I've heard the 'co-ops aren't socialism because you have to self-exploit because of market competition' argument a few...

I've heard the 'co-ops aren't socialism because you have to self-exploit because of market competition' argument a few times and I'm convinced of it, as you're still serving capital. But when does it become socialism?

pic unrelated

Other urls found in this thread:


Isn't this more a critique of markets? In a planned economy where you produce based on need you don't exploit yourself because of market competition.

Never. Democratizing firms does not magically stop them from perpetuating the law of value and production for exchange.

From: marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/ch07.htm

Of course, cooperatives are preferable to traditional bourgeois firms, but hardly form a proper constitutive break away from capitalism. It is also dubious to claim that they provide any proper basis for a real movement, since capital is highly recuperating, meaning they change nothing in the worker's concept of his conditions of existence as maintaining alive capital as automated subject…


There is still competition in planned prodiction, you still havebto "exploit" yourself, if you to reach a higher position

Unless you belive a surgeon should get the same benefits as a janitor, if so enjoy your philosophy of poverty

Great argument…

How about you read Rosa Luxemburg's critique of reformism and her take on the supposedly "revolutionary" cooperatives ideal now?

How about youw explain how come planned production, that supposedly eliminates prodiction for exchange, exists under capitalism?

Why should I? I have no desire to maintain capital alive with a red bureaucracy.

Good thing shitposters like you are incapable of not posting with a flag. Easy ignoring your non-argumentative asses.

How is me studying medicine after highschool instead of becoming a janitor the same as voting to fuck me and my co-workers over because the competing co-op across the street sells cheaper products?

Go ahead, show us a framework of reference on how you will engage in production cycles, either you have a market or you have planned prodiction, i never implied centrally planned prodiction

Or are you going to ragequit like in the thread about cuba?

Is the basis of capitqlist production competition? Because youmstill hqve to compete against other so that you show yourself worthy of being a surgeon

Try reading a book fag, without property rights, you can get a hold of whatever technological developmemt the other coop developed, the basis of capitalism is private property, NOT market exchange, and your post perfectly exemplifies it

Coops compete to lower the SNLT so thqt they dont have to work, not for higher profits, as everyone in the sector share similar profits because everyone can share technology and intellectual property

Read a book or two about market anarchism

What I mean is, when does democratic ownership of means of production become socialism?

In a planned economy where you produce based on need there's no point for worker cooperative businesses in the first place.

Worked in Cuba, no? Same wage for everyone, yet the highest standard of healthcare in Latin America.

When private property is abolished

what the fuck is wrong with you

Nice, but how do you explain most doctors flee the country?

When the commodity form is abolished.

The touch screen of my tablet is broken and imdont check my grammar before uploading

Never. That is a reductionist definition of socialism, one Marx explicitly rejected as utopianism. Post-capitalism necessarily implies the abolition of all things pertaining to capitalism, and it has little to do with democracy or democratic ownership. It has to do with social ownership, i.e. the total abolition of ownership. Private ownership implies not simply an unequal balance of shareholding: it implies exlusionary ownership for the purpose of accumulation. Hence, a cooperative constitutes private property: only those whom are employees get to toil there and exploit their own labor for exchange (and then we are already at the true problem and the purpose of private property in general).

From: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/labour.htm

No, it's the commodity form.

ok but how


You don't check your ideology before posting as well.

Nice post, too bad it doesnt adress

For Marx, the solution would be the communist movement: a movement that takes itself to task to change all present conditions of capitalism. This means violent revolution.

Ok but how do we eliminate the commodity form

Fantastic circular logic there

An outline of an example of a "lower phase" of communism is outlined in that video I posted:

Necessarily, with the law of value, we get production for exchange. This means production that follows the law of value, springing from labor. For times when the free association of labor (communism) cannot yet occur without whole systems, you could get something like personal credit systems, or labor vouchers: currencies that reflect labor time spent to be consumed for a product of equal labor time in its use value, instead of according to socially necessary labor time spent and then the substraction of a surplus towards exchange, which you would get with money (value form).

What should I read if I want to know more about market anarchism?

To elaborate, here the solution is once again first the creation of a movement and the basis for revolution. Present conditions must be overthrown should we even want to start thinking about a post-capitalist productive relation, although we can hypothesize.

I would recommend Ernest Mandel's reading of capital, for a simple way to investigate further: digamo.free.fr/mandelik.pdf

You stop exchanging things I think

Proudhon, tucker, carson, novatore are some of the basics

I recommend you to start with wiki, and just google the names of authors you found interesting


Novatore was a communist you retard

And who decides upon the SNLT? Who decides to invest in machines to reduce the SNLT? what if i purposely take longer to produce commodities to ontain more value in return? What are you borrowing in a personal credit? Where do you use this credit? Who administers labour vouchers if not a red bureoucracy?

And? He was also an illegalist and an individualist, on market anarchism, people can experiment with communism as long as they dont claim property rights over matter

His work has nothing to do with market anarchism, saying that he's part of the basics of market anarchism is ridiculous.

How about you read Marx instead of memeing? The commodity's value is based on the SNLT, not the concrete labour you put into it.

Only really radical will think that. Cooperatives really don't have exploitation, it only forces the coop to compete and be efficient.

Illegalism is a big part of market anarchism, so is nihilism and egoism, it doesnt matter if he cqlled himself a communist, his praxis is relevant to the movement

That is under a market economy, this retard is talking about labour time being the basis of value

Go head, keep backpedaling

As usual, marxists are completly unable to defend their positions

They have yet to explain how they will abolish the "commodity form"


Planned economies hardly produce according to need. They are also rather inefficient.

Coops in and of themselves are not socialist. A full economy of generic coops would not become socialist.
The point is to use the resources of cooperatives to create socialist structures of resource distribution. If the cooperatives themselves start cooperating, they can share resources in a way that makes the market obsolete.

But they distribute the inefficiency more evenly across classes. The efficiency meme is a Protestant religious tenet that enables primitive accumulation, and therefore must be destroyed in its present form.

The philosophy of poverty strikes again!

All the more reason to put those who think they deserve more than anyone else to the wall. The problem of having more is solved along with wanting more.

This is true. I am self-employed and have to lower my rates to be competitive with my competition. To attract customers. Self-employed people are exploited by market conditions.

So if I produce more value because I worked harder, I dont deserve it?


If you are self employed why dont you reduce production costs?


Because my competitors are willing to offer a good price to my suppliers. So I have to compete with what they offer in order to get my supply.

I don't see what the problem is. If you're such a pathetic, empty infant that you need shiny objects and whining to get the approval of others, just gttw and solve all our problems at once.


Not true, it's just that markets by nature overproduce for exchange. Markets aren't efficient by any means, they're just bloated.

Try actually reading Marx, a self employed person can reduce production costs without the necessity of a boss, and since the organic composition of value is different to a capitalist firm

The initial cost of resupplying is merely a part of the total productive cost

This is the power of ideology

Do you seriously think you have any serious effect on a production system when your labour-time is reduced to what, 10 hours a week?

Do you also bawl and scream when mom asks you to take out the trash?


Socialism in one country.

Which country?

I buy and sell bitcoin. Suppliers used to sell bitcoin for 5% below market price. But I find that many suppliers now want no less than 2% below market price now. The competition among traders is so fierce now that the business is turning into a race to the bottom. This is to be expected.

It doesnt? If you can produce the same value you did in just 10 hours, then this means
a) you have more free time
b) you can generate more value if you keep working this way

It doesnt mean you need to do it, this is what you dont understand, in capitalism, reducing the SNLT is a necessity, such necessity doesnt exist under workers coops or market socialism, as there is enough value generated to cover the biological minimum with just a couple of working hours

Meritrocracy is not what I am advocating for, that is what reds do


Wll you could try generating value instead of inflation to begin with then

Read this. It made me understand a lot of things.


In late stage capitalism, it becomes increasingly difficult to generate value without having access to considerable capital in the first place.

What are the most valuable goods in society? Housing, food, clothing, health care, transportation, education. And you need a shit load of capital to own the means of production in each of those areas. Businesses that don't require a lot of start-up capital like indie software/games, bitcoin trading and gig economy stuff have a lot of competition and are a race to the bottom.

Striving to optimize the value derived from labor is pure capitalism. We overproduce tremendously and much of what is produced is later discarded or destroyed. Many of these commodities never had any particular use in the first place and were created only for the sake of increasing profits and backed up by fabricated needs. In a socialist society where each is given according to their needs and production is organized with this principle in mind, we'd produce substantially less than we do now whilst simultaneously employing far greater automation because unemployment is no longer relevant. Working significantly harder in this context would be pointless as we'd already be intentionally producing less than the maximum amount possible. It's only because you envision a market economy with competition and profits that you continue to obsess over this working hard spook.

Capital is dead labour, this means that workers joining together to create cooperatives can obtain similar amount of value, but with a different organic composition

While a worker cannot form a cooperative to compete againts a capitalist firm, workers can join forces to form one that can

All the things you described come from labour, workers already have theirs, the problem then is the object and the means of labour, which are sadly privately owned

Wrong, even under communism we must want to reduce the amount of labour hours, Yes we overproducle, but who keeps the surplus? The proprietor

I dont care how you will organize production under socialism, what Ii care is if work will be abolished used automation

What reds dont understand is that the hell of capitalism is not that the fir exist, but that we have to labour

Cuba is a Caribbean island with not many natural resources that houses over 11 million people. If you compare Cuba with nearby capitalist Caribbean islands, Cuba's health care is way better hands down. Even though their doctors don't make much money and they are supposedly experiencing a brain drain.

The core problem with Cuba I think is that it's difficult to distribute the island's paltry natural resources with over 11 million people. Cuba's fertility rate is below replacement level (1.75 children/woman). But their mortality rate is very low for a Caribbean country, their population is still relatively young and citizens are not allowed to leave Cuba I believe. Meanwhile if you look at capitalist classcuck Jamaica, Haiti, Dominican Republic, Guyana, etc. mortality rates are high because only the rich can afford health care and people are emigrating out of those shithole countries.


While cuban heqlthcare iw avaliable for all, medicamemts are scarce and costly

Cuban healthcare is not perfect, and you hve to understqnd other caribbean nations didnt get tons of aid from the soviet union

Pharma sales do not translate directly into health care, liberal. Why aren't you hanging yourself yet? The less we hear about your moving goalposts, the better.

It is socialism, it becomes communism when the federation is big enough to start operating on a distributive rather than a trade basis, once the co-operatives have become large enough to facilitate this

I didn't say that the nation's decreasing fertility rate was a problem. lol The low fertility rate is actually a good thing. I don't think Cuba has the natural resources to support 11 million people. Even if you were to improve their "human resources."

Are you fucking stupid? Who is talking about sales? In Cuba the medication that the state is supposed to give to you is hard to come by, mainly because they do not have the facilities to manufacture them, so they have to be imported

While it is true that you dont get them for free in a private healthcare system, cuban healthcare, which is supposedly free, isnt as free, because you have to buy them in black markets or else die due to a diabetic coma

Because medicaments have to be imported right? You mentioned that Cuba does not have the facilities to manufacture medicine. Well yeah, Cuba is a tropical island low in natural resources. They don't have a whole lot that they can export and the trade embargo placed on them by the United States (and whomever else) doesn't do them any favors. And if you want to purchase imports, you need to export goods (unless you are a neo-colonial imperialist nation like the United States that literally rapes the third world of their natural and human resources). And Cuba just doesn't have the natural resources to do so. Cuba can make more of an effort to improve their human resources I suppose. But there is only so much they can do on that front to boost their exports.

The capitalist Caribbean nations didn't have a trade embargo placed on them though. Cuba suffered from the trade embargo.
I will say this though: Soviet aid to Cuba was probably far more helpful than IMF "aid" to the capitalist Caribbean nations. The IMF did more harm than good to these nations actually. Unless I'm being too biased in my assessment of the IMF.

This nigga is a total joke who puts anarchism to shame.

Just kys, not much difference, you'll never do anything of use in the world.

One world, one co-op where animals are equal to humans. It will happen.