Why would I repeat myself again?

@εïз irma εïз well perhaps I am confusing historic materialism with socialism, but that's no fault of my own as that is the philosophical roots of socialism

So you're confusing the problem with the solution.

Seems like a pretty big faux pas, and very much your fault.

"Redistribution of stuff" is not the end goal or Marxian socialism.

The inequitable distribution of stuff is a result of capitalism.

They're distinct ideas.

So whats the end goal, in your opinion

I'm not a Marxist, but Marx wanted a society where everyone is free to pursue their own interests.

And they maximize their productivity by doing what they enjoy.

Excess production is distributed to those who don't have.

That's why there is no need for a state or capital in communism.

Such nonsense theories

If rightoids really wanted to attack communism they should first actually understand it. Once you understand it instead of regurgitating boomer propaganda it's a million times easier to tear apart.

Socialism is not the solution to materialism, it was materialist in conception.

No one enjoys true labor

Historical materialism is a distinct concept from materialism.

Historical materialism is that material conditions result in stratification and exploitation.

Literally has nothing to do with materialism vs. spiritualism.

Leisure and providing for family is the only motivation for the sort of productive capacity marx describes

Oh ok, I wasn't familiar with that term

Communism is the progression of society beyond stratifying it to exploit labor top-down.

That is a core belief in socialist philosophy though.

Yes.

So how does taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people through tax schemes make the worker own their MOP?

For social democrats it is the distribution of capital, which is understood to be the means by which the wealthy oppress the poor.

The wealthy oppress the poor by controlling their MOP.

If the capitalist is still owning the MOP, how is the MOP socially owned?

Just such a simple worldview. It falls apart as soon as you include international trade and even local and regional competition

One needs capital to produce more wealth, so the social democrat seeks to free up the poor from oppression by providing them with minimum wage, welfare and social programs. That way they don't have to be enslaved through the capitalist system of oppression where all their capital is consumed in basic needs.

thats why so many communist theories rely on worldwide communism

It's not about wealth though. It's about controlling your MOP. The logical conclusion to your argument is that everyone should be a capitalist.

Which cannot happen in a capitalist system.

The capital is the means of production in the capitalist system

Holy fuck. No. It is not.

I have already told you it is not.

no, capital is store of value and exchange of value

in the sense you mean

productive capacity is what is really meant by capital

to marxists, afaik

I've already explained why it is logically the same.

its not, though

And your logic was deeply flawed. I explained why it was flawed.

Capital being translatable to owning a factory means that everyone with two cents to rub together is a capitalist. In theory they could buy a factory. In reality the distinction is arbitrary as it's only capital.

It is completely incorrect and illogical to equate capital with the MOP.

The means of production are directly translatable to capitol and only accessible with capitol

I have already explained, repeatedly and in detail, with examples, why you are very very wrong. I will not repeat myself.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money#Functions

this is the function of money

its different from whats referred to as capital

its easy to confuse them, though, because capital is used to refer to money in many different contexts

Neither money nor capital are translatable to ownership of the MOP.

Not in theory and definitely not in a welfare state.

money represents a fixed endowment of money, whereas productive capacity represents more like an income, or flows of money

cooperative MOP is a theory that doesnt make much sense, in my opinion

I'm a syndicalist and most leftists don't regard syndicalism or more colloquially a co-op as socialism.

well, its inherently anti-capitalist

and do you suggest that syndicalism could hold up against international competition?

or how do you propose to eliminate the threat of capitalist competition

Yeah, there's no reason why it wouldn't.

since it almost necessarily will be more efficient than your coops

Why would it be?

Co-ops are able to maintain profit margins comparable to capitalist enterprises.

but why not just encourage co-ops within the market economy, then?

if its so competitive?

Because I am also opposed to liberal democracy.

The revolution would overthrow the liberal regime as well as standardize syndicates as the mode of production.

Syndicalism is just a secondary priority.

but thats a different thing. Social structure, economy and government are 3 arenas that dont have to overlap, necessarily

thought many like to lump them together in certain ways

Yeah, the revolution would reorganize society on syndicate lines.

and how would the government run. Authoritarian totalitarianism?

Absolutely.

I am probably closest to falangism.

falangism before he declared his ideology to be compatible with capitalism?

Who is "he"?

Hopefully not Franco.

Franco was not a falangist.

Falangism is anti-communist, anti-democratic and anti-liberal;[3][4] under Franco, the Falange abandoned its original anti-capitalist tendencies, declaring the ideology to be fully compatible with capitalism.[5]

Yeah, Franco was not a falangist. He merged the reactionary elements of the civil war with the falangist elements, and destroyed the latter.

idk, i dont intuitively understand how a syndicalist country would treat international trade and competition

it seems like it would have to have a mercantilist trade structure

Co-ops can compete with capitalist enterprises no problem, it would function the same.

But I am for protectionism and the establishment of free trade blocs.

isnt it a contradiction, though? you advocate for authoritarian totalitarianism at the federal level but think that cooperative decision making is an efficient leadership style at the corporate level

I care more about wage negotiation than workplace democracy.

I'm not entirely sure workplace democracy actually works. I'm very skeptical.

But Mondragon has worked out wage negotiation very well.

idk, ive just seen so many unions lead to factory shut-downs. Its an understatement to say im skeptical about such measures to protect jobs in a market economy

and really in my opinion doesnt help at all with the problems in social structure that are caused by capitalism and democracy

if anything i think more social stratification is the answer instead of less

more complexity, more social hierarchy, etc

The problem with a co-op is that wage negotiation results in more equitable distribution of wealth, so for the person starting the company there's nothing to be gained.

right, and thusly stifles investment and development

Not if a revolution standardizes it as the mode of production.

Co-ops are very successful. In Spain they do very well while the rest of the country is doing terrible.

totalitarians have historically done poorly assessing the changes to demand in a market economy

usually there will be mal-investment in one sector or another

The state is not making investments, it's standardizing companies as syndicates.

but this is two different things. Co-ops in a market economy which are still subject to market forces, and government required co-operative organization, with MOP directed from the top down