Commiunism

They kinda are necessary, given how they're the byproduct of capitalism's private property model and its commodification.

You could technically remove them by having the state manage all the housing, but that's overly idealistic given how that'd go against the ruling class interests which would cause heavy lobbying by big landowners. It would also make the state a monopoly landowner which would have its own implications.

In other words, they're necessary not because they're useful, but because of how dogshit the system is.

I love how NK is being directly compared to a literal monarchy here, accidental self-aware moment

What's that? You don't want to throw yourselves into a meatgrinder to protect the private property rights of your fellow rich nationals?

I mean, even this kind of argument doesn't really work in reality. We already live in "hell on earth", and via electorialism usually two choices are given: the progressive "nothing ever happens" option (so your socdems, democrats, you'll be lucky to get a good policy or two but no real change to the status quo) or "literally hitler" option, maybe some parties that stand in the middle of the spectrum if the country is "advanced" enough.

In other words, via electorialism you can either preserve the hell on earth or make it worse, and the process of voting legitimizes this status quo as it's what "people have decided" rather than who the ruling class cast as candidates, who had the most money and media influence for campaigning.

It's important to see electorialism for what it truly is.

socialist candidate

looks inside

another socdem

Think the billionaire is safe, even more so considering the proposed pro-business policies by the candidate

Critical support to imperialist conflict

Gonna have an unpopular take here, but pornography and sex work under our current system shouldn't be celebrated as a "bastion of freedom", given how it's selling access to one's body and sexuality as a product. Even if they agree to it consensually, the choice happens in a world where money decides what people can or can't do, if one is going to survive or not. This makes the concept of "real consent" complicated, because the need of money, much like the need of food or essential goods can force people into doings they wouldn't freely choose if survival wasn't on the line.

Given this, one could definitely consider it commodified rape - it's not necessarily violent like forced rape, but it's still shaped by money, power, and pressure in a system where people's bodies get turned into things to be bought.

The law does suck ass and shouldn't be supported though, the issue stems with a system where our survival depends on money (with selling your body being a way to get by) and not individual morals. I fully agree with Yidit when he says that it'll just cause sex work to become more dangerous by moving it underground.

At least his critique is clear and coherent.

If validity of theory was based on what its writers had done, then Marx would be worthless and Urban Guerilla doctrine would be invaluable.

Trade and wage labor also aren’t exclusive to capitalism.

Yes, trade isn't exclusive to capitalism, I never claimed otherwise. However, there is a distinction between commodity exchange for exchange-value (capitalist trade) and international distribution of goods to satisfy needs (socialist distribution), whether through planned allocation or transitional forms like labor vouchers.

Wage labor is specific to capitalism, it's a sale of labor-power as a commodity, exchanged for a wage, with surplus value being appropriated by a class/managerial apparatus. This is THE fundamental relation of capitalism, and you'd be better off reading theory than blindly quoting it.

Though I will give a concession - socialism is such a meaningless term that it means like 4 different things depending on who says it: liberals would say it's social democracy, ML's say its state capitalism, Marxists and Leninists say it's socialist mode of production (post-transition period) and Posadists would say it's when nuclear annihilation. A word doesn't make a thing so if you consider state capitalism to be socialist - fair, all power to you. However - Marxists, Leninists, Liberals would all collectively disagree. You did drop a Lenin quote to strengthen your argument so let me do the same:

• Lenin, The Tax in Kind

No one, I think, in studying the question of the economic system of Russia, has denied its transitional character. Nor, I think, has any Communist denied that the term Soviet Socialist Republic implies the determination of the Soviet power to achieve the transition to socialism, and not that the existing economic system is recognised as a socialist order.

In the same text he also calls NEP USSR as state capitalist due to the concessions he had to make for the transition, which is explicitly made distinct from Socialism.

And I'm adamant that it's a mischaracterization. Identifying the dominant mode of production is not a "one drop rule", it's literally foundational Marxist analysis - modes are defined by prevailing relations of production, not how it's managed or ideological labels put onto them.