Socialism is when everyone says "gib me dat"

Point is, you're confusing MOP which in a socialist system must be *controlled by* the workers. It says nothing about capital being translated from the result of production. That is completely irrelevant. It's literally about the workers directly controlling the MOP.

Government redistribution is not fair trade

This is just a bad false equivalency meant to make Bernie into a communist.

Who cares if it's fair trade? I'm not a socialist, it's irrelevant if I think it's fair or not.

I'm just explaining how socialists think.

The only way for social programs to be socialist is if the proletariat took over the government and established a dictatorship of the proletariat, in which case it would barely be recognizable as a welfare state.

When the people enacting social programs are a ruling class, not the workers, how is it socialist?

This is a direct contravention of the meaning of the word.

@εïз irma εïз if the mop are collectively owned then if it were to be sold each person would receive a partial amount of the amount it was sold for. Even then, the distribution of capital has been distributed. If they pool their capital to buy more mop they now all collectively own it again. You cannot separate mop from capital.

How are they "buying more MOP"? This would just turn them into a capitalist. Socialism is collective ownership, not redistribution of wealth.

Socialism is wholly incompatible with a capitalist welfare state on a foundation level.

The Nordic Model isn't socialist, Nords have said so themself.

Nords are also moving away from social programs

That doesn't actually change anything though.

The Nordic Model is a system that's been around for a few decades, they said the Nordic Model isn't socialist.

Even the "socialist" parties people talk about are self-labeled as social democrats.

Democratic socialist is a meaningless populist term.

@εïз irma εïз anything can be used as currency, the workers could trade their mop for corn and then trade the corn again for some other mop

But corn isn't MOP. <:HyperLmao:459545665517780993>

For a farmer it is

The farm that makes the corn is the MOP. If you buy a farm you become a capitalist.

No, it isn't.

Corn isn't MOP for a farmer, the farm is the MOP for the farmer.

The farm and the corn

No, just the farm. Only the farm is the MOP.

Means. Of. Production. What is involved in production.

That could be a factory or a farm.

Whomever controls the farm of the factory as an individual is, according to socialist theory, a capitalist.

If the farm is collectively owned, then it is socially owned, it is socialist.

That was the philosophical foundation for collective farms in the USSR.

They were doled out by the state which was nominally a dictatorship of the proletariat.

Anon you know it's unbecoming to passive-aggressively give me the libtard tag because I know more about something than you do.

I mean, I think I've been pretty clear I'm third position.

And clear in my distaste of liberals.

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.