One Degree wrote:
We are both discussing changes to the way the world operates. My version also has been an accepted socialist model. If you have local autonomy (community ownership), you can enforce any rule you want. If you want to end the worst of capitalism, then end outside ownership. Outside ownership (control) is just as damaging under socialism as it is capitalism. The people must accept a way of thinking and then they can achieve socialism in many varieties. It, like all ideologies, relies on individuals thoughts, not the logic.
Would this  be *moneyless*?
If not, then capital would continue to behave as capital does, and would be 'inter-communal', seeking the lowest prices wherever and the highest returns, wherever. Such arbitrage-type functioning would *not* be socialism.
If it *is* moneyless, then *how* would these various communes conduct inter-communal trade? Without money, things could simply be *bartered*, which is *implicitly* using exchange-values, almost the same as if money *did* exist, because one commune could play-the-market and hold off on making a deal with other communes, to wait for a higher 'price' (larger basket of goods in trade) to be paid by some other commune.
Would 'inside ownership'  be based on real estate? If so then you have the dynamic of *financial speculation*, which is also not-socialist.
One Degree wrote:
Maybe I can demonstrate my view this way. You may have an architect (Idealist)draw up the plans for your house, but it is the carpenter (realist) who points out what won’t work or what will work better. To insist an ideology be accepted as reality internationally, without input from on the ground local practical application is foolish. The international should evolve from the local, or not, depending upon the local experiments.
Well, I do agree with this principle, and I've said as much to SSDR, often.
If the 'blueprint' is the 'ideology', and the 'carpenter' is the 'laborer', then it follows that *all* carpenters / workers should be the ultimate determiners of how the 'blueprint' / 'ideology' is to be interpreted and implemented, worldwide, which *is* socialism.
(On a side note, I'll point out that my own 'labor credits' framework model is *not* a 'blueprint', because it's a *framework*, of *components*, and is *not* set-in-stone with any specifics, since that's impossible in advance of actual real-world social conditions. The workers at the time of upheaval would be the ones to nail-down specifics, into something more like a 'blueprint'.)
Zionist Nationalist wrote:
the economy and consumption culture as we know it cannot sustain itself in a socialist society
Actually I think that this is a widespread common *misconception* -- people usually forget (and are not reminded by the corporate media) that modern society uses *machinery* to achieve very high levels of *leveraged* human labor efforts.
Here's a quick outline from my favorite essay:
Up to the present, man has been, to a certain extent, the slave of machinery, and there is something tragic in the fact that as soon as man had invented a machine to do his work he began to starve. This, however, is, of course, the result of our property system and our system of competition. One man owns a machine which does the work of five hundred men. Five hundred men are, in consequence, thrown out of employment, and, having no work to do, become hungry and take to thieving. The one man secures the produce of the machine and keeps it, and has five hundred times as much as he should have, and probably, which is of much more importance, a great deal more than he really wants. Were that machine the property of all, every one would benefit by it. It would be an immense advantage to the community. All unintellectual labour, all monotonous, dull labour, all labour that deals with dreadful things, and involves unpleasant conditions, must be done by machinery. Machinery must work for us in coal mines, and do all sanitary services, and be the stoker of steamers, and clean the streets, and run messages on wet days, and do anything that is tedious or distressing. At present machinery competes against man. Under proper conditions machinery will serve man. There is no doubt at all that this is the future of machinery, and just as trees grow while the country gentleman is asleep, so while Humanity will be amusing itself, or enjoying cultivated leisure – which, and not labour, is the aim of man – or making beautiful things, or reading beautiful things, or simply contemplating the world with admiration and delight, machinery will be doing all the necessary and unpleasant work. The fact is, that civilisation requires slaves. The Greeks were quite right there. Unless there are slaves to do the ugly, horrible, uninteresting work, culture and contemplation become almost impossible. Human slavery is wrong, insecure, and demoralising. On mechanical slavery, on the slavery of the machine, the future of the world depends.
https://www.marxists.org/reference/arch ... /soul-man/
So my point with all of this is that capitalism's 'consumer culture' should serve as a *minimum benchmark* for future socialist- and communist-type social organization of socially necessary production. A proletarian revolution should be able to *out-organize* capitalism's woeful anarchy over social production, and then also make technological *improvements* to how social production is done, fitting it to the nascent *collectivized* organization by the workers of the world, ultimately for *full automation* so that collectivized machinery fully benefits everyone, with *zero* further human-labor inputs, like that for a 3D printer or driverless car today.
This trajectory is in stark contrast to your own proposed *austerity* mindset, which would erroneously use the backward technological state of Russia from 100 years ago as the template for our socialist-revolutionary politics and future-vision of today. *Of course* a socialist-collectivist organization of social production would inherently have *greater material productivity* than capitalism does today, using wage-slavery, per capita. *Of course* it could provide a greater standard of living for all, ultimately, through much greater efficiencies of production, and collectivist-type planning, in advance, with zero speculative-based waste.
@ckaihatsu, I do think that the best system is a global socialist society (that is lead by the Germans because the Germans have the best culture and the most efficient values, rather than this Americana shit). But, that doesn't need to exist in order to categorize socialist countries such as the DDR 'socialist.'
I don't want to rape my own mom while doing graffiti, again you're twisting words. You honestly think that capitalism motivates people into raping and doing graffiti?
SSDR, I'm no longer interested in your redundant statements of political *opinion* -- you sound increasingly *desperate*, when I've already thoroughly *responded* to your various misconceptions and misconceptualizations, and pettiness / pseudo-individualization.
What makes you think that my politics won't have social services for the mentally ill? What causes mental illness is abuse, so the abusers would need to get punished. Child abusers, social worker abusers, care giver abusers, and criminals cause their victims to be mentally ill, so they would get punished.
This should have been your political position *upfront*, initially.
"Yes, you are." You're twisting words again.
I am not a Stalinist. I am a socialist, and yes Stalin was also a socialist. Fascists can be socialists (Nazis were not socialists). And I am against Nazism.
No, Stalinism is not socialism, fascists are not socialists, and neither are Nazis.
Technology does not have to be fully automated in order for socialism to exist.
But full-automation is the ultimate *goal* of a workers-collectivized, socialist- / communist-type society, since that would mean no further liberated-work inputs would be required for the common receipt of the fruits of fully-automated production, for human / humane need (and wants).
No, all graffiti and rape should be banned.
Just because you state your opinions doesn't mean that you're correct. If technology is not fully automated, then everyone who does have the ability to work needs to work.
This is *idealism*, since you're presumptuous enough to prescribe social policy in advance of actual real-world social conditions for the same.
Perhaps an international show of solidarity from the world's workers happens to be enough for the capitalist ruling class to back-down and surrender immediately -- a 'best-case' scenario. In *that* case, there would be no need for military labor, for physical battles against armed supporters of the bourgeoisie, and any conceivable workers-state 'all-must-work' policy would then be *moralistic*, idealist, and overly prescriptive in the context of highly proletarian-favorable class-struggle conditions. So any work policy would be *very* dependent on actual prevailing real-world conditions of class struggle.
"but maybe only 2% of *any* population, in any industry, would need to work to produce sufficiently for everyone else." WOW GUYS DON'T DO DRUGS. This really tells me a lot about you. If 2 percent of the population works, then everyone would be super poor dumbass.
There are so many other occupations than agriculture, so that reply makes no sense.
Keep in mind that with theoretically-eventual *full automated production*, the percentage of liberated-workers necessary for sufficient socially-necessary production would be *zero* percent, for *any* industry.
You think that I am misguided because your politics are self destructive.
"Well, maybe you should just *ask* her first, then." What if a rapist doesn't want to ask? Or, what if a rapist asks and she says no and they still rape her?
You're too provocative and you're idealizing presumed conditions of crime, post-capitalism, without describing a sufficient social basis for such. That's why I call you an 'alarmist'.
"That's not for you to say. Besides, we're talking about *social policy* here, and not about me." That's very weak man. If that's your response then there is no way that you can get in a revolution and have bullets flying around your head.
You're not-understanding that I'm *not trying* to impress you. We have glaring discrepancies in our respective understandings of 'socialism', and I *disagree* with you on many definitions and premises for such.
"Keep dreaming, and keep it to yourself." Dreaming about reality? That makes no sense. You keep dreaming about positive vibes.
I am a socialist and I do support the working classes around the world (but not every single person lol).
No, you're not because up until this statement you've been touting state-collectivist / Stalinistic politics as being 'socialism', when it's *not*.
You like crime? Why are you defending rapists so much? You're just repeating your ridiculous, idealist opinions over and over.
*You're* the one obsessed with crime and criminalization.
"And just what do you *think* any one 'social norm' would even *be*, based on my model?" Twisting words.
Haha, mwawmahahaha you support the antifa! lol. Anyways, yes the Antifa would go against me because I am a socialists, and the Antifa would rebel against socialism. The antifa would rebel against the Soviet Union or the DDR.
You're forgetting that the *actual* real-world context for Antifa actions has been against fascists.
"Oh, well, tough shit. Go back inside your head, into your political fantasy-land of your own facile opinions." See you are an anarchist because that's how a typical anarchist would reply.
"And you don't support them, so that's that." No I don't support the Antifa, BUT YOU DO Haha.
*Of course* I support anti-fascist efforts, as from Antifa.
"Whatever. You're played-out because your politics aren't internally consistent, and you'd rather just spout facile opinions that I'm not interested in. Don't repeat yourself from here-on-out." Awwww, you don't want me to repeat myself lol.
I'm just saying, the best we can practically do today is to have socialism, or socialistic nations, that still compete/cooperate with each other on trade. Effectively capitalism between nation states. I don't really care about full socialism or full capitalism or whatever. It's what might practically work that matters to me.
What's your underlying *basis* for this assumption? You, like SSDR, are willing to *stop* revolutionary politics at the international level, and all based on what calculation / premise, exactly?
That's beside the point -- this isn't *populism*, to be catered to by a quasi-socialist politics. Either the international workers are *in control* of production, or they're not.
I guess I don't' care if they are in control or not, so long as they are treated well and allowed to prosper.
This is unclear -- 'treated well' by *whom*?
Yes, I was implying that because the markets certainly can't operate *without* a state. Consider the market crash of 2008-2009, when the U.S. government stepped in to bail out the bad debt. If it *hadn't* done that the markets would have remained unperforming, and capitalism would have mired deeper into a fatal crisis. (Not to mention militaristic imperialism for the geopolitical global order, etc.)
Are you saying what we have today is full capitalism? Obviously it's not. Just as we haven't seen pure/true communism, we haven't see true/pure capitalism. Frankly, I don't care.
My overall stance is that some sort of mixed system would be best.
And what is this *based* on? What would be better about a 'mixed system', and how would it theoretically operate, according to you?
One Degree wrote:
Geographic community. Any small town person will tell you the social divisions are almost nonexistent when the community is the primary point of reference. The unemployed, the laborer, the banker, and the landlord all socialize at the same bar, restaurant, football game etc. It is emphasis on community that destroys social class, not an obsolete workers versus landowners.
So your politics and vision is all for the sake of various types of people being able to *mingle* at a bar?
You need to realize that there's an entire *material world* (production, distribution) out there that you're apparently unable to address with your particular formulation of political economy.