"""co-ops are socialism"""

The entire point of setting up co-ops is to provide a solid financial base for the workers to fund agitation, stockpile of arms, recruitment, and the sustenance of strikers/protesters. Additionally, the communes and provide a physical space for the workers to be trained in both combative and technical skills. If there is no work for them, the communes can serve as a last-resort place for them to stay safe and warm. Co-ops and Working Communes in Capitalist societies are a means to an end, and not the intended end.

...

...

Shit meme. Watch WEBM related or read a fucking book for once.

Wolff is right to use coops as an entry point for normies, but he shouldn't call it 'socialism' and then contrast it with 'private capitalism' like he usually does. It's really cringeworthy and runs counter to the supposed Marxian understanding he should have.

Correct.

Unions weren't socialism either. Vanguards aren't socialism. Nor were any of the labor rights socialists historically fought for.

What makes cooperatives so controversial here when the latter aren't beyond 20th century nostalgia and contrarianism?

just stop posting anytime

Sauce? Video makes some good points fam.

Because unlike unions and vanguards, workers actually own and democratically control the means of production in a worker cooperative. Pretty simple.

kapitalism101.wordpress.com/

Thanks

I meant why are they controversial.

Wolf is a Marxian economist, he is not a Marxist. There are Marxians who reject Marx's labour theory in favour of using Sraffa's.

No. We should be in interested only in the most pragmatic and workable approaches. Market socialism is the logical first step.

...

it's more workable than anarcha feminism

do it

I genuinely don't understand how you can think that market socialism isn't the most pragmatic step towards communism.

this

Daily reminder that Stalin would have have thrown you into the gulag

wew

More pragmatic than waiting for the revolutionary moment and then getting cucked by right-wingers who were doing organic work and convincing people to their cause while you were accusing other lefties of opportunism :^)

...

Protip, he didnt.

...

Just when I thought this board couldn't get any more retarded.

"""Worker's state"""

...

She's pretty based

What if he says "private" on purpose?

I don't know what you expected from an anfem

?????

Well, co-ops operate within market economy, thus they still enforce wage labor and we all know that we can`t get rid of capitalism without getting actually rid of monetary system based on fiat-currency.

Dont do that

co-ops are useful insofar as they promote the development of the productive forces of society towards abolishing wage labor, money, the state, etc.

I know fruitless debates over semantics are one this board's favorite pastimes and all but surely we can at least agree capitalism is related to the act of accumulating capital right?

Sure, but the accumulation of capital is not a necessity in a market

It's true tho.
production for exchange > surplus value > exploitation

No, it just mean the workers force themselves to work beyond their needs to stay competitive. They are they own slave-drivers.

Lol what?

No its not, first, production for exchange does not ends in a planned economy, as you still have to produce surplus value so that you meet production quotas, as self-sustaining economies is simply inane

Then this surplus value becomes social value, as the value is given to the common in the market, it is not surplus labour, also known as revenue, since its the worker who keeps it, not the capitalists

It stems from a purely individualistic need of wanting to obtain other commodities which I dont know how to manufacture, but another person does

It is not exploitation either, because the worker surrplus value is kept by him, not by the capitalist, and its not self-exploitation, as thqt concept is incredibly stupid and cannot exist

Let's pretend it takes me X energy and Y time to produce a commodity, am I exploting myself? The theory of self exploitation would tell us yes, so now I will take X - a energy and Y + b time, am I still exploting myself? So i will keep going for an infinite amount of cycles

you can apply the same logic

A worker that has to achieve self-sufficiency is working beyond the necessity thanks to the invention of a market to achieve what he could achieve by specializing his labour

What was hard to understand? a market is the act of exchanging commodities, if you are applying your labour more efficiently then you can create more use-values, then you can exchange these use-values for other use-values,

You are not creating value from thin air not apropiating capital, you are exchanging use-values

test

test 2

captcha: workbz
hmm…
or maybe?
???

There's nothing more hilarious than seeing piratefag convince nobody of anything.

What about seeing satannazi tell us about sex magic and how the jew is using porn to harvest our sexual energy to feed their intergalactic empire?

This is literally not an argument

Glad you cannot refute my points

You literally don't know what surplus value is do you?

What the fuck am I reading?

My computer is acting retarded so im just going to post a pic

Heres the link
marxists.org/glossary/terms/s/u.htm

stay btfo and starved, central planning nerds

Calling a political system dominated by the interests of capital "democratic" is only possible insofar you ignore that capital, and not the represented, has the power.

You can only pretend that co-ops are democratic ownership of the means of production for as long as you define the market as some sort of impartial natural law, and not the instrument of capital.

But the point is moot, co-ops a fine way to form controlled opposition by selling Joe McDweeb on the same bullshit he gets fed by politicians, riding on Joe's antagonism for his workplace hierarchy.

"can come up with a reply" and "find it necessary to further indulge you" are two different things.

communism>socialism>egalitarian capitalism >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>liberal capitalism>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>authoritarian capitalism

stay btfo

I guess Rojava too is controlled opposition?

ITT: tankies (people that dont read books) think markets == capitalism.

I like that are more posters here, but FUCK so they have to be so uneducated?

You have to be realistic after the failures of Soviet Union. Market socialism is the best way to fight for the working class when we have no new theory for planned economy.

Holy shit, you've completely failed to understand the difference between surplus value and surplus product, the former being abstract labour (expressed in monetary form) extracted from workers by a firm (by effectively making them work more hours than they are paid for), and the latter being a physical quantity: the worker producing more goods than he can individually consume.

Since value cannot exist in the absence of generalised commodity the former will not exist in a communist society, though the latter will remain to some extent, but it will be a planned quantity and only exist in so far as it's actually of use to society. Self expanding production where people are compelled to work by market forces and produce even increasing amounts of goods will no longer exist.

Alright, i did mixed up the terms, you are right

HOWEVER

Change the word value to product and my point still stands
Why?

I'll respond to this later, got places to be.

yea, first and last step
because market "socialists" aren't gonna move past market framework

because past market framework lies planned framework, means administrative framework
and every free-spirited leftie knows that administrative measures are BAD

but it's all irrelevant anyway
because true market "socialism" is just as infeasible as true free market capitalism in general

speaking of pragmatism
I have no special love for bureaucracy, but thinking that you can get shit done without administrative apparatus is pretty unpragmatic in my opinion

really?
as I see it, it is not more unrealistic than thinking that market "socialism" can work after Yugoslavia failed

for me, it is really simple
what we have here is a general social division of labour
general division of labour implies that end product is a social product (different inputs provided by many different parts of society, that at the limit equals whole of society)

this division of labour can be mediated by exchange based on the law of value (if we are still thinking in the Marxist faramework), or by administrative means

pick your favorite

You do realize that automation means that one person becomes capable of producing more than ever, correct? communism requires that people produce ever increasing amounts to the point that most people do not have to work for needs to be met. why is it a bad thing that this be accomplished through market forces?

Your analysis is incorrect, their position isnt a moral one, but its a matter of asking if markets will accomplish such thing or not

and every free-spirited leftie knows that administrative measures are BAD
On the contrary, I'm of the opinion that when physical capital concentration of an industry reaches a point at or near full automation it should be handed over to public control. At that point there wouldn't even need to be that many administrative measures as even many administrative measures would be automated as well.

I always envisioned market socialism with social democratic/Keynesian style markets.

Just like today, there would be a place for bureaucracy and nationalized industries, but there should be no special rule outlawing the use of markets or non-public cooperatives.

As I've pointed out multiple times, yugoslavia had worker control but not worker ownership, as most cooperatives do currently. We should still learn from the mistakes of yugoslavia of course though. I'm not sure central planners have completely learned from the mistakes of the USSR and the rest of the communist bloc.

excuse me? that's quite literally what he just described markets as doing. this is exactly what the theory of the tendency of the rate of profit to decrease over time is about.

Yeah, but the critique against markets is that, pre cisely since markets can accomplish such thing, yet they cannot enforce said system, they cannot function as a transitionary period

but my point is exactly this, a market socialist system would accomplish such a thing and enforce such a system, as the market socialist state would have a legal structure that would ensure such a smooth transition. For example, making a law that says that once a certain amount of automation is reached in a sector, the state takes control and determines the prices, a small portion will continue to go to the original owners/workers until they die, at which point the payments would stop. At this point, the industry would produce goods for zero profit. If there is no cost even for inputs, this would mean the good would be produced for free.

...

It doesn't get rid of alienation, but it does get rid of exploitation and teach workers to interact democratically with their workplace!

I think you meant currency friendo

Can't post. :|

The Kurds know it too, fam. Kobane would have been a devastating defeat without US air support.

Not really, there's a very big difference between a society that produces in order to extract surplus value and a society that is consciously expanding production in order to fulfil the the desires of its people. In a society that engages in commodity production the allocation of goods and the expansion of production happens "behind the backs" of it's people (even of those that own the means of production), since profitability will dictate where funds must be invested regardless of what people want or what our real material needs are.

Breaking this post up because of board AIDS

continued

In an economy based on market exchange between cooperatives, workers will still find themselves subject to most of the downsides of run-of-the-mill liberal capitalism: They'll still have the threat of unemployment constantly hanging over their heads, competition will mean workers will still have to work long hours or risk being pushed out of the market by other firms, they'll still have to "voluntarily" have to work overtime when their firm is struggling or when the FRoP inevitably produces a crisis (in fact I've seen people on this board praising actual co-ops for behaving in this manner), and there will still be massive pay differentials from profession to profession and region to region (and quite possibly economic exploitation of one region or industry by another due to the inherent advantages or certain sections of the market).

continued

So that we can control the conditions that we work under, allowing us to have short work hours while at the same time still increasing production in areas where we desire to do so. In other words we would (collectively) control our work (and therefore our lives) rather than being controlled by a mindless process.

For two reasons: A) Because the market will rule our lives in the mean time (see above), and why the fuck should I sacrifice the enjoyment of my life for a hypothetical post-scarcity future I may not be alive to see? This is the same sort of productivist logic championed by conservative liberals that think we should work ourselves to the bone for the benefit of future generations.
B) Because a gradual transition between value production and the higher phase of communism is impossible. Markets self optimize to extract as much labour time as possible from people, as industries are automated away people are pushed out useful work into increasingly inane forms of employment (like losing a job at a warehouse only to find employment as a professional fucking dog-walker).

The FRoP doesn't mean your work hours will decrease as profits fall, quite the opposite in fact: as the rate of profit falls the rate of exploitation has to be increased in order to halt maintain stable profits. A crisis will tend to cause some workers to become unemployed but the remainder will find themselves being pushed harder.

Sorry about the multiple posts, but I couldn't seem to get it to work with more than a few lines in each post.

...

t. Phil Greaves

This is what would happen under capitalism, but in a cooperative, the motivation for economic is not only driven by profit, but of job security and relative take home income. Cooperatives are quite capable of operating at zero profit so long as it does not dip to negative profit and would certainly sacrifice profit to keep the workers their jobs, as the workers are the owners. Not to mention, in a market socialist society the state can act as a regulator on the amount of exploitation so as to prevent people from working themselves raw and whatnot.

Regardless, yes there wouldn't be a decrease in work in the short term, but after a certain point the amount of labor required will be so minuscule to create a good thanks to greater and greater capital investment, that it won't even matter.

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Pardon me for my naivete but from my reading of the Manifesto society must move initially from capitalist mode of production (ignoring the Permanent Revolution) to first a socialist mode of production which eventually brings about communism.

I know that what then happened in the Russian SFSR was rapid nationalisation of the means of production, but I believe this led to famine more than once. Also, I don't trust a """workers' state""" to truly uphold the interests of the proletariat, it's not an efficient arrangement anyhow, and aren't the proletariat themselves meant to sieze the means of production?

So why then is co-operatism not a viable system to fulfil the socialist mode of production? It achieves the aim of the proletariat's control of the means of production and of democracy in the workplace; furthermore, you aren't being manipulated by the new bourgeoisie created in the place of the old in the Party.

A co-op could certainly operate a zero profit for a period of time, provided it was keeping up with competition and provided a crisis didn't occur. However it wouldn't grow during this period at all since profit is required for investment (unless the funding was external - in which case the profit of another enterprise would have to reduced), and it would be rapidly push out of the market by rival firms acting in a competitive manner (either paying themselves less or working harder). Not to mention the periodic crises inherent to commodity production, which would have the effect of increasing competition for market share.

(continued)
If you have enough state intervention to achieve that then the law of value would be distorted and there would be little point in having a market at all.

(continued)
As I said in a prior post: people would still be subject to all the problems of commodity production for quite some time (fuck that, I'm not sacrificing myself for future generations), and there couldn't be a gradual transition to free access as long as a labour market exists.

(continued)
Though the economy would be thrown into a very serious crisis in the event of human labour becoming truly obsolete, society would still be faced with having to restructure itself with planned production in mind. Once the market breaks down an alternative mode of allocation would be required.

Oops, post post is a continuation of not

investment can also come from external sources in the form of debt, which would not come from the profit of other coops.

the state already does that to a large extent. are you implying the law of value is not in effect now?

which is why there are significant financial incentives to go through the process, as I outlined.

not with a significant social safety net and UBI made possible through socialized finance that keeps consumption possible.

I believe that market socialism is a framework to make such a situation not a crisis at all.

Regardless, I would hesitate to fully describe full automation as planned, as much of economic activity would be done on a basis of things being made to specific orders of individuals.

The socialist mode of production (in marxist terms) *is* communism. While Marx though that their would be two phases of communism , the lower of which (usually just called socialism) would still have allocation according to work done, both phases are part of the same mode of production are operate in more or less the same manner (production for use rather than exchange, planned directly social production etc.).

Nationalisation can't have bought about the famines in the early USSR for the simple reason that agriculture wasn't nationalised (for the most part). Most farms were non-state collectives.

When did fucking utopians invade. Also love the retards that never actually read Bordiga, much less Marx, talking shit. This whole board has gone to complete shit. Next thing you know the DSA and coop shilling will reach critical mass and we will just be /liberalpol/. You ruined a good thing and shit on everything the left has learned from the failures of the 20th century. Honestly, kys faggots. I really mean it. I hope you all die. You're worse than even the Nazi faggots because you enable them and this whole nightmare with your utopian vision. The whole world would be better off without you. I'm done.

The debt would have to be paid off out of the wages of the firms workers, essentially becoming profit by another name.

Only to an extent and it does a terrible job of it. And yes if the intervention was great enough to hamper the effects of competition the the market itself would be rendered quite dysfunctional (the law of value would still operate - it would merely be distorted). You would have to continually intervene to attempt to solve the problems cause by such intervention in the first place.

I don't want "financial incentives", shit, our present society gives us no end of "financial incentives". What I want is to be free from the pressures of the market. Quite frankly I'd be will to be poorer if it meant more free time and enjoyable, stress free work. Fuck market competition.

The co-op shills have always been here, fam, and their numbers were bound to increase is the board became more popular, simply because of popular ignorance of communist theory. However it would probably be better if people such as yourself helped argue against them, rather than getting mad and telling them to off themselves (however tempting that may be).

Should be: Quite frankly I'd rather be poorer if it meant more free time and enjoyable, stress free work

Once again, contemporary capitalism has already solved this problem through the wonders of inflation.

Certainly that has not been the case for many safety regulations and minimum wage laws.

then it sounds like social democracy is the ideology for you.

really scratches the grey matter

Orthodoxy is a dead end, if you are unable to adapt and learn from our mistakes then we don't deserve to succeed.

Apparently Holla Forums won't let me post more than a few lines of text right now (probably because of the spambot?) so here's my reply in image form.

(WEBM)

How the fuck do you figure that? Social democratic capitalism suffers from all the problems I just described, and in fact isn't really very far removed from what you're proposing.

With a sufficiently large social safety net/UBI you can get exactly what you want. You can get your NEETbux and then do whatever you want with your labor, become a writer or an artist or take a job with few hours and many mandatory vacation days.

Your project is one of solving alienation. Which is all well and good. But both council communism and central planning have their own problems and potential crises, many of which you cannot even be aware. I'm taking what I know about capitalism and trying to build something that can 1) transition to full automation without major crisis, 2) give workers control over the political economy, 3) remain relatively stable in the long run, and 4) continue to increase standards of living.

Social democracy cannot achieve these things due to capital accumulation and global competition. I believe market socialism, on the other hand, would be a competitive advantage and not lead to rampant inequality.

Good post. Just a minor nitpick: while the distribution of consumer goods can be done with personalised credit, this really doesn't work for the means of production, the distribution of which would need to be planned in some way, centrally or not.

Anyone who has experienced western welfare systems knows that they give you the bare minimum to survive, leaving you with fuck all left over to actually do anything with (which you need because everything in our society is enclosed). So unless your idea of fun is shitposting on the internet all day, then no, it really doesn't solve my problem.

But that is the ideal of Social Democracy, is it not? Not to mention there are public libraries and community centers which can provide you with further resources that are public goods. You can write, watch tv, paint, draw, exercise. in New Zealand, all river banks are a public good as well, and in the US you can hunt on public land in some states. What is it you want to do with your life anyway?

A quick google search also produced this:

business.financialpost.com/news/economy/how-denmarks-welfare-program-has-narrowed-its-wealth-gap-to-one-of-the-smallest-in-the-world

Great, you can fuck around with some hobbies while being effectively excluded from most social activity due to lacking the funds. Right up until there's an economic crisis and right wing politicians start cutting welfare in order to prop up the rate of profit. Which has been happening in almost all welfare states for the last 30 years.

That article is from 2014. But regardless, that's what you asked for. If you're worried about crisis, I suggest you go with market socialism.

No it's really not.

Commodity production causes fucking crises, "market socialism" isn't going to solve shit.

...

Yes yes, "use value versus exchange value" and all that shit. But the problem is that central planning on its own hasn't solved this problem either. In order for production to actually be for use you must know what people will use before they use it. This is quite easy to do with larger goods, especially with goods that are made to order, but for most consumer goods this is quite difficult, and indeed it is a requirement that the supply be larger than the demand for there not to be shortages thanks to uneven distribution and demand. The USSR and the eastern bloc all ran into crisis caused by production.

In a complex economy such as ours we need some sort of consumer feedback mechanism. While I'm sure it is possible to due it with extensive surveys and such, the easiest and most reliable way is a market.

Furthermore, when a planned economy hits a crisis there is nothing beyond the planners to save them. You must rely on the same people who created the crisis in the first place to solve it. In a market socialist economy the state can fix the failures of the market, and free associations of production can fill in any gaps the state may leave. Indeed, your only other option would be to introduce private producers, cooperatives and self employed individuals if you don't want to completely abandon your principles.

chapter 8

Rojava today is much closer to socialism than the Soviet Union ever was. We don't need your corrupt vanguard class or your neo-feudal economic policies.
Bordigism is also meme-tier economic Fascism.

It requires some serious mental gymnastics to put us in the same category as socdems and idpollers.

bordiga is a mess

anfem confirmed for cointelpro

[email protected]/* */ is not the same as Wolff, FYI.

wow what an innovation! It's not like we can get a market to do all that shit anyway! hurray our problems are solved!

the most ridiculous part, they're using Marxist labor values to back up all this shit, which means yes you'll still be competing in the same manner as in capitalism! hell! even profit is simulated!

So yes, you can get around Nove's criticism of using labor values in socialism if you just simulate everything capitalism does, but then what the hell are you doing?! It might as well be market socialism, except at least in market socialism there is more freedom from state control!

Three counter-points from chapter 8:
>The rich have many times the ‘votes’ of low-income consumers and hence the structure of production will be skewed towards satisfying the demands of the former (however frivolous), while the real needs of the poor will go unmet if they fail to register in the form of monetary demand. But if the distribution of income is basically egalitarian this objection falls and the voting analogy has some force.

In their proposal, the means of production are not exchanged on a market.

>Profit, the ‘success’ indicator for capitalist enterprises, depends in part on the degree of exploitation of labour within the enterprise. For instance, if two enterprises are producing the same product and employing the same technology, higher profits will accrue to the enterprise which manages to pay lower wages or enforce a longer working day. Our proposed ratio of market price to labour-value, on the other hand, is not sensitive to the degree of exploitation within the enterprise.
The capitalist strategy of paying less per hour as a way of getting better productivity does not apply here.

Income distribution would be much more egalitarian under market socialism. There are much lower pay differentials in cooperatives.

The socialization of finance would have a similar effect, and I would support that under market socialism.

Neither does it in market socialism. In a cooperative, if you work longer hours to get ahead, or cut wages to reduce the price, the increase in "profits" goes right back into your pocket. An increase in productivity leads to an increase in pay.

Socialism = workers control means of production in an economic system

Co-op = workers control means of production in an entity

More egalitarian than under actual planning?

Can you give some details what you mean by that? If you mean something like Roemer's proposal that every adult citizen gets shares and can move them around and they extinguish with death, then I don't see that as similar at all, as that proposal still follows the one-dimensional logic of the market instead of planning for use values.

By conceiving enterprises as self-contained units responsible for their own fate, you still make a fundamental attribution error. Different places have different quality of equipment, and being fair to people who work in these different places instead of rewarding or punishing them for the equipment, requires centralized planning.

Coops are socialism.
Sure, the local community as a whole need to have total democratic sovereignity and thus regulatory control over such coops, but they are socialism.

A private enterprise completing capital cycles by exploiting labor to amass a surplus and sell it on the market for money to obtain a higher amount of capital than before as an end in itself is capitalism, whether the firm is run democratically or not.

READ THE FUCKING POST YOU'RE REPLYING TO BEFORE REGURGITATING TALKING-POINTS!

Nothing in your post suggests that coops are socialism in any other way. Democratic private firms are still capitalism.

you just got BTFO'd, son

And a system based on co-ops (worker control of MoP) is somehow not socialist?

You do realize that isn't incompatible with a strict definition of socialism right? As long as the workers control the MoP and commerce is conducted in a cooperative/community regulated environment?

What's next? Are we going to claim Rojavans are a bunch of AnCaps?

Read the fucking post you're replying to before regurgitating you smug asshole

A society that produces to fulfil its desires still has to engage in some form exchange, the so called "profit" would not come from the exploitation of surplus value

Unemployment isnt an issue, as unemployed people would be able to form their own cooperatiive, this is impossible now because of property rights, but it would be different under market anarchis

Workers wont have to work long hours to stay competitive, as the market will dictate less hours, since workers get their full value of every hour worked, meaning long working days are no longer a necessity, no one keeps the surplus of every hour but the worker

Pay differentials are not caused by the market, but by the cost of production
Sure, a janitor will earn less than a surgeon, but thats due to the amount of value generated by each one
The fact that life would be harder to sustain in certain areas is alright in my book, as it will stop human expansion

There is no necessity to control the worker condition as the workers would do so themselves, if people desire to increase production in certain areas of the economy then they will be able to

Being controlled by the central planning authorities means you are not in control of either ur labour or your life

But there is no "profit" in market anarchism mutualism, the value generated by the workers is kept by the workers, not by proky

...

(Pic, PDF related.)

Ummmm…

It wasn't know as capitalism until long after Marx died.

It was called "the capitalist mode of production". That pic ends with stupid sophistry.

Egalitarian enough to prevent any major difference in power over the political economy based on wealth. Concerns about diverting resources away from the poor can be mitigated by state intervention, much like today, through the use of nationalized industries and subsidies for base level goods.

jacobinmag.com/2016/11/finance-banks-capitalism-markets-socialism-planning/
There is already much central planning under capitalism. I'm willing to permit that level of planning to persist, but not much more.

First of all, markets are not perfect vehicles of competition. Many factors influence the success and failure of a business. Second of all, those that have superior equipment should be rewarded when they make a choice to get that better equipment. When it is not a choice, we must still prioritize production where it is most efficient. Production is not about "fairness" beyond working conditions and exploitation. You are not being exploited by nature or by your predecessors. That's the meme tier thinking that produces the conclusion that workers in the third world are getting exploited by workers in the 1st!

What wasn't?

I don't think you know what this means.

A sophism a false argument consciously brought up in order to deceive. The last part of my post is, at best, if it isn't simply an honest (it is) and true assessment of this guy's understanding of what capitalism is, a projection at best.

What does 'it' mean here?

Assuming you meant the term 'capitalism', it was used by Marx himself extensively in Das Kapital, and interchangeably with 'the capitalist mode of production'. A quick parse through volume one sees it used roughly 20 times within the first 150 pages of the first volume across the first five chapters.

Prior to Marx, Blanc mentions it in 1850 too (books.google.nl/books/about/Civilization_and_Capitalism_15th_18th_Ce.html?id=WPDbSXQsvGIC&redir_esc=y).

Prior to these two individuals and their comments on political economy, the term 'capitalism' appears already in the 17th century and is and always has been synonymous with 'capitalist [mode of production]' as a longer identifier and extension of its meaning.

Needless to say I don't know what appeals to the period of a term's origin (even if we've established that you're completely incorrect on a factual level) have anything to do with why capitalism is called capitalism.

the amount of value that is added to a commodity past the money invested originally is the amount due to labor. if a good could be sold for a greater value than was invested into it without putting any extra effort into it everyone could simply put the investment in themselves as it would be cheaper. profit in a cooperative is only an accounting tool, for the money they get from selling the good already belongs to them. wages in a cooperative are an allowance needed since the true value of their labor is ambiguous until the sale of the goods they produced.

Have you yet to watch the WEBM ITT dealing with this argument( ), or do you consciously ignore it's there?

Either way, I'm not interested in spoonfeeding you with the reality of impersonal market forces and private competition. Even if I was, I can't do it any more eloquently than Kap101 does, so don't waste everyone's time by having people repeat it ad nauseum.

Out for tonight, see you tomorrow. Pce.

Thats nice, bt you have yet to explain how it would be any different on a post-market society

If we understand that money is just a representation of the productive forces, then its easy to see how a similar cicle would arise in a planned economy

On one side you have the productive forces, they produce commodities for exchange and the resulting productive forcs would still be of a higher amount

Or do you reckon the productive cycle on a post-market society would be any different?

So basically a society of start-ups. There's a video of younger Wolff praising Silicon Valley neoliberalism before neoliberalism became hegemony. Lots of marxists made that mistake because for them the ultimate capitalist evil was repetitive physical factory work, so neoliberalism's obsession with entrepreneurs was like worker's liberation to them.

I've watched it several times. I disagree with the idea a planned economy is a real solution, but apparently you disagree with all of it. As the logic I just outlined in my post was that of socially necessary labor time. In case you didn't know, not all profit is reinvested (which is what you're complaint is essentially about, the need to reinvest profit), quite a bit of it is simply taken by capitalists. I was critiquing your ontology of profit, I am quite aware of how private competition and market forces cause the re-investment of profit and the disciplining of labor under capitalism. I have spent much of this thread explaining how market socialism would deal with and indeed utilize such forces. Why should increased automation and productivity be seen as a bad thing? That's exactly what's needed to make communism possible!

I am of the opinion that socially necessary labor time and markets are needed in a complex economy such as ours, until such a time we reach near full automation.

Even the most well thought out strategies for planned economies are essentially just simulated markets, as this user has showed me

the only difference between such a system and market socialism would be the incredible power of the state over all of society, something I'm not all too interested in seeing .

...

I prefer markets over states pretending to be markets, yes.

The inequality of a market is preferable over the tyranny of a state.

So you agree then that it wasn't called "the capitalist's mode of production" either, so the point still stands. Who is the sophist now?

When firms are transformed into co-ops people inherit the equipment of the firm. The workers still have to live with consequences from decisions others made. I prefer central planning that accounts for these differences in productivity to the "freedom" of being held responsible for my old boss being an asshat.

I don't know what your point was in linking to that piece. Jacobin is not great at economics. The piece repeats the claim that Proudhon proposed an objective labor-time price system, which is something every Marxist "knows" of Proudhon, yet I haven't found a single Proudhon quote for that. The piece has a bunch of nice and agreeable reforms of the banking system for the sensible Berniecrat, it has fuckall to do with the claim of having a
I don't think the author would claim that either.

No. Money is power over other people. That money is a good representation of use values is an illusion that stems from individual experience which cannot be generalized to a sensible macro model. That is, when some consumer item costs five dollars, you can figure out you can buy three for fifteen. You just multiply the number of units you want with the single-unit price to get to know what you need to know, sometimes there is even a rebate. In the big picture, the economy doesn't work like that. If one goat costs whateverthefuck one goat costs, you can't just expect to instantly double the amount of goats in the world by paying somebody the single-unit price for a goat multiplied by the current global number of goats. There are limits to physical and biological processes that don't go away, just because they go away in your mind. Your mind is clouded by money illusions.

So what a socialism then and how do we get one?

here you go, you dropped your flag

And considering the fact they were competitive before the transition, I think it's safe to say they'll be competitive after.

You're always welcome to quit and find another job. And unlike the situation of exploitation under capitalism, you will find opportunities at other firms with better equipment.

Also, your vision of equality is almost that of a right wing strawman. Equality should not be about equalizing outcomes, but of ensuring that no matter one's birth or even wealth, they cannot dominate another individual.

The fact is a bit disputed, but I don't really care either way.

Regardless, do you deny that finance is used in the purchase nearly all capital for businesses? Loans are almost always used to by the means of production. By socializing finance, society gets to determine who gets the means of production and what kinds of production is prioritized.

uh huh

inequality itself is not the problem, but inequality that creates tyranny and poverty. Our choices for a political system should not be between two different sorts of tyranny.

It's a virtual *consumer* goods market. The exchange of capital goods does not occur in the proposed system. Nor does private accumulation occur. The virtual market exist solely to ration consumption and provide planning indicators.

No, value would not feature in such a system, Cockshott's referral to value is simply stalinist dumbfuckery on his part (many stalinists seem to believe that value is somehow trans-historical, rather than just confined to commodity producing societies), simply using labour time for accounting and rationing is not sufficient to allow value to exist. Goods must be freely exchangeable as commodities for value to be bought into play.
And no, you wouldn't be competing in the same manner as capitalist society since a productive unit cannot fail automatically due to lack of profit, and the workers cannot be fired, merely reassigned. In the event of a particular product not selling at the required level the factory wouldn't be closed, it would just be retooled to produce something else (during which time the workers would be paid even if they were not working).

I wouldn't refer to production/consumption ratios as profit, simulated or not, since no surplus value is being extracted from the workers: it's simply being used as a planning indicator.

This is bullshit, it's only really simulating one or two aspects of capitalist society (one of which, the consumption ratios, would have to exist even in the higher phase of communism - since you need such indicators to know what to produce).

Leaving aside semantic arguments about the definition of the "state" (you, like Cockshott, are using a rather liberal one), no market system can even be free from a repressive state apparatus (certainly not "market socialism"), since property needs to be enforced and the market would have to be regulated to minimize negative externalities (as has been admitted by your fellow marsocs in this very thread). If anything most "market socialist" proposals would require more state intervention than our present society.

Still on this? Your definition of exchange is really far removed from the standard marxist use of the term. If fact it's so vague that even the higher phase of communism would be market based according to you since things produced by one particular group of workers are also used/consumed by entirely different groups of workers. You've basically rendered the term market economy redundant.

This is a right wing lolbert talking point: "if you're unemployed why don't you just start your own business?". It's not really any less stupid in a "market socialist" society than it is in run of the mill capitalism, since society isn't just going to hand out credit unless there is some guarantee than it's going to be used productively. I'd also like to point out in every marsocs favourite country, Yugoslavia, there was rampant unemployment.

SPLITTING POST BECAUSE OF BOARD FAGGOTRY

(continued)
You must have missed the part where I spoke of actual co-ops behaving in such a manner. Real existing co-op workers work long hours and work unpaid overtime (especially during a crisis). This behavior isn't caused by being exploited by the owner of a firm but rather by competition with other firms, universalizing the co-op form isn't going to change this.

It's caused by both, just look at how the exact same job, in the exact same industry, pays far less in less developed countries (and yes, I'm aware that this is largely the result of different levels of productivity caused by disparity in development). In any case, it's a major cause of suffering for a large portion of humanity and ought to be fixed.

The point I've been trying to make is that market forces won't allow workers to control such conditions (just as it doesn't in today's co-ops).

This is only true if society is being run in an autocratic manner. If the planning apparatus (either centralised or decentralised) is subject to popular oversight and control, then this really isn't an issue.

this

In the real world, different companies with different quality of equipment do exist. There is not a single profit rate in the real world, that is an assumption of some models. Companies with worse equipment might make up for it by squeezing their workers more. This can go on for quite some time, as companies are often not super-transparent about their working conditions and pay.
What nonsense. The point was: A sound criterion to judge whether somebody is normally productive or an outlier by slacking or over-achieving must take into account the quality of the equipment that person works with. This does not happen in a decentralized market system, whether it's co-ops or not. A monopolist that owns both a high-tech plant and an outdated one (technology doesn't get instantly updated everywhere, imagine that) can take that into account and set lower output goals for the workers in the old plant, so what counts as normal is different in these places while the pay for a normal worker in either location is the same.
Original claim of the market-socialism supporter was that the socialization of finance would have a similar effect to means of production not being exchanged on a market:
The question after that was: Can you give some details what you mean by that? The "answer" was a link to that Jacobin article about mildly left-leaning banking reform ideas. These proposed changes do not fit together with the part you quoted. People who haven't read the article will get the impression that it is much more radical than it is. What you quoted is not from the beginning, but at the very end. I invite those who haven't read it yet and want to read a lame article, to read the end first and then read what is actually proposed. These parts don't fit together. The end seems to suggest nothing else than central planning, as some long term goal. But then, what does it mean to say to support that under market socialism? Clear as mud.

having problems posting so have a screenshot and the link I was talking about
youtube.com/watch?v=EVxU7bAtVK0&t=208s

Do you call any competition a market? Running, chess, elections - call everything a market and there's your proof that markets are human nature.
And the bestest competition is the market competition! People get tools of different quality to work with and, whereas a clumsy communist totalitarian would only take the average of the output with the same tool as the standard to judge a worker, the market knows better than any bureaucrat and judges people directly based on their output regardless of the tools and rewards them in a just way so those with highest output get rewarded by getting more money so the people with the best results can afford the best equipment, which is more fair and meritocratic and less clumsy for some reason you won't spell out.

Yes, but also in the real world, more factors besides capital concentration effect the rate of profit. However, when there is uneven levels of technology, certainly the state should offer tax credits or even grants, and national banks cheap loans to enterprises to invest in new equipment, as having production occurring without less efficient equipment is less efficient overall.

Regardless, what you are hinting at is the fact that yes, even in market socialism, some businesses will be unable to stay in business because they do not have the productive capabilities. i would be careful to focus too much on the idea of meritocracy. no society has ever been one I doubt there ever will be, our focus should be on fulfilling human needs . indeed, as Zizek has pointed out, a true meritocracy would have strong self-destructive forces to deal with.

That's not how that would work. A monopolist would shutter the less productive plant because its driving down the rate of profit or try to make it work at the same rate as the other. The idea you're thinking of is subsidy, which certainly has its place in society. There's no reason that a public bus system should neglect one half of the city because it produces less profit, but make no mistake, the more profitable half is subsidizing the less profitable half.

Which is absolutely supported by the sections I quoted.

Yeah the democratization and political control of finance is a "mildly left-leaning banking reform". Give me a fucking break. He said several times in the article that such a project is one of using finance to socially invest and gear production towards use value.

His point was exactly that there already IS central planning in modern capitalism thanks to the power of massive corporations and central financial institutions. This level of planing would also be present under market socialism.

You were the one who said "no, you wouldn't be competing in the same manner as capitalist society" and then cited several things that would also be occurring under market socialism. So, by your own logic, the competition you described could just as easily be the competition of a market.

You are using circular logic here. You say that a communist system would only take the average of the output as the standard to judge a worker, but the average output of a worker is going to be influenced by the standard used to judge them!

I have made no claim that it is more fair or meritocratic, only more efficient. On the contrary, I would be very cautious about aiming for meritocracy as your ideal system. As Zizek has said before, if capitalism was truly meritocratic it would have been destroyed long ago.

The post you're responding to wasn't me fam. I'll respond to your posts later when i have time.

well that was the context anyways. just replace "you" with "that user".

What is the "but" doing in there? What post is your statement contrasting with? The post already makes a distinction between workers who have the same equipment.
Certainly the state should… waffle-level 9001. Wouldn't it be cool if the state reliably did that, right now? But the state doesn't do much of that.

The argument of the market-socialist side in this thread goes like this:
1. Repeat dubious claims about the efficiency of the free market
2. When challenged on that, say there is some role for a central government body that basically solves whatever problem is brought up, be as vague as possible about the how. Certainly the state should do… something.
3. Go back to 1.

The problem is that for those on the side of central planning, this gap that the government must fill appears rather big, that is the position they start from, and since you don't even give a brief outline how a small government could do these things, it just looks like you contradict yourself.

Now that it turns out the evil central planners can be getting good at measuring stuff, maybe they are getting too good at that? That's a new one.
The point made in post is that you cannot update all equipment within a day or two. Equipment isn't just some tools a person can carry around, it can be machines that have such a size and weight that you have to take into account when deciding on the basic layout of the building they are in. Even if there is no subsidy for it, it can make sense to continue running the less modern plant for a while depending on what the other apparent profit opportunities are like.

It's a statement of some vague wish, nothing more. The detailed list of reform ideas in the article do not amount to anything like it.

No. From the rest of the post it appears you didn't understand what was said. A decentralized market judges your output in comparison to others who produce the same, while ignoring differences in which tools you have at your disposal. Proper planning sees your output and puts that into relation with the tools you have (as well as taking into account other aspects of what might make you less productive, like disabilities).

Most simple model: There is a consumer product produced with a tool, the tool is available in two versions, the crappy old one and a better new one that makes you produce the product faster. The product is in really high demand, and the demand can't be met just with using all the new tools, so the old tools get used as well. The price of the product is based on aggregating the cost of the individual products (two different production methods here, so it's two different per-unit costs) and dividing that among the total number of products of this sort to get to a uniform per-unit selling price. (This can still be modified based on changing demand.) When it comes to judging the performance of a worker, a worker with the old tool is only compared to other workers with the same old tool and a worker with the new tool is only compared to other workers with the same new tool.

My post is contrasting with that poster's idea that only the direct productivity of a firm determines its level of profits. much of it also has to do marketing, random chance, and qualitative factors.

There's a big difference between the state incentivizing investment and the state having direct control over the means of production.

The state gives tax breaks, credits, and loans for physical capital investment, actually.

the argument of the central planning side in this thread goes something like this
1. Repeat dubious claims about the greater efficiency and fairness of central planning
2. When challenged on that say there is some role for the characteristics of markets in central planning, but deny it constantly despite the obvious. Certainly markets are the root of everything evil about capitalism.
3. Go back to 1.

I've said repeatedly I'm willing to permit the amount of central planning that occurs already under capitalism and the power of the state under social democracy.

On the contrary, I have great doubts you'd be effective in this endeavor. But if you convince people your system is meritocratic, you will have some big problems on your hands.

You're confusing the long term and the short term. In the long term no company is going to do something to bring down their rate of profit.

You mean like democratizing the central bank and disempowering shareholders?

Why don't you go back and read the original post.

This is what was originally said to be the difference between capitalist competition and the competition under central planning.

If you do that you're just going to encourage less efficient production. See below.

If the product is in high demand and the better tools can't produce enough, then the scarcity and demand will make the price high enough for the lower quality producers to compete. And anyway, if workers are to be judged only by those with the same tool, what incentive do they have to adopt the new tool?

Not to mention, if workers are to be judged by the average labor for a product produced using the same tool, and they know they are being judged as such, then you've just set the bar that much lower for those with the worse tool. They're not even going to try to compete with the better tool-havers. Thus, the overall productivity of such a system will almost certainly be lower than that of a market socialist system. And lower productivity means a lower standard of living.

...

No central-planning shill here said such a thing.
And that the profit of a firm have a lot to do with random shit happening outside of it, like your competition's firm burning to the ground, is an excellent argument for… central planning. Why would a central planning shill believe that reasons for success and failure of business lie mostly within? That outlook is more compatible with somebody who wants a decentralized economy that keeps business units separate and held responsible for their "own success".

So now you admit that the statement
is false?

The example of what is expected of workers meeting a high demand with different quality of equipment is a clear-cut argument for central planning.
Allocation of consumer items through labor vouchers is not some hidden thing occasionally hinted at, the role of that is explicitly mentioned and delineated in the book Towards a New Socialism, and that's the extent of the market in that proposal. The market socialists in this thread on the other hand are totally fuzzy about where they draw the line.

Not really.
Not deliberately, you mean. And the long term dynamics are not independent of the short term. In the real world, outdated machinery isn't immediately replaced. And when you think you are just about almost done with upgrading everything, there's another new upgrade, available in limited numbers. You don't go through a series of surprising short-term developments while having your long-term forecast undisturbed by them.

That's the usual theory, yes. Like what Ricardo said about marginal land.
I think people in this thread are somewhat talking past each other the market socialists are more guilty of that though. That post was about central planning. You seem to assume a co-op market system, then as you read try to transplant one or two sentences from the central planners, then you have a hunch the transplant will get rejected, you forget about it and look at the next paragraph in isolation.

The incentive for workers in this or that place to adopt this or that tool is not really of much importance to CENTRAL planners, as these workers don't have much of a say over that. They don't own the equipment. Now, you may criticize central planners for that, but that would be another argument. And making that other argument would not be a slam dunk either. In the co-op world the workers only have freedom over the tools they work with inasmuch as they can finance these choices.

That much is true.
That argument leaves out your work itself being part of your life. Your working conditions are part of your quality of life. For those who have to work with the crappy tools, the per-tool standard is certainly more agreeable.

They said that different enterprises had different rates of profit and then cited equipment as the reason why.

Only if you're focused on settling some cosmic scorecard. In the real world we have a responsibility to produce to human needs and desires to the best extent possible. Individual workers can be taken care of by a welfare system and programs to get them another job, but enterprises do not exist, at this point, as vehicles of ending alienation. Indeed, in the lower stage of communism, which this is, the point is never to END alienation immediately (although certainly to alleviate it) but to ultimately reach the higher stage of communism!

Those are two completely different things. One is concerned with state incentives the other with the socialization of finance. Through finance, yes there is a lot to be done to control the distribution of the means of production, but you were specifically talking about monetary state incentives which yes, do occur now.

Except, as I've already showed, by using labor value as the basis for planning, they are still holding on to capitalist competition but softened so you can't even get all the benefits of it.

Most upgrades are not available in limited numbers, particularly productivity increasing technology is almost universally applied to an industry in the long term. Take for example computers, there's almost no office in the US that operates with electric type writers anymore because of them. And I doubt a computer with windows 10 is doing much to help out-compete offices with windows 7.

From the excerpts I saw of the book originally cited it appeared that there were independent enterprises interacting with a central planner. I assumed they'd have some agency in this matter.

Then you are sacrificing the welfare of the rest of society for a handful of workers.

>The post already makes a distinction between workers who have the same equipment.

>My post is contrasting with that poster's idea that only the direct productivity of a firm determines its level of profits.

>They said that different enterprises had different rates of profit and then cited equipment as the reason why.
A reason why. Working at a more intense rate also increases the surplus, which is acknowledged, why else measure differences in output among people with the same equipment.
Fascinating. Maybe your waffling works out for you when talking fast with assertive body language, but when it's written down, it's kinda obvious.
We already start with dissolving the accounting procedures of enterprises as autistic monads at the beginning of the lower stage. This does not imply an immediate end of all alienation.

You can just say: Yes.
So to you this is some Schrödinger's capitalism. It is capitalism and in that it sucks while it also is not capitalism and in that it also sucks. You prefer a capitalist economy with co-ops and its main product being handwavium.

That was still only referring to productivity, I was saying there is more to productivity that determines the rate of profit.

I started off in the thread putting my emphasis on how market socialism would prevent crisis, and on how it is more capable of central planning at fulfilling human needs and desires.
This

is me

I have been against the idea of meritocracy as an end goal from the very beginning.

According to Orthodoxy, yes. I don't see why we should be chained to it.

>This does not imply an immediate end of all alienation.
But the accounting procedures you are describing are prioritizing the problem of alienation over efficiency and even getting to the higher stage of communism.

I'm saying you already have the parts of capitalism you say suck in your system, and the ways you are changing it are only for the worse compared to other alternatives.

I also want to say this. You accuse me of handwaving away problems by making the boundary of state power in market socialism fuzzy, but that is precisely the point. The state should step in when it has to and be prepared to make any changes demanded of it by the workers. There should precisely be a force outside of the usual productive system that can correct it when it goes wrong. In market socialism, this is the state. There is no such outside force that can correct the failures of central planning.

That could be the effect until the stuff is upgraded. And before you ask whether that would take forever as that upgrade wouldn't mean more income for the workers: Don't you sneak in co-op world assumptions about local responsibility for equipment when it comes to central planning. It is not a local decision, so that local incentive for getting better equipment isn't needed.

The number of people working on a particular consumer product is usually way lower than the number consuming it, so one could try an argument that this way of handling remuneration under central planning means a small group benefiting while a bigger group may suffer from it. But there are two problems with that argument:

1. It leaves out intensity. If we are not talking about an intensity of suffering equal or bigger in the bigger group, than just looking at the group sizes is not a compelling argument. But is it really an issue of benefit either going to workers or consumers?

2. Recall the Ricardian rent model of where the benefit goes. The marginal producers have just enough to get by, the owners of the top-quality land (here: equipment) get the boost. If the groups that benefit in co-op world and central planning world are the workers with the new and the old equipment, respectively, then by an argument of marginal decreasing utility it looks like a good rule of thumb to say it's better to not make the workers with the old equipment worse off than making the workers with the good equipment better off. So, central planning makes more sense to me.

Now you might have some reason to believe the co-op world as you would like it would have more of that benefit going to costumers than what Ricardo's model implies, but then you should say what that mechanism is. Do you advocate for something like the pricing-rights market by Lerner and Colander?

And where is the substance of that argument, other than "random guy on the internet believes that"?
It is inherent to m->c->m' markets that relations get unequal over time. It would even happen with humanity being replaced by clones of one person.

Efficiency for whom? Why are working conditions irrelevant to that form of efficiency, unless it directly and immediately affects the output of goods and services? Is that the efficiency that you want? What sort of efficiency is that? And a double-digit percentage of able-bodied people is out of work, and time goes by and they can't store-up all that would-have-worked-if-I-got-an-offer time for later when they got an offer.

You want to sell market socialism's soft-budget constraint as a feature?

Market 'socialists' are so fucking bad at defending their ideology. I almost want to say one's stance on it is proportional to how much actual economic theory they've actually read versus how many 'revolutionary' podcasts they've listened to.

You wouldn't be agitating against the capitalist system with a co-op, you'd be participating in it normally (and probably losing).

Are you positive this is the case in the plan outlined in ?

You said yourself there would always be a certain amount not upgraded. If this is to be the case, it would still mean market competition would produce greater productivity and thus welfare.

considering the intensity we are referring to here is the intensity or having to either work harder or accept a lower wage, I think it's perfectly acceptable. there will be a social safety net and a minimum standard of living enforced through other means. basic goods will be subsidized and provided for, what they will be working for are greater luxuries.

Yes, yes, but let's consider the alternative shall we. In your centrally planned economy the effect of market clearing prices is effective rationing, the person who gets a good which there is less supply than demand is effectively random, or first come first serve. You're rewarding who can get to the store fast enough. In markets, there is random rationing too in the aggregate. The workers at more efficient firms will have more purchasing power even though there is some randomness to why they are more efficient. But even if the reason they were more efficient originally was random, the incentive to become more efficient means that there is a greater chance for innovation as the result of this rationing, where there is no such possibility in your system.

First of all, rent would not exist in a market socialist society. Most housing would either be a housing cooperative, personal ownership or public ownership. The model's essence in terms of capital concentration would be correct, but since ownership is more diffuse in market socialism, this will lead to less inequality than capitalism.

I made the substance of that argument throughout this thread. But I'll repeat it in relation to your autistic spamming of m->c->m'

Yes the productive process of markets leads to the accumulation of capital, but for a particular institution, that of the owner. Yes, personal ownership of the means of production would exist under market socialism, but so would the social! For example, one could create a fund where 50% of every company's' share past a certain size threshold would be purchased and placed into, this fund is owned by the people and the proceeds of which are split between the government and direct payments to the citizens.

Not to mention that old adage about death and taxes. Progressive income taxes up to a maximum wages and high estate taxes will deal with the rest.

But even personal ownership is much more egalitarian than private ownership. Pay differentials are much smaller in co-ops. And unlike in neo-liberal capitalism, where ideological resistance to state intervention is reinforced, workers have every incentive to make the state do everything it can to stop crises, and improve working conditions. And measures against inequality will prevent the social democratic/Keynesian elements from degenerating.

For everyone.

Yes it is. It's the highest efficiency of production.

Out of work? It's interesting that you cite this. Because if there was not enough to demand to support the competition between those with better tools and those with worse tools, then it means that the better equipment is sufficient to meet the demand. What greater profit they get from greater market share will be mostly be redistributed anyway. Considering that workers also spend almost all of their income, it means that aggregate demand won't actually go down. What has actually occurred if this situation leads to structural unemployment is that automation has decreased the need for human work. Of course, this doesn't mean these unemployed people will be doing no labor. Rather, they will have the ability to pursue work that they find personally enjoyable or to create goods for their own consumption.

Do you want to sell central planning total control of the state as a feature?

In the proposal in Towards a New Socialism, there is no market for means of production.
The argument was that upgrading is an ongoing process, not that there is THE ONE new upgrade that some places never get. While machinery is upgraded, there is already a new upgrade in the works. This applies to current capitalism, socialist central planning, decentralizd market co-op whateverthatism. We don't put the new machines in a gigantic warehouse until we have enough to replace all the old ones in the world, the replacement of the old is not instantaneous, older machines are used along newer ones.
This claim disregards the points made in the very post you reply to.
The intensity comparison in point 1 is the disutility for consumers on the one side and the workers in the old-equipment place on the other. The consumers are very likely the bigger group, but a group-size comparison leaves out the intensity of suffering. The intensity comparison in point 2 is between workers in the old-equipment place and new-equipment place, and makes a marginal-utility argument for protecting the workers in the old-equipment place.
The post you reply to makes very specific arguments as to why protecting the workers in the old-equipment place is the best way to reduce suffering. Your claim to the contrary is weak.
So there will be poor and rich (arguably not as extreme as now, but more so than under central planning), and this will be "efficiently" addressed by a thorough system of subsidies that screw with the price signals. You see rich and poor and you help the poor by subsidizing basic goods for both the rich and poor.
TANS, chapter 8:

OWNED!! MARKET SOCIALISM WINS!! STALINISTS+ULTRALEFTS+TECHNOCRATS BTFO!!

this has more to do with a basic understanding of Marx & Engels than with Bordiga, even though Bordiga is a great supplementary. read a book.

I didn't say market. I said "local agency"

But that is precisely my point! Upgrading is an ongoing process, when you upgrade one place, it leaves another part behind, when you upgrade that place later, it is now more advanced than the other considering there were likely new advances in technology in between the time of the two upgrades. This means there will always be some sector of the economy that is not completely upgraded. Since this is the case, the standard of competition will remain higher in markets consistently unless you manage to upgrade them all at once.

I don't see any claims about productivity there.

And I'm telling you the suffering intensity of the workers in that situation is less than you think, thus justifying siding with the rest of society.

And I made a very specific argument that all of society would be better off with market socialism due to greater innovation and productivity and workers wouldn't be significantly worse off.

Subsidy can be very effective. Certainly US agriculture was always more productive compared to the soviet production in part because of this. For example the US sets a price floor above the equilibrium level, this causes the farmers to over produce, then it buys up what it can sell on the market and distributes the rest itself. Usually its for foreign aid, but I'm sure you can see the benefit of its domestic use as well. The US was once the world's biggest exporter of wheat until Reagan's people started fucking with the system and other countries began to catch up.

My point still stands. Since both the workers at the less efficient firm and the workers of the more efficient firm have the same purchasing power in that system, there is no incentive for innovation to increase productivity from the workers. Yes, yes, there will still be innovation from passionate individuals and state sponsorship, but why take away another source of innovation?

And anyway, I did accurately describe the situation for basic goods which would be available to all regardless of income.

The highest amount of output for a given input is the highest possible efficiency dumbass.

Also good job ignoring every single point I made for the sake of your shitpost.

Enlightened intellectuals on the Great Depression:

(a lot of back and forth later)

The point was, a hundred posts ago, somebody said that the local incentive of a higher income as reward for choosing the right equipment (if you have the money to buy it) wouldn't be needed under central planning, as that wouldn't be a local decision.

Yes.
I don't know what you mean by "standard of competition". I don't have the goal of working to the bone. Do you mean higher productivity, perhaps? I don't see that.

>the person who gets a good which there is less supply than demand is effectively random, or first come first serve. You're rewarding who can get to the store fast enough.

>>Suppose a particular item requires 10 hours of labour to produce. It will then be marked with a labour value of 10 hours, but if an excess demand for the item emerges when it is priced at 10 labour tokens, the price will be raised so as to (approximately) eliminate the excess demand.

I think this debating strategy is called bullshitting.

Like in Yugoslavia, take lots of able-bodied people as input, make a lot of them unemployed, so they, uuh, can efficiently self-empower and search for their dreams…

I still don't get how a "boss" doing 0% of the work that meets with "executives" on the board who do 0% of the work can get any money.
What eludes me the most is why so many leftists are FOR unions which do NOT remove the "boss" or the "executives" they just play with them to get a slightly larger share (still slave sized) to the actual workers of the products that are 100% the fruits of labour of THE WORKERS

fuck reformism, extremism is the only way

So this is where we are now? I'm not sure if you actually have zero reading concentration, are incapable of actually defending your positions, or think you'll score more points by dancing around any actual substance (in which case, it still speaks to your ability to defend your positions).

There's nothing left but petty semantics and cheap rhetorical comebacks as you've consistently ignored any serious critique of central planing.

the great depression was caused by a financial crisis, not automation you fuckwit.

think back to the original context
.>>1156988

If you were paying attention even in the slightest you'd know my argument wasn't about the effects of rewarding people getting to the story first, but the fact that it's not much of a real incentive at all!

Yes because the famines of China and Ukraine weren't done be real central planning! Two can play at this game and its not a road you want to go down.

Central planning is non-starter, politically and otherwise. You think people are going to accept this shit after everything we went through in the cold war? Every time I have to listen to this drivel I get more and more sympathetic to the social democrats. Because what's the end goal? We are to believe you will have 1, overthrown the existing order, 2, created a political system that will not collapse or descend into tyranny (no easy task), and 3, implemented a system of production (through an untested plan, assuming you don't go with the countless failed ones!) that will not lead to crisis and is still controlled by the same political system. What you've come up looks a lot like market socialism, except that we're supposed to believe that a state will be capable of fairly maintaining it. Yet you orthodox cocksuckers have the gall to call other people idealists! You had your chance in the 20th century. In return you gave us tyranny and poverty, just as capitalism. Now its our turn.

LOL, what the fuck is this keyesian bullshit? All capitalist crises are ultimately caused by the falling rate of profit, in turn bought about by a rising organic composition of capital. The actual trigger for the crisis can vary but the underlying cause remains the same.

Firstly, those famines occurred during a time period in those countries where the vast majority of agricultural production was subsistence based (you know, like in fucking feudalism). Subsistence production has always been very prone to periodic famines, removing the landlord class doesn't change that fact.
Secondly, none of the former "communist" countries ever eliminated commodity production and only a small fraction of the economy was planned in any meaningful sense of the term (and even that was mostly planned in monetary terms).

You aren't becoming "more sympathetic" to social democrats, you *are* a fucking social democrat. You want a state regulated commodity producing society with private property (yes co-ops are fucking private property) and money. The only difference is your retarded co-op fetish and occasion lip service paid to actual communism (which you erroneously associate with "post scarcity").

What actually happened in the thread:
1. Central-planning side posted Towards a New Socialism by Paul Cockshott and Allin Cottrell as a reference point for what "central planning" can mean and invited the "market socialists" to be more precise as to what they mean by market socialism.
2. In post a pro-"market socialism" person, whatever that is, claimed about TANT:
3. In post it was pointed out that consumer-item prices get updated based on demand. So, the criticism at 2. misrepresents the actual position.

Either the "market-socialism" person hasn't read TANT (or even just chapter 8, which was specifically mentioned) or deliberately misrepresented it. After being confronted with a direct quote from TANT opposite to his claim, he said:

I still don't get what your problem is. At the Olympics, the people running aren't competing with the people on bikes. Do you have a problem with that?

China and so on had experienced famines before that as well. When you look at where China, Russia, and India had been in 1900 and then where they were in 1980, surely you will realize the superiority of having more planning than India, though China and Russia were both a far cry from proper planning to the extent I'd like to see.

The trick for number 2 is called sortition. Why don't you read the book? It's free. You seem to care a lot about that issue yet paradoxically don't seem to bother reading anything.

I wouldn't call you idealist, but incoherent. Or, let's be diplomatic, I'd say there is too much tension between the elements in market socialism. It's relying too much on accounting in money terms while at the same time fiddling with prices and wages through subsidies and luxury taxes and UBI and so on. As if money was something physical, made of parts with a quality in them remaining unchanged no matter how the money is split up, taxed, confiscated, redistributed. Money doesn't like redistribution. Money is not a thing, money is leverage.

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe I'll visit your beautiful Yugoslavia one day.

this is a meme in of itself. In the longterm you can point to almost anything as a factor that contributed to the depression. And anyway, if the rate of profit was the ultimate cause of capitalist crisis we would expect to see more frequent and severe crises as time went on, which is simply not the case. See pic related.

So then the productivity and level of technology matter that much more than the method of organizing production. Who would have guessed?!

They had plans central for the entire economy, whether they were implemented is another story. You have no guarantee the plan will be implemented in any central planning system, really, there's always a chance local actors will go rogue. I suggest reading Alec Nove.

And you're a stalinist.

There's a difference between personal property and private property. Even the book that keeps being brought up allows for self-employment, and that is all cooperatives are, collective self-employment.

If you were paying attention, I was referring to full automation, not post scarcity. There is a difference.
I'm well aware that Marx did not think post-scarcity or full automation was necessary for communism, I just happen to disagree with him.

forgot pic

You fucking idiot. How can you possibly miss the point this hard! The point was not about rewarding people for getting to the store first, the point was about how this doesn't create any meaningful incentive at all because people at less productive firms have the same purchasing power as more productive firms. In market socialism, the difference in purchasing power leads to an incentive to innovate and increase efficiency, whereas in your version of central planning there is no such incentive!

Are you retarded? This isn't about getting a fucking medal at the end, this is about producing to meet human needs and wants! What matters is that the greater competition of market socialism will lead to greater productivity and thus a higher standard of living. This is about defining how people actually live their lives!

So we shouldn't compare China in the 70's to China in the 00's? Alright then. I'll admit strong central authority is helpful to developing an economy, but that also has nothing to do with socialism.

Doesn't solve the main problem. Just as with economic class, people have a different self interest by virtue of being in government. Read Rousseau.

Ah yes, the true downfall of all the complex capitalist economies today will be the fiddling of prices and luxury taxes!

Reminder.

If socialism is the working class controlling the means of production, then a system in which co-ops were the dominant arrangement would be socialist. I do not see how that would be possible to implement such a system given that it has the same inefficiencies as other forms of market enterprise, but it would be definitively socialist.

...

...

The point was not about rewarding people for getting to the store first

Sheesh. Market socialists can't just admit that you were wrong on that point, but that it was a minor point, not the main point. Is that so hard.
Two points. 1. Monetary incentive is not the only incentive. 2. Incentive is not the same as ability.
Someone was having a giggle, m8. I like the metaphor of running, so I'll think I'll run with that for a bit, but as an actually useful metaphor here, explaining point 2 above: To motivate people to run faster, slow runners could be punished by hitting their arms with a stick. Suppose instead of hitting their arms, you hit their legs if they are slow. What is the long-term effect of this on the performance distribution? Running competition round, punishment round, running round, punishment round, run, punish, and so on.

The question is trivial. There are a few swaps in the ranking from best to worst, but the big picture is that the hierarchy solidifies, and the slowest of the bunch will be crawling in the end. Likewise with money. Yes, giving or taking money creates an incentive to excel, and at the same time, it expands or reduces your opportunities to meet what is expected of you. You get punished for a bad performance AND at the same time, your ability to perform gets reduced.

Do you now understand what money is?

Would you mind at least reading the definition of sortition?

I don't know if I'd say it is socialist, but I think it would at least be a step toward socialism. I don't think it's much of a logical leap to go from 'why do I need a boss at work' to 'why do I need a boss'

Screwed up the first sentence, sorry. That's supposed to be a quote:

Sheesh. Market socialists can't blablabla same as above post from here

This inability to compromise on even the slightest of issues is the reason why the left fragments into millions of tiny little schisms and never accomplishes dick anymore.

We aren't even at the point where the sides agree on what each side's position is.

That said, the central-planning side on here is more informed about market socialism than vice versa, even dropping references to Abba Lerner and John Roemer that the market socialists didn't pick up on.

True, but why take that incentive away?

Which is irrelevant.

I fail to see how this is equivocal.

So the problem we're talking about here is equipment, a problem easily solved by taking out a loan. Random market fluctuations are also an equalizer.

In terms of hierarchy, this doesn't become a problem when there is a genuine, credible democracy for the mass of people.

I do find it funny that you critique market socialism for this though, as this type of capital accumulation leads to centralization and greater economic planning, and isn't that exactly what you want anyway?

you mean pic related? if you think randomly choosing workers to be in government makes something socialism then I guess PRC and USSR were socialism after all, they were all wokers at some point.

(you)
(you)
(you)
(you)

...

we can see post history.

No shit, I know that, and you should do that to know when to ban someone, not for arguments you fucking idiot.
Nice anonymous forum!

Well he didn't dox him, did he?

Hello mod.

You shouldn't post as volunteer in arguments, or point out post history unless someone is samefagging to shit a thread up. I don't see any samefagging going on.

Complimenting yourself in the third person while user is essentially samefagging.

That is actually a problem and I urge you to try and make a simple mathematical model about this. The loan is more costly than financing it yourself, innit? And financing it yourself is usually not a choice you have when you take a loan. And random market fluctuations actually do lead to inequality, because money pulls in money. I suggest you look into econophysics.

Yes, that was me. What's the problem? Instead of producing posts as something in exchange for social status, optimized for the approval by others, I produce it because I want to do it. I produce it for myself, but not a self in the narrow in-sich-selbst-zerfallen autistic sense of the homo economicus, it's a self that wants to help others.

This is the fundamental Aufhebung of the shitpost antagonism.

Besides, what is stated in spoilers in is absolutely true. The planning side is familiar with Lerner and Nove. I should know.

No big deal.

Yeah, kinda. Ahem.

If people cared so much about "samefagging", IDs would be on, but they aren't.
P.S. I don't have a problem with IDs, but if they aren't on don't pull that bullshit here.

Are you retarded?

Not with inflation, its not.

Because people totally prefer debit over credit and pay cash for cars.

Not really when you spend most/all of what you earn. This is why the "middle class" shrinks. In market socialism this is the situation for almost everyone.

Well you can point out the specific samefag posts to me if you want, but I can't even tell which ones they are, so I think it wasn't a big enough problem to point out as a mod.

yeah, I might have been feeling a bit petty. namedropping also gets on my nerves. I won't do it again.

pls give us cheka/stasi flag.

Are you really getting indignant over a samefag getting called out?

The guy kinda admitted to samefagging but oh well.

^This guy may be a faggot, but it would be nice to have IDs.

Not a fan of mods abusing their powers for inane shit like this.

If you only want it to prevent samefagging then it's useless. 8ch allows proxies and Tor. The only reason it'd be useful would be to allow a better flow for conversations.
Also why am I faggot lol

Well, isn't a bit disingenuous?

Come on. What is usually the case when someone goes into debt? "Gee, I sure am happy that I wasn't in a situation with rich parents helping me, so that I had to go into debt!"

The argument was about a co-op falling behind in a market society having to obtain equipment. They have to obtain it with money, but guess what, they aren't exactly swimming in money as they are falling behind. So, if they want that their co-op continues to exist, they have the non-choice of trying to get a loan. Getting a loan is not something guaranteed, and when you go into debt, you usually have to pay more in the end. Hence the comparison with runners who get punished for running slowly by getting hit in the legs. It's pretty straightforward.

Here is the most simple econophysics model I've heard about: Initially, everybody has the same amount of money. Then, random pairs of people are selected where one person is tasked with giving the other a random amount of money (accounts aren't allowed to go below 0). What happens?

Your intuition might tell you that sometimes the person with more money gives to the person with less money, sometimes the other way around, so doesn't this cancel out? What actually happens is that you end up with a distribution that is not a bell curve with a big middle, it's a very unequal distribution with a few people having a lot.

I suggest that you try thinking about some simple examples with market mechanisms. It's important that you iterate. That is, you don't have situation 1, a mechanism that takes that as input and gives you situation 2 and it's the end of history, instead you go on, take situation 2 as an input for the mechanism, and so on, and see what happens after a while. That's basically the whole trick.

davidmcnally.org/?page_id=2

This guys work is drenched in idpol plus hes not even a economist.

HAHAHAHAHA

Read Althusser

Someone should find that quote where he admits that co-ops aren't actually socialism, and that he only thinks they are a vehicle for transition.

In market socialism finance is fully socialized. Loans for improvements in equipment would be cheap to free and almost certainly guaranteed so long as the businesses is at least somewhat reputable. With inflation, it almost certainly would be cheaper.

I decided to put to the test what you said. Here's a script to recreate it in R:

actors

That model was proposed by A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko and Ian Wright made an interactive demo for Mathematica users:
demonstrations.wolfram.com/StatisticalMechanicsOfMoney/

I thought there was almost a 100 % agreement on here that economists usually don't have any particular insight into anything, so I don't get what sort of slur that is supposed to be. "Not even an astrologist."

Based on about five sentences Marx wrote at some point in some unpublished notes on Feuerbach, which, if taken literally and not hyperbole, are at odds about many things he said in published stuff before and after.

I'm assuming you're trying to respond to me.

Yes, if you look at the histograms, you'll see that I got similar results. But looking at the graphs gives you the full picture.

You're welcome to check my simulation for flaws. Regardless, you'll also see that in such a scenario as market socialism the inequality doesn't significantly increase over several iterations as you had claimed(you can run as many iterations as you like and still get the same basic results) .

Nope.

Then you have nothing to say about my critique of that model relating to market socialism?

...

The distribution that results from random money transfers with a conversation constraint is extremely unequal, as can be seen in the link demonstrations.wolfram.com/StatisticalMechanicsOfMoney/. That people can move up and down a bit in the distribution from one moment to the next is not really an amazing counter-argument. Is a millionaire-making lottery an egalitarian endeavor since different people can win it? And there are anecdotal true rags-to-riches stories in real capitalism as well, doesn't mean there are great odds for poor talented people to rise.

And that model by A. Dragulescu and V. M. Yakovenko is merely a starting point. It is not the mathematical equivalent of the runner metaphor cited above. Put in the ability to go into debt, which has to be paid back with interest, and upward mobility will slow down.

The main way of predicting a person will be rich or poor tomorrow is whether they are rich or poor now. People short on money pay interest on their debt. People with a bit of money get rebates. People with a lot of money have more influence over the state. And so on. The examples of such mechanisms are plenty. These are not separate mechanisms to be dealt with in isolation, they are linked and so feed into each other. The link is money.

Market socialists are split personalities who want to use money to motivate people while also taxing it away, with a small government that somehow fixes all ills of the market, a government that relies heavily on price signals to know the true cost of everything while it is constantly bukkaking massive subsidies and taxes all over the economy.

Lmao Bordiga, Goldman, Pannekoek, and Mahkno all would have hated this "coops=socialism" bullshit.

Also tankies and coop fags tend to have a lot in common in terms of opportunism and understanding of theory

Living T-34 here.
Kropotkin's cool
Goldman's cool
Bordiga is a leftcom
Pancakeman is a leftcom
Trotsky should've been shot for betraying the Black Army
Neutral on Rojava, but the Kurdish people's self-determination should be respected
Not sure what that 3rd pic is
Neutral on Assad, but Syria should not be colonized by either Russia or the USA
Don't know enough about Mogabe
Neutral on nazbols, don't know enough about them
Duterte is a fuck, if he only targeted drug dealers I'd have less of a problem but still worried about it, but he should be killed for the shit he's doing now
Literally who?
NK is cool, though a bit backwards from my understanding
Modern China can get stuffed
Putin is a shit lord
Literally Who?
Unruhe is hilarious and should only be taken half-seriously

The Five Stages of Market-Socialist Thought

1. DENIAL
“I am a radical critic of Capitalism who truly thinks outside the box.”

2. ANGER
“What's the deal with all those ⛌⚡☣☢☠⚠ dogmatists who are against me!?! It's a witch hunt, I tell you, an anarcho-stalinist conspiracy against me. I'm a wise ruler.”

3. BARGAINING
“Maybe if I privatize a few things I can pay back those IMF loans. Man, there really are some toxic demagogues in the unions. If only there was a way to get rid of them…”

4. DEPRESSION
“Nobody understands me :(”

5. ACCEPTANCE OF WHAT YOU ARE
“I think Capitalism is the only system in tune with human nature and I'm a liberal/Nazi etc.”