What does Holla Forums think of left-wing market anarchism...

I agree and while I wont goes as far to say it's a false dichotomy you're responding to me with I will say it's a pretty black and white take on what I see as a fairly complex issue.

The aim is to end exploitation of the workers as i see it. Captialist's fundamentally don't see that as a goal, even well meaning capitalists like left-ancaps and mutualists. No matter how good their aims are then I don't think it will result in a great society. Their "kill the state first approach" will result in a lot of suffering and not a whole lot of damage to their perceived larger enemies. Diminishing bad aspects of the state seems a more plausible road to emancipation than giving up our only bullwark against extremely large multinational business interests.

What you guys think of goulash communism?

The only way to liberate the proletariat is to abolish work, centralizing it doesnt help, a market is a more effective way to reach that point, as the process necessary to automate labour exist by design, it is a necessity in order to outcompete the other

A market can only be exploitative as long as being left behind has actual tangible repercussions, like starving, however once we automate food production, market competition is no longer a serious issue, but one of play

The state is a complex entity, some of its policies are more damaging than others, abolishing it is not an overnight process

It's fine, read Proudhon

Autismos think markets = capitalism so it's somewhat unpopular in the far left. I don't mind it though

Market socialism is a vacuous philosophy based on people unable to see outside of the framework of capitalist economics.

Moreover markets are irrational, they allocate goods inefficiently and destroy the ecosystem at an unparalleled rate. The inherent grow or die model means that any attempt at market socialism will just collapse back into capitalism. In this respect it's little different than the centrally planned state socialism of the USSR. It's a pipedream.

The reason markets worked so well in the 19 and 20th century is because we didn't have a better way of signalling value. Now the average Walmart distribution center has more computational power than the Manhattan Project. A rational decentralized planned economy would be easy to implement and have all the benefits of a market socialist society with none of the downsides. Such as the tragedy of the commons and consumption inherent in markets.

TLDR: GOOGLE BOOKCHIN!

t. anil

Markets allocate goods via demand. It is essentially democratic in that what resources will be allocated to are determined by their consumers. The issue there though would be that the rich effectively have a larger vote.

I don't see how a decentralised but planned economy is supposed to work. Unless you mean city-state like structures which are effectively centralised themselves as part of a larger decentralised network. I'm not sure what role the computer is supposed to play here. Emulation of markets computationally too complex (interestingly enough the computational complexity classes of neoclassical economic models have been determined). The soviet union used to look to the west and how it priced things.

I'm guessing at how this would work but if places in the network both needed a minimum of 50 tonnes of iron say and there was only a supply of 50 tonnes avaliable, how would the the iron be allocated? I can see three outcomes. The first is that the iron is given equally so they each get 25 tonnes. In that case neither is happy as they each need a minimum of 50 tonnes. The second is that one is chosen to get 50 tonnes now (and the other gets the next 50 tonnes avaliable). The third is that who gets what is needed is chosen by lottery. Maybe I'm just stupid but the details of actually planning an economy seem to be beyond me.

Appologies, I'm new here. I've googled Bookchin.

Not an argument

I'm guessing at how this would work but if places in the network both needed a minimum of 50 tonnes of iron say and there was only a supply of 50 tonnes avaliable, how would the the iron be allocated?

What about increasing iron production? Btw I think it should be equally distributed if production is lower than demand, but I think that wouldn't be a problem. Nowadays there's overproducement in most branches of the economy, so it will surely meet demand. Basically they calculate how much is needed and make a little more than that. I don't get that why would you need markets for this process.

There's quite a lot to unpack with this question. I'll try to explain the different values, and how and when value is realized, it's relation to the market system and why it is deemed unnecessary.

Anarchist thinkers tend to believe value and therefore its surface expression (money/currency/cash) can exist free of exploitation. That a cooperative take on a business, while competing in the market, means every worker earns the full value of their labor. We, as in Marxists or those who understand value-form theory, disagree this can even exist.

To begin, there is use-value, which I will need to explain to contrast it with exchange-value, also simply known as value. Use-value is the usefulness of a product; it doesn't always exist as a commodity though.

A commodity is a product as it exists in exchange-value. Exchange-value is the quantitative relationship between two commodities. The only connection from these two commodities that we can draw comparisons is the labor that was used to produce them. Once these two products are put next to each other in a market, then they are both rendered as commodities and that is when value is realized.

So now we know value exists in the presence of the exchange of commodities. The active breakdown of the market system, thus rendering exchange either impossible or unnecessary, does away with value. The abolition of exchange (e.g. commodities in a market) necessitates the abolition of value.

When the law of value is still in play, with the exchange of commodities in markets, capitalism still exists. Workers can all receive the same wage, but in the end they're simply exploiting themselves only. Anarchist thought and the relics of "Leninism" are expressions of differently managed capitalism.

(Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution)

Otherwise, check out PDF related. It's an enthograpy of the Mondragon Cooperative system, which is typically held to be the paradigmatic cooperative. This book shows that there's still class conflict in workers' cooperatives, which is merely masked by the cooperative form of the enterprise. More than this, the barely sustainable horizontalism alongside production for exchange makes its business practices no less exploitative outside of the firm, especially in Poland where work for the firm is paid with a rock and in China where all its logistics go through for the international market.

By this I also include anarchists who understand value-form theory, and they very much exist. Anarchism, like communism, is a movement hardly consistent with itself or even remotely in whole agreement: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html.

Tautology tbh

Not quite friend! Markets may seem democratic, but I assure you they are as influenced by the oligarchs as centrally planned economies were.

My go to example is cellphone charging cables (or any variation on a small cable) Millions of these are made in a [i]MONTH![/i] Why? Because millions of them are worn out every month! By design! They are designed to fray to drive up demand, the capitalist has no reason to design a more durable cable. Combine this with hardware incompatibility, and you don't get a choice in the matter!

Markets are also irrational in their inherent environmental destruction. Think of all those phone cables being thrown out rotting in landfills. Valuable minerals and plastic, being cast aside because of the lack of profit in recycling! Keurig cups, bottled water, paper plates, and cds being made a month with only a fraction being recycled in any form.

This is my big problem with markets fyi. Even if you could distribute control of them to workers, a proposal I find they are inevitably based on growth at the expense of the commons and environment. We can't correct for this in a market system! No amount of Tesla's or biodegradable dildos will solve the conflict of "grow or die" markets, and markets must, by definition, "grow or die"

I'm not advocating hippy eco-cuck shit. We can keep our first world standard of living (Indeed export it to the rest of the world) and living in harmony with nature with the development of ecological technology and rational planning! The society we live in is so incoherent that are all efforts are doomed to failure as long as we work within the framework of the system.

You're close, but not completely hitting the mark. First understand that all economies are planned, yes, even "free-market" capitalism! Under market economics planning is done by the owners of private property (whether that be a cadre of capitalists living a continent away or by mom and pop managing a store) Central planning differs primarily in that the planners are appointed by a state or governing entity. (Whether these individuals are democratically elected or a military junta) The synthesis then is a planned economy controlled by the community, Bookchin imagined municipalities (which is distinct from city-states, something Bookchin rejected) with appointed officials answerable to democratic recall managing the natural resources in their immediate environment. These planners don't decide if brioche is imported from a France commune, but they do decide how many loaves are imported to their community to sate it's needs and desires. The planners would be local members of the community, rather than far off capitalists or politburo member.

Part1/3

Not necessarily.

Communalists argue that the city is the center of civilization. It's where humans took the first steps along the dialect of Marx. We threw off tribal organization and became citizens.

We do pursue a Confederation of Municipalities managing regional of affairs. Similar to syndicalism except we reject the trade union as the center of our society. The city replaces the trade union in our model

I'd imagine their would still be intercity trade syndicates to manage infrastructure natural resource management, and larger projects like a space program. So I do inject some syndicalism into Bookchin, but only for inter-regional management, the municipality is still more revolutionary and central to life than unions

Please do not mistake a Municipality for a Megalopolis (IE: London, New York, Tokyo) or a city-state (Ancient Athens, Singapore, Monacco) we communalists make a distinction between these in the same way that other socialists make a point to differentiate private, personal, and public property

A municipality is not a state, its a community of individuals who share a urban area. A City-state seeks to dominate the local area for the benefit of central city, such as Spartans dominated the Helot chattel.

A town of 1000 can be a municipality. A city of 100000 can be a city-state that dominates towns of 1000. It can also be a municipality that coordinates with the smaller municipality. In the later it is a confederation based on mutual aid.

We must divide up megalopolis like Paris and NYC into wards.They are not true cities, they are extremely concentrated states that are so massive and unwieldy that it would be impossible to govern them under the municipal model. NYC alone has a larger economy then many countries, it is in fact a sub-state of the USA. This can't happen under capitalism, the bourgies won't allow the proles to have power over their environment.

My explanation might sound rushed and confusing. If these concepts interest you please checkout Bookchin's "The Next Revolution" he explains the topic in more depth

Your not worth it but if someone else wants a good argument here's Bookchin BTFO marksocs

cooperative economy in which small profiteers, however well-meaning their intentions may be, simply become little “self-managed” capitalists in their own right. In my own community, I have seen a selfstyled “moral” enterprise, Ben and Jerry’s Ice Cream, grow in typical capitalist fashion from a small, presumably “caring,” and intimate enterprise into a global corporation, intent on making profit and fostering the myth that “capitalism can be good.” Cooperatives that profess to be moral in their intentions have yet to make any headway in replacing big capitalist concerns or even in surviving without
themselves becoming capitalistic in their methods and profit-oriented in their goals. The Proudhonist myth that small associations of producers—as opposed to a genuinely socialistic or libertarian communistic endeavor—can slowly eat away at capitalism should finally be dispelled. Sadly, these generally failed illusions are still promoted by liberals, anarchists, and academics alike. Either municipalized enterprises controlled by citizens’ assemblies will try to take over the economy or
capitalism will prevail in this sphere of life with a forcefulness that no mere rhetoric can diminish.

Happy?

Part2/3

No problem friend! I'd advice you to read The Next Revolution. It's not too long, and Bookchin is an easy author to read. He explains his points clearly, and you don't need to have read anything prior to understand it. (Though I'd still pick up Marx, Kroptokin, and Bakunin, after you finish reading his work. It's important to understand the roots of communalism) Bookchin's communalism is the most coherent philosophy the left has. It synthesizes Traditional Marxism Anarchism and Syndicalism with a focus on organic communities. Dialectical Naturalism is the natural evolution of Dialectical Materialism. The Citizen is the natural evolution of The Worker. More importantly, we're the only leftists that accept that the experiments of the last century, while valuable, are obsolete. Also since we reject outdated symbolism you won't have to feel like a LARPer

We're the future of the left, and the natural conclusion of the failed Leninists and Anarchists states.

You can also impress Kurdish qt's with your sick communalist praxis

Part/3/3

let's begin, first of all, in order for a market exchange of commodity, a true free'd market like some anarchists describe, to be exploitation you cannot simply thoerize the idea that it is exploitative because of the very same theory you are trying to create, this argument is self defeating.

Therefore, there must be a way to localize production that ends with this system in order for production not to turn into value-form, it is imperative that part of you critique includes a description of how such system would work, otherwise we must start from the position where we understand that, even if we cannot do away with value-form we are ought to chose the productive process that is less exploitative

second, just because you theorize that workers are exploiting themselves because they still exchange commodities doesn't mean they are exploiting themselves, in order to abolish exploitation we must define it first, and you seem to belive you can label exploitation as the apropriation of surplus value by the bourgeoise but also as the situation in which workers have to follow the SNLT

on market anarchism, workers do no have to follow the SNLT, because theyr labour is not part of the cost of production, their labour is not commodified by the bourgeoisie, if they labour cannot be commodified then they can't be exploited

the idea thertefore that work in itself is exploitative is something I agree with, however in order to abolsih work without abolishing production, as its retarded to belive we should do away with production, we need some form of economic system in the present time, one that can be realized right now and market anarchism is the superior choice given the experience provided by the vanguardists and organic modes of organization

cooperatives are not the end, but part of the journey, just like syndicalism, they do not work outside the realm of capitalism because they still work within the realm of private property

yeah well fuck you too buddy

utter nonsense, Bookchins provides ONLY a critique to the cooperative firm while its still functioning within the realm of private property, and avoids talking about how such system would be beneficial once private property is abolished, his argument is self-defeating

as long as bookchinites are able to provide a proper critique, sure, but as I said, he is discussing the mere tip of the iceberg, there is no reason why total authority should be put on an entity of the likes of a community, as then the land is owned by them, property rights must be voluntarily on the basis of supply and demand, bookchin never adresses this

If we consider the law of supply and demand as the only natural existing scientific law in the realm of political economy, then it makes sense that any sense of property rights are againts this logic, as if there is a natural supply of land, expressed in the form of natural occurring land, and a natural demand for it, expressed in the form of natural occurring necessityt to make use of it to exist, then there is no reason to defend private property, Bookchin doesn't adress this, he merely stays within the area of coops working in a proprietor system

if there is a natural supply of land, that can be only momentarily possessed by the individual, then it makes sense that he is ought to respect and upkeep it based on a scientific analysis, which was previously done, in order to mantain its value so that the next possessor can also make use of it, this means pollution is strictly against the market anarchist principles, and as property rights are voluntarily, we do not have to respetc the possession of those who are consciously or unconsciously decreasing the value found on the land unless there is a deman for it, for example, If there is greater good obtained by the commune by you making use of land in the form of agriculture, then there is no reason not to respect it, but if you are harming the land in any way that goes against the scientific analysis previously done, then we are ought to abolish your possession, as the demand for reusable land trumps the demand for whatever you are producing

again, Feel free to adress the radical market anarchist ideology and its main pillars, not just cooperatives working within the proprietor realm

Market socialism is used to mean Titoism. AKA a market with competition and profit incentive but all enterprises are worker owned cooperatives, not privately owned enterprises.

That would be total liberation a lot can be done in the mean time to make workers lives easier and capitalists lives harder. I'm also not of the opinion that automation would necessarily mean freedom. Though that may be a tangential point here.

In that post I agreed central planning was not good. The problem most capitalists or other market advocates don't seem to realize though is that central planning is not limited to an action states do. David Graeber often points out especially in pic related that modern capitalist markets are coming to be as centrally planned as the Soviet Union before it's collapse and cratering. Inversely states can be used to limit the central planning of market forces. Especially when they are coupled with either a large labor movement or a large ingrained labor mechanism like the Swedish unions I mentioned earlier.

I agree with you last statement.

Yeah but have you Startpaged Bookchin?
startpage.com/eng/

Markets can get pretty weird. Cars create their own demand. When there are many cars, you need more space for parking and it gets harder and harder to reach places on bike or by walking. The infrastructure sprawls out and you then have to buy a car. Things can't always be simply considered as if all there is to them is that they have a quality inside of them, with the buying decisions then simply rewarding or penalizing for having that quality. E.g. if two new game consoles are out and one has better tech than the other, it doesn't automatically win. If the one with the worse tech has better infrastructure around it, more games in the works, the worse tech can win. There is often a reason to get a common thing just because it's common, not because it's inherently better. A beautifully constructed language that nobody speaks is unlikely to get many followers precisely because it doesn't have many followers.

So, somebody who likes Stalin and Sonic might argue that society would be better off with game designers and programmers thoroughly checking out the console prototypes, and these experts then deciding which prototype should be the one console in this generation, and similar with other tech.

Maybe it is possible to work out some procedure for dealing with the production of things that are strongly influenced by the network effect and leave most other things to more decentralized market-like procedures.

The Nobel Prize winning work of by Arrow and Debreu showing how impossible perfect market conditions are and the Nobel Prize work of Stiglitz showing how even the smallest information asymmetry could create vastly imperfect markets lends little credence to any theory that over-relies on markets.

Whoever still shillz a market-based solution without corrective remedies of intervention is just plain lying at this point.

Because, they're ignoring decades worth of highly reliable scholarship on this issue.

I want a commie bf to suck my dick

are you a girl? if yes then I can help you