Can you guys give me any examples of identity politics from the left that excludes universalism in policies in favour...

At risk of taking this seriously, yes you could. As long as you worked harder in your occupation, to which you would receive a labour voucher equal to that work completed to use for purchasing goods.

If you work harder, more effectively or for longer hours than your neighbour, you will of course get more goods in return than him. That's just common sense. Communism doesn't mean that everyone gets the same amount of stuff regardless of effort in fact, that's just a retarded strawman from the right-wing. It's an incredibly pervasive straw-man, but it's a retarded strawman nonetheless. It means that you won't have some arrogant stockholders buying themselves yachts from the value created from your labour.

Then what's your fucking problem? quit crying and get to work.

if you're capable of doing more work, and/or work more efficiently then obviously yes. As long as you create more value you will be rewarded more. That's how it works in an ideal system, however you shitty neighbor will never starve, and won't be subjected to stuff like homelessness.

most people here already have jobs mate. Your view of "leftists are lazy because they just want to take stuff I worked hard for" is extrmely reductionist and it criminally oversimplifies what actual leftist believes. Read a book before attempting to educate people.

Attached: coolstory.png (1420x946, 1.24M)

Okay, so through working harder and/or longer hours I can gain more than if I work worse/fewer hours.
That's good!
What kind of things can I gain?
Can I gain means of production? If not why not?

No.
None of these are MoP

This depends for the different leftist definitions of "seizing the means of production", for marxist-leninists the workers would own them through the power of the state, for anarchists it would be self-management and for syndicalists it would be the work force of a factory for example that would democratically decide how to manage it.

Based on most socialist/socialist-oriented systems that have existed since the Paris commune, you could earn more money or some kind of labour vouchers which would allow you to consume more stuff. Also be promoted to some sort manager position perhaps.

No. At best you could become a manager of a workplace.

Collective ownership/control of means of production is literally what defines socialism*. If you could do that it wouldn't be socialism, really.

*(there are other more technical definitions that might be more accurate, but "collective ownership of MoP" is perfectly fine for this discussion.)

But I want a small lathe for myself. Why can I not get that, but I can get a lawnmower or a TV?

You are more than welcome to a lathe for all I care.

>But I want a small lathe for myself. Why can I not get that, but I can get a lawnmower or a TV?
You can. Bold text is the important part. What you can't do is employ wage workers to produce commodities that you then distribute and sell for a profit. (In reality, gray areas would most likely exist. Many socialist systems have allowed for some limited small private businesses to exist, often with co-operative structures instead of a regular worker-owner kind of thing.)

Ok so I can have a lathe and make stuff, cool!
Now I have some stuff that I know someone else could use. If anybody learns I have these things, do I have to give them up? I made them myself with my own lathe!

No. Personal property is fine, owning a factory for your own profit is not.

Private house, private toothbrush, private small garden where only you work on it and use it for your own gain, that's okay.

so this stuff that I made that somebody else used - I'm not allowed to sell it, am I?
So it's just sitting there, useless?
Why can I not make a voluntary exchange with somebody else, the fruits of my labor for some fruits of his labor?

Exchange would exist, employing wage workers wouldn't

So I have this lathe, and it's my own, obviously I'm not able to work on it 24/7
What incentive do I have to let somebody else use it in the meantime?

stop derailing the thread. read Adam Smith.

Most likely scenario is that absolutely no one would give a shit if you traded or sold your stuff to friends, neighbours, family, or whatever. It's not economically significant enough for anyone to care, and you're not exploiting anyone else's labour if you're doing the work yourself.

you fed them good potatoes

this is now our thread, there's no rail but this one
not my fault tor users cannot create threads

You'd be surprised, this is how small enterprises start in the capitalist world all the time.
Is "anyone willing to pay for my goods" included in the "whatever"?

THIS pls:
So I have this lathe, and it's my own, obviously I'm not able to work on it 24/7
What incentive do I have to let somebody else use it in the meantime?

Reparations for African Descendants of Slavery

Why do you even need the lathe to be operated 24/7? And are you implying that you need a profit incentive to let your neigbour or a family member use your lathe for his own needs?
Not even sure what you're even getting at, but if your ambition is to become a wealthy capitalist through renting out your lathe or hiring wage labourers to work the lathe for you, then obviously socialism isn't the right camp for you.

I'm poking at your ideology to see how you guys think the world should work

I'm not talking about letting my family or friends use it, I'm talking about letting someone else work on it
What incentive do I have to let him use my stuff for him to create goods for himself with it?

Be a good human being.

Do any actual leftists in the US support this though?

Attached: question-4802934809238023.jpg (466x236, 14.2K)

No, not in any significant fashion. What would you even pay them that they can't already get?
The point about "abolishing capitalism" isn't about making capitalism illegal, it's removing the conditions which allow for capitalism to exist in the first place and superceding it.
Ok
If it's your own personal lathe in your house? No reason really. But then again no one has to use your lathe to make stuff, they can just go to the public lathes or work in the publically owned factory.

There isn't unless the government is providing some kind of benefit to you for doing so, and he doesn't need to use your lathe in the first place to make what he wants. He can just get his own or work at a public factory.

What incentive do you have to share a meal with a friend? What incentive do you have to offer someone a cup of coffee? What incentive do people have to donate to charities?
People do these things to fit in, to create a feeling of reciprocity, or to just appear to be nice. Share your lathe or don't; why should we care? Socialism isn't about policing every single individual's every action.

Adding to this, I just want to emphasize that I really don't give a shit what you do with your lathe. I just want socialism before the scumbag capitalists ruin our planet and endangers our species.

Okay, I'm satisfied with this line of questioning - so far.

How much do I have to work to gain all I need to live? Is it based in time or based in productivity?
If it is time then how am I not a slave?

…Have you ever worked shifts? By your logic, every working man is a slave, and the distinction between socialism and capitalism in this regard becomes negligible. Unless I misunderstand your point somehow?

First off I notice you're not answering my question.
I actually work in shifts. And I make way more than I need to sustain myself. To simply sustain myself I would need to work very little, depending on my job - it is not actually based in time, but productivity.
Now you, please. Do I HAVE to spend x hours somewhere, no matter what I do, or do I have to fulfill x things, or a combination?

That will probably depend on the workplace, I guess? Different types of labour have different requirements and so forth. I don't 'get' what you're 'getting' at.

Is it not obvious? I want to know what someone in your ideal society has to do to earn himself everything he needs to live - as close to "exactly what" as possible.
Different jobs "pay" differently? They all pay the same?
What about people who don't want to work? Is "housework" considered the same as working in a factory?

Work, if they can. Are you asking me for how long in general? There is not a chance in hell that I'd be able to know that. However, we can expect average working days to be substantially shorter in socialism than in capitalism though, owing to the inherent overproduction of useless crap that's absolutely endemic in capitalism, and the huge wealth inequality capitalism results in.
With no planned obsolesence, sly advertising and a more quitable distribution of resources, the material needs of society will be far easier to fulfill, so the average Joe would probably work less for more than in today's system.

Yes.

If they can work but refuse to, they'll be penalized by receiving less goods. Capitalism works the same way in this regard, but you'd sooner end up starving on the streets in a capitalist society.

You can't expect to receive goods for just tidying your house. If your housework frees someone in your household to work more and thus earn more, then sure. How a family wants to distribute their resources is completely up to them, if you ask me.

who decides which work is worth how much?

In a socialist society? You can calculate it based on the demand for the job in question and the material benefit it provides to society. A minimum is guaranteed as to allow all jobs to, at the very least, sufficently provide for the person working them. This is simplified to a greater degree with cybernetic planning.

artists and musicians are obsolete? (no material benefit)

but that aside, that's … not answering the question. Who decides how much material benefit any given job gives? Who "calculates"? Who decides how much "need" is there for anything?

Music and arts would probably have a comunity focus. As an example your neighborhood can have an acting school or music school with instruments and courses available for thoses interested. Performers, bands plays and movies can be shared in comunity centers. More advanced and refined production can be done at unis by film clubs and etc. The possibilities are endless really.
The same goes for the lathe you praised so much instead of having one you could gather some people to make a metal workshop, or move to a comunity with an open factory/existing workshop. In this case you can expect a way better metalworking experience with courses, shared knowledge and possibly you don't even have to mantain the equipment if the workshop get's big enough and people decide that the shop should have it's own workforce.
If you ask me this is the ideal model for socialism. Increase automation so that work becomes a minor thing in society and let people focus on research and self development. Local comunity centers, workshops and clubs take care of all leisure activities people might want. In larger cities the institutions i mentioned before can even be associated with universities and have great levels of infrastructure merging the academic world and day to day life.

But this and all other answers you got are not set in stone versions of socialism, no one here can predict the future.

You don't need to be paid to do either of those things. Education can be provided, and if you have an occupation as a significant musician you could be provided for by the states during event and the such, but otherwise you can do such things on your free time. You're not getting a labour voucher for strumming your guitar in your room.
If we are talking about the USSR, this chapter from a USSR economics textbook should help
marxists.org/subject/economy/authors/pe/pe-ch33.htm
The USSR utilized Soviet-type planning (STP) and linear optimization for the most part.
If we are talking about cybernetic planning, then the pdf attached goes into detail. Read the first because its a short synopsis of Cockshott's model, then the second for a more in depth look. You can calculate the material benefit and the demand for a thing through data collection and cybernetics. If a job is needed more than others to fulfill the labour quota needed to fulfill demand, the wages in that job will go up proportionally. Need is first determined by the basic requirements needed for society to function (food, basic clothing, etc.) and then by consumer interest. Consumer items come second and Cockshott has whole thing on those.

soviet style as a positive example? hm no thank you

It worked generally for its time, but yes it ran into certain inefficiencies later on especially due to its continued use of currency as opposed to labour tokens/vouchers The inefficiencies could have been solved by the time of Brezhnev, but then they killed their developing cybernetics program due to other expenditures. I'm simply putting it for information purposes. Read the other pdf's for a better model.

Yeah fuck computers!

So you want an AI to govern you?
What about teachers (no material benefit), what about foreign trade?
Aren't you just trying to make supply and demand into formulaic computation, without individual choice?

If you weren't arguing in bad faith, the input into demand would be taken from the individual people as input information in order to allocate labour time to supply for this demand.

The economic planning is not AI, it is an infrastructure to facilitate the human society as efficiently as possible, so the result will be less work for everybody for the same demand.

It might elude you that an individual can choose to participate in collective effort, such thing is unheard of, after all everyone involved in collective effort must have been forced to, there is no other way.

we might disagree on what an AI is here, I just thought I would give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you're not giving all that power into the hands of PEOPLE, but rather an open source decision making machine

asking people what they think demand is… oof
again - how are you not trying to make the market laws of supply and demand into a formulaic computation? Why the need for that, why not just let people vote with their wallets?

If product A is running out of stock, produce more.
If product B is not being acquired produce less.
Algorithims help keep a healthy state of slight overproduction of goods that can have suden demand spikes.
Both of the cases can be researched and managed by a government production control aparatus with the help of advanced software. Companies already do this with reasonable eficiency. Under communism it would be even easier since you don't have to take competition a in to account and all production and consumption data goes to the same entity.

This a dumb capitalist fantasy that rarely happens, The market is manipulated in millions of ways, from propaganda to adictive substances. For "voting with the wallet" to have positive consequences it requires a level of rationality that humans don't have and that capitalism activelly repudiates (compulsive buying).
I honestly find it hilarious seeing capitalist teenagers say communism is impossible since people won't be able to have a minimal level of responsibility. But these same people expect gamers to stop buying from epic games store because they have "unhealthy business practicess".

you're barely scratching the surface of the topic I was asking about
who decides what work is worth how much?

I for one belive LTV should not be applied directly on communism, so there is no real value on work.
The ideal for me would be a guaranteed minimum for every single human regardless of work. This would include simple housing, food and basic leisure. Something similar to UBI.
Please note that this scenario considers we are maximizing automation and reducing production of shit like pic related. With this, the amount of work required to sustain a healthy humanity is drastically reduced. As a consequence working ceases to be the norm and becomes sort of a virtue.
Starting from here, if people who work feel like they need something extra, we can make some society contribution tiers that grant benefits for people who work or invest part of their life time in the betterment of society. Those benefits can be decided acording to availabilty of exclusive leisure activities and places with better living standards.
As an example a family vacation once or twice a year to a nice comfy place can probably be accessible to most workers.
Space travel or regular access to luxury foods might be restricted to PHD's and the like.
I can't go on specifics as a system like this needs to be implemented and debated along time so that people feel it is justified.

This is obviously a rather advanced form of communism (even though you could see seeds of something like this in the 50-60's USSR). Transition to this form of society would focus on the automation part and guaranteeing the base QOL as people who work in the jobs that would have more benefits already have a rather pleasant life nowdays.

Attached: 61emZgJsNcL._SL1002_.jpg (1002x1002, 104.43K)

The LTV is an analysis on capitalism so the rest of your post is meaningless.

i Know user , but this thread is full of people arguing on how labor should be valued or rewarded under socialism and there are honestly many ways to go about it.

All i'm doing is conciliating the fact that some forms of leisure have limited availability and some forms of work are more demanding.

You could solve this by making people with more demanding jobs have to work less than average (this does not solve the problem with the time it takes to form a professional but whattever). Bu in the end i think it's nice to have something to look forward to when serving humanity.

all politics is identity politics

infinite take

Only when dominated by right-wingers.