Be me


Other urls found in this thread:

Co-ops aren't exploitative, dipshit, nobody said they were.


And none of the workers at the co-op have to pay any overhead fees to keep their business afloat. That totally isn't necessary when working within a market economy apparently.

I could link you to the many threads I've discussed this in but im just going to way until they swarm into this one

Didn't work for Mondragon.

Mondragon is the only coop in existance, no other cooperative company exists apart from mondragon

And then you wake up?

It one of the biggest and most successful and it still got raped harder than a captured kurd female fighter.


A coop being big means it cannot fail, indeed, nevermind the fact that the size of the coop is not its mqin goal, but to provide a stable income without exploitation

Silly me, we should measure coops using bourgeois metrics!!


Hello newfag, when you see a paperclip attached to a post, it means the user uploaded a .pdf

As you can see, there is one in the post you replied to, if you click it it will download the file, which contins information relevant to the discussion

Hey, not all Marxists are bureaucucks

Read again.

According to which marxists?

The ones I was expecting to bait ITT

The first arrangement still requires socially necessary labor time, and is therefore less exploitative than capitalism, but still leads to the same problems and markets, which will naturally lead back to capitalism.
The second is not what Marxists refer to, so you're clearly uneducated. Kill yoruself, fam. Lenin did literally nothing wrong.

I did ,newfag, I was referring to your source. The source it self contained no viable sources. No studies or anything.

That's just not true there are multiple workers co-operatives in Bristol alone while they may be small stores and coffee shops they certainly exist.

Planned economy still forces workers to labour ain order to obtain at leats, their biological minimum


Have another one

Of course, I was being sarcastic

You're not yet grasping the concept. Socially necessary labor time is used to discipline labor with capital. This would not exist under socialism because we would have a use-based economy over a competitive market economy. Producing under the socially necessary labor time by exploiting workers more would not be a drive because there would be no market. This also ties into the law of value. If you are to eliminate this, then you must eliminate markets.

Did your mom have lead in her titties?

And the source you just posted is fellating Mondragon. Nice one, dipshit. Got anything recent?

The state can and will use the plan to discipline labour, its not any different, workers under planned economies still need to achieve a biological and a historical minimum, how would you decide who becomes a teacher, or an accountant over lets say a janitor or a miner if not by competition? obviously we want the best people teaching, the most capable ones, wouldnt this mean people would need to compete in order to achieve the powition of a teacher and not the one of the miner? Which is a lot more harsh on the body

Or is a new elite going to be formed, where a group of people decide to send their friends to the schools and their not so friends to the mines?

Marx explains that the key of capital exploitation is the following:

Frankly coops are able to break this cycle, dont see how they are still capitalism

Timmy pls take your meds





Terrible theory. Sad!

Co-ops aren't exploitative, but they're not socialist.

Ignore the "self exploitation" shit. It's just people being too stupid to recognize that as commodity producers they still have a large number of problems without trying to paint them as being exploitative in the same way private accumulation of labor value is.

They're self exploitative because they still follow the capitalist logic of "grow or die". This means that profit that would be going to the worker is instead going towards the business to fuel this growth.


But precisely what is the problem with that?

Reading comprehension m8

Oh my bad
However the necessity of reinvesting also exists under other economic systems

That's not what exploitation means in the marxist sense though. The profit is remaining within the capital which is owned by the worker. If you follow the same logic that he lays out for capitalist material growth as the value of grown capital being counted as being part of the capitalist's wealth throughout the process of production, then the wealth remains with the worker, just in the form of solid productive assets rather than liquid money.

What you're describing is a problem of marketed commodity production regardless of how its produced, not a form of worker exploitation in itself.

Yeah, the problem is that Marxists are not advocating for a state to be the final form of our theory. Of course, we must do this until we can reach resource abundance, but even then, we musn't do it all the time and the need for labor goes down massively. We don't, for example view unemployment as a problem. What unemployment would cause is simply a lowering of the hourly work day to give more people a chance to participate if they so wanted to. You wouldn't need to work instead of starving.
You wouldn't have to do one job the rest of your life and there are plenty of people that would be teachers if it wasn't a shit living. I know that because I wanted to be a teacher and chose to be a doctor instead. That's where I'm headed because teaching doesn't pay the bills.
They would not need to compete for profit. There is a difference to be had. You would not be in a race for a position if you didn't want it and the alternative wouldn't be a life of drudgery.
No, of course not.

No, they don't. What happens if one co-op outcompetes another one? Then the other one must adapt or go out of business. There is still the threat of starvation for non-workers if we go by this logic. Co-ops are good, but they are not the way we must structure socialism. Co-ops do not do away with the law of value or socially necessary labor time. This is indisputable. If you still disagree, then tell me how you eliminate socially necessary labor time and the law of value using co-ops.

C'mon, user, you know shitty sources are worthless.

Not under full socialism. There is no market here, so you would simply get infrastructure you needed from other sources of production without having to interact with a market first. There would also be less firms doing things because competition would be unecessary between co-ops. You would have one industry that did all of x activity, no need to have a market, socially necessary labor time, or the law of value. Interaction between people as commodities would cease to be.

In communism the "necessity of reinvesting" is evaluated in terms of use-value. In capitalism it kind of stands alone, as it is evaluated in terms of value.

Those that have markets, yes. It should be understood that capitalism has existed for a very long time, but only recently has become the dominate system of production. Capitalism itself is not a static entity, but one that is capable of constantly changing. This is the reason why much of Marx's theory is now outdated, but his critique of commodity production has more or less stayed relevant. His view of the proletariat, not so much.

How are the two mutually exclusive? The problem that arises from marketed commodity production is the very reason why it's self exploited. This is not to say that cooperatives are not less exploitative then regular businesses, but that exploitation is an inevitability in market commodity production

In the Marxist sense, it is capital, not capitalists, who exploit the proletariat.

it was real in your head

But the workers who manufacture those new sources of production must still get some form of remuneration, even if its labour vouchers or commodities

Workers wouldnt get to keep all of the value they generated, some of will be needed to "pay" for the labour of the other workers

How not?

Workers will not keep any of the use-value they have generated, because all of it belongs to society as a whole.

Do you keep some of the dishes for yourself after you are done cleaning them? No, you put them all in the sideboard, for anyone in the house to use.

Capital stripped of markets don't do the same thing though (though in that same sense it's not really capital anymore).

My point is that the workers still own the value of the company itself. which is valued in and can be exchanged for liquid asset

Not necessarily. In the event of resource abundance, nobody would be in want of luxury, but even if this were not the case, those workers would not get rewarded based on collective output, and that is a crucial difference. A worker could work hard at an inefficient plant and still get the same reward working hard at an efficient one. This would not be the case if co-ops and markets still existed because the relationship to the means of production and social relations are still based on commodities. This is the C-M-C cycle.
No. This only happens if you keep the law of value. For example, NASA doesn't produce anything of value to the rest of society, and yet we would still have a space program under socialist society because the resources would simply be allocated for this. And as a bonus, the workers there would still be rewarded for their work, quite handsomely, I assume. There would be no need to turn commodities into money, then give that money to NASA so they could buy the commodities for use in a space program. You are basically preserving the same capitalist model with some window dressing. There is still exchange and use value, there is still socially necessary labor time, there is still the law of value, and there is still markets and relations as commodities.

If it can exchanged for liquid asset then how is it even a cooperative at that point?


How can a single worker of that cooperative sell what essentially belongs to the whole cooperative?

I nevernsaid they did, however that was not my question

In order to demand the labour of the workers that create the new sources of production then it means the workers who create these new sources will also demand goods from the general pool of supplies

The society will need tongrow as a whole in order to meet the demand ofnthe workers producing these new sources of production

This isn't that they demand this. They are entitled to them.

Define "growth".

You can't. It'd be locked in the cooperative for as long as that cooperative is functional and accumulating capital. That doesn't mean that you wouldn't still own it though.

Under capitalist-owned businesses, the ownership of that value, whether in the form of money or solid asset, actually completely transfers away from the worker to the property owner(s), while under a cooperative you still retain ownership of the value but you're required to lock in the solid form of capital.

If you were to argue that the workers lose the value put into the capital they need to purchase, you fall into the very same reasoning that capitalists use to defend capitalism, ie. that the capitalist has to lose money in order to start up a business, while the marxist critique is specifically that the capitalist's capital retains its value upon purchase.

Demand not as an imperative action, but as a necessity due to the biological minimum

Ok, but you first, you told me coops do not get rid of growth, what kind of growth?

I didn't say that. Stop assuming things.
We make enough now to feed and clothe everyone to a high standard, and this is without doing away with capitalist redundancy and waste. Still, I need you to define growth, because one just means more production, and the other means value growth in the classic capital sense. If it's just increased production, then there is no reason to believe that we can't ramp up production easily as we already have people work too much to make useless shit.

This completely ignores the practical realities of a cooperative. What part of the assets is considered who's within the cooperative? If it's through vote, then what's to keep someone from being tied to said cooperative against their will? The assets themselves are only worth what others are willing to pay for them as well, which merely adds to the exploitation, since there's no guarantee that the worker will get the actually value of the asset for his labor

at least OP chose an honest flag

We are talking about the necessity of reinvesting capital as a must in a cooperative firm, you claim this goes away under economic planning, but clearly does not, as, in a cooperative, part of the profit is spent on reinvestment, but this reinvestment does not com onlynfrom the desire of expansion, but from a physical need of mantaining production

In a planned economy the workers who will engage in the manufacture of these new productive forces, needed to restart production will deman goods in return, goods that wont be avaliable for the workers to make use of, as its the new labourers the ones who will make use of them instead

Even if they already have their necessities and desires met, you still need the subject and object, that means tools and land, you cannot consume a tool for anything other than its intended purpose, so that means that that labourntime was lost in the entity we name "reinvestment"

Think about it, if you manufacture something, and use certain tools for it, lets say you weld tables and chairs

If your welder fails, then someone will need to spend labour time making a new one, maybe you, so instead of manufacturing stuff for use, like chairs and tables, you will have to manufacture something solely to create value, a welder

There is still labour power being reinvested


You haven't proven that this is the case, but either way, central planning isn't the end goal of Marxists. It is, at best, a necessary stage to stabilize society after the revolution.

Again, you're talking about profit and interaction as commodities and exchange value. Please tell me how you think this is at all socialist. You've merely dressed up capitalism.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here. Please re-write as English is not my first language.

The same can be said of any item. All this means is that those that need X product will get it and those that don't, won't. You don't need a jet engine, but someone that makes planes might. This will directly be available, not through exchange, but as a necessity, to those that need these items. The same will be for other items. If we're talking about luxuries (assuming we have not yet arrived at resource abundance), then we can use a labor voucher system or some other kind of computer model to distribute these. There is no need to involve profit, the law of value, or socially necessary labor time.

Yes, but you won't have to. Someone else will, those that work in an industry that makes those tools. You will simply request one and you will get it. The production rate can be adjusted based on need.

Yes, but not in the roundabout way that you seem to think is necessary. You're still thinking of the MCMC2 cycle for re-investing. We propose instead that there is no middle stage of exchange value, no need for markets. You simply ask for what you need, and you get it.