If production for use and not exchange is a necessary component of socialism then how exactly could a system with...

...

Does the distinction between production for use and production for exchange really matter? Is production for exchange really the bad thing about capitalism?

yes
yes

Yes. It's incredible wasteful and ecologically unsustainable.

*incredibly

I personally think it's irrelevant. Communism is about common ownership on the means of production, all that market/exchange is secondary.

Co-ops need "profit" only as much as their individual members want to make more money for themselves, or to re-invest in their businesses. There is no essential drive for profit in an economy completely composed of cooperative firms.

Really gets that noggin bobbin.

Yes.

And yes.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/preface.htm
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/wage-labour/
marxists.org/archive/luxemburg/1900/reform-revolution/

There's no common ownership under a market. Coops are democratized private firms.

Does this mean market socialism is an oxymoron?

If socialism is understood as common ownership of the means of production, the answer is yes.

Yes.

t. Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution (pt. 2, ch. 7)

t. Karl Marx, Paris Manuscripts of 1844 (22: Estranged Labour)

yes

Tito's Yugoslavia wasnt socialist it was fascist, he took billions of foreign credits and opened trade with entire world not to mention he created bigger class gap than Kingdom of Yugoslavia, for example his party leaders and military officers were filthy rich while working class was starving and if you disagreed with that he takes to some forest and shoot you.

Socialism is about worker control and ownership of the means of production; markets as a form of distribution are not necessarily incompatible, though a left wing perspective on markets is going to be markedly different from neoliberal arguments about "freeness" or some other inanity.

Obviously coops are not socialism, but this does not mean a post-capitalist system established after revolution necessarily has to be post-market.

His successors took the IMF loans, and were considered to be massively incompetent compared to Tito even before that. This is partially his fault for not properly naming succession, though.
It's not like resources can be pulled out of thin air.
Bullshit, Yugoslavia was very underdeveloped before the left wing reforms. Quality of life improved massively for everyone. Even if you consider the economic policies to be state capitalism, it was less shitty state capitalism.
The majority of his purged dissenters were ethnic nationalists that only cared about their precious spooks. I will not make excuses for abuse of authority, but the Balkans were constantly on the verge of exploding into war for completely retarded reasons; in this respect, Tito was easily the lesser of evils.

Tito's Yugoslavia from 1945 to 1965 (20 YEARS) had to take food donations from the rest of Europe because Tito's reforms caused mass starvation and people had to flee to cities and beg for food.

Actually the ones purged in first wave were his own party members and other communists ;), in first year alone 60 000 party members, army members, civilians and people of public importance (people who run business) were taken to Goli Otok, so much for that "ethnic nationalists" myth.

He wasnt the lesser evil he was the biggest evil and the main reason why Yugoslavia fell apart in war, he drawed AVNOJ borders in such manner only way the country can separate itself is through war or high tension smaller version conflicts like in Armenia-Azerbeijan.

This whole thread is an indication of the amount Holla Forums has read. See:

I'll readily admit I haven't read Capital, but I've at least been studying the basic concepts and know bullshit when I see it.

sure let me just make my own everything

dumb marxists don't understand that production for exchange on the basis that you will acquire other commodities, not money, isn't capitalism

yes
no

You are literally the most annoying poster on this board. Even worse than that socdem flag guy

And I always know it's you because you:

* have edgy an-nil flag
* say something anti-marxist
* say something stupid

lol suck my penis dude

feel free to adress how the following is capitalism please:

you can't, production for "use" doesn't mean you won't have barter or some form of exhcange

not anti-marxists per-se, but anti Holla Forums marxists, which happen to be fucking stupid, just right now some retard said

for people who claim to be very well read on marx, sure they are the ones who need to read it the most

You mean after the Nazis forcibly occupied the already undeveloped country and killed a million of its residents? What the fuck did you expect?

Almost everyone sent to the political prison was either one of said nationalists or a USSR sympathizer–and killing the latter would get you called a hero by the same anticommunists that harp about muh body count. They didn't even send a third of the number of people you claimed (in total, let alone in one year), nor were non-political prisoners even treated the same.

Oh, please, the nationalists want those wars to happen, it was literally their goal to start genociding each other as soon as the big meanie head leader stopped bullying them. The SFRY wasn't perfect by any means, but Tito saved far more people from these classcucks than he killed for political expedience.

You have completely shifted the goalposts from the topic you were defending: co-ops.

Two co-ops that make bread, will have to compete for profit, given that they exist in a market-based system, ie. capitalism.

I saw that thread, and I saw your ensuing overreacting shrieking. Who gives a shit if a Marxist on here is stupid. It doesn't compare to all the edgy idiocy your flag has produced.

It's still not wrong tho, the only reason people even bring up co-ops is as a straw man of any argument in favor of markets.

or rather you are still unable to grasp the issue at hand, which is a cooperative movememnt that works outside the realm of private property, a coop doesn't compete for profit but to reduce the SNLT, as it is now administered by the workers and workers do not like to work, just ask any worker

on an intial stage ONLY, later on we have just ONE bread coop, with two establishments, which cooperate to fully automate production and reduce the SNLT
why? because what we want is commodities, money is worthless in an anarchist society

rather most

also this, in my initial posts, I NEVER argued about coops

ok cool then. no problem

FTFY

Socialism necessitates a planned economy.

...

You can't get rid of private property, money, competition between workers, the State, wage labor, etc. and implement production for use without a planned economy.

This has nothing to do with nazis you fucking retard, its because Tito's "agriculture reform" caused mass starvation and it would cause even more if americans didnt give him insane amount of loans, for example he wasted 40 billion US dollars over 20 years on some shitty military air base that was never used, he could have used that money for working class but he used it for shitty military because he wasnt a communist/socialist but a fascist.

funny how you change the tune once you are called out on your bullshit, what if i tell you people sent to Goli Otok in the 70's werent USSR or nationalists but Tito's own pioneers who were against co-federalisation plan of Yugoslavia?

And yes the sent 60 000 in just first year alone, that thing is documented by themselves, they even took pride in saying "60 000 Stalinists were purged"

Stop talking about things you have 0 knowledge about.

He didnt save anyone he caused the mess and even further divided the people of that region, thats why he didnt pick a successor, he wanted political crisis that would escalate into breakup of Yugoslavia in most bloody way.

and then who plans the economy dumb dumb?

The central planning committee, or some form of decentralized planning.

so a state

no such thing, that is just manufacturing on demand, if that is the case, who gets to decide whom gets to get their commodities first? who allocates production? who allocates values?

Just steal the anarchist idea of not calling it a state.

don't worry user, property righst are a spook :^)

Sources on this? The money Tito was loaned was part of recovery efforts, and was much less than anything the Marshall Plan countries received; I have also heard nothing about this so-called mass starvation. This isn't the Holodomor where tankies don't like facts, it sounds like butthurt Yugoslav Wars propaganda.

I'd say I'm unsurprised given how they would have been basically handing the nation to the nationalists.

Again, sources. Google says you are lying.

Not an argument.

Which you base off of absolutely nothing.

Someone who actually lives in the area

Because you only know things about Yugoslavia from the propaganda material US was putting out because Yugo was their ally in the Cold War.

Because they werent communists/socialists in the first place? They were fascists and were doing as much as they can in territory and resources grab before Cold War ends and Yugo falls apart.

Why am i even arguing with your stupid ass?

It is an argument because you never lived here and you get your information from mainstream media and some neo-yugoslavian websites who portray Yugo as most succesful socialist country which it wasnt.

Now i certain you are trying to troll because no sane man would think AVNOJ borders created by Tito would ease up the tensions and him INTENTIONALLY not picking the next in charge would stabilize the country.

I've read Marx and such, I just don't give a shit about production for exchange, or in other words I disagree with some of the things I have read

As in, not an American, which means you have no excuse for not knowing the history of your own country.

Ally? One of Yugoslavia's most famous political legacies was that neither the Western powers or the Soviets cared for them. The Westerners saw Tito as a lesser of evils compared to Yugoslavia becoming a Soviet bloc, and even then they knew the Yugoslav Wars were coming and looked forward to it.

So they took all of the territory to… lose it again? While refusing political alliances that would have been perfect for any opportunist?

Mainstream media would agree with most of your arguments, fam.

I would argue that the destabilization was inevitable. I never argued Tito was a great leader.

well personally i think you are wrong :)

yes

If market socialism isn't socialism then what is it? Just social democracy?

It can't.

Precisely.

A meme.

Society, retard.

Tbh I would agree that market socialism isn't really socialism. It arguably doesn't even abolish private property, since the MoP are still owned privately by individuals, it's just groups of indivuals who are also workers instead of absentee capitalists. State mutualism would be a better name for what Yugoslavia had.

That being said I still think that market socialism/mutualism is a good idea, and would be a helpful intermediary step between capitalism and socialism. It would break the power of the porkies, entrench workplace democracy, and the tendency towards oligopoly would create nationwide combines of worker-controlled industry that could easily be socialized. It's basically the easy bake oven of socialism, since it can be more easily transitioned to from capitalism and naturally evolves towards socialism proper.

There is no need for an intermediary step between capitalism and socialism, and market "socialism" is no such thing: it is capitalism, plain and simple. Or to be more precise: it is an utopian "capitalism without classes", and as any utopia, it cannot be "easily transitioned to from capitalism"; it will always remain in the imaginary realm of utopias. Pretending the opposite is being actively counter-revolutionary.