Whats wrong with market socialism?

...

Mutualism BTFO

that's some nice ideology there

It's not socialism.

Socialism is the free association of individuals unregulated by impersonal market forces upon atomized economic firms.

What's not wrong with it?

Wolff is a modern day Mutualist hero then.

...

Yeah, so not capitalism

Who controls the company's in your "socialism"

marksoc =/= mutualism

Doesn't marksoc have a state?

Looks, like we've got a market cuckold on our hands.

Socialism is literally social control over the means of production. That means anything from collectivizing them, organizing workers into syndicates, or letting workers control them directly in a market.

Yes, therefore Wolff is not a mutualist

Mutualism are libertarian market socialism.

All Mutualists are Market Socialists but not all Market Socialists are Mutualists, just as all Libertarian Marxists are Marxists, but that doesn't make Stalin a LeftCom.

Who controls all of the means of production? The state? how are you not just becoming the bourgeois in that situation?

There are no firms in socialism, because there is no production for exchange under socialism nor the money value form.

*is not are

Oh look it's more leftcom magical communism

...

Leftcom? What he says is literally the end goal of every single communist of every "sect" I know. Everything else is pseudo-left faggotry. Production is for distribution, not exchange. Idiots.

It seems any consistent adherence to Marxist principles will brand you a "leftcom" by retards who get all of their ideas of what communism is from jpegs and memes instead of reading about it.

Through estranged, alienated labour, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labour of a man alien to labour and standing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labour creates the relation to it of the capitalist (or whatever one chooses to call the master of labour). Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labour, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself…

We also understand, therefore, that wages and private property are identical. Indeed, where the product, as the object of labour, pays for labour itself, there the wage is but a necessary consequence of labour's estrangement…

Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.

Co-operatives and trade unions are totally incapable of transforming the capitalist mode of production…

The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises or, if the workers’ interests continue to predominate, end by dissolving.

They're more than marginally preferrable to traditional private enterprises; all that is contested is that democratizing private enterprise is on the same level as democratizing a feudal house; it doesn't change any of the inherent functions of an economic system's workers.

Oh hey, another meme spouter.

Its not as good as market anarchism

Also, Tito was a faggot.

nobody is contesting this
mutualism is not capitalism

You are when you say

Proudhon was also certain that his "market socialism" was the way that he preemptively wrote, in his critique to Marx, that workers striking under his model would be unjustified in doing so and that it should be refused. He also literally advocated a system of taxation and a central personal credit bank alongside this, immediately displaying that there is little more to his philosophy than a very interesting critique of property.

That's why it's not called Proudhonism.

You are stupid, when you have finished attacking a dead philosopher feel free to explqin how m-c-m' is an absolute ne essity under mutualism

**Brotip: if you can't then that means there is a difference between markets and capital accumulation
Brotip number 2: there is one and you are a retarded ideologue**

...

As expected

...

I want a decentralised planned economy. Or, if it must be centrally planned, by AI and computers

Who does the planning though? Workers councils?

Compelling argument.

As Marx says Poverty of Philosophy, the renumeration of capital for the purpose exchange disciplines production; impersonal market forces demanding that capital be reinvested to recomplete a capital cycle and address socially necessary labor time.

I can.

There isn't, and that's a great argument.

Sorry friend, I was reading a little Lukács there. Hope you're happy to give us some more funny jpegs tho.

That would be capitalism. As said before, socialism is the free association of labor for the purpose of use value. Planning production, that is to say to allocate scarce goods through the annals of a distributory organ, does not constitute socialism. Planned production only serves a semi-justified purpose under a revolutionary period, and even then decentralizing production towards labor's own ways of association is the aim.

Nothing
Anyone who says otherwise is a Ustaše collaborator or a filthy Hoxhaist
Druže Tito mi ti se kunemo, da sa tvoga puta ne skrenemo

...

Yes, so not independent firms competing their labor power to the drum of impersonal market forces.

Thats cute, but again, does not prove in any way that capital surplus and the accumulation of it is an absolute necessity under mutualism

Both constant and variable capital needed to be invested in the next production cycle is not capital accumulation, and if it is, feel free how your today's definition of communism does away with this

The idea that competing to reduce the SNLT is capitalism is also inane, and has no basis whatsoever

Hahahahah

I don't even know where to begin with this post. Demagoguery, begging me to repeat myself, or just outright illiteracy? Take a pick, but "omb dat's dumb!" and invoking alternative definitions to a unified concept (post-capitalism) is really making me think.

What more is there to offer in your post than loose trolling attempts?

Why don't they know about the principle of capital, and why we speak of capitalism and not capitalistism.

markets are vicious machines for capital accumulation

In market socialism capital is harder to accumulate with one person because a successful coop has to have a lot of workers and has to distribute it into lots of people

That is an interesting response, but again, you have failed to respond to the initial claim

You are claiming mutualism is capitalism, butnthere is a difference between the exchange of commodities and capital being obtained by exploiting workers being accumulated

You claim these two are the same, feel free to prove why without begging the question

Moreover, you have also failed to explain how reducing the SNLT is capital accumulation

a successful co-op that dominates the tech sector could employ 1000 workers and distribute 5 billion in profit evenly among them and would still gain hegemony in that sector and its employees would become a de facto capitalist class. Its unavoidable that the most socially adept, the most technically adept, the most ruthless salesmen and the witties marketing/advertising teams will take precedence in any Thunder Dome (market) you set up. Markets are a race to the bottom, be it a race as a hierarchical firm or as a collective operation. This problem arises within commie collectives as well. its why im just an anarchist and i don't support markets or production or capital at all. it leads to domination and hierarchy which necessitates a state

Sure, but that is only in the case that bourgeoise nation-states, and thus property and intellectual rights still exist

A co-op cannot profit like that in a proper market anarchist environmemt, as an exqmple of this see shenzen, while not ideal, it lets you see the beggining of how a society with no intellectual property could look like

hit the books, tard

So means of production?

Don't bother, this is just Marxist autism considering what is and isn't an MoP should socialism be established.

Notheng

ITT: the invisible hand of the market, kissed by non-socialists

Yet again…

Well non-socialist's always kiss the invisible market hand right?

Well, yeah, but I never alluded to this. Reading comprehension, my dude.

No, the only difference is in its form: there is a democratized private firm instead of a top-down one. There is still capital (dead labor) by antecedent of production for exchange.

I didn't (once again, reading comprehension), but if anything you mentioning makes it worth noting: socially necessary labor time takes no influence from changes in firm hierarchy; it is impersonal market forces that drive production, not the magical idea of replying to them by vote. MP4s above address this. The problem as always is the economic unit that engages in production for exchange. Under our post-feudal paradigm, this firm is organized like the bourgeoisie that blossomed from it. It will take more than to just make this form of production ethical or participatory to abolish the reign of capital, which rests in this endless production for exchange.

To anyone ITT actually interested in understanding why any consistent Marxist will laugh at notions of market socialism, see: libgen.me/view.php?id=1173038.

I've already said I was reading Lukács while lurking this thread. Don't get your panties in a bunch.

wew

See

Nice backpedal, dont even going to keep bothering with you

Lol, only if dead labour is apropiated by an individual, besides, if dead lahour is the reason market anarchism/socialism is capitalism, feel free to explain how you will engage in production for use in your today's flavour of communism without it

And btw, there ia no point in typing "reading comprehension" because it is up to you that your message is a coherent one, dont expect us to make sense of incoherent marxist wordsoup when it doesnt make sense to begin with

Nice pic.

I did do that. You said
which is what I never implied. When I alluded to definitions, I spoke of communism, not capitalism. Mutualism basically being yet another flavor of capitalism is something I've implied various other times, and I'll never stop doing it, because it is.

Where the poor reading comprehension comes from is your question about SNLT lowering (which came out of nowhere) somehow being related to this; that mutualism is but capitalism with a less disciplined SNLT, which I then commented was not part of the point I was making, and that mutualism if anything would just maintain the same systemic increase in SNLT, because no amount of form change can alter the content of capital's machinic workings: to constantly reenumerate and multiply.

It isn't, and the tunneling on the single bourgeois individual as main benefactor is beyond idealistic. The entire reason this is the way it is today is because the bourgeoise created its own revolutions, birthing in a capitalist system in which it inherited wealth. If you democratize the economic unit of the bourgeoisie (the firm), you reproduce the same effect, needing to reinvest the surplus of your labor to meet aggregate demand and complete capital cycles. This is the basic Marxist critique of so-called "market socialism", and the more extended ones successfully burried mutualism as a meme for what is now almost 200 centuries.

Without a surplus saved directly for the purpose of reinvestment into production for exchange? By using the product of your labor, not exchanging it on the market.

You're the only one ITT who's incapable of understanding what I'm saying without mixing something up orimagining things, and the only one ITT arguing in favor of mutuatism. You can ineffectually whine "muh wordsoup" all you want but as far as I can tell I'm perfectly intelligible and you're a gigantic mongoloid who either doesn't read or does not want to accept the things he reads.

wew

as much as is possible, yes. the principle of subsidiarity is the correct one

You see this type of double thinking and damage control simply won't help you in any way

You are labeling market exchange as capitalism, yet you fail to explain how capital accumulation is a necessity for market exchange to happen, You have to prove that, under mutualism and other market based societies, there will be capital accumulation, otherwise you simply cannot call it capitalism

It might surprise you, but you cannot label something as capitalism based on your feefee's alone, you have to provide a proper critique on how such system would lead to capital accumulation, private property and so on

ok, now it is time for you to prove this statement as correct, where is the capital accumulation under mutualism/market anarchism?, what process takes place that let's the individual exploit capital from wage labouring using property rights? remember, it is imperative that you prove this, otherwise there is no capitalism to be found

Reducing the SNLT is imperative in a market economy, this however does not make it a capitalist economy, this isn't hard to understand, reducing the SNLT is not exploiting yourself, as you can reduce the SNLT with machinery thus work becomes less intensive

ok, now feel free to prove that constant reenumerate with multiplication of capital is an absolute core pillar of mutualism and other market anarchism economies
remember, you are implying capitalism is constant capital multiplication, thus if mutualism is capitalism, we would need to see the necessity of constant multiplication under it, failure to provide such thing would mean it is not capitalism

but the firm has to seek constant expansion and capital creation, this is capitalism, you claimed in your post just that, to constantly reenumerate and multiply.. If however the firm does not constantly reenumerate and multiply, then it is not capitalism
again, to your surpise, you cannot keep changing the definition of capitalism in order to get away from the core argument, which is to prove market's imply capital accumulation

wrong faggot, you forgot a very important part, and you forgot it not because you are stupid, but because you are a cherrypicking faggot, you even posted it here

PROFIT

capitalism profit from the exchange in commodities, which are manufactured by the labourer, while paying the labourer just a portion of the value he generated, hence the cycle being summarized in the equation

m-c-m'

however, if we have a productive cycle, in which there is no propietor class, who do not profit from the labourer, the cycle would look like

m-c-m

as using marxian terms, revleft.com/vb/threads/185302-Marx-s-definition-of-profit

so, if there is no propietor class keeping any form of profit, where is the ==m'==

lol, is this what you tell to yourself before sleep when you remember all the failures of planning production, and how worker's co-ops are still considered a viable alternative to capitalist production?

Aaahh yes, the good ol' self-sufficiency meme, so tell me , if I am going to use the product of my labour to feed, dress, heal, clean, transport myself and so on, explain me what kind of marxian magic am I going to use to transform the english classes I give into food, clothing and so on? Or am I going to have to stop giving classes and become a farmer? that will work this time!!

the sad part is not that you belive market exchange = capital accumulation, but that your very own ideas are literally fucking stupid

you are fucking idiotic

No need to take off my flag Holla Forums

>>>/liberty/

it's soo different cause you get to stay a couple hours after work to vote on pay cuts and who to fire!!!!!!!

MARKSOCS ARE NOT SOCIALISTS. THEY"RE ANCAPS WITH A DEMOCRACY FETISH. GET OFF MY FUCKING BOARD REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE

fuck I didn't mean to post webm related. I know everybody posts that in response to coops. I'll try to be more original while shitting on y'all next time