Message from @εïз irma εïз
Discord ID: 486248742769655809
there should be a different tag for that
A farmer without seed cannot produce. The actor and the acted upon are interchangeable, logically speaking.
But they aren't interchangeable. You're being reductionist.
Thus the seed and the farm are means of production
Uhhhh. Sure. But then the individual owns the farm, and the individual is a capitalist.
It's not a socialist farm.
Presumably the farmer employs people.
If that farm was socially owned by everybody working there it would be socialist.
Same thing for a factory.
Maybe we should stick to a factory as an example so you can avoid sophistry.
the whole workers are entitled to their labor is such a dumb concept as you can trace it all the way back to the person who harvested the resources for the manufacturing
Because of fucking course the lumberjack is entitled to woodworking plant because he cut down the trees for them to use
Self-employed people already own their MOP. Why would a lumberjack own a factory? The people in the factory own the factory collectively.
Capitalism and socialism are byproducts of industrialization.
im talking about marxist ideology's idea of workers being entitled to their labor
Yeah, a lumberjack owns their labor. They cut down a tree and self it for themselves.
They aren't entitled to a factory's labor. The factoryworker in the factory is entitled to that labor.
No he owns the woodworking plant too as created the resources for them to use
It's his labor first and foremost
No, when he sells it to the factory for refinement as a raw resource it's no longer his.
Although Bordiga will tell you that's not real socialism because there's capital involved.
Marxism breaks down as even remotely logical past the state socialism stage.
>no state
thats a joke
It's what Marx wanted.
Correct
he wanted society to organize on confederate lines as communes, which is the root of communism.
Which is clearly an issue while imperalism and other states exist
Which is why socialism in one country is anti-Marxist.
Bukharin and Trotsky were true communists.
True, which is why it's great they failed
The Comintern was just an exercise of Soviet influence.
There's quite a serious reason why Ukraine and Catalonia failed compared to the USSR
it does matter when studying socialism tho to understand what you're talking about
you can't just say "it sucks"
Socialism is fine when it's not rooted in egalitarianism, marxism or complete redistribution of wealth
"both suck" isn't very informative
egalitarianism is the only part of socialism with any merit
>egalitarianism
Egalitarianism is slave morality.