Socialism is ownership by the workers who run the store. What you’re describing is a customer cooperative, which is just replacing bosses with “the people”
That’s state capitalism, there is an owner class and a worker class, the workers do not have the sole ownership of the shop, nor do they receive the full share of the fruits of their labor.
It’s funny, because one of Marx best known works contains a diatribe against people carelessly talking about “full share of the fruits of their labor” and insultingly described the notion as Lasallean (see Critique of the Gotha Programme, chapter 1, where he utterly savages what became the German SPD over this).
He thought it was utter bullshit to talk about that in an organised society, because in practice in a functioning society there are in fact all kinds of necessary deductions and redistribution necessary in order to ensure the needs of everyone is met.
E.g. healthcare, funds for those unable to work, funding of societal needs such as schools etc.
Even that, he describes as constrained by “bourgeois limitation”, pointing out that"
“Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”
The notion of “full share of the fruits of their labor” is not a socialist one at all.
On the contrary, the main socialist slogan used to be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which goes directly counter to the notion of giving everyone the full share of the fruits of their labour.
deleted by creator
Socialism is ownership by the workers who run the store. What you’re describing is a customer cooperative, which is just replacing bosses with “the people”
deleted by creator
That’s state capitalism, there is an owner class and a worker class, the workers do not have the sole ownership of the shop, nor do they receive the full share of the fruits of their labor.
It’s funny, because one of Marx best known works contains a diatribe against people carelessly talking about “full share of the fruits of their labor” and insultingly described the notion as Lasallean (see Critique of the Gotha Programme, chapter 1, where he utterly savages what became the German SPD over this).
He thought it was utter bullshit to talk about that in an organised society, because in practice in a functioning society there are in fact all kinds of necessary deductions and redistribution necessary in order to ensure the needs of everyone is met.
E.g. healthcare, funds for those unable to work, funding of societal needs such as schools etc.
Even that, he describes as constrained by “bourgeois limitation”, pointing out that"
“Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.”
The notion of “full share of the fruits of their labor” is not a socialist one at all.
On the contrary, the main socialist slogan used to be “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs,” which goes directly counter to the notion of giving everyone the full share of the fruits of their labour.
Fantastic comment
Lemmy has the largest group of socialists I’ve ever seen argue about the definition of socialism.
Tbf, we’re working with a stated definition that’s translated from 19th century German
Not to mention folks who imagine a definition in vision and spirit but not necessarily to the letter of what Marx described
Shit’s gonna get down to exact doctrine real quick even in a room full of socialists all supposedly of the same clade of ideas
deleted by creator
“I’ve never heard of foreign hires before.”