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.
Going back to the basics
Bumpo
No, Collectivization.
Abolish all forms of renumeration
Yes.
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.
Capitalizing socialism is for losers stuck in the 19th century. And communism is the better word anyway. Socialism (and social democracy) is too refined and intellectual-sounding, communism is more working-class.
If you can't define it in one sentence, you've failed. Communism is just the replacement of competition in the economic sphere with association. It is abolishing private property in favor of common property. The total socialization of the economy. Ownership of all property by society as a whole. The nihilation of value. Use any of these short definitions as you like, they all mean the same thing. The first one is the best and most informative though.
Good enough.
How does exchange work immediately, practically? Serious question not a dismissal just an interested challenge
If the people don't own the means of production as an undivided whole (=total nationalization), but people at factory X own exactly that factory, then you will just replicate the capitalist oligopolistic market economy, even if you somehow manage to force everybody to barter instead of using money. Decentralization is an anarcho-liberal meme. It means the left hand doesn't know what the right hand is doing. Monopolistic suppliers are incentivized to under-supply things in order to improve their bargaining power, whether money exists or not.
Completely unworkable in the short run. For the long run, eeeh. I don't have a crystal ball, but I don't see that ever becoming feasible for everything. It has to be gradually reduced and you have to check what works and what doesn't, you can't make such a declaration in advance like you are doing here.
this. if one were to define socialism as "worker ownership of the MOP", you could conceivably end up with worker-owned cooperatives competing in a free market. The point is to abolish private property, not distribute it.
That is socialism though
...
...
Reducing socialism to a list of check marks is undialectical. Socialism is a historical epoch, which starts with the dictatorship of the proletariat and ends with the the withering away of class society. The conditions that OP states are not end goals or "socialism", but mesures that can be used to the abolishment of burgeoise power and exchange value, they are not socialism in itself. Reducing socialism to mere nationalization of the economy is a fundamental misanderstanding of the issue.
You can't have socialism with private property.
Stfu academic snowflake
...
That's like saying a concert ticket is foundational to capitalism. Like how would that even happen if whatever remuneration is used is non-transferable, can't be used for hiring labour, can't be used to control MOP and are only used for consumer goods?
Non-transferability kills the black market.
...
i don't get it. analog goods are inherently transferable