Why does socialism have to involve getting rid of money and the state?

Why does socialism have to involve getting rid of money and the state?
Both of those seem very usefu

I think you're thinking of Marxism/Communism there. And the answer is that it's a retarded ideology that attacks the symptom and not the disease

the symptom is there are rich and poor people, and the former often exploit the latter through monetary means. The actual disease is that people are inherently unequal, some of them can do way more than others and they'll want to keep the fruits of their effort. That disease is also part of objective reality and is therefore incurable until we ascend to a higher plane of thought

wow dude it looks like you have discovered something important (no you dont, thats bullshit)

>no actual counter argument
I'll give you another shot

Now I look it up, it seems like socialism is much broader than communism, and there are many different variants
Communism is narrower.
There's some people that were saying socialism requires no state or money, but they're probably confused

Also I don't see how the existence of a ruling elite who control the means of production and exploit them for rent money is just a necessary consequence of objective reality being the way it is

it is all we know. There has NEVER been a time in history where the elite few didn't control an inordinate amount of resources due to a service they provide (usually related to group security or survival)

Given that it is all we have ever experienced and that the human brain hasn't changed fundamentally in well over 20.000 years, it's only logical to conclude that fighting all social inequality in all its forms is a lost cause to begin with. That's not to say that you shouldn't provide a safety net for the people on the bottom, but they in no way deserve the same share as the ones on the top

What's the difference between socialism and communism?

What Marx, Engels and those people developed was the theory that in human beings the most impoortant thing is the social behaviour, because the sociability of our specie is what made us succed and evolve to the civilization and culture we have developed.
Socialism do not get rid of such things because it is the previous phase to achieve communism, in communism it is thought that people will not have the need to use money, cos' we'll develop other methods to change our goods. Also the state is not needed cos', as Marx and Engels said the state the institution that is used by the powerful class to remain in power and control the workers, so when communism arrive there won't be classes anymore and the state is useless.
I hope I made myself understood

there is no one definition but roughy speaking:

socialism - the means of production and distribution should be commanded by the society as a whole

communism - the destruction of social classes, private property, money and the state through a global revolution

But that's wrong though. Plenty of countries have had times where the means of production were mostly owned by, for example, ordinary farmers

those ordinary farmers relied on someone else for protection. That protection came at a cost. And some people were able to protect larger areas than others and could therefore extract cost from more farmers.

You could say "the farmer owned the production" but really, barring a large rebellion, if he refused to provide for his liege he would be replaced with someone else

Conquest = communism

Consent = socialism

Most of the time great landowners hold the means of productions (which was the land) and not the farmers themselves.

Menaing feudalism?
It's not that the feudal lords were amazing swordmen due to some genetic ability or anything. Its more that they got lots of wealth and land from the king

that's just one level of abstraction of the same situation. The farmers didn't really "own" the land, they were allowed by the elite to work it for a fee. This was the case since agriculture has existed, and even before then social organisation was unequal

because marx was a revolted rich NEET that thought the world was going to end because of the industrial revolution

money and capitalism exists for more than 10k years, its a natural system, socialists/communist are just too deluded

Agriculture is older than feudalism.
I agree the peasants don't own the land under feudalism. But feudalism isn't brought on by inherent inequalities among human beings.

it's not older than monarchy though. Those who work the land don't have the time or resources to defend themselves and must rely on others for protection. Those others in turn require food. This has always been the case. Even if you go back to ancient Sumer, the citizens were required to bring in a certain amount of resources to a central temple and in turn received other resources that they needed

and if this peasant-protector system isn't brought on by inherent social inequalities, what else?

It doesn't.

Isn't that more like paying taxes?
They might still have owned the land
The socialist objection isn't so much to having to pay resources for protection, it's more the profit earned just by owning someone else's land (not based on a service)

what is paying taxes if not a contribution to a social system designed to maintain order?

>They might still have owned the land
but again - do you really own your land if it can be taken away from you at any time if you don't contribute?

>just by owning someone else's land
historically speaking if you "own" somebody's and but you don't protect them, they have absolutely no reason to be loyal to you and you'll lose your grip on your subjects very quickly. This is also the case with corrupt modern countries. People don't pay taxes because they don't feel they will be spent well

Paying taxes is a contribution to a social system designed to pay order but just because your property is defended by the state monopoly doesn't mean you don't own it.

>historically speaking if you "own" somebody's and but you don't protect them, they have absolutely no reason to be loyal to you and you'll lose your grip on your subjects very quickly. This is also the case with corrupt modern countries. People don't pay taxes because they don't feel they will be spent well
In the modern state landlords and landowners and capitalists charge rent all over the place without protecting people.
Under feudalism the landowners protected people as well, but they also charged ground rent for the land. They're really two separate functions

>just because your property is defended by the state monopoly doesn't mean you don't own it
you never own your land, ask any lawyer. You own the right to exploit your land (and depending on local legislation, its resources) within given limits but the state has ultimate jurisdiction over it. What is ownership if not full control?

>landowners and capitalists charge rent all over the place without protecting people
that's just a private service. You're free to not pay rent and not live there. However you are still required to pay government taxes.

Too bad that will never happen since humans are too greedy and short-sighted.

Yeah there are many countries where the state regulates people's behaviour with regard to their property. People often argue it violates property rights.
But still government =/= elite, paying taxes =/= feudalism or capitalism

>government =/= elite, paying taxes =/= feudalism or capitalism
I didn't say that, my entire point is that there has ALWAYS been an elite, whether it's public or private is both debatable and unimportant. And the second point is that there is an elite because people have inherently unequal skills which bring unequal resources

I thought you were arguing that the means of production have always been owned by a ruling elite ie. ordinary people have always been alienated

well by "elite" I mean "a relatively small group of people who can exert control over the resources in a given area" so yes, I do make the point that the means of production have never been controlled by the "ordinary small person"

But they have been though, they just might have paid taxes
Even if there was always government regulation over the means of production, it's debatable whether that means you don't own the means of production. It might just be occasional coercive violations

>Why does socialism have to involve getting rid of money and the state?

Communism is a stateless and moneyless society.

Socialism is the "roadmap for achieving communism." At least, socialism was Marx's plan for achieving communism (creating a dictatorship of the proletariat). Once the proletariat held power, they were supposed to implement the steps to achieve communism and finally abolish the state and the state's currency.

A retarded fucking plan. Literally all it entailed was switching out who held the power of the state.

In 2000 BC, if you don't pay a tribute you get run off the land and possibly killed
in 1000 AD, if you don't pay a tribute you get run off the land and possibly killed
in 2017 AD, if you don't pay taxes your land is taken away from you and you're possibly imprisoned

in which of those periods would you say the ordinary farmer owned his land to a greater or lesser extent? I would argue there is very little, if any difference at all

why does socialism always have to involve multiculturalism?

because how the fuck can you make a banner saying "all people are equal but not those guys over there, fuck em"

>tfw you still miss libre

The state is arranged for the protection of the farmer's property rights and doesn't charge use of the land for profit
I don't think taxes are even based on how much land you use, it's based on income and consumption

>doesn't charge use of the land for profit
so how does the state get the resources needed for that protection?

>I don't think taxes are even based on how much land you use, it's based on income and consumption
I can absolutely guarantee you that for two empty neighboring plots, the larger one will pay a greater property tax. Those other taxes you mentioned are supplementary.

Why are republicans anarchists in Christian clothing?

It's supposed to charge to cover its costs. There's no profit motive

>There's no profit motive
have you noticed how much government debt everyone has? Does that look like profit to you? But if you're referring to personal profit gained from a position of power, it goes back to what I said - some people have more ability to get in those positions and in 99% of cases they do it just for that profit. Human nature is human nature

A socialist state is like an emo fucktard who keeps cutting himself 'till someone tell him to stop so he can blame that guy for all his problems and cut even more himself

>tl;dr selfdestroying state of mind

Except that genuine socialism is impossible.
Society will always appoint a leader. That leader, will in turn, appoint managers/advisers. Thus a class is born.
>production purely to meet needs
Why does every socialist country seem to struggle in this?
>free access to all goods and services
That holds up until some nigger wants 50 pairs of shoes or some lardass wants 12 pizzas.