Why did Tito's Market Socialism fail to deliver a strong economy?

Same reason all the others failed; their theory was critically horseshit in important parts or had yet to need to be proven to be horseshit before the left finally abandon them or repeat them as farce.

…It didn't?

For the kind of material conditions Yugoslavia was in, the economic progress Tito made was practically miraculous.

this

marketcuck or not, tito was based as fuck

Appears to grow about as quickly as the planned economies and employment collapses in the late 60s.

>unemployment explodes the second he liberalizes implements market socialism

Domestic unemployment seems to be about the same throughout.

Tito failed because he thought he could only have semi-liberal capitalism.

But it measures unemployment. Counting foreign workers just makes them look worse.

Because of radical Islam.

It separated ownership from control in a very poor way. That is, the workers had control but not ownership. Combined with the fact that turnover was high, workers were systemically incentivized to load the firm up on debt in order to pay wages and invest in new capital. thanks to political pressure, this ultimately meant the state was on the line for the money.

The state itself didn't have enough central power to implement even a simple keynesian strategy, but it did have enough power to interfere on an inconstant basis, which basically meant intervening when there was a panic, without any real strategy.

These problems, however, are unique to the yugoslav situation. I believe that they wouldn't be of much relevance to any market socialism project in the future.

>national inability to provide jobs (already capitalism; a market for labor, and a direct showing that muh democratic ownership still forces firms to discipline labor, but w/e)
>count a bunch of dissidents and migrants who actually found a job not in Yugoslavia; just enough to barely come above or below the national rate of unemployment
joj.

Too little markets and too much state control. The currency was unstable.

lol, read a fucking book
gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=82F262A8F37A6909DFBE37FA7039A64E

There was never any real communism anywhere, except in nature (goal-oriented groups of human tribes that walked out of the forests).

Tito's wasn't exactly like you thought. Tito made it seem like it's the workers controlling everything, but he had them killed or worse if they question any decision by the state.

The only reason why his "communism" worked and Stalin's didn't was the influx of money from the west.

heh, at least Stalin's "communism" didn't collapsed right after his death

nice debating tactic there

now read the rest of the sentence:
Tito's communism was entirely dependent on the influx of money from the west, and Stalin got his people used to living in hell. That's why Yugoslav society crumbled as soon as the money was taken away, and Soviet society lived on until the capitalists infiltrated it.

How is it not real socialism. The workers controlled the means of production. Sounds like socialism to me.

Yeah because everyone was too busy being whacked by the people's stick.

yeah, half of population are prisoners, and other half are janitors
all living in fear to fart without permission

tell me more

So, the exact opposite of all other communist nations?

No, in all the other nations they had neither control nor ownership.

...

Yugoslavia didn't accept IMF loans until after Tito died. His successors being liberal morons is universally recognized.

The economy did have its fair share of problems but most of them were practical and easily avoided in modern times. Was still a hundred times better than the "true communist" shitholes run by red-bourgeoisie bureaucrats that thought murdering people over benign opinions was dialectical.

lel what

Stalinist Russia I'll give you but Mao's China was a disaster

Please. I was being more than fair with Tito, but calling it "real socialism" is absurd.

and where did people go after gulag was no more?
to the moon?

well yes, some of the more clueless members of intelligentsia got themselves hospitalized into psychiatric ward

but it is nothing exceptional
there's a ton of political activists who end up locked up with some diagnosis

psychiatry is an arm of the state after all

Don't you understand, user?

REAL Marxists systematically silence, kill, torture, imprison, or institutionalize anyone who dares to speak out again the Great Proletarian Holy Nationalist Bureaucratic Corporate State Capitalist Oligarchy. Anyone who tries to institute some sort of democratic, or, God forbid, *worker-controlled* economic system is filthy dirt revisionist scum.

After all, proles controlling the means of production has absolutely NOTHING to do with Real Marxist Socialism.

what

Wages still existed in Yugoslavia.

Wages, along with the profit motive (which markets are just an extension of), are inherently exploitative and oppressive.

Can you exploit yourself?

Yes. Exploitation in the Marxist sense always implied extracting use out of something for a certain use. If you do this while producing for a firm that constantly exchanges goods at the beat of impersonal market forces, you are exploiting your own labor power to sate a cycle of capital.

Then every economic activity is exploitation. Marx did at several points critique the division of labor itself, but I had hoped you lot were past this anarcho-primitive tier of idealism.

*tier of utopianism

Yes, but to what extent, and in reply to what impulses? When Marx identified the modern capitalist bourgeoisie as emerging from feudalism, he saw that it brought with it its prior tools: primitive accumulation from capital (finance capital, rentier capital), the firm and the division of labor. Altogether, this shaped the capitalist mode of production, which answers to this trifecta of a body composed of labor, the money form and production for exchange. This did not exist in feudalism, where labor was allocated directly by the whims of impersonal market forces that formed inter-firm relations of exchange, but by the mechanics of serfdom, justified by notions of holiness or the sword itself.

It's where capital starts.

Pardon me? I'm on the same page as Marx here: communism, and that would be Marx's communism, not the primitive communist society man once had.

I'd say creating a society where workers control their own exploitation is already a giant step forward. Certainly more than SocDems ever managed.

repeat after me.

socialism is never meant to bring "strong economy" or be global power, socialism is for only but only for giving the control of production to the proles, socialism claims boirgiise :DD are leeching people and needs to be get rid of it, that way achieve classless society.

I'm not a commie, but my father been many iron curtain countries, even though yugoslavia wasn't one of the he has been there, he says it's more prosperoeus compared to other countries and freer.

I know some anons father isn't reliable souce just want to share it, if you guys don't believe I dont care.

How long ago was this?

That's hardly the subtlety that's been used when slinging around such phrases as "self-exploitation".

I still find it silly to bring this up here. The division of labor has existed under tall echelons of human society, including primitive communism. Some people still had to maintain the homes, some people hunted, and some people gathered. You cannot say that the division of labor produced capital, as private property as an idea did not come about until humanity developed agriculture.

I was not implying it was the same idea, I said it was on the same level of stupidity. You delude yourself if you think communism will result in the end of the division of labor unless full automation is achieved.

Either way, workers in market socialism are being exploited far less than in neo-liberal capitalism. Even by your logic, where once they were producing for someone else to exchange the product of their labor on a market, now they are producing for themselves to exchange the product of their labor on a market. And considering the fact that workers would now hold the power that capitalists once had over the political economy, I'd expect the state to work to actually decrease the control of market forces where they are unwanted.

Central planning has already been revealed as a non-solution. As I'm assuming you were the one to post that webm, my response to it has always been that our complex economy and a lack of appreciation from central planning fags about the finer points of running a political economy (by the insistence that they are aiming to create something that is NOT a political economy, and thus have nothing to learn from how to properly run one) makes markets the ideal solution until technology makes them obsolete. That is, until either all things are made to order, or human labor becomes obsolete as well.

around late 70's and early 80's

What about decentralized planning?

Oh so Yugoslavia still existed.

of course

Yeah, it's usually easier to visit places that exist.

goooood

It runs into problems of lack of responsibility for society at large, and lack of complete information flows. Essentially, you may give individuals more control, but you also increase the amount of externalities. In modern capitalism, we have a mix of central planning, de-centralized planning and market coordination. Seeing as this has been the case for most societies, albeit in differing degrees, I don't see a reason to outlaw one or several methods. Indeed, each is best suited for certain situations and has its draw backs in others. For example, only using a market to coordinate agricultural production will lead to catastrophe. There has never been an effective agricultural commodity market without massive state subsidy.

Well, yes. And more than just that, as you are quite aware.

Well, if you bring up Marx, you must understand that Marx is the one to acknowledge that the division of labor signifies more than class division. And if Marx speaks of a primitive communis, he speaks of what is literally a pre-agrarian, pre-industrial communism.

What you conflate when is
with
which Marx constantly posits can not be done away with (WEBM related is the second part to the first, and will elucidate this very big difference once more).

It is also important to note that Marx says the division of labor persists in capitalism because it maintained its form, very much solidified to the whims of capital, throughout feudalism and the bourgeois class that enamored it.

The rest of this paragraph of yours addresses itself.

Communism is the end of the division of labor as we know it (it's the essence of what communists fight against): the structural existence of capital, which mandatas a division of labor in the firm as to address the whims of market forces with production for exchange. This process, which involves not just and first addressing use, but exchange first. This is, again, very basic Marx (Wage Labor and Capital covers this very concisely and comprehensively, check it out: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/).

How so? What drives them exploit themselves ever more is the fact that every expansion of C towards C' demands more and more intensified labor power to address exchange. This is why the firm's form is little more than its paintjob; its mechanistic content works to ultimately address but one thing, and this is production for exchange.

You should also not make the mistake of contrasting your model of supposed market socialism to neoliberalism; neoliberalism is but one policy form to accompany capitalism, and it has come to this neoliberal form today only because other forms could not correctly solve the contradiction between use and exchange value and some superstructural adaptation was necessary.

That is not "my logic" (Marx's), nor are you properly addressing the impossibility of a market-based (capital based) society that can afford to first meet production for use and then address exchange, for they contradict one another.

Centrally planning capital, that is: changing the division of labor's form to one with a market but ruled by a bureaucracy waving red flags, indeed does not work. We can impossibly think of notions in which capitalism is changed within capitalism. We must first overthrow capitalism, to then have socialism. If not simply because socialism and capitalism are antagonistic, simply because trying to deviate from capital's need to be ever more ruthless as it expands will either end up consuming our little enclaves of "socialism" in one country, or our "socialism" in one country will force itself to discipline by market exchange.

We can also ultimately not even speak of an instance where the economy was genuinely post-capitalist when we conduct a proper analysis of any economy that fancies, or fancied, itself socialistic: marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1942/russian-economy/index.htm.

(more to come)

The point is that any actual constitutive break away from capitalism will not happen passively, for the reasons outlined above. Capitalism will either annihilate itself when it absolutely has to address to more extreme versions of democide and direct slavery, or we will ourselves find a way to overthrow it. This is why Marx correctly believed that any idea of "change from within" is a self-contradictory process.

Regardless of its ultimate non-change to capital's basic mandate, I am absolutely in support of cooperatives. If not simply because there is popular interest (you may have seen my RDW thread on this as well).

Nice pic.

market socialism is reliant on coops which preform rather poorly.

Denk you very much. Have another one.

Coops can reach the size of a corporation by outcompeting their competitors on the market. Exempli gratia would be the Mondragon corporationin Spain or Crédit Agricole (mutualist bank) in France. It is, if anything, the merging of capital with democracy that allows it to function better once proles become more angry at a lack of managing in the firm than the impulses of capital itself.

Furhtermore, cooperatives statistically last much longer than traditional enterprises and have a much higher rate of permanence after starting up. I'm sure some of the coopcucks ITT can link you to a few studies on this, as I've seen them posted before and they were quite astute.

Property rights still existed

And the fact that the earth revolves around the earth signifies more than the fact that the moon revolves around it. What of it?

Pic related from the german ideology is the autism I'm referring to. It's clear that Marx is referring to the coordination of distinct work, and that the dissolution of the division of labor means being able to do whatever kind of labor you want whenever you want. Clearly, that is not possible in an economy with productive responsibilities for all of society.

If by this you mean the coordination of economic activity through the power of private property and markets, then yes, I agree. I maintain, however that this is only possible through proper technological advances and that market socialism will serve as the most effective transition to such a state. If you mean what marx is suggesting in the excerpt, or even go so far to believe this is immediately viable, then just admit your utopianism.

You are simply speaking of the pressure to reinvest resources towards production, most notably through automation. I hardly see how that is a problem, and that's hardly the entire scope of management of production.

This is a gross oversimplification. There are many factors that lead to neo-liberalism and you ignore the other only at your own peril.

Consider it a plural your then.

Read again, I was not saying that the people in cooperatives are producing for their own use first, but rather that workers are the ones in charge of the market exchange instead of the capitalist or their appointee. You cannot deny that an actor in a market will not tend to act according to their self interest, that there will be differences in the actions of someone completely detached from a firm compared to the workers. You belittle the importance of the capitalist in the capitalist political economy, as if the billions in private wealth (NOT REINVESTED) put towards lobbying, advertising and other pet projects pushing a political ideology have no effect. This is verifiably false. youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig&t=1s

But then what does this practically look like! You cannot deny Stalin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks didn't believe they were creating socialism.

Surely you can't be so foolish as to think capitalism does not create a group of people who have a vested interest in its survival? That is, as a specific arrangement of economic activities as opposed to others. Perhaps it should be our job to eliminate those people (by eliminating the role of the capitalist) and create a situation where those in power benefit from an authentic transition away from capitalism. If this is not possible, then yes, violent overthrow will be necessary. But like you said, if capitalism and socialism are incompatible, then only a global revolution will be the solution. I doubt the immediate viability of that, especially if said revolution doesn't begin in the US.

Perhaps not, but it will not happen with only revolution. The Slave empires of old didn't dissolve in a single night, and there were long reforms done by the Kings that undermined the power of the feudal lords before the bourgeoisie took control.

You cannot deny that the Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions weren't authentic revolutions! That they were not a significant break and restructuring of politics, economics and society at large in the countries where they occurred. If these were not changes from the outside, I do not know what is.

markets

Good thread bump 7