Is cooperative property in a coop still private property?

Capitalism already faces this issue, and is slowly adopting with the later neoliberal trend of rentierism; artificially barring social access to goods at a cost.

I don't understand. So any property that generates profit for not everyone is private property?

because a group owns it, not a single individual, and if they stop working there, they stop owning it.

But that isn't the definition:

"Private property is a legal designation for the ownership of property by non-governmental legal entities.[1] Private property is distinguishable from public property, which is owned by a state entity; and from collective (or cooperative) property, which is owned by a group of non-governmental entities.[2][3] Private property is further distinguished from personal property, which refers to property for personal use and consumption. Private property is a legal concept defined and enforced by a country's political system.[4]"

From wiki.

The idea is that they federate on the market and therefore are not in competition but in solidarity with one another.

Well the chain of super makets CO-OP in Britain call themselves a co-op but have a CEO. That is private property.

(Cont.)
The trend currently takes form in phenomena like the so-called "sharing economy"; access to goods is barred by treating them like a service which demands a cost in return. Personal property is then turned private for the sake of performing the service, like we see with Uber where your vehicle takes in this form.

Any property that specifically renumerates its proceeds to the firm itself is private property. This is why coops, while eliminating the firm's traditional hierarchy, do not elminate the firm's inherent status as private property for solely its employees. See this next video (follow-up on the other).

But don't a bunch of share holders own a corporation.

yes but they don't work there.

It's a loop-whole.
It is, for capitalism.
It's not for the people that "own" it.

In the end, it just a way to trick capitalism into letting you build socialism.

exactly

How would you make a firm that doesn't do that? 100% state run economy?

Cooperatives are subversive to capital's systemicities that even Forbes thinks they're great: forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/08/14/for-some-worker-cooperatives-emerge-as-an-alternative-to-esops/#6f926af748dc, and which is why cooperatives have existed since the dawn of post-feudal society and why they're still here, but now gigantic corporation-sized entities that have no desire to cede their functions to the social good whatsoever.

The cooperative principle is built on seeing hierarchy not as one of capital's forms, but as its content.

Marx's Economic and Philosophic Manuscripts of 1844:
>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.

Rosa Luxemburg's Reform or Revolution:

The whole point is to surpass the firm; the economic unit the bourgeoisie brought with it after its revolutions out of feudal society. The goal therefor is to end the firm, not make it more ethical or paricipatory, for it cannot escape the systemic fate of capital's law of value.

Socialism is the free association of labor. The state impairs this. Any state interference in this process not only goes against this, btu against the principle of socialism itself.

Yeah. So its not really a coop basically.

What would your vision of a socialist society look like then? How would it operate?

Don't let cooperatives purchase each other then.

Why are the workers not allowed decide that they want more centralized leadership and don't personally want to vote on everything.

I guess they could but they would have to have the power to withdraw that at any time.

The positing of "versions" of sociaIism is inherently excellent in principle. Socialism, as we have concluded, rests on the complete annihilation of things as we know it. This means that notions of this post-capitalism, as we see it, can not have adjectives, it can only not have what capitalism has.

This is why the issue is, as it always has been: how to bring ourselves towards a post-capitalism? This is where the content of a revolutionary strategy is what we can fill in as we want (more or less), and why we have, in principle, two greater strands: those who see the need to capture the state and use it as a tool to guarantee the abolition of capitalism, and those who see the destruction of the state as the first course of action. Hence, such a period of revolution will itself consist of a wholly capitalist system, for it is only when the revolution is done that we can properly say that its job is done and we have reached post-capitalism. We have a lot to learn from the 20th century because we've seen a great many attempts, many authentic and genuine in their goals, but all tragically failing.

I don't understand. Are you an anarchist?

A Marxist communist, without any adjectives, I'd say.

Can you explain how a post capitalist society would work? Just sort of break down who would make the goods who distributes them ect.

Looks like CO-OP is actually a consumer cooperative rather than a worker cooperative. More like a credit union. So almost definitely an improvement over standard porky but yeah not a cooperative as the cooperativists mean them.

That is correct.
The Co-op can never compete with the capitalist, as you cannot force yourself to oppress yourself.
Thus, it will always eventually fail.

What it's role, in the modern world, is, is to show the world another mode of production.

It's all part of the struggle.

I disagree, because the capitalist and the co-op have different definitions of failure. To the capitalist, not having ENOUGH profit that they aren't better off selling their shares and investing elsewhere is failure. A profitable business can still be a failure on the basis of not being profitable ENOUGH.
A co-op just needs to make enough to satisfy the needs of its workers.

There are several visions of what a world without capital would look like, one of them being Marx's rare commentaries on it (illustrated in the second video I uploaded). Here, labor congregates itself into communes, in which their rate of productivity is not linked to profit-maximization, but to simply the amount of labor time involved in their exploits, entitling them to a certificate giving them access to non-abundant goods (not yet automated) worth the equivalent amount of labor time.

All is commodified in a market economy, including the firms. It's a simple principle of competition; if you cannot outright purchase the other firm, you up your economic leverage and compete your firm's labor power to levels even higher than the social average and usurp their market audience. Here the only recourse would be what we already see under non-cooperative capitalism; the intervention of the state, rallying popular support behind their favorite enterprise, petitioning, etc. It's all just a painfully autistic way of solving the inevitable contradictory nature of capital's incessant need to grow through market exchange.

Yes, but every business HAS to compete, and as the capitalist can lower the prices be exploiting workers more, the co-op is doomed to fall behind.

It's not about the targets of the co-op.
It's about how capitalism itself works.

Isn't that communalism?

No, this is communism as it has been known since the term's inception and solid adherence by the Paris Commune by Blanqui, as well as how Marx envisioned it, almost 200 years ago.

The capitalist can lower prices, but can they lower them ENOUGH that the co-op won't even be able meet the needs of their own workers? I'm not convinced. It's easier for capitalists to fuck over capitalist business because investors are easy to scare off.

yes. marksuccs are not real socialists. They're ancaps with a fetish for voting

So you want to form communes where people work and then are given certificates to get goods based on the amount of work they did. Right?

Well, if they can market the product well enough, and enough people can buy it, sure the can survive.

Until the next crisis comes and so on.
Or until the megacorp decides to take you over.

There is a reason noble capitalists don't survive.

That's a very rough sketch, but yes. More pressingly, I want to formulate a proper plan for revolution; on that does not fail or succeed only in its ability to establish ground to work on. The rest is for the proletariat to figure out, as the principle of labor's free association implies.

How.

But in this case who controls the means of production? workers councils the local commune leaders?

The proletariat. This can indeed be an associative form like

Would there be a state?

Also how big could a commune be?

No; the state exists solely to mediate forces that demand one, like capital (which is so contradictory that it cannot work without a state enacting borders, creating coercive agents like the police, or a military to wage wars for imperialist ventures, etc.).

Not a clue.

Again, it's all up to wheter there is enough demand.

If the demand goes low enough, and the megacorp takes every place on the market, you cannot sustain the co-op.

Sure, again, if you can sell based on the "we are a co-op, you help your city" and so on, you can do it. I just don't know for how long, since the megacorp will always be able to promote itself better.

Could an entire country be part of a commune? Could it just be one city? what size communes are you thinking of?

As big as the people in it want it to be.

I though this level of orthodox Marxism didn't exist anymore. Wew.

oh boy another fucking semantics thread just what communism needs more of

I actually think there's relatively good discussion of it this time.

Yes, yes, none in particular.

Bumping for good thread.

It's not private because the owners could change at any time without any legal paperwork to change ownership.

My cunt have a huge number of small/medium businesses coops. And it's a total fail…

I like the idea of coop and I plan to start one soon, but he's why it's a fail in my cunt I hope it's for this sole reasons:

* Gov give $$$ to coops: As a way to encourage coops my gov does this. This caused a lot of coops to be created in order to get $$$ from gov. So the goal is to suck the gov off more than having a successful business.

* It's more common between farmers, and ranchers. So it actually solve a great problem and benefit the "workers". Like ranchers do it so they can process their cows' milk and sell it. Or farmer so they can grind the olive…

* The failing management:the manager is typically someone from the community, so "workers" don't actually challenge him since he's someone they know, he is the one with the "idea" to milk the gov so it would be ungrateful…

Hope this will help you somehow…

This is actually a good thing. Like all markets marksoc co-ops would tend towards oligopoly, however think about what that means exactly. It means that within a few decades of implementing a market socialist model you would have the creation of massive nationwide democratic worker controlled combines that could simply be transferred to public ownership.

It would essentially be an easy-bake oven for socialism that doesn't require the massive expansion of the state in a time of political turmoil, which always carries with it the potential for degeneration into oligarchy. Rather decades later, when the state is more firmly entrenched and its democratic institutions are secure, then the state could expand its ownership over industry without risk of opportunistic strongmen. It would also serve the role of the NEP and help the country get back on its feet quickly after the crucible of revolution. It's an added bonus for semi-feudal or agrarian countries in the third world, since it would effectively fill the role of the capitalist period of development and make socialism more viable.

Friendly reminder you are a faggot who is full of shit that got BTFO in the other thread for cherrypicking and ragequitted

8ch.net/leftypol/res/1232005.html

Again, feel free to try to explain how market exchange equals capital accumulation

...

Bump so that the planning pleb can embarass himself again

bumping

negate yourself

That's why the first step to socialism is universal social insurance that would allow workers to walk away from exploitative jobs. With firms unable to extract surplus value through exploitation the situation reverses: co-ops have an advantage over firms because people will worker harder for themselves than for their boss.

Co-ops are private property because profits accrue to the workers, which is better than accruing to the owners but still is a form of private property and capital accumulation. However the only entity capable of seizing the means of production is the state and that would lead to state capitalism, which is worse. So until humanity creates a benevolent AI that we can trust to operate the means of production for society's benefit we're stuck with co-ops.

Apply yourself; that thread is long gone.

Investing the money value form (M; price) into creating a commodity (C) has as its only prescriptive purpose the aim of multiplying the amount of money value form spent (M'), because the money value form reflects exchange value and not use value.

I remember some retard saying M-C-M (investing exchange value for exchange value) is possible, in which case you have a simple system of barter in which money is non-functional as money, and markets have no function anymore and cease to exist. You then essentially have the free association of labor and no more incentive to form a firm and trade with other firms, as money is no longer the metric of the currency but instead a form of currency reflected by use value only, which can not be exchanged, but is ended upon consumption for an object of equal use value and labor time spent.

I also remember the only elaboration of this mongoloidery was a link to a reply-locked forum thread on RevLeft, presumably because it's so retarded nobody bothered to even give it a reply.

There is no fixed binary of planning versus markets one must adhere to, and certainly not because you're too illiterate to investigate upon the actual workings of a socialist economy.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/
marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1937/08/nonsense-planning.htm

Bump for posterity.

...

Bump for interesting thread.

All you niggers need to fucking read Marx

Good job retard, once again being a cherrypicking faggot to suit your argument, i strictly pointed out that the M-C-M' is not a requisite for market exchange, you can have both m-c-m and c-m-c productive cycles in which no surplus money is created

Are you retarded?
A barter is a form of exchange, and thus a form of market exchange, as when exchanging products, one would bargain the exchange ratio of their commodities

Top wew

Marx pointed out that money was just another commodity, and its value is assigned according to its SNLT, technically according to Marx, even using money as a form of exchange is a form of bartering, your argument makes no sense, actually read Marx before embarassing ypurself again

ernestmandel.org/en/works/txt/1990/karlmarx/6.htm

You are retarded, again, not only do you completly missunderstood marx's theory of money, but also assign a completly arbitrary definition to the word "firm"

Free association of people engaging in the trading of values, either as direct barter or using (not generating a surplus of it) money as a medium of exchange is a market, you still have not proved how this equals to capital accumulation

If only you'd properly read marx you wouldn't have so much trouble understanding the concept of money, but you didnt because you are a retard, your "free association of labour" is not any different from a market exchange

Lel, why are labour voucher fags so utterly clueless about exchange theories?

So you get a labour voucher for working, which has it's own exchange value, as it is a commodity subject to supply and demand, just in the same way Marx theorized money, and you belive that by destroying it to destroy its exchange value?
Lel

Lets analyze the next situation; The person who is in charge of receiving the labour vouchers and handing in the commodities to the workers destroys them upon use, however in order for the planning authorities to be able to keep a record of the commodities exchanged, he needs to make anotations of some sort, essentially reproducing the exchange value of each voucher he destroyed

The exchange value of each voucher was transfered to records kept

You cannot destroy value by destroying its exchange medium, only by destroying commodities, by making the labour that was input into them of no use

Exactly, but this would contradict your initial claim that markets are the same as capital accumulation

Stay illiterate, this is what happens when you fall for the bordiga meme

Confirmed for not reading Capital.

Confirmed for not reading Gotha Program.

Confirmed for not reading Marx himself in the first place.

Stay laced up on the memes, lad.

Top
Lel

You also did not reply to my comment about your utter cluelessness regarding labour vouchers and their aparent exchange value destruction, "Lol read" isnt an argument, and you clearly do not have the authority to demamd that since you cannot even comprehend Marx's theory of money

waw.

>incapable of differentiating between subcontracting one's labor to a direct exchange (non-market impulsed) around an economy that dictates the value of said money through impersonal market forces and the general coming of value of said money through impersonal market forces to enable minute exchanges of service around it

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. t. Garl Margs

Ayy lmaoo!

I already pointed out that your "free association" based on barter, its still a market, based on Marx's own theory of money

Moreover, I also pointed out how destroying a labour voucher "upon use" does not destroy its exchange value, as it is transferred to the record kept by the machine or the labourer

You still have failed to provide an explanation of how a market exchange equals capital accumulation, I have already provided a situation in which it does not happen, capital accumulation or creation is thus not essential to market exchange, thus markets are not "capitalism"

Not too sure if you're implying I'm the only one who thinks Stirnerite spergposting is autistic, but you'd be surprised. Got this pic from based Freudposter, iirc.

marxists.org/encyclopedia/terms/m/a.htm#market

Below, Marx differentiates in what is what is not a market, what constitutes and what does not constitute the money value form, and how it is inexorably independent of wage labor (the allocating of surplus to sate exchange on said market).

Hence,
is a direct allusion to money; the money form (exchange value, more broadly) is the only type of currency capable of this.

Yes, the value of the receipt I got with my dragon dildos is exchangeable on the market for an object determined by impersonal market forces to have the same exchange value.

It is its perogative.

With an example of what is in most cases bob-a-job, or if you constitute it as your imperative a mode of illegalism dependent on capital's regular quantification of money's value.

When you're both too autistic to invoke Marx while failing to understand him but then also too autistic to invoke Stirner when failing to invoke Marx properly, I fail to see what more is left to talk about with you. I'm at least glad you're autistic enough to be unable to escape using a flag at all times, meaning I can safely ignore replying to you and look at you spazzing out on the sidelines.

Discursive bump.

bumpity

.

bumpppppppppppp