like the kind of person / politics that anarchists are so wary-of -- the politics of an imposed state administration that never goes away, even after its time is up and its purpose is outmoded by the actual full-liberation of all humanity, enabling full collective organizing and open-access to all material implements and natural resources for humane social production." This is because I do not like anarchists, and I find them to be rude and obnoxious.

"if one locality requires steel for apartment buildings, for example, while having no iron ore deposits of its own, what is that needed steel supply *worth* to the people of that locality, and under what social terms should it be provided to them from without?" Either alternative materials such as plastic or concrete would be used, or steel would be received from other parts of the world.

"(By extension, what if *many* localities require steel for apartment buildings, but the immediate supply of steel from elsewhere is *insufficient* -- which locality / localities should receive the immediate supply of steel, and why?)" Well, no material is valued over another. Steel has higher quality than plastic, but with the right engineering and education, buildings that are constructed with lesser quality materials such as plastic would last a long time, especially with proper maintenance and general care. So nothing is valued. But, to answer your question as of in terms of quality of material, areas with more talented and educated workers, such as doctors or dentists, would live in steel made homes, since they contribute to society's knowledge more than taxi drivers. Even though neither sides are valued more or less, since that creates social hierarchy.

"I tend to think of all of these issues as being decidedly *lifestylist*, so I don't think there are any *universal*, one-size-fits-all, policy-type answers to *any* of them. It's far more important to concentrate on the *struggle*, particularly class struggle, so as to get to a workers state, and communism, as quickly as possible, from where we are now." Well you're just advocating economic philosophy, rather than the words from the heart (in your eyes, "lifestylist"). You do realize that many of the Americanized parts of culture today were purposefully made to teach people and to condition people into hating communism?

You can't have a communist mode of production with a capitalist culture. So being "lifestylist" does matter.

[SSDR]

@Zionist Nationalist, No, in socialism, the workers and the masses who work 'earn' all of their wealth because they made it, rather than their owners via high profits. If a factory worker made a Mercedes Benz, they should have one because they made it.

In socialism, there is no "cash" or "currency." You don't "pay" for anything because "paying" and money don't exist. You pay for things in a capitalist society. In a pure socialist society, nothing is payed for since currency doesn't exist. People work for free, people live for free.

The gay agenda has nothing to do with socialism. Many socialists support it, while some go against it. Homosexuality is a social issue, rather than an economic issue.

Women are able to fight in wars. Women can be strong, but in some societies, they're not allowed to, since they don't view it as "proper." And why would a retard be a retard? What conditions were they under that made them into being retards? Those conditions need to be changed so that there are no more retards.

Scandinavia is the most advanced part of the world. And some parents don't care if their offspring are LGBTQ. If that's who they are, then it has nothing to do with the parents. That is enforcing the family institution, in which some people don't support (and view as prison).

Why do you think that it's dangerous for certified state workers to have weapons? They are defending people's freedoms. Without law, there is no freedom.

Death to Zionism. Death to Hollywood. They are rotting the world's culture.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, "I'd personally rather keep the personal and the formal-political 'realms' as separate as possible, but this isn't always how things work out, of course." Well you have to understand that personal topics and politics mix together a lot, hence I can tell what ideology one has based off of their personal traits and characteristics.

Well, you shouldn't make a *habit* of this practice, since personal topics and politics also *don't* mix together a lot -- people will often erroneously assume that 'the personal is the political' and incorrectly *overgeneralize* from a person's personal traits, to their presumed political viewpoints.

People in the Antifa tend to be annoying, manipulative, sarcastic like, and sloppy. Ultraconservatives tend to be all about proper, and jentlemen like.

You're just interested in destroying your political credibility here, is that it?

You're getting *further* and *further* away from socialism, if you were even ever in its neighborhood at all -- from a nominal Stalinist, and now to praising the personal habits of ultraconservatives. I *don't* generalize a person's politics from their lifestyle, but you do, at whatever hazard to your credibility.

Moreover this supposed critique of Antifa is based on *personal* / lifestyle characteristics, once again, while you don't even address the *politics* of Antifa, a *political* group.

Tea Party supporters tend to be hillbilly like, ignorant, and deludded. Those are some of my general observations. Do you have any socialists in your family/background?

What *are* you, a fucking *cop*? Do you think that you *invented* the aggressive-passive posture *yourself*? Why don't you fucking address the *politics* for a change instead of looking like some lifestylist informant?

"If a year's worth of food-supply was finished and ready to distribute to people, would *you* *withhold* such food from some certain people, for the sake of administrative purposes / discipline?" Yes, to criminals, slackers, terrorists, right wing extremists, domestic abusers, money lovers, and annoying anarchists.

Okay, good, you've admitted it -- your sense of lifestylist *moralism* obviously is paramount to you, far eclipsing any humane, egalitarian ethos that you could have at least *borrowed* from, but you're not that sophisticated.

You're down to an authoritarian Stalinist at best, but more-likely a fascist.

"Now, since I see that you're not-addressing my sample scenario, how would you potentially *enforce* your professed anti-slacker policy / politics? It sounds like you're not going to *withhold food* as a punishment, so what recourse *would* your administrative state have, for the sake of administrating?" Well I really didn't say that withholding food is my main punishment. The main administrative tactic that I support is forced labour in labour camps, torture, then the death penalty. There should be no prisons since this allows criminals to live for free, and not suffer true consequences (besides dealing with other prisoners via prison fights and gangs). Prisons are to not exist in my model.

And what would be the *point* of all of this authoritarian-state politics? You *claim* to not-support private property, yet here you are, pissed-off if anyone withholds their labor-power from your authoritarian state apparatus.

"You sound *exactly* like the kind of person / politics that anarchists are so wary-of -- the politics of an imposed state administration that never goes away, even after its time is up and its purpose is outmoded by the actual full-liberation of all humanity, enabling full collective organizing and open-access to all material implements and natural resources for humane social production." This is because I do not like anarchists, and I find them to be rude and obnoxious.

Again you're preferring your own ego over any kind of organized politics and humane ethos.

"if one locality requires steel for apartment buildings, for example, while having no iron ore deposits of its own, what is that needed steel supply *worth* to the people of that locality, and under what social terms should it be provided to them from without?" Either alternative materials such as plastic or concrete would be used, or steel would be received from other parts of the world.

Hmmmm, you think that there would *never* be any bottlenecks, particularly during the dictatorship-of-the-proletariat phase? Maybe a certain locality would *insist* on receiving steel, since other localities are receiving steel for the construction of *their* apartment buildings.

Oh, that's right -- you're not an egalitarian, so what do you care -- ! Fascist.

"(By extension, what if *many* localities require steel for apartment buildings, but the immediate supply of steel from elsewhere is *insufficient* -- which locality / localities should receive the immediate supply of steel, and why?)" Well, no material is valued over another. Steel has higher quality than plastic, but with the right engineering and education, buildings that are constructed with lesser quality materials such as plastic would last a long time, especially with proper maintenance and general care. So nothing is valued. But, to answer your question as of in terms of quality of material, areas with more talented and educated workers, such as doctors or dentists, would live in steel made homes, since they contribute to society's knowledge more than taxi drivers. Even though neither sides are valued more or less, since that creates social hierarchy.

So which *is* it -- would 'more talented and educated workers, such as doctors or dentists' be more-valued, or would 'neither sides [be] valued more or less, since that creates social hierarchy' -- ?

"I tend to think of all of these issues as being decidedly *lifestylist*, so I don't think there are any *universal*, one-size-fits-all, policy-type answers to *any* of them. It's far more important to concentrate on the *struggle*, particularly class struggle, so as to get to a workers state, and communism, as quickly as possible, from where we are now." Well you're just advocating economic philosophy, rather than the words from the heart (in your eyes, "lifestylist"). You do realize that many of the Americanized parts of culture today were purposefully made to teach people and to condition people into hating communism?

You can't have a communist mode of production with a capitalist culture. So being "lifestylist" does matter.

No, class struggle is *not* just 'economic philosophy' -- it could better be described as *working class power*, or 'the social prerequisites for proletarian revolution.'

I'm *still* not a culture guy, so you can wax on all you like about the superstructure while ignoring the base.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, Personal topics and politics do mix together, sometimes they mix very well. I can tell what ideology one has just by their general characteristics. And telling what ideology one has can really help me know how to deal with who, because you don't want to get too serious with an anarchist, but you also don't want to be "annoying" to a conservative. Liberals tend to enjoy sarcasm. These are general characteristics of some political ideologies. I don't support ultraconservatives, I dislike them. They are too jentleman like in a bad way. Being too fake, and not complaining about oppression were social norms created by the elite to prevent a progressive rebellion. In other terms, being too much of a jentleman was used by the elites to control you.

The politics of the Antifa are basically a mixture of anarchy and radical social liberalism.

"What *are* you, a fucking *cop*? Do you think that you *invented* the aggressive-passive posture *yourself*? Why don't you fucking address the *politics* for a change instead of looking like some lifestylist informant?" That doesn't answer if you have any socialists in your background. Americans who grew up after the second world war who don't have any socialists in their background tend to not have a true, understanding of what socialism is by the heart. Once again, I ask you a simple question, yet you're not answering (as usual).

"Okay, good, you've admitted it -- your sense of lifestylist *moralism* obviously is paramount to you, far eclipsing any humane, egalitarian ethos that you could have at least *borrowed* from, but you're not that sophisticated." So you support criminals and annoying retards who put engine blocks and beer bottles onto their house's front lawns?

"You're down to an authoritarian Stalinist at best, but more-likely a fascist. " Only a socially liberal leaning anarchist would call me a "fascist." I am far from fascism. Fascism is oppressive. Fascism denies the liberation of the hearts.

"And what would be the *point* of all of this authoritarian-state politics? You *claim* to not-support private property, yet here you are, pissed-off if anyone withholds their labor-power from your authoritarian state apparatus." People NEED to work. Unless if we can one day live off of AI robots, we humans need to work. Those who can work, but refuse to, needs to get punished. It's that simple.

"Again you're preferring your own ego over any kind of organized politics and humane ethos." Even though leftist anarchists fought against capitalism and slavery, why are you defending them SO MUCH?

"Oh, that's right -- you're not an egalitarian, so what do you care -- ! Fascist." This reply is useless because I said that steel wouldn't have any more value than plastic. Homes made out of plastic structure wouldn't be valued more than homes made out of steel structure.

"So which *is* it -- would 'more talented and educated workers, such as doctors or dentists' be more-valued, or would 'neither sides [be] valued more or less, since that creates social hierarchy' -- ?" No human should be valued more or less than another, but in terms of who gets access to luxuries, the more talented should get access first because they contribute to humanity's technological and educational advancement more (more technology, the easier everyone's lives are).

"I'm *still* not a culture guy, so you can wax on all you like about the superstructure while ignoring the base." So hyper masculinity in hip hop can exist in a pure socialist society?

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, Personal topics and politics do mix together, sometimes they mix very well.

And just as often they *don't* mix, and one *cannot* just summarily *assume* personal characteristics about someone based on knowing their politics, or vice-versa. Also there may not always be a way to *check* / verify, so then you'd just be fooling yourself.

I can tell what ideology one has just by their general characteristics. And telling what ideology one has can really help me know how to deal with who, because you don't want to get too serious with an anarchist, but you also don't want to be "annoying" to a conservative.

This is a perfect example -- you're simply *assuming* and *imputing* certain characteristics onto my person, without even bothering to *ask* -- ! I wouldn't mind being 'annoying' to conservatives, so now you know.

Liberals tend to enjoy sarcasm. These are general characteristics of some political ideologies. I don't support ultraconservatives, I dislike them. They are too jentleman like in a bad way. Being too fake, and not complaining about oppression were social norms created by the elite to prevent a progressive rebellion. In other terms, being too much of a jentleman was used by the elites to control you.

Cute theory, and thanks for the street-sociology observations, but it's the *politics* that you're still ignoring, in favor of your own 'yearbook' approach.

The politics of the Antifa are basically a mixture of anarchy and radical social liberalism.

In other words, *left*-wing, and *anti-fascist*, which is necessary when one is dealing with fascists.

"What *are* you, a fucking *cop*? Do you think that you *invented* the aggressive-passive posture *yourself*? Why don't you fucking address the *politics* for a change instead of looking like some lifestylist informant?" That doesn't answer if you have any socialists in your background. Americans who grew up after the second world war who don't have any socialists in their background tend to not have a true, understanding of what socialism is by the heart. Once again, I ask you a simple question, yet you're not answering (as usual).

Whatever. I'll pass on your contrived social survey, thanks.

"Okay, good, you've admitted it -- your sense of lifestylist *moralism* obviously is paramount to you, far eclipsing any humane, egalitarian ethos that you could have at least *borrowed* from, but you're not that sophisticated." So you support criminals and annoying retards who put engine blocks and beer bottles onto their house's front lawns?

Jesus, this is why you shouldn't be around anything political, much-less actually socialist -- your *ethos* is all wrong. You're prone to *criminalize* instead of looking to *help*.

"You're down to an authoritarian Stalinist at best, but more-likely a fascist. " Only a socially liberal leaning anarchist would call me a "fascist." I am far from fascism. Fascism is oppressive. Fascism denies the liberation of the hearts.

Well here's a political spectrum that I developed, for just such occasions as this one....


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals [CORRECTED, 170602]

Spoiler: show

I'm *not* a 'socially liberal leaning anarchist', despite your repetition -- the best social policies come from *revolutionary* principles, such as free abortion for all (since it's health care), free everything basically, since all of it is produced at the mass industrial scale anyway.

"And what would be the *point* of all of this authoritarian-state politics? You *claim* to not-support private property, yet here you are, pissed-off if anyone withholds their labor-power from your authoritarian state apparatus." People NEED to work. Unless if we can one day live off of AI robots, we humans need to work. Those who can work, but refuse to, needs to get punished. It's that simple.

Wow -- no wonder I call you a fascist. Where's the *socialist* ethos in your politics? The one point that you focus-on and repeat the most is this 'criminalization' and punishment aspect.

"Again you're preferring your own ego over any kind of organized politics and humane ethos." Even though leftist anarchists fought against capitalism and slavery, why are you defending them SO MUCH?

Hardly. I defend anarchists on Antifa, since the politics is anti-fascist. What else did you have in mind?

"Oh, that's right -- you're not an egalitarian, so what do you care -- ! Fascist." This reply is useless because I said that steel wouldn't have any more value than plastic. Homes made out of plastic structure wouldn't be valued more than homes made out of steel structure.

That's not for you to decide -- it would be up to the recipients / consumers themselves. You can't simply *dictate* what particular prevailing social norms / tastes would be, as much as you obviously *want* to do that. Technocrat.

"So which *is* it -- would 'more talented and educated workers, such as doctors or dentists' be more-valued, or would 'neither sides [be] valued more or less, since that creates social hierarchy' -- ?" No human should be valued more or less than another, but in terms of who gets access to luxuries, the more talented should get access first because they contribute to humanity's technological and educational advancement more (more technology, the easier everyone's lives are).

This is an entirely *technocratic* line -- this is probably what you are the most: a technocratic authoritarian.

"I'm *still* not a culture guy, so you can wax on all you like about the superstructure while ignoring the base." So hyper masculinity in hip hop can exist in a pure socialist society?

As long as it's not advocating the harmful treatment of others I certainly don't see why not.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, "Also there may not always be a way to *check* / verify, so then you'd just be fooling yourself." Well one can't always know, since they don't exactly know at first until someone they're observing reveals what political ideology they have. But usually, some people like myself are good at determining what ideology one has just by looking at their general characteristics.

"This is a perfect example -- you're simply *assuming* and *imputing* certain characteristics onto my person, without even bothering to *ask* -- ! I wouldn't mind being 'annoying' to conservatives, so now you know." Well asking can be rude or awkward. And if you're dealing with someone who has power, asking what ideology they have is not a good idea. And you being 'annoying' to conservatives gets them to hate socialism (or your fucking anarchy) even more. Yanks like you are the reason why many people don't support socialism. Your responses don't add up. You make no sense. You're manipulative. And you call some of the internal parts of socialism "lifestylist."

"Cute theory, and thanks for the street-sociology observations, but it's the *politics* that you're still ignoring, in favor of your own 'yearbook' approach." Peoples' general characteristics can help determine what ideology they have.

"In other words, *left*-wing, and *anti-fascist*, which is necessary when one is dealing with fascists." Yes the Antifa are left wing and are anti fascist. The Anti Fascist Action formed to go against fascism in the 1920's and 1930's. But the 'Antifa' we're talking about is a significant political group and movement that is rooted from the Anti Fascist Action of the 1920's and 1930's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Is NOT the same as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

The Antifa you're talking about (and support) was INFLUENCED by the German Antifaschistische Aktion.

"Whatever. I'll pass on your contrived social survey, thanks." Why can't you answer if you have any socialists in your family? You fucking retard.

"Jesus, this is why you shouldn't be around anything political, much-less actually socialist -- your *ethos* is all wrong. You're prone to *criminalize* instead of looking to *help*. " No I don't "criminalize" criminals you fucking liberal anarchist shit. Criminals criminalize themselves. The fuck?

"I'm *not* a 'socially liberal leaning anarchist', despite your repetition -- the best social policies come from *revolutionary* principles, such as free abortion for all (since it's health care), free everything basically, since all of it is produced at the mass industrial scale anyway." YES YOU ARE! (Read above).

"Wow -- no wonder I call you a fascist. Where's the *socialist* ethos in your politics? The one point that you focus-on and repeat the most is this 'criminalization' and punishment aspect." So if humans need to work, and if one doesn't work, yet they have the ability to DOESN'T make them bad? I guess me knowing that someone is bad because they slack and cause social decay makes me a fascist? Shit talk to your wife lol.

"Hardly. I defend anarchists on Antifa, since the politics is anti-fascist. What else did you have in mind?" Well according to your general texts, your biased ways of communication, how much fucking sense you DON'T make, and for how manipulative you are, you seem like you do. Does your wife act like this too?

"That's not for you to decide -- it would be up to the recipients / consumers themselves. You can't simply *dictate* what particular prevailing social norms / tastes would be, as much as you obviously *want* to do that. Technocrat." There would be no "social norms" in this case because the concept of value doesn't exist.

This is probably what you are the most: an anarchist liberal.

"As long as it's not advocating the harmful treatment of others I certainly don't see why not." But hyper masculinity and hip hop are capitalist symbols and are parts of capitalist culture. Hip hop and hyper masculinity are symbols of patriarchy. It's anti feminist, and you not seeing why makes you sound like you look down on women. Women give birth, women can do anything a man can do. So there's no need to support hip hop hyper masculinity.

[ckaihatsu]

@ckaihatsu, "Also there may not always be a way to *check* / verify, so then you'd just be fooling yourself." Well one can't always know, since they don't exactly know at first until someone they're observing reveals what political ideology they have. But usually, some people like myself are good at determining what ideology one has just by looking at their general characteristics.

"This is a perfect example -- you're simply *assuming* and *imputing* certain characteristics onto my person, without even bothering to *ask* -- ! I wouldn't mind being 'annoying' to conservatives, so now you know." Well asking can be rude or awkward. And if you're dealing with someone who has power, asking what ideology they have is not a good idea. And you being 'annoying' to conservatives gets them to hate socialism (or your fucking anarchy) even more. Yanks like you are the reason why many people don't support socialism. Your responses don't add up. You make no sense. You're manipulative. And you call some of the internal parts of socialism "lifestylist."

Amazing -- you *continue* to assume, even after being *corrected*.

I'm fine with being annoying to conservatives because they're *reactionaries*, and I don't advocate anarchism, for the billionth time, because it's too much like your propertarian micro-nations landscape.

You're no authority on socialism, so your critiques of such have no credible political *backing*.

"Cute theory, and thanks for the street-sociology observations, but it's the *politics* that you're still ignoring, in favor of your own 'yearbook' approach." Peoples' general characteristics can help determine what ideology they have.

No, not necessarily -- people may be doing what they *have* to, to 'survive', but may have in-mind something much better and more socially enlightened, which could be at-odds with how they have to live under current exploitative and oppressive capitalist social conditions. (In other words they're not class-conscious.)

"In other words, *left*-wing, and *anti-fascist*, which is necessary when one is dealing with fascists." Yes the Antifa are left wing and are anti fascist. The Anti Fascist Action formed to go against fascism in the 1920's and 1930's. But the 'Antifa' we're talking about is a significant political group and movement that is rooted from the Anti Fascist Action of the 1920's and 1930's.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifa_(United_States)

Is NOT the same as this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antifaschistische_Aktion

The Antifa you're talking about (and support) was INFLUENCED by the German Antifaschistische Aktion.

So if you're so good with the *history* of it all, why are you so *dismissive* of the group and its actual, anti-fascist *politics*?

"Whatever. I'll pass on your contrived social survey, thanks." Why can't you answer if you have any socialists in your family? You fucking retard.

Because I *don't want to*, not to you.

"Jesus, this is why you shouldn't be around anything political, much-less actually socialist -- your *ethos* is all wrong. You're prone to *criminalize* instead of looking to *help*. " No I don't "criminalize" criminals you fucking liberal anarchist shit. Criminals criminalize themselves. The fuck?

You make it sound like the term 'criminal' is absolute, uncontroversial, and fixed in meaning. Laws *change*, like alcohol prohibition -- it's a *political* thing, something that you're not grasping, ironically.

Socially, sure I'm 'progressive' within the current context of capitalist social norms, but ultimately, *politically*, these social norms need to be under the control of *workers*, as with workers tribunals.

"I'm *not* a 'socially liberal leaning anarchist', despite your repetition -- the best social policies come from *revolutionary* principles, such as free abortion for all (since it's health care), free everything basically, since all of it is produced at the mass industrial scale anyway." YES YOU ARE! (Read above).

No, I'm not -- read above.

"Wow -- no wonder I call you a fascist. Where's the *socialist* ethos in your politics? The one point that you focus-on and repeat the most is this 'criminalization' and punishment aspect." So if humans need to work, and if one doesn't work, yet they have the ability to DOESN'T make them bad? I guess me knowing that someone is bad because they slack and cause social decay makes me a fascist? Shit talk to your wife lol.

You're blithely ignoring the *constructive* dynamic of *mass industrial machinery* -- if industrial agriculture can be done under workers control, requiring agricultural work from only 2% of the population (or less, potentially), providing the world with enough food for life and living, then where's the problem?

And why should *any* society trust *your* judgments? What if someone declared that their own chosen efforts at digging up *coal* and using it for fuel for themselves should be socially accepted as 'work'? Who *decides* what's 'work' and what's not?

"Hardly. I defend anarchists on Antifa, since the politics is anti-fascist. What else did you have in mind?" Well according to your general texts, your biased ways of communication, how much fucking sense you DON'T make, and for how manipulative you are, you seem like you do. Does your wife act like this too?

All you're doing is being *disparaging*, without addressing any political issues.

"That's not for you to decide -- it would be up to the recipients / consumers themselves. You can't simply *dictate* what particular prevailing social norms / tastes would be, as much as you obviously *want* to do that. Technocrat." There would be no "social norms" in this case because the concept of value doesn't exist.

Untrue, and this goes to show how inept and worthless you are with political issues, and policy.

*Of course* there would be *use* values, within a workers state and beyond, and these *qualitative* factors would need to be addressed, and even standardized, in social approach, since there would no longer be clear-cut *private* ownership. Who gets to use a factory, displacing other claimants, and why?

As previously mentioned, my *own* model / approach *can* address this real-world situation, while you blather on about nothing, egomaniac.

This is probably what you are the most: an anarchist liberal.

Nope, still not. Try again.

"As long as it's not advocating the harmful treatment of others I certainly don't see why not." But hyper
masculinity and hip hop are capitalist symbols and are parts of capitalist culture. Hip hop and hyper masculinity are symbols of patriarchy. It's anti feminist, and you not seeing why makes you sound like you look down on women. Women give birth, women can do anything a man can do. So there's no need to support hip hop hyper masculinity.

I didn't *say* that I *support* 'hyper-masculine hiphop', I said that such could not be *objected* to, as long as it doesn't advocate the harmful treatment of others, meaning women.

[SSDR]

@ckaihatsu, Well if you try to annoy conservatives, then they will go against socialism even more because they would dislike how you are around them personally. First impressions can be more convincing than you think. And I am not an anarchist, YOU are. You just don't know it

"No, not necessarily -- people may be doing what they *have* to, to 'survive', but may have in-mind something much better and more socially enlightened, which could be at-odds with how they have to live under current exploitative and oppressive capitalist social conditions. (In other words they're not class-conscious.)" Well the way one is personally doesn't have to be determined by what they have to do in order to survive. Middle class people and upper class people aren't always worrying about survival, unlike the majority of the working poor (hence most working poor people are leftists). And yes, non socialists are not socialists because they don't have the proper sense of reality. They believe what they were raised by (such as thinking that money buys love or a woman needs comfort from a masculine man to be truly happy. They were raised to think this which is why they have no sense of reality). But, there are various non socialist ideologies that all of whom lack real consciousness, from conservativism or liberalism, to fascism and Islamic extremism. They are not socialists, but they are different from each other. A dirty hippie smoker is not the same as a strict, fake, catholic Spainard who supports Franco. But they are both not socialists in this case.

"So if you're so good with the *history* of it all, why are you so *dismissive* of the group and its actual, anti-fascist *politics*?" Because a lot of people mix socialism with the Antifa. Anyone nowadays who claims to be a socialist is accused of belonging to the Antifa. The Antifa also promote social decay, ghetto shit, and trash. I would not want to share services with some messed up druggies who act annoying asf.

"Because I *don't want to*, not to you." Aww someone doesn't trust me? Well I guess you don't have any socialists in your background (I can sort of tell, unless if you're lying). You come from a middle class background?

"You make it sound like the term 'criminal' is absolute, uncontroversial, and fixed in meaning. Laws *change*, like alcohol prohibition -- it's a *political* thing, something that you're not grasping, ironically." Yes a criminal in a socialist society would not be the same as a criminal in a capitalist society. Merchants, drug lords, and prostitutes would be criminals in a socialist society, but not in a capitalist society. Prostitution is slavery. Merchants are scammers. And drug lords buy and sell like capitalist pigs.

"Socially, sure I'm 'progressive' within the current context of capitalist social norms, but ultimately, *politically*, these social norms need to be under the control of *workers*, as with workers tribunals." Yes this is mostly true. This proves that homosexuality and LGBTQ rights have nothing to do with socialism, since in a workers' ran socialist society, the workers would determine if LGBTQ is acceptable or not.

"You're blithely ignoring the *constructive* dynamic of *mass industrial machinery* -- if industrial agriculture can be done under workers control, requiring agricultural work from only 2% of the population (or less, potentially), providing the world with enough food for life and living, then where's the problem?" You would still need plumbers, HVAC technicians, truck drivers, factory workers, warehousers, delivery drivers, cooks, computer programmers, engineers, software designers, architects, computer maintenance, apartment maintenance, painters, roofers, electricians, doctors, dentists, physicians, psychologists, nurses, concrete pavers, machinists, Teachers, professors, scientists, paramedics, firefighters, cooks, cafe servers, custodians, packagers, and even carpenters. Not everyone is so skilled that they can do all of the talents of the occupations I just listed. Everyone has different abilities, talents, skills, and desires. You can't build a home, maintain ALL of the parts of it (HVAC, plumbing, electrician, roofing, or even painting (some people don't like to paint)), build and maintain a car, and perform surgery on yourself when you need to. No human has the ability to do ALL of those things. There's way more than agriculture that's needed to maintain the survival of humanity.

"And why should *any* society trust *your* judgments? What if someone declared that their own chosen efforts at digging up *coal* and using it for fuel for themselves should be socially accepted as 'work'? Who *decides* what's 'work' and what's not?" Buying and selling shit, banking, and merchandising are not "work."

All you're doing is being disparaging.

"Untrue, and this goes to show how inept and worthless you are with political issues, and policy." Woahh theree.

"Who gets to use a factory, displacing other claimants, and why?" People who have the ability to work in factories (not everyone likes to work in factories) and those who are best suited for factory work.

"As previously mentioned, my *own* model / approach *can* address this real-world situation, while you blather on about nothing, egomaniac." How am I an "egomaniac?"

"I didn't *say* that I *support* 'hyper-masculine hiphop', I said that such could not be *objected* to, as long as it doesn't advocate the harmful treatment of others, meaning women." Hip hop is a symbol of patriarchy and capitalism you shit.

[Stardust]

@Stardust, "Great job, Big efforts!" Yeah I know.

I am not a supporter of fascism, I am against fascism.

Well, prove it..!

A pure socialist society is a society where no one is ruled by another, currency, social hierarchy, borders within the socialist society, family, nor religion.

You're saying here, that in your suggested socialist society no one is ruled by another and the social hierarchy does not exist. But when you try to describe such society in more details (for example just a couple of days ago, replying to Ckaihatsu – as enclosed below) you proposed in clear wordings the existence of the social privileges for a part of the society you claim that will be contributing more effectively.

In case you haven't worked it out yet, privileges in a nascent socialist society (assuming that the society is at that stage) are the first slipping steps backwards towards a class based society; as opposed to the classless society it should be heading for.

You have also suggested on many occasions, the strict ruling of the society by a few, to the extent that for example those who are not Socialists should not be allowed to live in such society, or slacking has to be forbidden by the rule, and those who are capable, but do not contribute to the production process / work should be Punished with the hardest methods of punishments, including even deprivation from food…

Well, I can say clearly this is Not the description of a Socialist society. Call it whatever you’d like, but this is the impure, and muddiest version of Socialism I have ever heard of!

Each person can fully live their lives and choose their destinies and be free!

After all you’ve said about coercing, and dictating to people how they should and should not live their lives; please just explain exactly How they’re supposed to achieve the above theory..?

There is no medium of exchange. And the concept of value does not exist.

The removal of a medium of exchange is ideal, but there should be a plan on how that is going to be achived, in the real world.

The concept of Use Value will always exist, irrespective of what kind of society we live in. It is that aspect of the things we produce, that we would be looking for in a Socialist society, where there are no exchange values at work.

In pure socialism, no human is oppressed by another.

If "forced labour in labour camps, torture, then the death penalty" (See below, for your own exact statement), cannot be considered as oppression, then one should totally agree with you on this.

No one needs nurturement, and that people only use each other without the nurturement, since nurturement can cause oppression.

Please define the word ‘nurturement’, as it doesn’t seem to exist in the English vocabulary.

Religion can exist on a personal level. But at a public level, it must be destroyed.

Religion is not a material object that could simply be crushed and destroyed. If you’re suggesting that the public places of prayer should be turned into useful, practical institutions; such as science labs, educational centers, etc. and Religion as a subject of study should be removed from the educational courses and schools; I couldn’t agree with you more.

However, as I have already explained in my earlier post, religion (in the general term) could only be eliminated from the people’s beliefs system, when the need for that ‘opium’ is eliminated from society. This can only happen in the course of time…

For Reference:

Now, since I see that you're not-addressing my sample scenario, how would you potentially *enforce* your professed anti-slacker policy / politics? It sounds like you're not going to *withhold food* as a punishment, so what recourse *would* your administrative state have, for the sake of administrating?

Well I really didn't say that withholding food is my main punishment. The main administrative tactic that I support is forced labour in labour camps, torture, then the death penalty. There should be no prisons since this allows criminals to live for free, and not suffer true consequences (besides dealing with other prisoners via prison fights and gangs). Prisons are to not exist in my model.

You're down to an authoritarian Stalinist at best, but more-likely a fascist.

Only a socially liberal leaning anarchist would call me a "fascist." I am far from fascism. Fascism is oppressive. Fascism denies the liberation of the hearts.

People NEED to work. Unless if we can one day live off of AI robots, we humans need to work. Those who can work, but refuse to, needs to get punished. It's that simple.

* * *

By extension, what if *many* localities require steel for apartment buildings, but the immediate supply of steel from elsewhere is *insufficient* -- which locality / localities should receive the immediate supply of steel, and why?

Well, no material is valued over another. Steel has higher quality than plastic, but with the right engineering and education, buildings that are constructed with lesser quality materials such as plastic would last a long time, especially with proper maintenance and general care. So nothing is valued. But, to answer your question as of in terms of quality of material, areas with more talented and educated workers, such as doctors or dentists, would live in steel made homes, since they contribute to society's knowledge more than taxi drivers. Even though neither sides are valued more or less, since that creates social hierarchy.

Here, you’re proposing a social distinction and the privileges given to a part of society. You have also implicitly acknowledged the existence of ‘values’ – Steel being sturdier, therefore having a better use-value than plastic in the context of housing – Yet you insist that “nothing is valued”, and neither a “material is valued over another” and nor there will exist a “social hierarchy”.

Speaking of sarcasm…

@ckaihatsu, Well if you try to annoy conservatives, then they will go against socialism even more because they would dislike how you are around them personally. First impressions can be more convincing than you think. And I am not an anarchist, YOU are.

The problem with you SSDR is that you don't see the Classes behind the ideologies.

Why should a Socialist, Anarchist or anyone defending the interests of the working class care what a Conservative think about him..? S/he would only go as far as 'asserting' her or his views in the way s/he knows best. Conservatives by definition, have middle-class / capitalist backgrounds, defending the interests of the exploitative class. They wouldn't give a damn about what a Socialist think of them.
The opposing classes in a class-based society, are in an antagonistic opposition of the interests towards one another.

But you don't see these things, you don't look at the roots of the facts in society; because You are not a Socialist!

[blackjack21]

Questions:

1. How many of you who identify as socialist have sustained a head injury?
2. How many of you who identify as socialist do not identify as heterosexual?
3. How many of you who identify as socialist are left handed?