Socialism

>prone to
well this isn't what is being discussed. you could say it is the more ineffective way, but it might still meet the criteria.

...

>you could say it is the more ineffective way, but it might still meet the criteria.
Sure but direct democracy would be the very bare minimum of the criteria if you think nationalization counts

>i'm 15 and think political philosophy is just more/less taxes

>arguments
>

>the people own the means of production via a governmental arm.

No, the people still don't own shit, they've simply traded ownership of the means of production by a corporate board of directors for ownership by government bureaucrats.

It's still a tiny parasitical minority owning everything and calling all the shots.

The only true way for the workers to own the means of production is thru worker owned co-operatives.

why is direct democracy the bare minimum?
would not any democracy suffice as a a democratic and public ownership of the means of production?

and what if those government bureaucrats are the democratically elected representatives of the working public?

They’re still a tiny parasitical minority who own everything and call all the shots and who then use that wealth to insure their position as overlords.

There is no objective need for a corporate boss or government apparatchik to tell you how to do your job, that’s just neo-feudalism with a modern day "lord of the manor" ordering you around and taking the lion's share of the wealth for himself, while doing fuck all to create that wealth.

socialism is a broad term
many socialists agree that the government is opressive and coercive, and shouldn't be "captured" with a vanguard or Party because the capitalistic relations of power wouldn't dissapear.
Other socialists do think that they have to destroy capitalism from within the state, gradually reforming it, those are the social democrats, oftenly called reformists(and it's true, the reforms helped capitalism to continue existing, aplacating the masses with welfare plans, some little more rights, etc)
Other socialists, probably the most known ones, agree that a vanguard needs to lead the proletariate to victory overthrowing the State and seizing "power". But as I said above, capitalism, social segregation would continue existing (see: USSR, China, etc)

...

>so if a people democratically elect a government to seize the means of production,
The state will always serve the interests of the ruling class, meaning this is impossible.

...

>dude i don't understand the importance of management so it has to be parasitic and useless
yeah enlist in the army and see how you do with your worker self-management.

I love how subpar these are.

>management is bourgeois
Not at all, in fact the vast majority of managers are also proles, because they receive wages rather than living off extracted surplus value. There would still be managers under socialism.

Is there a single communist meme that's actually entertaining rather than cringeworthy? I've been to /leftypol/ and every single meme they have is basically 9gag tier.

I don't visit leftypol so I can't really judge your opinion, although, I know there are a bunch of Stirner memes probably made by people who didn't read him

>extracted surplus value
Is not a thing. Value is subjective. Besides, even if we take the labor theory of value for gospel the idea of paying a worker 1-1 for the value of the product he's making is a completely untenable idea since there are external costs which have to be accounted for.

Stirner memes were created by Veeky Forums initially, /leftypol/ just stole them.

>stole
expropiated*

desu that was not a good reply

it just fell back on what was originally refuted, which was the claim of unnecessary parasitism. The porkie levied good arguments in favor of his existence, and the reply was a glorified "no u"

That's not a word.

You can seize the means of production by democratically organizing to vote with money, if no one buys gas oil companies fail.

>Is not a thing
If the worker isn't creating more profit than you pay him, then why have him work for you?

>Value is subjective
Yes it is, Marx understood this well. In fact it's a key part of LTV.

>l the idea of paying a worker 1-1 for the value of the product he's making is a completely untenable idea since there are external costs which have to be accounted for.
No socialist advocates for this. Obviously you'll still have to cover external costs, what we want is to get rid of one of those costs (giving money to the capitalist simply because he "owns" the capital).

Nothing you wrote supports the need for a boss who has 100% control, takes the lion’s share of the profits and contributes fuck all to creating the wealth.

Capitalism is simply modern day feudalism, there is no objective reason why worker owned co-operatives couldn’t and shouldn’t replace it.

How long until your socialist managers become the new bourgeoisie?

Hierarchy, greedy sociopathy it's all too engrained into human existence. People don't want to uplift everyone else they want to uplift themselves and kick the ladder out from underneath them.

Under socialism public ownership of capital is the goal whereas generally democratic governments own roads and tax businesses to achieve some other purpose.

I mean, commies (ELZN, commie Kurds, shiet even early soviet military too) have had a lot of success with decentralized, democratic militaries lol.

oh boy. we're bringing democracy to the workplace and economy. so, idk, maybe there should be some examples... oh wait, it's not like one of the biggest cooperatives in the world, the Mondragon Corporation, doesn't already democratically promotes and demotes their managers -- wait, they do.

ITT: kiddies who don't history

for people like OP who are confused on the use of the state and how it relates to socialism, read up some Engels or J. Connolly. If the use of the state (by the people or no) automatically means socialism, why don't we see socialists praising Bismarck? Napoleon, due to the nationalization of many industries in France under him? I mean shit, Rome had welfare for their time. Why aren't socialists pro-Ancient Rome?

Socialism *can* be the use of the state, if it is run BY the workers, FOR the workers, in order to ultimately eliminate hierarchies and the mechanical parts of capitalism.

jfc

You always bring mondragon up. Likes it is supposed to mean something. Mondragon is by and large an aberration existing at the mercy of a system that does not favor the cooperative model.

A 5'3" man played at the NBA at some point too you know...

>How long until your socialist managers become the new bourgeoisie?
Never, because they're appointed democratically by the workers, held directly accountable by the entire community, and receive wages corresponding to their contributions just like everyone else.

>Hierarchy
Natural hierarchy of ability, sure. Nobody argues that everyone is equally capable.

>greedy sociopathy it's all too engrained into human existence
Human nature is to adapt and do what is necessary to thrive in the situations one finds oneself in. Under previous systems, the best way to get ahead was to be a greedy backstabbing sociopath. Socialism is meant to promote cooperation and hard work as the best (and indeed, only) way to get ahead.

>People don't want to uplift everyone else they want to uplift themselves
That's why you design a system which takes this into account. Capitalism makes it so that the best way to get ahead is to exploit others as much as possible, but under socialism the best way to get yourself ahead benefits others.

I mean shit I can use my cousin's landscaping coop in AR to prove the point that hey, there are mechanisms to prevent hierarchy from forming (or at least, unjustified ones) in the workplace. I didn't put in Mondragon in there just becus "muh spenish coops", but because they have quite literally put in a way to combat shitty hierarchies and make sure shitty leaders aren't given the time of day.

based on your extensive knowledge of the subject, right?

>Never, because they're appointed democratically by the workers, held directly accountable by the entire community, and receive wages corresponding to their contributions just like everyone else.
sounds like wishful thinking.

>ELZN, commie Kurds, shiet even early soviet military too)
lol so mediocre

>sounds like wishful thinking.
This sounds like a gut reaction in absence of serious critique, one which has often been leveled at proposals of fundamental societal shifts. I encourage you to read up on socialist theory and critique if you're so skeptical, but have nothing really to say against it.

> sounds like wishful thinking.

Indeed, worker owned co-operatives simply don't work...

>government
>arm of the people
No industrial democracy, no socialism.

>the people own the means of production via a governmental arm.

This is what Socialists ACTUALLY BELIEVE

it is wishful thinking, just like the idea of a revolution happening.

they're still an extreme minority.

Marusia a cute

a CUTE!!

>Mondragon Corporation

So you seems more a market socialist than a simple commie, not all the commies likes coops,

>they're still an extreme minority.

Of course they are, because the deck is stacked against them and the System supports the existing feudal business model.

I'm not. But, like Richard Wolff pointed out, there is no hope for socialism if people have no idea about what socialism is "concretely", and cooperatives help bridge the gap from dirty capitalism to glorious gay communism in a concrete, material way.

>under socialism the best way to get yourself ahead benefits others

Why?

>early soviet military
weren't they a joke?

tf is with Mississippi and utility co-ops?