>>18589534
Means of production

It becomes marxist when controlled economy is active.

Socialism doesnt really have a problem with the economy running (different options of products) as long as the means of production arent privately held

Marxism has requires planned economy and that is very different from the first. Cant really have 5 different brands of cars in communism... what do you need more than 1 brand for?

>>18589534
When the bread lines are long enough. Exactly how long before it's real socialism is still hotly debated among Marxist academics.

>>18589534
When the biggest economic infrastructures stops being private and falls in the hands of the proletariat through the state (nationalization, heavy regulation etc), then the proletarians are supposed to take control of the means of production through the tools of the state (laws etc) and then let the state crumble as it becomes useless as a tool of the dominant class, then they are supposed to create a classless society where everyone can sustain itself and escape the labor exploitation through surplus-value extraction

>>18589618
So a country where 51% of the GDP is owned by the state and 49% is owned by murderkill inc is a perfectly legitimate example of socialism?

>>18589618
How is
>private individuals owning the entire economy
and
>private individuals owning the entire economy
not the same thing? Wouldn't the proletariat who own the economy after the state has withered away just become a new bourgeoisie?

>>18589622
That's the socialist part under the dictatorship of proletariat (when the proletariat gets to power either from elections or revolution just like how the bourgeoisie rose to power by these means), then the proletariat is supposed to switch from socialism to communism and take the remaining 49%

>>18589622
No.

If murderinc owns the water, the agricultural land and such then it is not socialism

>>18589627
That's the main critic of the dictatorship of proletariat, marx doesnt really explain how it is supposed to work, bakunin told him it was a shit idea that would ultimately create a new dominant class controlling the wealth production and distribution, which happened with the nomenklatura under Stalin.

>>18589627
>Wouldn't the proletariat who own the economy after the state has withered away just become a new bourgeoisie?
In marxist theory, no.

Because with capitalism abolished, its propaganda machinery is over and the proletariat manages emancipation and is allowed to be an educated person that knows good and bad thus chooses marxism.

>>18589534
private property
life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness
ability to make your own living at your own
ability to speak your mind
ability to have free speech
ability to speak against the government

when state takes these away from free people, you're in a marxist society.

Pretty much when you erode the American constitution you get marxism. It was setup as anti-Monarchy, but it works just as well as benchmark for anti-Marxism.

>>18589548
>Cant really have 5 different brands of cars in communism... what do you need more than 1 brand for?
I have no clue what Marx thought about brands but a brand would essentially just be a "team" of people. The state would have a need such as "we need trucks to deliver food" so a team of people would assemble that focused on designing said trucks. Another team could also make their own "brand" of food trucks. Isnt that essentially what the soviets had with air manufacturers like sukhoi and migs? Why are brands only a "capitalist" thing?

>>18589770
Soviet union had LADA and that manufacturer produced the types of cars needed

Two companies wouldn't help in a marxist mindset because theyd be competing against each other instead of working for the common benefit.

Same way nazis had VW.

>>18589777
Wouldn't more minds competing to make the best out of the means of production be best for the common benefit? Even if it was soleley for that sake alone? Not trying to argue I am just genuinely curious as to why the marxist mindset doesnt see it that way. Do they just not encourage competition at all?

>>18589793
>Wouldn't more minds competing to make the best out of the means of production be best for the common benefit?
This is your mind on capitalism

>>18589793
>Do they just not encourage competition at all?
Did Newton need to compete with someone? Did Tesla need to compete with someone?

Does it help anyone to have american and Chinese scientists working on the same shit with a different polish? Wouldn't it be better if they were trying to achieve the same goal by sharing their results and methods?

>>18589801
>This is your mind on capitalism
Maybe.

>>18589801
>Does it help anyone to have american and Chinese scientists working on the same shit with a different polish?
I feel like it does. I used to be big into engineering projects in high school and was amazed at the stuff other teams from other schools would come up with that I never would have thought of. If the state has only one group working on a particular thing then they are "putting all of their eggs into one basket" as to say and missing out on potentially better options.

>>18589806
>I used to be big into engineering projects in high school and was amazed at the stuff other teams from other schools would come up with that I never would have thought of.
That is different. Experimentation is a natural part of science.

My question is: should science be financially motivated? Should scientific discovery/progress kept secret because of economic benefit?

Theres nothing wrong with working on your own personal project, theres a problem when the only reason you can do a project is because a third party is paying for it and gets to tell you what is relevant and what is not.

Right now you have german engkneers trying to find the best way to have contaminating cars that can pass a revision and thats it... no real work being made on making better engines or something like that.

>>18589806
>If the state has only one group working on a particular thing then they are "putting all of their eggs into one basket" as to say and missing out on potentially better options.
Again, you have a capitalist vision of the world... competitions and such are good in our society because it allows for the socialization of knowledge... in a marxist world you wouldn't have differentiated education so there would be no such thing as you having knowledge that others didnt have access to.

Its way deeper than just changing x for a y. The way the system is structured changes, thus things cant remain the same. They must adapt yo serve their new putpose.

>>18589548
>Socialism doesnt really have a problem with the economy running (different options of products) as long as the means of production arent privately held
Not accurate, the means of production can still be privately held in a socialist system, it's not the same as fullblown Marxism

>>18589822
>the means of production can still be privately held in a socialist system
Just because anarcho-capitalism has the word anarcho on it doesn't mean it is anarchism as devised by bakunin or propotkin, you see

>>18589534
>when exactly does a Capitalist state become Socialist
Marx didn't think that a capitalist state would become socialist. What he thought was that workers would seize political power for a short while and impose a dictatorship of their class. From then on, they would initiate a movement of communization that would socialize the means of production and abolish commodity production.

>>18589622
No because that would be silly pedantic nonsense. Communism for Marx isn't something you flip with a switch, it's the broad movement of the proletariat (i.e. those who have no capital and must sell their labor to sustain themselves) to change society for themselves.

>>18589627
>Wouldn't the proletariat who own the economy after the state has withered away just become a new bourgeoisie?
Who would be the other classes ? The proletariat represents 90% of the population. The only other classes that exists are the petite-bourgeoisie and the labor aristocracy, and they would likely see little change in their situation.