Ok this isn't materialist in any way, this is designing a rube goldberg machine without the means of putting it together. You're saying this stuff as if it's not specific to situation, geography, or climate? I do wanna say

But regardless of all of this, where do you specifically come in to declare all of this? For instance Cuba has a constitution that was designed by popular mandate, it wasn't designed by a single person and then given a yes/no vote. Socialism is a mass movement and like anything similar consists of compromises and negotiation.

What you're doing is designing the specific policies of a fictional country that has no outside interference or internal strife or what? I think I don't understand how exactly something like this comes about, although a few of the specific policies you mention already exist in places like Vietnam and Cuba.

Also despite all of that I do think it's valid of you to say what you believe in and support. I hope we can discuss this in good faith because you do seem to have put a lot of thought into this.

Congratulations on inventing the DDR

I haven't had enough coffee to respond directly, but I respect you putting your ideas out there for criticism and discussion. I don't think that happens often enough on this site. I think this community is too quick to dogpile instead of educate although we are starting to break that mold a bit and I hope we take the opportunity here to have a more constructive discussion and encourage these kinds of posts in the future.

Cc: @Cowbee@hexbear.net

These are not views they're daydreams, it's cool and well intentioned but really the only "right" socialist system is the one that adapts to the specifics of the place and time it is implemented to

If you're under extreme foreign pressure to the point of having to deal with a ground invasion, if your country is under blockade by its neighbours and fails to ally with existing socialist powers, if you face immense risks of internal sabotage, many of the things that would feel good to have may simply not be possible to implement

a planned market economy is a true socialist economy

rereading this part makes me think this is a bit

Market socialism is only a stop-gap measure on the way towards a communized system, not a whole system in of itself.

Even here you are looking at running both a currency and labor voucher in some kind of dual system, which is unsustainable, because those who can convert labor vouchers into currency will be able to accrue interest and gain influence over those who have to spend labor vouchers on necessities. Unless you are running some sort of complex banking and centralized market where certain items can only be exchanged for labour vouchers or currency, depending. If a value game can be run, someone will run it. Doesn't mean that it isn't worth trying, but making it more complex just makes the game easier to run. Why not just abolish currency, only use labor vouchers? It is much simpler, especially in an era of computerized inventory.

As others have said, these kinds of systems tend to be developed ad hoc. It is utopian to pretend otherwise.

I mean, based off of reading this, you aren't really into socialism/communism, as the goals of the movement is ultimately the emancipation of the working class and total abolition of the state (legalized violence). For example, the argument between communists and anarchists one of the required steps in that process, not over what an 'ideal government' is. That is fundamentally a liberal argument, that an adequately planned state with the correct values will become the end of history. The communist does not view it that way. We once existed in a time without states, with industrial machinery and organization, we could easily exist as that again. More importantly, if we do not seek to exist as that again, that same industrial machinery will be used to enslave us and pit us in brutal competition both martial and commerical against each other.

private property exists alongside public and collective property

you say this

all corporations get split and collectivized by the workers

and then this

landowners get stripped of their landowner role, so the tenants get to be their own landowners, and they pay the taxes to the land and other stuff (taxation is NOT theft in any way, shape and form). property (whether private or public or collectivized) becomes regulated to avoid inequalities and such

then all of this

do you realise how incoherent this whole set of sentences is? do you have any practical experience you can point to where this all works?

I don't think you can make these decisions without having to build it. You won't know if you need a three-way framework until you get to the point where you're building that framework. By then you might learn something new and have a better idea or find a reason why it wouldn't work. Something can sound really good in theory and have no problems but then problems somehow appear in practice. I encourage anyone to get some friends and try to carry out a big project together. You'll start to see why it's not as easy as finding the right answer on paper first. It's not really an ideas problem, it's an organization problem. It's getting people together, synchronized, and focused on one goal despite the hiccups that will appear. It's also being able to keep those people together and focused when things go wrong and you have to change the plan.

There's a lot to unpack here, but the bulk of it as others have pointed out is that there's a lot of contradictions. I think what you're doing is working off of what sounds good to you, rather than taking a materialist approach and truly verifying if what you're proposing makes any sense at all. Land is a good one, why have a land value tax and not just publicly own it? It seems like you just want a more progressive version of western liberalism, but aren't committing to unpacking why socialists take issue with such structures.

I think the term "proletarian liberalism" will be very popular in certain circles as socialism grows in the US