Zig Forumsfag who's trying to understand marxism here

In addition to what other Anons have said, you should read Marx’s Critique of the Gotha Program. It’s fairly short and addresses this exact issue, ie of how communism must be reached via a socialist state.

no, you have to build up the material conditions and make the transition to a stateless moneyless society. that shit doesn't happen with the click of a finger.

thanks for the recommendation

A labor voucher is a non-transferable credit representing the value of an individual's work, while money is a transferable entity that is used as the middleman for almost all transactions in a capitalist society as opposed to bartering everything (there is also money in feudalism and slave society but in a less potent way than under capitalism).

Attached: 8103e6a46eb1a96e3bdd14ee769bf205f24bd59c20a419e214998f54aec7c1eb.jpg (752x635, 68.11K)

Moneyless? What will you have, bartering? Are you people fucking retards or what? Destroying an economy's efficiency doesn't remove greed, shitwitted slapfucked retards, and having a stateless state will only work until the first foreign army shows up to take whatever pathetic means you scraped together in your impotent faggot country

have you not read the thread at all? have you read any marx?

I read the first three comments in the thread and realized the world was hopeless. Why the fuck would I read marx? Is he going to explain somehow you can change human nature by writing rules in a book?

Attached: sjgbvskhvb.PNG (265x476, 355.22K)

...

Attached: 3f93466208151e53812d468f303bebfe489a5812a014b90afc5c2e8760467a77.jpg (500x375, 37.92K)

Considering technology. We may have a universal e-credit that will keep track of all social and economic transactions

You have nothing to say because even you don't understand wtf a 'stateless state' is supposed to mean.

and let me guess, you watched a few youtube videos on why marx was a jew who hated white people and now you understand everything. i've been studying this left wing shit for a while now, and while i don't agree with everything, at least i have a good understanding (or a better understanding at least) of why these people believe the things they do. say what you want about karl marx, marxism, communism, etc but it's an ideology that has a lot of theory to unpack and try to understand. you honestly remind me of reddit atheists who think they're the shit because they watched a richard dawkins speech while disregarding the 2000 years of theology that has been put forth since christianity started being a thing.

keep pushing people to the left, fuckhead

Attached: followyourleader2.png (357x309, 79.7K)

… that's money, dipshit. The US dollar is a fiat currency - it's literally paper that represents credit. Numbers on a screen representing credit is the exact same thing in a different medium. It's fucking money. retard

sounds like that e-money fiat currency shit the US uses now

Let me propose something crazy: by reading Marx you can understand capitalism.

It's not called Das Kapital for nothing. It's largely about capitalism (the nature of profit, investment, business, labor…) rather than the alternative. The work's major influences include such staunch communists as Adam Smith.

None of you can make a good point, or a real discusison of any kind. It's only "read marx and youll understand". You're sycophants and you only understand authority.

...

...

I love books, just not ones written by actual retards

Lol you haven’t made a point to even discuss. You just said “everyone here is a poop head DEBATE ME!!!”

Prove you aren't a poop head.

and how do you know that he's a retard if you've never read what he's had to say?

so you haven't read any marx. Don't have any actual concrete rebuttals to his theories, arguments or at least his anti-capital criticisms.
Yet you think he is the retard.

Fair enough. Which book of his should I read, if you had to choose 1?

the communist manifesto and das kapital for starters

We probably aren't going to be using labor vouchers anytime soon so A universalist credit system would be the next logical step for capitalist society

I said 1, cunt. I'll read the communist manifesto. I'll even report back to /leftypaul/ after I'm done.

Don't read the communist manifesto if you are going to read just 1.
Read Das Kapital it provides a better coverage of critiques of Capitalism.

I'm not a capitalist really, but I'll start there if you're sure that's best

Best wishes user

I mean kinda?

tldr

no one in this circlejerk can really tell and just makes
exuses then they forward you to read shit for no reasons provided they wont and cont answer any your important questions just to buy time

Maybe consider the lack of quality engagement based on the fact that you walk in here pretending to be well-intended, get basic questions answered with basic, short answers, but then for some reason get a stroke and poop your pants but complain that nobody wants to change your diapers.

This is what happens every single time you try to engage with them. They can't explain their opinions because even they don't understand them. I'm only reading marx so I can say 'yes' when they say "hurr did u even read marx"

...

Greed is human nature, fuckwit. And currency is necessary for a complex economy.
This is what I'm talking about. I don't know why i'm going to waste time reading fuckwit jesus' material when it's obvious they aren't going to contain anything worth reading.

You fucking retard, people have been giving you answers themselves, it's you who claim you debunked the insane strawmen you built up for Marx, we don't have to talk about Marx but if you claim you "debunked" him you ought to at least have read a short pamphlet of him or the fucking Wikipedia article about Marxism for fucks sake

Answer me a single question you knucklehead, and I won't forward you to Marx, I promise. Go ahead.

Okay, good. Do you think it's possible to have a country with perfect equality?

Yes, greed you dumbfuck, do you know how labour vouchers work? It rewards you for your labour, which allows you to acquire goods. Funny huh, almost sounds like a system incentivising you to work.

Congratulations, you've described money. You absolute subhuman.

What the fuck does 'perfect equality' mean? Do you mean mathematical equality? Legal equality? Economic equality?
Politics is a bit more complicated than aphorisms.

You have a 5 year old's understanding of currency, lol.

Explain briefly how labour vouchers are different than fiat currency

You gotta define what you mean by equality but assuming you are referring to equality of outcome in literally everything: No, of course not.

What communists want, in communism, is socialized access to production, where the means of production are owned in common. Like, you can go to the ice cream factory and press a button and produce the ice cream yourself.

Do you have any idea how retarded you sound? That's not even how things work. There's no ice cream factory in my city. I have to drive 2 towns over to get some ice cream? Or maybe, just maybe, they could have a store, and i could give them currency in exchange for ice cream. That might just work a little better.

Money is exchanged and accumulated, labour vouchers aren't. Capitalism works - very generally - in what Marx calls the MCM' cycle: I use my money to accumulate capital (M), which gives me the opportunity to produce commodities (C) through which sale I get a profit (M') which then allows me to expand and accumulate more capital, and so forth.

In socialism however, exchange is replaced by distribution. You receive a labour vouchers for hours of work, which you can't give to another person, and which is then destroyed if you spend it on a good. Think of credits in a video game.

fucking maotists i swear

You've just activated my Cuck Philosophy card
youtube.com/watch?v=pzQZ_NDEzVo

What's to stop me from giving it to another person? And aside from being slightly less efficient, what real changes does this make to the system? I can't invest?

Just read Lenin's reply to Tugan-Baranovsky on the notion of equality instead, smh
marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1914/mar/11.htm

I was obviously trying to simplify things. Obviously I was also describing full communism, which would require things like overcoming the dichotomy between city and countryside, and create different ways of communal life. Obviously this would all require a long period of socialsim of fundamental social and material change. In socialism, goods are distributed according to labour, which is a meritocracy, and then in communism they are distributed according to need

The fact of the matter is that the vast amount of goods produced in capitalism are being produced because they made a profit, not because there is a demand. And secondly, they are overproduced yet withheld from the people through the artificial barrier of private property. That's why you have more empty apartments in a city than homeless people.

It's literally what Marx describes as communism idiot

In the famous ice cream factory section of volume 2 i bet.
Production for need does not mean individualised production and socialised production does not mean free access, short of public 3d printers.

Idk, how does your bank prevent your credit card being used by another person? Don't play dumb.
The entire cycle of capital accumulation would be annulled and a different form of social organisation would take place.
No. You can invest your brain and muscle power into something you like but not money.

What does that even mean?
It's not an 'artificial' concept to own something because you made it or earned it. You people are like niggers, you want gibs you didn't earn.

Thanks for making me want to read das kapital even less than I already do. I shouldn't have agreed to it.

Yes because Marx's famous example of a fisherman and a book critique applies to explaining basic shit to Zig Forumsyps and normies.
I didn't mean individualized production, I was giving an example for someone who is obviously totally ignorant of Marx, but if you think communism isn't all barriers to production broken down you have no idea what communism means for Marx. And no, by that I don't mean pissing all over the factory floor

money is a medium of exchange and has value
labor vouchers are a means of measurement and aren't transferable

My dear fuckwit, you said they were vouchers.
That's vague enough, isn't it? More idiotic vagary with nothing of substance. I'm real excited to read marx after this conversation.
… So material wealth, the ending point of money. You really don't understand what drives human greed, do you? None of these things are improvements.

it absolutely is. it needs the state to reinforce it through coercion
like clockwork

also aren't you the same people who think trump is going to give you a free house and wife for having the correct amount of melanin content or whatever

clearly that's james bond

so last night i 007 burger your sister

The endgoal of communism is economic co-operation replacing competition, with common property superseding private. Don't let anyone else muddle this definition by wording it in their own special snowflake way.

And the answer to your question is no because the CCCP didn't have the ability to totally abolish their property relations alone. Read Principles of Communism & Economic Problems of Socialism (take this one with a grain of salt)

It would mean that division of labour between areas of production that were created due to the Neolithic Revolution (agriculture) will be overcome. Sure there will be more and less populated areas, village communes and urban areas, but the productive relations between cities and countryside won't exist anymore (as in like: One produces food, one produces tech for example).
The bourgeoisie were the original niggers when they had the state privatise communal land and means of production into their hands by the enclosure of commons:
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enclosure
It is important to know we are not taking about your personal property (toothbrush), nor about some lumberjack who just built his own barn, but about means of production that are built and maintained by the working class for a few corporate owners - aren't you a Nazi? Shouldn't you want to expropriate Jews? Why is that okay but expropriating all the bourgeoisie is not okay?
He doesn't talk about communism in Kapital.

yeah, there weren't many computers around in the 1820's, which is when the labour vouchers got their names.
call it digital labour vouchers if you want.
no it isn't, how can you accumulate money when there's none?
you'd have to accumulate wealth in the form of commodities, in which case the exploitation through extraction of surplus value wouldn't be hidden to the common eyes anymore, and I highly doubt that if you take the insidious aspect of capitalism away people will just be fine with it.
what are you talking about?

Marx and Engels saw the growing division between the ugly, dirty cities where workers lived in terrible conditions that were developing on the one hand and the backwards countryside where the peasantry were devoid of educations and facilities as harmful and that it needs to be overcome.
A long-term goal of the socialist transformation of society is the gradual erasure of both the urban city, which has developed solely as a way by capital to concentrate proles into a tightly packed, inhuman infrastructure and utilise them as mere instruments of production, and the rural countryside.
The end goal is for everyone to be able to live in phalansterie like small communities where everyone knows eachother based on mixed agriculture and compact industry made available by technological development. Marx would be inspired by the sort of sophisticated production we're growing capable of now.
That's not what 'private property' means in economic jargon, which is what we're discussing. 'Private property' refers to constant capital, not 'things you own' which are referred to in economics as 'possessions' or 'personal property' fyi

My point was controls to make things not transferable already exist and have existed since the middle ages (wax seal).
It's a short answers I can give on an image board to a question that was made in bad faith. If you don't know what capital accumulation is I can't help you.
Why is it the ending point of money? More like the other way around. Money is paper and arises when things are exchanged as a substitute for exchange value. In socialism goods will be measured in-kind, and not by exchange value.

Attached: when the bourgeois pigs.png (640x656, 96.76K)

don't flatter this guy into thinking his faggotcoin mine means he's the bourgeois

Top kek

Every time, screencapped.

...

I'm still trying to figure out what this is saying.

Such vouchers would have no usury.

I pierced your sister's buns

That's a stretch, when was the last time you called a burger with meat and lettuce on "buns"

I was thinking bound and gagged, but it could just be that this is an abstract sort of thing.

why are people even engaging this retard ? he want to debate marxism without knowing what its about, and demand to be spoonfed in order to spit the lunch back in your eye without even trying to taste it. he hasnt made a single coherent point in that thread except 'ur nuggers lol'. i know we love taking baits here, but its not even bait tier, just shitflinging

I would favor a system with fewer labor vouchers but where the basics of life are a given. There would be two kinds of stores , the first kind would be a no frills supermarket that issued everyone with a weekly ration of basic vegetables and bread and one or two serves of meat, as well as basic goods and all you would need to get this is a valid ID card, and the second type of store would sell more luxurious products that would need labor vouchers to buy.

This way there would be a basic social safety net with the first tier of basic rations and goods and the second paid tier would be an incentive to engage with society.

The safety net is a necessity to ensure civilian morale remains high by taking care of the disabled and sick, as well as the very young and the very old who can not work. Parasites who will not work are a whole other story and they should be reeducated and punished if they are found to be incorrigibly workshy.