Sorry if this might come as rude or elitist - not my intention as I’ve been there, but I’d really recommend reading some theory if you’re interested in this kind of stuff.
It's ok. I understand that a lot of my thinking doesn't align with Marxist-Leninist ideas and people who are die hard believers in any particular label tend to assume that others who don't think exactly like them are just ill informed or haven't 'read theory'. I don't really love labels but if you had to put the most general one you could on me it would be 'Anarcho-communist'. I'm probably more Anarchist than Communist, but in a world where 'The State' has been eliminated I would be more communist than anything else.
Marx and Engels were great thinkers, but I don't agree with everything they espoused. For one thing I don't think anybody from their time could have predicted how the world would end up today. For another they were just human beings, not prophets. It is and should be an evolving discussion based on the real world, not just ideals. Being too rigid in their thinking and adhering too closely to foundational texts is why I left the church when I was 18. I have no desire to regress to similarly rigid thinking.
My point about workers not getting full value...
Again, I don't really think that your idea of what 'full value of labor' and what many socialists mean line up at all. It's about being fairly compensated for your labor- that's really all it means. Seems like a silly thing to get hung up on when its basically a straw man.
In a coop, this would also happen under a market economy as you yourself say, and this money will come from the value of the commodities they produce as in the fruits of their labor they’re supposed to be getting “full value” of. See how it doesn’t make sense?
It makes perfect sense if you remove the words "full value" and replace it with 'fair compensation'.
Think of it this way, in a communist society people also work without receiving the 'full value' of their labor for the benefit of themselves and their community right? So we agree that people can be better than pure profit motive driven greed machines. Why would work under Communism and not Socialism?
what exactly is socialism defined by for you?
The most common way that socialism gets defined, not just by me but my most sources, is a system where 'private property' is abolished, and the workers own the means of production. In my view this means that everything else (natural resources, national parks, etc) are owned by the people in common.
As to what specific features socialism has to have on top of that- there are a variety of options. I can say what I would like to happen, and what I would advocate for, but I am no mans ruler and it would ultimately be up the the people to work out the fine details.
This is why actual socialism, which is defined by figures like Lenin, Marx and other non-falsifier communist theorists
Those people had their own ideas about what socialism/communism is- but they were by no means the only people with ideas- those just happen to be the ones gained the most popularity. There were communists before Marx and Engles and there were a lot after that didn't' agree with everything that they believed in. They can give their definitions of what those things are- they can't give the definition. Things can differ from their vision and it still be 'actual socialism'.
Money gets abolished in favor of labor vouchers that get discarded after being used up (so there’s no more accumulation of capital), things start being produced for use - there’s still a long way to go towards communism at this stage, but this is how you actually stop being capitalist and create a separate mode of production instead of just making things a bit better but still fundamentally capitalist.
That's one way to do it, but it kind of depends on each country being self sufficient. After all we can't trade for things we might need from countries that have it with labor vouchers only good in our country. If the labor vouchers are transferable, - it's no different than just using money.
Sure, it might be better but socialist/communist goal isn’t to make things better, but to change the current state of things entirely.
To get pedantic myself, the goal is to radically change the current state of things- because we think that will be better, so the goal is absolutely to make things better. The question isn't where we want to end up, we can pretty much all agree on that (I think), but how we get there is the tricky part.
People are highly resistant to change. There are basically only two choices when it comes to radical change in a society
Option 1. Try and force the change on them. I don't think this will ever work in the long term. People will fight back and resent you for using force on them. When the end goal is to have a fair and humane society where everyone is equal and we all do the right things because they are the right things- using this method is more likely to backfire than any other strategy.
Option 2. Educate people and advocate for the change you want to see in the world. Allow people to choose the right thing of their own free will and with informed consent. In my humble opinion this is the only way that a lasting communist society could ever possibly form.
If you hold people down and make them 'act right', the second you release the pressure they will try to hold you down and make you act like they want you to act. If you show people a better way and invite them to join you- they are more likely to follow along with the program.
That being said there is only so much a society can reasonably be expected to take, and when the Capitalists take the gloves off and go full fascist mode- the chances of the people violently revolting are high. If that were to happen in the U.S. I can all but guarantee that it won't be replaced by communism.
Don't mistake me- I'm not saying that we can win by asking nicely. I don't think we will ever be able to achieve socialism or communism by voting for it, and I don't think the ruling class will go down without a fight- but I think there is a decent 3rd option between forcing our beliefs on people and being unwilling to get our hands dirty. Get people to choose change first, to demand change, and fight with them against their oppressors.
