Message from @εïз irma εïз
Discord ID: 486245816495898645
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.
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.
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.