@koifish No

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left what’s the substantive difference between the government owning the means of production and the government redistributing profits gained by businesses using the means of production?

@koifish Taxation is nothing more than what the Capitalist class have to pay for the upkeep of society or the burden of it at the least e.g. government, social security, health funds, maintenance of roads etc.Although the working class are taxed as Marx pointed out workers are paid to their level of subsistence so the effect of taxation is negligible, whereas the wealthy spend vast sums on accountants to avoid paying.
Socialism on the other hand wouldn't have taxation as it is a moneyless system of society, all production will be for use as opposed to profit, no buying and selling or exchange

How's your day today comrade?

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left but there’s a difference between taxation out of necessity and massive totalitarian redistribution of wealth. We’ve distanced ourselves so far from limited government over the past century. If you’re working hard every day, why should you give a third or more of your income away so some illegal alien can get a federally funded public health plan in California?

And p well

@koifish there is no communist rule that all workers be paid the same thing. The theoretical principle at work is "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" or, rather, the idea that all people ought to contribute to society as best as they are able, and in return society will provide for them as best it can

Why would you be opposed to being paid for what you deserve ?

@koifish Good to hear you're doing well comrade

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left So what is the equivalent of taxation in the commune then?

Forced labor?

@Deleted User I support very high taxation on the rich, and feel that taxation on the poor should be reduced to the absolute minimum required after this to maintain public services for the time being whilst they are forced to operate within a cappie society.

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left Wait what? Didn't you say that you were against taxation as a whole? And if you just tax the wealthy, aren't you allowing for hierarchy to exist?

Sounds like a very socdem thing.

Oh

In a communist society?

Yes....

There would be no money, so there wouldn't be taxes. Communism is moneyless.

Then why did every communist country have money in that case?

Because they forgot the internationalist part of communism and couldn't establish a communist state as they were surrounded by capitalism

But the soviet union and china were very internationalist during the cold war, and made every attempt possible to spread communism.

May I remind you of vietnam, korea, afghanistan, cuba, africa, india, and greece?

USSR was isolationist for too long Stalin failed us

Trotsky would've likely handled the revolutions in Spain and elsewhere completely differently.

Stalin helped the republicans in spain too though.

Infact the only differentiating thing from stalin and the cold war politics of the USSR, was that stalin rarely funded uprisings, and rarely invaded to spread communism.

Would it not have been the case that with Trotsky's policy of the united front the different left wing factions could have allied to defeat the fascists during the Spanish civil war? From what I understand the infighting, caused by Stalin, was perhaps the largest cause of failure.

In numerous cases other than spain as well

I really hate to point fingers but that's the truth

And in reality, trotksy probably would have caused the union to collapse, due to his fanaticism that blinded him, and the probability that he would not have been able to solve the utter fucking mess that was the soviet political system that was tearing the country apart.
It is unlikely that trotsky could have won the spanish civil war, because the republicans, anarchists, and other factions hated each other, and it infamously led to the republicans disarming other groups and using their weapons for their cause, unless trotsky intervined directly, the civil war would have still been won by the fascists, and if he did intervene directly, then I doubt that hitler, or the league would have allowed it.

>US and USSR remain allies after WWII

>purge, killings never happen

.US sees no reason to see communism or socialism as evil; this plus the extra money available from the cold war never happening could have pushed the US to the left (but probably not to become communist any time within the 20th century)

>USSR still pushes to spread communism, but it is a very different communism from what we see in "communist" countries in our timeline and the US sees no reason to intervene at this time, allowing it to spread more freely without intervention from any major powers

-USSR caves into pressure to have a more democratic multiparty state, but does not dissolve the USSR

-The US and USSR are both better off fiscally, again since the spending on the cold war never happened

Lmao

Trotsky would've been worse than that paranoid psychopath I'm sure

Mhm

I completely agree Staln's purges were very good for communist PR

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left What? If WW2 started, it probably would have been because of trotsky and his attempts to spread communism, that would lead to the league or hitler responding violently, causing the USSR to be invaded, speculate how you will about how that would have gone down, but regardless, even if the exact same events happened, it is likely that the cold war would have still happened, there would be no way that the US would ever see marxism as a good thing, and would do anything to stop it.

Even if the soviet Union did collapse under Trotsky we would still be better fucking off today

How would you know?

@Deleted User I don't see your point Nazis would've still lost

@When Things Aren't Right Go Left How would you know?

@Deleted User the USSR would have gained strong allies and perhaps WW2 would have been shorter.