Going back to the basics

Friendly reminder that you should take to heart the three necessary conditions to determine what isn't Socialism. If you can't names these conditions by heart, you will not be able to establish Socialism without the internet. You should be able to go without a computer and internet for years, and as a hypothetical president you should be able to establish Socialism without even googling it.
The first condition established under Socialism is, most importantly, the nationalization of all industry and MOP, as well as infrastructure such as railways and airports.
The second condition established under Socialism is the abolition of usury, rent, fiat currency, and the presumed replacement of these things; the total abolition of rent and usury, and the replacement of fiat currency with either physically valuable coins or with labor credits - money tied either to direct value, or directly tied to the amount of labor performed by an individual. Labor currency must not be transferrable.
The third condition established under Socialism is the democratization of the workplace and workers' self-management. This can be achieved using something similar to Cockshott's concept of CyberSocialism or through a system such as Project CyberSyn in Chile under Allende. Production must not be restricted by what is or is not "profitable", and must be performed to fit the needs of the nation and its people.
If you can't name these necessary determining factors off the top of your head in describing Socialism, you have some more reading to do. Furthermore, you should be able to name these things in debate. There are far too many people misconstruing Socialism as nonsensical situations where the government does a whole lot of stuff in the economy, or when there is an all-female main cast for a Ghostbusters film. We must dispel this through simplicity - simply name the necessary factors to determine Socialism and explain them thoroughly. That is all that is necessary. Race, gender, and bureaucracy are not things that represent Socialist economic principles, and it is up to each and every one of you to ensure that the stupid fucks that think that they are should be called out for being so ignorant. In fact, you should be able to name these economic principles as well as resort to name-calling and threats of violence. Violence and insults are all our enemy understands, after all. What is most important is that the meaning of Socialism should be abundantly clear to everyone. That is our primary goal, right now.

Attached: qaddaficomputer.jpg (447x329, 22.79K)

Attached: 6d8bd56f4071f1e8b9bd6bdae174e8e2fda34bd6b51c3306e757a866434d573a.jpg (500x1103, 59.48K)


How do you want to organise worker ownership and how is it juxtaposed to state ownership?

Actually, i want us all to partake in an exercize ITT to ensure that each and every one of you can simply and accurately describe a Socialist economy.
I want everyone who posts ITT to name the three necessary conditions of Socialism before you post anything else.
Before you post anything else, type these three things in, and if you don't want to type these three things in explain why not.

Attached: millenialskillingxyz.jpg (768x1024, 158.03K)

I don't care about """socialism""", I care about communism which means the ABOLITION of the economy.

Attached: 4c65189c5345a5c61876e2fac929bf22288c0736.jpg (852x1024, 122.07K)



Yeah, explain how to achieve it simply and clearly.

Do you know how to do it or are you just sloganeering? Let's focus on how to establish socialism without reverting behind the Bronze Age first, okay?


Why would you want a means of exchange that has use value? Don't you realise that such a commodity would be under greater economic speculation and embezzlement than "useless" fiat currency? It also means you would waste labour and resources in creating these trinkets that are meant to be represent an abstract form of labour but now represent labour and a scarce commodity that ought to otherwise be allocated elsewhere, not to mention that this activity would make the commodity even more scarce.

6/10 bait
Smart of you to sneak in nationalization at the beginning
Red herring with the abolition of money is a good touch
Ending paragraph really ties it together, should be enough to keep most anons busy replying

Marx advocated nationalisation too.

Feel free to provide a quote

Communist Manifesto

Universal, unlimited access to the articles of consumption.

So, the two necessary conditions then?

How does that entail the abolition of economic organisation?

Do you know what a quote is?
Also, how about something written by a person who had turned 30?

Nationalisation isn't inherentily neccessary, although in practice it might be; this would simply be due other requirements of a socialist system and not the treatment of nationalisation as a end in its self.
Similarily to nationalisation, a abolishment of fiat currency, and usury isn't strictly neccessary for the establishment of socialism but helpful to the extent to which is helps resolve other goals. Rent can continue quite easily in socialism while using Riccardo's fomulations, that is that rent is a price paid do to decreased cost of production in a area which seperates the value of a hours labor from that of the socially neccessary labor time for producing a product beyond that of what skill or tallent would do otherwise.
Cockshott neither propose a system of work's self management nor rejects one. CyberSyn wasn't a system of worker self management but rather a way to reduce delay in reaction to problems low in the chain of production.
I'm not sure why profitable is in quotes here, are you doubting that industries having varying organic compositions of capital? Perhaps what you mean by this statement is that certain neccessities should be provided by the state such as food, healthcare, education, and other staples of social democracy. To some extent this might be neccessary inorder to seperate wages from the labor invested in a individual, but other than this does not seem vital in a society where individuals earn the full value of their labor (minus some fee for the reproduction of the means of production).

So what is the real rule?
Workers are entitled to the full value of their labor minus any cost of the reproduction & extention of the means of production (and of further workers if students are provided with wages, healthcare is provided, etc).
The socialist mode of production is the only thing that defines socialism. To the extent to which individuals give according to their ability and receive according to their contribution is all that matters.

Sorry about the quality of the writing in this post, I'm very hungry.

nazbols were a mistake and im glad gaddafi is dead

Attached: 0851b5595ec0c6cfe4b636d6826d8a5d267300b81b6e8bb26cd6c50d526dad28.jpg (2339x1378, 178.45K)

'>I don't care about """socialism""", I care about communism which means the ABOLITION of the economy.

The Bronze Age was when the economy started:( Cuneiform) writing started as an accounting practice, when priests in Mesopotamia couldn't keep track of grain surpluses in their heads.

We'll have to revert to something new, FALC!

1. democratic ownership of the memes of production
2. abolition of commodity production for profit
3. production for need

is this correct
srry engels is not my first

It ain't about what you what, socialism is an inevitability.in the March of History.

Hello person who has only seen Richard D Wolff

Periphery Nationalism against Imperialism is critical towards the establishment of socialism in the West

No one calls themselves a left com. Also Bordiga, Luxemburg, and Pannekoek are all opposed to each other

Attached: proudhon-d.jpg (350x402, 61.5K)

Nah, I'm apposed to markets, I like Cockshott style planning and workers councils.

"Socialism" is an umbrella term, it refers to several political traditions. You can't understand it by having a rigid set of necessary or sufficient conditions, and that goes for as well.