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.

There was an exchange where he gave up the entirety of his labor without a capitalist as a medium.

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.

Yes lets ignore all of biology and merit because retards deserve the same vote as 200 IQ mega geniuses

If you can't accept some people are better than others in every way then you deny reality

you can't be better than someone ontologically

and what's wrong with a little slave morality

Because it is resentiment of what makes humans strong and progress, rather than morality based on reality.

When you are by all means more qualified to speak on an issue you deserve the authority to overtake the opinion of someone with zero merit in the subject

sure

That is anti-egalitarian

They have been treated differently

They now have a right or opportunity above the pleb with no knowledge or authority

thats a good thing

well what do you mean by overtake?

I think reducing egalitarianism to everybody has equal merit is disingenuous.

yeah not everyone is equally as good at everything