socialist mode of production is when commodity production is abolished
It’s a useless “definition.” Commodity production doesn’t have to be abolished for a mode of production to be called socialist. If that was true, no socialist experiment anywhere, at any time could be called socialist.
The abolition of commodity production might be an inevitable result of a socialist mode of production, but that hardly tells us anything about who it is that’s doing the production and the who it is that is deciding what must be produced, does it? The who is important, don’t you think?
meaning instead of working a set 8 hours every day a worker would have to work as long as it is socially necessary to fulfill all the needs,
And who will be doing the enforcing of this?
Of course, after Stalin came along and shit all over this definition with his “socialism in one state”
Blaming it all on Stalin isn’t going to fly.
If you think this definition is invalid, what do you think socialism is then and how does it differ from capitalism?
What is wrong with an understanding (I avoid the term “definition” like the plague) of socialism that actually offers the working class something?
It’s a useless “definition.” Commodity production doesn’t have to be abolished for a mode of production to be called socialist. If that was true, no socialist experiment anywhere, at any time could be called socialist.
The abolition of commodity production might be an inevitable result of a socialist mode of production, but that hardly tells us anything about who it is that’s doing the production and the who it is that is deciding what must be produced, does it? The who is important, don’t you think?
And who will be doing the enforcing of this?
Blaming it all on Stalin isn’t going to fly.
What is wrong with an understanding (I avoid the term “definition” like the plague) of socialism that actually offers the working class something?