[Godstud]

Which is presumably why you made it up and falsely and disingenuously attributed it to me.

You said it yourself.

See:

Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

That's an absolute.

Thank you for agreeing that the definition you offered is false.

The definition never said that, and you are making a Strawman argument because you can't make a good one. You're disingenuous and create a false narrative.

Please identify the reality you falsely claim contradicts the accepted dictionary definitions of socialism.

The fact that many Democratic countries have aspects of Socialism or outright Socialism within their countries. Norway is a prime example. China, is another. Socialist government with a mostly Capitalist economy.

Also, I never claimed that the definitions were wrong. You're making false statements and fallacies to push a BS anti-Socialist agenda. I said you ignore parts of the definitions because they don't support you.

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

No. I've said Socialism and Capitalism can work in conjunction. That's not all or nothing, as you say, frequently, in this thread.

[ckaihatsu]

Socialism and capitalism are mutually exclusive.

That's an absolute.

Okay, sorry to spoil the fun and everything, but I gotta relate a little anecdote from recently, where TTP claimed *anti-capitalist* credentials -- if you can even *believe* it -- and I had to point out that as soon as someone is for *profits*, then they're automatically *pro-capitalist*, and not *anti-capitalist*.

So in *that* sense socialism and capitalism *are* mutually exclusive, but I *will* yield the floor to Scandanavia.... (grin)

[Truth To Power]

You said it yourself.

No I didn't.

See: That's an absolute.

But it's not "all or nothing". So you made that up.

The definition never said that,

Yes it did.

and you are making a Strawman argument because you can't make a good one. You're disingenuous and create a false narrative.

Garbage. Your proposed definition was invalid, as I proved.

The fact that many Democratic countries have aspects of Socialism or outright Socialism within their countries.

No they don't.

Norway is a prime example.

Norway is not socialist. It's a capitalist democracy with a strong social safety net.

China, is another.

China is neither democratic nor socialist. It is geoist, on the Hong Kong model.

Socialist government with a mostly Capitalist economy.

No. The governing party is nominally communist, while the economy is neither socialist nor capitalist but geoist, on the Hong Kong model, because producer goods are mostly privately owned while land is all publicly owned.

Also, I never claimed that the definitions were wrong.

I said yours was wrong.

You're making false statements and fallacies to push a BS anti-Socialist agenda.

I have made no false statements. My agenda is liberty, justice, and truth. Socialism is merely in conflict with that agenda a little more than capitalism is.

I said you ignore parts of the definitions because they don't support you.

The novel parts of the definition you offered are not part of the actual definition.

No. I've said Socialism and Capitalism can work in conjunction.

Certainly there can be degrees of socialism and capitalism, but a society cannot be both socialist and capitalist any more than it can be both nomadic herding and industrial. If the majority of both land and producer goods (by value) are publicly or collectively owned, that's socialism. If the majority of both land and producer goods are privately owned, that's capitalism. If the majority of land is publicly owned and the majority of producer goods privately owned, that's geoism. It is not possible to have a majority on both sides of a division.

That's not all or nothing, as you say, frequently, in this thread.

I have said no such thing.

[Truth To Power]

TTP claimed *anti-capitalist* credentials -- if you can even *believe* it -- and I had to point out that as soon as someone is for *profits*, then they're automatically *pro-capitalist*, and not *anti-capitalist*.

And I pointed out to you that that claim is just baldly false, as there is nothing in the definition of "profits" that implies capitalism, nor vice versa.

So in *that* sense socialism and capitalism *are* mutually exclusive, but I *will* yield the floor to Scandanavia....

All Scandinavian countries are capitalist.

[ckaihatsu]

And I pointed out to you that that claim is just baldly false, as there is nothing in the definition of "profits" that implies capitalism, nor vice versa.

But you just said:

a society cannot be both socialist and capitalist any more than it can be both nomadic herding and industrial. If the majority of both land and producer goods (by value) are publicly or collectively owned, that's socialism. If the majority of both land and producer goods are privately owned, that's capitalism.

viewtopic.php?p=15231983#p15231983

I'll extend the juxtaposition to say that a society can't be both *private property* based, and also *commons* based, because the 'zero' cost of the commons, like indigenous land, will simply be *plundered* by the more-active, more-acquisitive *profit-making* interests. (Offhand *Venezuela* comes to mind, with its past subsidization of gasoline, which was then brought over the border to be sold in *Colombia*.)

So private property / profits can't stably coexist with *collectivized* interests since the social *motivations* of each are fundamentally different and even *counterposed* to each other.


---

All Scandinavian countries are capitalist.

Yup.

[KhawarezmLLC]

Socialism îs America's mid-west plan to give hope to small town America

Looking south west is democratic. The east is republican.

The north is liberal, rich and young. It has to be so, otherwise black has no hope. And hope brings hope.

[Truth To Power]

But you just said:

Yes, and it proved me right and you wrong: capitalism is defined by ownership, not profit seeking, and profit seeking does not imply capitalism.

I'll extend the juxtaposition to say that a society can't be both *private property* based, and also *commons* based, because the 'zero' cost of the commons, like indigenous land, will simply be *plundered* by the more-active, more-acquisitive *profit-making* interests. (Offhand *Venezuela* comes to mind, with its past subsidization of gasoline, which was then brought over the border to be sold in *Colombia*.)

So you don't even know what profits are, or the difference between profits and rents. That fits.

So private property / profits can't stably coexist with *collectivized* interests since the social *motivations* of each are fundamentally different and even *counterposed* to each other.

You clearly don't know what profits are, or how they relate to private property. And you refuse to learn.

[ckaihatsu]

Yes, and it proved me right and you wrong: capitalism is defined by ownership, not profit seeking, and profit seeking does not imply capitalism.

So you don't even know what profits are, or the difference between profits and rents. That fits.

You clearly don't know what profits are, or how they relate to private property. And you refuse to learn.

Now you're trying to squirm out of the fact that profit-making *implies* capitalism -- and that's because profits are measured in *exchange values*, as distinct from *use values*.

Socialism is all about *ditching* exchange values, since they're just an abstract 'middleman' vehicle -- socialism would bring about a world of *use values* only, and our current technology would be suited to a *qualitative*, use-value kind of accounting, maybe like 'Milk for two weeks, for TTP, in New City, by tomorrow', and, there, no prices or money or capital needed.

A proletarian revolution would mean taking the world's material economy *off* of the market system -- but then, what should *replace* it? Once the paradigm of exchange-values is imploded, how would an egalitarian society properly value goods, resources, and materials, *and* various different liberated-labor efforts (work roles), without regressing back to the use of market exchanges and exchange values?

One major problem with the 'communal' approach, even if implemented worldwide, is that we can't just pretend that all work roles are the same -- the unstated assumption with the 'communal' approach is that as long as one is *contributing* to the material commons, one should be able to *partake* from that resulting complex social production, for one's own needs. This is *not* an entirely bad premise, actually, because one implication of it is that people should be consuming from social production according to their *needs*, and not according to what they've *contributed* to society, because that would mean rewards-for-labor, or the implicit *commodification* of labor based on what goods can be exchanged for it.

This may sound *strange* at first, but one could think of it as a new Enlightenment of social norms -- all social production should be for satisfying *human need*, and for no other reason. It's only with the relatively recent advent of *industrial* mass production techniques that humanity is able to realize far more output / productivity for labor inputs, and this dynamic is what modern communism is premised on, since surplus labor value is currently *seized* by private ownership for its own self-aggrandizement. Under communism all labor value, however measured, would benefit those who need to take and consume from it, regardless of their contributions to the creation of it.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[ckaihatsu]

No exchanges or exchange-values would be required whatsoever because the number of recipients for any and all mass production would be specified upfront as part of the overall policy package. In *practice*, liberated labor might determine that a certain percentage of 'extra' production (say, 25%) would be necessary to satisfy the total of *all* recipients, including any *walk-up* recipients who decided not to participate in the formal demands / requesting process for the policy package. In this way all production would always be free-access and direct-distribution, no questions asked.

https://web.archive.org/web/20201211050 ... ?p=2889338

[Truth To Power]

Now you're trying to squirm out of the fact that profit-making *implies* capitalism

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I am identifying the fact that profit making does not, repeat, NOT imply capitalism.

-- and that's because profits are measured in *exchange values*, as distinct from *use values*.

No, that's just more cretinous anti-economic trash from you. Use value is simply utility, which cannot be measured and is not value at all.

Socialism is all about *ditching* exchange values, since they're just an abstract 'middleman' vehicle --

No it isn't. Socialism is only about destroying modern civilization and murdering 99% of the world's population by stealing so much from the most productive that they stop producing.

socialism would bring about a world of *use values* only,

Right: reducing humanity to the level of animals, who cannot engage in voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

and our current technology would be suited to a *qualitative*, use-value kind of accounting, maybe like 'Milk for two weeks, for TTP, in New City, by tomorrow', and, there, no prices or money or capital needed.

What an infantile and asinine load of twaddle. Who is going to produce and transport that milk, and why? One thing I know for certain: it won't be you, because you are one of the aspiring non-productive (but nevertheless all-powerful) commissars socialism exists to pander to. No wonder you refuse to know the fact that it is the landowner who is the parasite, not the factory owner: you aspire to the exact same privilege of consuming without contributing to production that the landowner enjoys. The excerpts from communist drivel that you posted state it explicitly.

[ckaihatsu]

Now you're trying to squirm out of the fact that profit-making *implies* capitalism

No, you are just makin' $#!+ up again. I am identifying the fact that profit making does not, repeat, NOT imply capitalism.

-- and that's because profits are measured in *exchange values*, as distinct from *use values*.

No, that's just more cretinous anti-economic trash from you. Use value is simply utility, which cannot be measured and is not value at all.

Use value is utility, and it can be measured in *qualitative* terms, as in the example I provided. Sure, given that mass production continues we'd have *quantities* of qualitatively-varying, identical *copies* off of assembly-lines, but society could still readily displace *exchange values*, including for real estate valuations (yay), and for all other rentier-type and equity-type valuations as well.

Since you like repetition, I'll keep repeating 'Salarize all ownership!', and I'll also say 'Decouple need from work.'

Socialism is all about *ditching* exchange values, since they're just an abstract 'middleman' vehicle --

No it isn't. Socialism is only about destroying modern civilization and murdering 99% of the world's population by stealing so much from the most productive that they stop producing.

Ahhhhhh, that's just doomsday stuff from you. No crystal ball, no prognostications, please.

socialism would bring about a world of *use values* only,

Right: reducing humanity to the level of animals, who cannot engage in voluntary exchange to mutual benefit.

Naysaying.

and our current technology would be suited to a *qualitative*, use-value kind of accounting, maybe like 'Milk for two weeks, for TTP, in New City, by tomorrow', and, there, no prices or money or capital needed.

What an infantile and asinine load of twaddle. Who is going to produce and transport that milk, and why? One thing I know for certain: it won't be you, because you are one of the aspiring non-productive (but nevertheless all-powerful) commissars socialism exists to pander to. No wonder you refuse to know the fact that it is the landowner who is the parasite, not the factory owner: you aspire to the exact same privilege of consuming without contributing to production that the landowner enjoys. The excerpts from communist drivel that you posted state it explicitly.

Who, indeed.

Any comment on *automation* -- ?

[ingliz]

animals

Happy families

we analyze the association of income inequality and redistribution with subjective well-being. Our results provide evidence that people in Europe are negatively affected by income inequality, while reduction of inequality has a positive effect on well-being.

— G &T Hajdu, Are more equal societies happier? Subjective well-being, income inequality, and redistribution. Discussion Papers, Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2013)

[Patrickov]

You mean that the sentiment I directed at *you* has now boomeranged, and is headed back at *me* -- ?

How am I patronizing *you* by saying that *you* are the one who is being patronizing?

What I said was just my perception of what a forum owner does, in response to Tainari88. If I were noemon it might qualify as patronizing, but as an ordinary poster I am by default a third-person, and therefore an equal.

Meanwhile, your word had the effect of a full passage of lecture and accusation you usually do to other posters. Of course your one-word post is much, much more patronizing than my post did.

[ckaihatsu]

What I said was just my perception of what a forum owner does, in response to Tainari88. If I were noemon it might qualify as patronizing, but as an ordinary poster I am by default a third-person, and therefore an equal.

Meanwhile, your word had the effect of a full passage of lecture and accusation you usually do to other posters. Of course your one-word post is much, much more patronizing than my post did.

Okay, well, I was meaning to be *empirical*, and *not* browbeating.

[ckaihatsu]

Yet the labor credits are *still* not money, because the market of exchange values is no longer required for the material-economic function of discerning (organic) demand, whether large or small.

Since you've already raised a point about society's real-world allocation of possibly scarce material resources -- markets -- I can speak to that, anytime, from a *non-markets* / *post*-markets perspective, using my labor credits model.

Regarding the statement above, I'll rephrase it to say 'Even though labor credits (which function like non-imploding personal IOUs, for labor-only concerns) *circulate*, they are never exchanged for goods or services, because that would implicitly be commodification -- nor would they *need* to be.'

The world's pool of all labor credits would indicate a *snapshot* of total accomplished labor value, at any given point in time.

Conversely, the social-allocation-to-relieve-scarcity aspect, or portion, done by the *market* mechanism under capitalism, would be handled differently, and not in the same modalty as the subset of active and passive participants who have labor credits in their possession, implicitly socially organizing to pay-them-forward ('social-organization'), and/or who are currently working.

The 'material-economic function of discerning (organic) demand' is handled by the portion of the labor-credits political-economy model that compiles that cumulative information from incoming *individual daily demands lists*, each being a descending ranking of demand *importance* (#1, #2, #3, etc.), or implicit-prioritization, if not actually, typically *intentional* that way, which is the point, of course.

From previously:

I happen to have my own approach to the post-capitalist topic of consumer and social-productive 'prioritization', for material consumption / access / politics -- as from everybody's individual / personal shopping lists, inherently 'prioritized' from the top-down, by incrementing line number (#1, #2, #3, etc.).


Note that this method *aggregates* / tallies all personally prioritized demands lists *and* formal list items for a locality or pre-defined larger geographic area, on a *daily* basis, per rank position (#1, #2, #3, etc.), so that *no* standing institutional 'administration' is ever needed, and neither are political representatives of any kind required, either -- (no elections or voting processes are ever used). This daily mass-prioritization of material and socio-political demands is the information most needed by society, and by liberated labor in particular, a mirror-reflection of total verbatim collective consciousness, through compiled data. Liberated labor -- as available-and-willing, and as formally requisitioned through defined work roles in policy packages, and potentially funded with labor credits -- then itself flexibly collectively decides which finalized policy package(s) to take-up and implement, to completion, or not. (Greater-aggregatively-tallied, higher rank positions are populist-type *advisements* to liberated labor, but they do not *obligate* it in any way.)

viewtopic.php?p=15230771#p15230771

[ckaihatsu]

[DELETION INCLUDED]

Since you've already raised a point about society's real-world allocation of possibly scarce material resources -- markets -- I can speak to that, anytime, from a *non-markets* / *post*-markets perspective, using my labor credits model.

Regarding the statement above, I'll rephrase it to say 'Even though labor credits (which function like non-imploding personal IOUs, for labor-only concerns) *circulate*, they are never exchanged for goods or services, because that would implicitly be commodification -- nor would they *need* to be.'

[DELETED] The world's pool of all labor credits would indicate a *snapshot* of total accomplished labor value, at any given point in time.

Conversely, the social-allocation-to-relieve-scarcity aspect, or portion, done by the *market* mechanism under capitalism, would be handled differently, and not in the same modalty as the subset of active and passive participants who have labor credits in their possession, implicitly socially organizing to pay-them-forward ('social-organization'), and/or who are currently working.

The 'material-economic function of discerning (organic) demand' is handled by the portion of the labor-credits political-economy model that compiles that cumulative information from incoming *individual daily demands lists*, each being a descending ranking of demand *importance* (#1, #2, #3, etc.), or implicit-prioritization, if not actually, typically *intentional* that way, which is the point, of course.

From previously:

[Truth To Power]

Since you've already raised a point about society's real-world allocation of possibly scarce material resources -- markets -- I can speak to that, anytime, from a *non-markets* / *post*-markets perspective, using my labor credits model.

Regarding the statement above, I'll rephrase it to say 'Even though labor credits (which function like non-imploding personal IOUs, for labor-only concerns) *circulate*, they are never exchanged for goods or services, because that would implicitly be commodification -- nor would they *need* to be.'

The world's pool of all labor credits would indicate a *snapshot* of total accomplished labor value, at any given point in time.

Conversely, the social-allocation-to-relieve-scarcity aspect, or portion, done by the *market* mechanism under capitalism, would be handled differently, and not in the same modalty as the subset of active and passive participants who have labor credits in their possession, implicitly socially organizing to pay-them-forward ('social-organization'), and/or who are currently working.

The 'material-economic function of discerning (organic) demand' is handled by the portion of the labor-credits political-economy model that compiles that cumulative information from incoming *individual daily demands lists*, each being a descending ranking of demand *importance* (#1, #2, #3, etc.), or implicit-prioritization, if not actually, typically *intentional* that way, which is the point, of course.

Thanks for repeating another proof that Marx was the Anti-Economist.

[Truth To Power]

Use value is utility, and it can be measured in *qualitative* terms, as in the example I provided.

Utility can't be measured in any way that is useful for purposes of allocation because different people's utilities are incommensurable. You can allocate consumer goods by assuming everyone's utilities are of equal value, but not producer goods, land (natural resources) or labor.

Sure, given that mass production continues

After you have removed the institutional framework that makes it possible, you mean...?

we'd have *quantities* of qualitatively-varying, identical *copies* off of assembly-lines, but society could still readily displace *exchange values*, including for real estate valuations (yay), and for all other rentier-type and equity-type valuations as well.

If it wanted an allocation that made no sense and resulted in reduced production.

Since you like repetition, I'll keep repeating 'Salarize all ownership!', and I'll also say 'Decouple need from work.'

I only repeat my refutations of your nonsense because you repeat the same nonsense -- like the above -- after seeing it refuted.

Need is self-evidently already decoupled from work. What you want is to decouple production from consumption, deserving from getting. I.e., you want injustice.

Ahhhhhh, that's just doomsday stuff from you. No crystal ball, no prognostications, please.

It's the clear implication of what you propose. The history of socialism shows that people won't stand for it in the long run, but many will die before it is stopped.

Naysaying.

Fact.

Any comment on *automation* -- ?

Sure: automation is one way the factory owner increases production so fantastically, relieving scarcity fantastically, enriching landowners fantastically and workers rather less fantastically, enabling workers to do less and easier work while being paid higher wages, and enabling the landowner to take fantastically greater rents while still doing the same zero work and making the same zero contribution to production.

[ckaihatsu]

Use value is utility, and it can be measured in *qualitative* terms, as in the example I provided.

Utility can't be measured in any way that is useful for purposes of allocation because different people's utilities are incommensurable. You can allocate consumer goods by assuming everyone's utilities are of equal value, but not producer goods, land (natural resources) or labor.

And yet, *all* consumer goods / utilities / use-values, *and* production goods, land, and labor are all subject to *pricing* (exchange values), under capitalism.

Do you *really* disagree with such 'prices', due to capitalism, or are you just putting out a public-relations-type *press release* -- ?

Sure, given that mass production continues

After you have removed the institutional framework that makes it possible, you mean...?

Meaning what, exactly -- ?

My politics are for *workers power*, and certainly the workers themselves don't need any formal 'institution', not even their own, for knowledge on how to run the very workplace that they've been working at -- and certainly moreso than the absentee-employer.

we'd have *quantities* of qualitatively-varying, identical *copies* off of assembly-lines, but society could still readily displace *exchange values*, including for real estate valuations (yay), and for all other rentier-type and equity-type valuations as well.

If it wanted an allocation that made no sense and resulted in reduced production.

Recall that we *agree* on what the *non-productive* sectors of the political economy are -- the bourgeois government (overhead / bureaucracy), and all rentier-type values, particularly land.

These two 'sectors' of the capitalist economy could be eliminated overnight and it wouldn't directly impact on the ability of workers to run their workplaces.

Since you like repetition, I'll keep repeating 'Salarize all ownership!', and I'll also say 'Decouple need from work.'

I only repeat my refutations of your nonsense because you repeat the same nonsense -- like the above -- after seeing it refuted.

It's *not* nonsense -- the social conventions, inherited from past historical developments by default, are to try to 'valuate' the work-product contribution, from wage labor, *regardless* of what all workers have *produced* for society in total.

This is sheerly *economic gatekeeping*, meaning capitalist *overproduction* and leaving cities' worth of vehicles (or whatever) to bake in the sun instead of actually put into people's hands, for actual usage.

Your politics would rather uphold *artifical scarcity*, than to make social use of that which exists, for people who *need* that which has been produced.

Need is self-evidently already decoupled from work. What you want is to decouple production from consumption, deserving from getting. I.e., you want injustice.

'Injustice' for *who* -- ?

For *capitalist valuations* -- that are already *tanking*, as we speak -- ?

You want to *couple* equity valuations to everything that's been produced, regardless of social-legitimacy or pricing volatility, even to where stuff just *rots away in the sun* instead of being made available for actual unmet social needs.

Ahhhhhh, that's just doomsday stuff from you. No crystal ball, no prognostications, please.

It's the clear implication of what you propose. The history of socialism shows that people won't stand for it in the long run, but many will die before it is stopped.

It's *still* thinking that whatever happened in the past automatically *condemns* us to the identical fate as before.

Remember, the *actual history* of 'socialism' (loosely), is one of international imperialist *invasion*, so anyone could readily say that socialism has been *stunted* historically, from without.

Naysaying.

Fact.

---

Any comment on *automation* -- ?

Sure: automation is one way the factory owner increases production so fantastically, relieving scarcity fantastically, enriching landowners fantastically and workers rather less fantastically, enabling workers to do less and easier work while being paid higher wages, and enabling the landowner to take fantastically greater rents while still doing the same zero work and making the same zero contribution to production.

How is a circulating cash-based economy supposed to circulate cash when virtually *all valuations* are economically with *capital ownership* since the number of actual wage workers, receiving wages, has shrunk down to *trifling* numbers -- ?

Extending the scenario to one of *full* automation, how is *anyone* to be able to *purchase* anything off the assembly line when *no one* is afforded employment, or wages / money, due to *full automation* -- ?

[Truth To Power]

And yet, *all* consumer goods / utilities / use-values, *and* production goods, land, and labor are all subject to *pricing* (exchange values), under capitalism.

Because unlike socialists, capitalists understand that the market is a vastly more accurate and efficient information processing system than politically appointed commissars.

Do you *really* disagree with such 'prices', due to capitalism, or are you just putting out a public-relations-type *press release* -- ?

Price just shows where quantity supplied equals quantity demanded. Disagreeing with prices is as childish as disagreeing with the calculator that shows your checking account is overdrawn: the calculator is not the problem.

Meaning what, exactly -- ?

Meaning that your anti-economic drivel has been tried, and it has always failed as spectacularly as doing away with the farmer and letting the animals run the farm would.

My politics are for *workers power*,

But in fact, your intention is to be the one who actually has the power, which you will claim to exercise on the workers' behalf.

and certainly the workers themselves don't need any formal 'institution', not even their own, for knowledge on how to run the very workplace that they've been working at

Yes they do. They haven't the slightest idea how to run it any more than you do, or any more than the draft animals who pull the plow and the chickens who lay the eggs know how to run a farm. Do you really think construction workers know what to do on the job site without any architects or engineers to tell them? REALLY??? That is as absurd as your claim that assembly line workers know how to run the factory. You are merely proving that you have never actually worked at such a job: if you had, you would know better.

-- and certainly moreso than the absentee-employer.

Garbage. It is the employer's decisions, initiative and labor that made the production system exist rather than not exist, and operate productively rather than sit idle and decay.

Recall that we *agree* on what the *non-productive* sectors of the political economy are

No we don't. You think the entrepreneur who creates the production system and the factory owner who provides the building, machinery, etc. are non-productive.

-- the bourgeois government (overhead / bureaucracy), and all rentier-type values, particularly land.

If you think government is non-productive, try no government. And it is not land that has no value, it is the landowner.

These two 'sectors' of the capitalist economy could be eliminated overnight and it wouldn't directly impact on the ability of workers to run their workplaces.

Right, because the workers' ability to run their workplaces would still be zero.

It's *not* nonsense

It is most definitely nonsense.

-- the social conventions, inherited from past historical developments by default,

No, the institutional arrangements that have been found necessary to effect the desired outcome: relief of scarcity.

are to try to 'valuate' the work-product contribution, from wage labor, *regardless* of what all workers have *produced* for society in total.

Right: each individual worker is being paid for what HE does, not what all the other workers have done, because they were already paid for their contributions, just as he is being paid for his. You are trying to put over the bizarre notion that each worker should also be paid for what all the other workers have done throughout history. It's just transparent idiocy.

This is sheerly *economic gatekeeping*, meaning capitalist *overproduction* and leaving cities' worth of vehicles (or whatever) to bake in the sun instead of actually put into people's hands, for actual usage.

See? You refuse to know what is right in front of your face. What do you think happens if you give away the vehicles a factory owner has produced to people who want one? Do you think the recipients of the free vehicles are going to want to pay for production of the next lot of vehicles? And when those don't sell because you gave away the previous lot to the people who were in the market for a vehicle, are you going to give away the next lot, too? How long do you think a factory can operate that way? Oh, wait a minute, that's right: the workers will somehow keep the factory humming despite having no revenue to pay for supplies, power, etc.

Give your head a shake. Seriously. It's time.

Your politics would rather uphold *artifical scarcity*, than to make social use of that which exists, for people who *need* that which has been produced.

There is nothing artificial about the fact that production has to be paid for, and the most appropriate people to pay for it are those who consume it.

'Injustice' for *who* -- ?

For the producers. You want the productive to be systematically robbed of the fruits of their labor.

For *capitalist valuations* -- that are already *tanking*, as we speak -- ?

You are trying to change the subject again. You often do that when you realize you have been proved wrong.

You want to *couple* equity valuations to everything that's been produced, regardless of social-legitimacy

People owning what they produce is socially legitimate.

or pricing volatility, even to where stuff just *rots away in the sun* instead of being made available for actual unmet social needs.

I want those who produce to own what they produce, because that is the path not only to accurate incentives and allocative efficiency, but to justice.

It's *still* thinking that whatever happened in the past automatically *condemns* us to the identical fate as before.

How many times does history have to prove you wrong -- how many more millions do you have to murder -- before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually are wrong?

Remember, the *actual history* of 'socialism' (loosely), is one of international imperialist *invasion*, so anyone could readily say that socialism has been *stunted* historically, from without.

That is utter garbage with no basis in fact. The socialist USSR was doing a fine job of invading and annexing its neighbors and slaughtering its own citizens long before the Nazis invaded it. There was no international invasion of socialist China. Quite the contrary: socialist China invaded Korea, Tibet (which it conquered and annexed), and even fellow socialist Vietnam. The horrors of the Great Leap Forward (in which the workers' incompetence wrecked the nation's industrial base) and the Cultural Revolution speak for themselves. The botched "invasion" of Cuba was so insignificant it can be dismissed.

How is a circulating cash-based economy supposed to circulate cash when virtually *all valuations* are economically with *capital ownership* since the number of actual wage workers, receiving wages, has shrunk down to *trifling* numbers -- ?

By compensating everyone justly for the removal of their rights to liberty by exclusive land tenure. The more those rights are worth -- i.e., the greater the unimproved rental value of the land -- the greater the necessary compensation.

Extending the scenario to one of *full* automation, how is *anyone* to be able to *purchase* anything off the assembly line when *no one* is afforded employment, or wages / money, due to *full automation* -- ?

The Anti-Economist Marx to the contrary, employment was never the problem. Scarcity has always been the problem. With full automation in a geoist economy, scarcity is abolished and everyone has enough to live well on by being justly compensated for the removal of their rights to liberty by exclusive land tenure. Socialism can never produce abundance because its basic tenet is to hate, rob and kill the producers.