/econ/

fucking trash, we need one for cooperative firms

Democracy cannot solve issues pertaining to inherently undemocratic and impersonal elements systemic to a mode of production.

exactly, hence why democratic socialism is a lie, only market anarchism can solve the hierarchical imposition by the bourgeoisie

Hierarchy isn't much of an issue, because hierarchy is not elementary to the capitalist mode of production.

I'll let the other two and a half people that have both read Marx and are willing to indulge you take it over from here.

then the capitalist keeping your surplus value by implementing the """impersonal""" market forces againts the proletariat isn't a problem.

HAHAHAHAHAAHHAHAHAHAAHAHH

Marxists are usually fucking dumb but you are special

tell me more how capitalism is anarchical and egalitarian please

screencap'd for posterity

No, because that's capitalism. We're anti-capitalist, remember?

The first forms of bourgeois organization under feudalism operated on an inter-democratic basis with equal shareholding. The transition to capitalism is actually what kickstarted the necessity for super-exploitation by using the labor of a proletarian class, which was then no longer peasant. If modern cooperatives don't already show that capitalism doesn't need hierarchy, the very origins of private enterprise do.

Even proto-bourgeois type firms that operated on primitive accumulation in the 1400s worked cooperatively. In fact, that's where the historical-etymological origins of the term "cooperative" lie: 1400s Germany and the first cooperatives.

Clapping with thumbs up rn.

How many more times are you going to insist on peddling this fantasy that people organizing a capitalist mode of production together will somehow make it non-capitalist? Are you trolling or legitimately this dumb? Can you at least get a tripcode so I can filter you and avoid you repeating your insanity every other thread?

The latter but under his illusion that it's the former. Top drawer irony, but comedy gold like that is sadly lost on people like him that think their stupidity is pretense.

and capitalism is a hierarchical system, the capitalist is in a higher class than you, yet you claim hierarchy isn't the problem

not very smart

good, market anarchism doesn't hold equal shareholding, you should read a book of what you claim to critique. we do not want global cooperatives as the goal, cooperative is simply a transitional period, the goal is the elimination of property rights

and? you claim that hierarchies aren't a problem, why is this a problem now? can't have your cake and eat it to

you need hierarchy for property rights, equalshareholding still are property rights, again, read a book

when you stop insisting that voluntary exchange of labour between differently capable individuals on the basis of voluntary possession is capitalism

something that you repeatedly refuse to arguee because you are purposely dishonest

you are still mantaining a critique of cooperatives and not aiming your critique towards the bigger movement, never have we have implied that cooperatives working on the basis of private property and bourgeoisie nation-states isn't capitalism, but go ahead, keep strawmanning

nice adhom, glad to know your feelings got hurt

You fucking idiot, the exact same thing would happen if workers in co-operative firms decided to pay themselves too much.

The former sorta maybe works, but the latter? Oof: dwardmac.pitzer.edu/Anarchist_Archives/malatesta/ForgottenPrinciples.html.

The traditional capitalist simply performs the function of planning resources and labour towards production. This can and also is done democratically: hierarchy only infers the traditional firm type of e.g. Ltd.

Explain how an economic relation premised on exchanging commodities is anything but predicated upon the existence of (private) property relations. Lest of course you change your mind and
is no longer one of the types of private ownership schemes you define as non-capitalist, of course.

I did, it isn't, and yes: trying to have your cake and eat it too is generally not wise, like trying to preserve what we call a market without the property and commodification necessary to obtain commodities and a value-form upon which market relations function.

No, all you need is an institute mandating property right and a system of defense or reactive coercion to enforce it. This can and does in many cases occur on an entirely democratic basis indeed.

It seems you've lost one of those two and a half Marxists that want to indulge an autist in his illiteracy. Good luck in your future endeavors.

Yeah.

Quads killed Tito, market socialism btfo eternally

the game crashes because the borugeoisie profits reaches to 0, if the workers in coop firms decide to pay themselves too much, then they go out of business, but NO ONE forced them to pay themselves that much, besides, this is still only within the realm of coops in an environment of bourgeois laws and property rights

and by doing so it must mantain the hierarchical position of private property, and a nation-state that defends it, otherwise he won't be able to demand the surplus production back

please remind me of an instance where workers democratically decided to form a cooperative just to give most of the surplus value to one memeber who doesnt work. remember, capitalism requires a class system that mantains it; the capitalist; who reaps the benefits of the system

explain how a productive cycle in which there is no capitalist apropriating the surplus value is capitalism
that simply explains how market relations are mantained after the abolishment of the capitalist firm, not that the market itself is capitalism. the idea that such system is still capitalism is a non sequitur
describing the necessity of abiding the SNLT doesn't mean that there is a figure keeping most of the surplus value, moreover, let's not forget Marx purposely avoids talking about a system where, when a cooperative develops technology to reduce the SNLT to outcompete the others, there are no private or intellectual property rights, so that every other cooperative can make use of the same technology or he is not able to apropriate land to generete value

if you really want to prove cooperative firms are capitalism, feel free to explain how a cooperative firm working under voluntary possession will decide to give most of the surplus value to a capitalist, how they will let a firm outcompete them when there are no private or intellectual property rights, and that reducing the SNLT is exploitation

easy, voluntary possession, when a cooperative firm manufacturing X commodity is no longer beneficial to society, society can enter the cooperative and modify the productive cycle in order to abide to their demands
for example, if an energy plant refuses to provide clean energy and instead burns coal, the society can enter the plant and shut it down in order to stablish an ecological form of energy production. the possession of the plant by X cooperative is only respected as long as it is able to provide a greater good to society, based on the laws of supply of demand

since we are market anarchist, we understand that using the laws of supply and demand is beneficial to this, as our demand for cleaner air is in obvious contradiction to the supply of dirty energy, I will make use of the existing natural supply of matter to instead provide clean energy and abolish the plants engaging in dirty ones, this logic can be applied to any form of commodity production

equal shareholding isn't coluntary possession, only the shareholders can take decisions, just because they share equal property rights doesn't mean private property is abolished, stop being dumb and read a book

cont

therefore capitalism existing is not an issue, and its logical conclusion is that neither are cooperative firms
you cannot claim on one side that market exhange is inherently exploitative and at the same time claim that exploitation isn't an issue
not that I'd expect you to be intellectually honest tbh

we can have markets without property rights, I can steal something and sell it to you, I never had legal property rights over it, I simply claimed possession over it, You should've read What is property? already

nice spook

Marx's own theory of the falling rate of profit by the changes in the organic composition fo capital prove the value-form wrong

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/appendix.htm

Marx claims that the value-form exists as a method of exchange, yet he refuses to accept that the reduction of the SNLT does not reduce the use-value found in each commodity

either he claims that automation and reduction in the SNLT reduces value, or he claims that each commodity has use value on itself, therefore the amount of value it demands on exchange is irrelevant, moreover, if a commodity is fully automated, it would still have use-value on itself, even if it doesn't have labour-value

I already pointed out this mistake in past econ threads and no one has been able to adress it

so a collective hierarchy imposed on the individual?
thats still heirarchy, sorry

you at least tried tho, kudos for that, just hope you stop following me around with the same old tired webms that do not discuss the issue at hand

dumb bootlicker, i am a market anarchist

It's very clear you have no fucking idea what you are talking about.

twitter.com/critical_dril/status/456588792497831936

no, you clearly are unable to grasp my argument, when I was discussing in other econ threads about how the theory of the falling rate of profit wouldn't affect a proper cooperative environment, and thus from that perspective they cannot be labeled as capitalism, because their don't suffer from the same problems no one was able to point out my mistake and instead pointed fingers at shit you couldn't underst, just like you did

if you agree that the objective properties a commodity has, known as use-value, are not reduced no matter what is the SNLT iot takes to produce them, then a cooperative system would not face issues regarding a falling rate of profit, as the FROP comes from the changes in the organic composition of capital, since less labourers earcn money to buy the commodities produced by the machines that replaced, which at hand reduced each commodity's exchange value

if a cooperative doesn't suffer from this, it is not a capitalist firm

as expected

Hey, it still did a better job than anarchism.

feel free to stop being a butthurt shitposter and adress these two posts

That's my first post in the thread. I have very limited economic background, I just couldn't resist a joke.
(Albeit perhaps a slightly autistic one resting on assumptions that exist only within my own head: My current political philosophy is essentially that all change is desirable because neoliberalism has become unbearable - thus an authoritarian state with red flags is an improvement on the status quo purely for being different and killing a few porkies.)

No body is responding to your arguments because they're a fucking word salad as usual. Use-value has literally nothing to do with the falling rate of profit and any system of generalised commodity exchange will be affected by the falling rate of profit as competition is inherent to such systems. As long as individual firms have to invest a portion of their income back into production in order to compete with other firms there will be an increase in the organic composition of capital, regardless of how those firms are structured.

Can we finnally disprove the economic calculation problem? How are prices determined in socialism?

socially necessary mmorpg

Just as I suspected. The Anarcho-Nihilist market socialist in actually Holla Forums

lel

oh but if you want to label proper cooperatives as capitalist firm it does, as cooperative firms exchange use-values, because they are produced on the basis of social needs, as it is the society that administer them, if you want to label coops as capitalist you have to prove it suffers from the same contradictions

prove it, this is merely an apriori judgement and that is for dumb libertarians

this isn't any different to any produtive process, you LITERALLY cannot create the subject of production out of thin air, even in primitive gift economies, which are pretty much production for use par excellence, people had to invest time and resources in order to create the next commodity, if you had read my post you would realize you are making the same mistake, which is labeling the logical process of production of goods as capitalism, this is wrong

in ANY form of production you will have to reinvest time and resources in the preparation of the next productive cycle, it doesn't matter if its planned production, gift economies or markets

stop being retarded

but user, that is ONLY if coops still work withing the workfram eof private and intellectual property rights, stop being retarded and start arguing the issue at hand instead of replying whatever bullshit you saw on Marxism101

if coops can make free use of whatever new method of production a cooperative created, then it makes sense that EVERYONE benefits from it, as you can produce the same amount of commodities with less resources and labour hours

a proper cooperative system doesnt compete for profits, but to see who can create new methods of production that can take us to a post-labour society, and since property rights are voluntary then society can take over a coop that doesn't care about reducing the SNLT

no idiot, I already explained in this post and in the other two why

I always figured he was a /liberty/ shill tbh.

no shit, user, do you even understand anarchism?

Instead anarchism worships Tottallynotstates (TM) Like catalonia and ukraine.

start arguing any time about actual anarchism pls

The stuff that has never existed because it is utopian nonsense?

meme me harder daddy

imagine being THIS retarded

...

Create a socially necessary MMORPG

but that is wrong kid

on the contrast, neither did individual nor nation-wide scale marxism, leninism or whatever has actually worked

They were actual anarchism, as were pirates as well. With Marx's critique of Proudhon's free market ideals in mind, it's impossible to be an anarchist (that is, be against all unjustified hierarchy and authority) and simultaneously support markets.

Just because the authoritarian commands of markets are abstract rather than personal doesn't mean that they don't exist. Cooperatives in a free market still have to compete with one another

The only truly non-hierarchical solution is to organize a future society along the lines of collective bargaining-based planning between syndicates of cooperative workplaces and mutual aid.

Catalonia, Ukraine, and Rojava all have/had their problems, but it's ridiculous to reject their achievements out of hand because of that. Plus, they all shared common characteristics with pirates - namely, the principle of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" and democracy on the basis of recallable delegates.
workplacedemocracy.com/2009/09/09/the-invisible-hook-what-managers-can-learn-from-pirates/
Pirates = early anarcho-communists

sure, but this doesn't mean they won't be able to exchange commodities, planned production requires a state and therefore is not anarchism

Watch the finnish bolsheviks video on the free territory and catalonia.

All capitalist firms exchange use-values you fucking idiot, in a market economy commodities have both a use-value and an exchange value. In either case use-value still doesn't play a role in determining the falling rate of profit (other than that a use-value needs to exist in order to be exchanged).

You mean other than simply looking at the behavior of actually existing co-ops? In order for them to remain in the market they reinvest in production. Look at Mondragon or any other industrial co-op. Why would competition magically vanish just because all firms become co-ops? Do you really believe people won't try to increase their earnings?

No shit, but in non-market economies this doesn't take the form of automatic value extraction and reinvestment but rather the conscious allocation of a certain portion of the social product back into production.

You might want to actually read Capital before calling someone else retarded, it's very clear you're just making shit up based on crap you've read on wikipedia.

It doesn't matter if patents and IP laws exist or not since the individual firms still have to invest in physical means of production. The abolition of patents would certainly make it harder to profit form a development, but it wouldn't render it impossible, it would simply reduce the total amount of super-profits that could be extracted.

No, it simply requires the various elements of society (councils, syndicates, etc.) to co-operate and form organs to deal with such matters.

I'm an anarchist because I reject Marx's vision of historical materialism and oppose all unjustified authority and hierarchy. Like it or not, Marxian economics really are far the superior to purely anarchist ones when it comes to analyzing capitalism.

Alright, let me try to put the concept of SNLT in terms which you might better understand. If you have a firm which makes a product, let's say basketballs, it needs machinery to cut the rubber and workers to stitch and inflate the balls. When considering that the firm must always compete with other basketball making firms in a market, it becomes clear that it's in its best interest to upgrade the machinery to become more powerful, more efficient. To reap the full benefits of the machinery upgrade and get back more profits to reinvest once again in the rat race, however, the workers must keep pace with the machine. A firm is forced by market forces to do this if it wants to stay alive, be it democratically self-managed or not.

Under a planned economy with production for use, three things would change - first off, the generalization of the MoP and destruction of property in favor of possession means that the work can be more equally divided among people to lessen individual burdens. Secondly, surpluses are no longer immediately reinvested into furthering productive capacity no matter what. Instead, what is reinvested in machinery goes towards maintaining the needed level of production to reduce work. Finally and connected to the second point, all further investment in development of MoPs is with the explicit long term goal of eliminating work as quickly as possible. Thus, although the concept of SNLT remains under a planned economy, it effectively becomes moot when considering its relation to the actual production of goods.

None of this is to say that cooperatives under capitalism have no merits. Workers' self-management under capitalism is excellent experimentation for what does and doesn't work, can provide funding for unions and squats, can bring critical wealth into communities, and just generally creates a lot of opportunities for the left. Simply replacing capital-managed firms with labor-managed firms, however, does not eliminate the problem of capitalism because capital still dictates why, when, where, and how work is done.

I've seen a couple other videos of his. I don't think he argues in good faith. He's obsessed with justifying ML no matter what, which is to be expected from an unironic ML, I suppose.

Plus, if Spanish gulags and the like are necessary to maintain the freedom of the rest, of the self-management of the workers and true council democracy as a form of government, then they're justified.

This guy gets it.

no they don't you fucking idiot, the exchange exchange values, this is why it is a commodity, its inherent properties are irrelevant, what the capitalist care about its how much value in return can he get
cla.purdue.edu/english/theory/marxism/terms/usevalue.html
exchange-value isn't price, but rather the commodity once it is being sold on the market

wrong, for the capitalists, frigdes and fridges manufactured in the G&E plant have no use-value, they care only about the exchange value they have

on the contrary, cooperative firms DO exchange use-values, because I want to be able to exchange them for what I need, since I care about how useful my products are to the person that will make them

oh really? tell me which coop exist right now that exist within a free territory, which doesn't work under private property or intellectual rights and so on
you know, an actual anarchist cooperative

like in any other form of production, do you think you get new seeds to plant corn out of thin air in planned production? do ypu think that primitive societies that worked on the basis of gift economies could eat all the cows and not care about how to mantain a stable supply of them?

because Ideally there would be no state, therefore money has no value, only the usefulness of a commodity determines exchange
on the existing framework, porky an make use of cooperative-like firms to demand more value in return, but the key here is to create cooperatives that make use of as much technology as possible, which is open source, so that the cost of production is lower than that of the capitalist

besides, if you label working in this way as exploitation its because there is a state, in the sense of the organization of things, in which you do not get exploited, and you have failed to provide so, just because it is imperative that people do not want to pay for commodities that sell at above their SNLT, doesn't mean you are getting exploited

nice, using the le read a book meme, totally adds to the conversation

again, you have to reinvest in production in any type of production, if you have some magic way to get free shit from thin air, do tell how

and said councils will defend private property, even if its collectivized, and will still have to decide how to reinvest their capital in order to engage in the next productive cycle

thats still capitalism and its still works as a state

You complete fucking mongoloid, anything that has an exchange value also has a use-value, this is Capital volume 1 stuff.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch01.htm#S1

I already covered this here:

This is nonsensical, in the context of a society based on a federation of councils there is no private property (everything is held in common) and their is no commodity exchange between either individuals, regions or firms. The councils exist solely to coordinate production and distribution. While they will have to determine what quantity of producer goods are made relative to consumer goods, this isn't the same thing as reinvestment of accumulated abstract labour time.

Alright, serious question, do the tankies think all anarchists are ancaps because these fucking retarded annil shitposters keep making it look like that?
They glorify the market above all else despite its hierarchical, authoritarian nature and try to coopt every other form of anarchism, be it Bakunin's anarcho collectivism, Kropotkin's anarcho communism, or general anarcho syndicalism, even those these trends firmly reject markets on grounds similar to Marxists.
If it weren't for that they've clearly read at least somethings (and had the points jump right over their heads nevertheless), I would think they were a big Holla Forumsyp psyop.
Where the fuck do these morons even come from?

I'm a marxist (not a tankie though) but I don't think that most anarchists are pro-market. According to the polls we have here every other day the vast majority of anarchists here are ancoms, there's just a very vocal minority of pro-market cranks.

Nah, in fact half of the replies to the annil poster ( Who I suspect comes from /liberty/, not that I mind, I believe the two boards should be much closer) came from AnComs.
What I find the weirdest is that most Anarchists here seem to be fully in favour of labour theory of value and even economic planning but they never take the leap towards LeftCom and other Libertarian Marxist tendencies (maybe it's because leftcom is depicted as Bordigism on Holla Forums), is it just a rejection of Historical Materialism and Materialism in general or do you just like the punk aesthetics and the PR boost that comes from not explicitly invoking Marx.

Marx is simply describing the two main properties of the commodity, nowhere in the part that you are quoting is he talking about how capitalist firms sell use-values, he talks about this later on, from the bottom part of the text

the exchange of commodities is evidently an act characterised by a total abstraction from use value

do not contain an atom of use value.

Now since its clear that you haven't actually read Marx, let me ask you, why do you belive you can claim authority over political economy discussion?

so just because you call it "conscious" its no longer exploitative? lol, this much mental gymnastics

if you claim markets are exploitative because portion of the value produced has to be reinvested in the next productive cycle, then it must alse be the same case for any other system, just because you add a buzzword before it doesn't change its significance

one could arguee that you can make "conscious" allocation in markets economies and voilà

see above, using buzzword to hide the reinvestement of value is not an argument, the councils still work within the realm of the SNLT

fucking marxists hiding the value-form behind retarded state systems again, as retarded as the >labour voucher meme

tankies are fucking idiots that should do what they preach and read Marx, just look at this dumb dumb claiming capitalists exchange use-values

>It's not a pink tax, it's a case of women people being dumb and voluntarily paying a premium for pink targeted branding.
It's this way for a lot of things, especially since the "default" tends to target one demographic, and targeted branding is what everyone else gets. The whole "straight white male is seen as the default human" meme comes from people whose minds are completely wrapped up in marketing.

I was a libertarian Marxist prior to becoming an anarchist (DeLeonist, so not terribly different from anarcho-syndicalism to start). I'm not a fan of historical materialism (in particular the dialectical aspect, materialism's good though) because it's unfalsifiable and I find the semantic distinction between state and government to be important. Plus, I take the basis of my politics to be a rejection of unjustifiable hierarchy and authority. I want it, therefore I will do my best to make it so.

Pannekoek and Luxemberg were pretty based.

These days, it's better PR to be a Marxist than an anarchist. If you're a Marxist, you can just call yourself a socialist and slowly rope people in. If you call yourself an anarchist, people think you never grew out of an edgy teenager phase and unironically want Mad Max to be real.

Back on topic…

I really liked Paul Cockshott's paper "Calculation In Natura: From Neurath To Kantorovich"
dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf
The stuff gets good starting at pg 6, where he starts dissecting how the economic calculation problem can be resolved by calculation in kind (aka calculation in natura). Calculation in kind is when, instead of assigning monetary values to inputs, the inputs are instead considered in their base material forms (for example, rather than it taking $50 to make an iPhone, it takes so-and-so much silicon, so-and-so much plastic, this amount of prior processing, etc). In fact, the ECP was originally developed by Mises in arguments with the German positivist socialist Otto Neurath, a major advocate of calculation in kind. In the end, Cockshott determines, without reference to obscure theory or anything of the sort, that it's basically a math problem.
Whether socialist calculation was possible or not beforehand is now a moot point - using a computer program reliant on linear optimization of input-output tables, an economy can be planned rationally starting from the rate of consumption of commodities, the raw natural resources available, the productive capacity in terms of pieces of capitals and workers, environmental constraints, and so on. It's really all a question of maximization of certain variables, a glorified calculus problem.
On pg 25's "Example 2", he shows how this would work in practice, literally planning a simple economy's energy infrastructure in kind.
Best of all, this calculator can theoretically be constructed right now using Python for the actual computations, MySQL for storing and retrieving input-output table data, and Javascript for an interface. Crucially, the algorithm is P.

...

...

Have you ever noticed how markets pop up only where there are states protecting private property rights?

In every stateless situation historically - the Iroquois Confederacy, the Cossack stanitsa, pirate ships, factory committees in every proletarian revolt, anarchist Catalonia, soviets in Russia, Rojava today, and so on - what have developed have been democratic councils with revocable delegates and extremely libertarian, if at all existent, constitutions.

It is this pragmatic form of direct democracy which in turn has led all of them to eventually adopt some form of free communism as an economic basis for the nascent society, where the mercurial will of the people directs production and collective action to ensure the survival and well being of all - in other words, no-BS production for use.

It is not only private property which does not exist without state protection - it is the entire institution of property as known prior which disappears.

History's exposition of human nature (yes, it's appropriate to mention it in this instance) makes your proposition - markets without property - irrelevant, potentially even contradictory. If you generalize property as people have always opted to and carry out large-scale market transactions by means of collective bargaining, it's hardly a transition to reorganize things as a decentralized, planned system instead and eliminate markets entirely.

Modern markets have only really existed since the fall of feudalism. To expect them to survive the death of the systems which have followed, especially when considering how much society has changed since, isn't reasonable. The market is a temporary institution, product of historical circumstances. Mutual aid - the cooperation of individuals to benefit all involved - is a factor of evolution.

*edited for grammar and clarity

that is not true, I do not need legal property rights over something to sell it or exchange, I merely need possession over it, a society where possession is voluntary can engage in markets, aswell as other methods of production, and since possession is voluntary, as long as the collective gets a greater benefit from it, it is ought to be respected, if an individual doesn't get benefit from it, he can make use of said possession himself so that it no longer imposes hierarchy on others

you seem to belive that market relations are something beyond of the simple exchange of labour that was embodied in commodities by differently capable individuals or groups

there is no necessity for state protection, just common reciprocity, which is voluntary by nature

Why should the commune, the voluntary union of egoists that is the new society, respect your possession for an abstract higher good? Individuals will take things when they need things. "From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs" isn't a suggestion, it's a modus operandi. If there is an efficiency problem related to game theory, then a solution will be devised. It was done in Catalonia, it was done on pirate ships, it can and will be done again.
Just because you don't call it a right doesn't make it not the same spooky stuff as liberal rights.

Bruh you're arguing against a meme that assumes people are too stupid and selfish to organize anything so they have to obey a system (capitalism) that self-organized.

the greater good is not abstract, the greater good is quantifable, provided by for example a nuclear powerplant using liquid fuel over the coal powered one is tangible, the society doesn't have any obligation to respect it, however we understand that the society will chose to respect the nuclear one over the coal one

i do not call for respect of possession as a natural right, but as a result of a social greater good, if there is a plot of land that was possessed by someone, but which sees no use, and we have a man that wants to grow corn, therefore its understanable that he can make use of it, as the inital possessor simply apropriated it

this is understandable in the context of radical, free'd markets, if we have a natural supply of land, in the form of existing land, and a natural demand for it, in the form of humans necessity to grow cattle or food, then why should a government, or a collective stop a man from making use of it

I do not have to respect the belongings of anyone, but I do because it is in my self-interest not to engage in confcilt with them, therefore we understand that if I want to possess them there are several ways to actually be able to without imposing hierarchy on the, one is market exchange, where I would exchange something of equal value to you in exchange of the intial good that I wanted

but who determines each other wants and needs?

wrong, I do not call the right to possess in any shape of form, people have the ability to possess, therefore they can possess as long as they do not harm other individuals

dumb ancom

So you support the extension of possession to capital goods and land? That's what Proudhon argued against, the ability of a few rich to own capital or land and profit off of it. The concept of "to each according to their needs" applies to consumer goods, not producer goods.
The individual, duh. Planning organs of commodity production must always take into account the rate of depletion of stocks of goods in kind, lest they be overthrown or otherwise reconstituted because they fail to serve their explicit purpose.
Then what's to stop a council-democratic commission from reallocating possession of capital to those most qualified to run it in the service of production for use? People don't care about your NAP-with-a-different-name, they care about getting what goods they need to survive and more if it means a more comfortable existence.
How so? He seems to realize that the market is an arbitrary construct of modern-day society, that the liberal propagandizing about it being the freest system is wrong, and that other, more liberating, more common-sensical economic systems exist.

Do u guys and ladies etc think that crisis theory would make a good co-petitive board game?

Like one player could be capitalist, one player could be workers, one Gaia, one state and they all have to work together to not lose but each has their own way to win(proletarian revolution, extinction of humanity for earth, moon base for capitalists, etc?

no, because capital goods and land are not upheld on the basis of a voluntary possession, but by the imposition of bourgeois law, the factory, land or whatever the capitalist property must be unowned, and possessed by those who make better use of it, either an individual a cooperative firm, or a planning organ, however they must hold no authority over the people

and this is enforced not by voluntary relationships but by law, I have stated several times that this has to be abolished

if a cooperative decides to then make use of, lets say a bread factory, and it actually manages to provide quality bread under proper working conditions, why should it be expropiated? whys should the planning organ determine how much bread they have to make?, such instance cannot happen under bourgeois firms as they do not provide quality bread and exploit the workers

an who decides what is a producer good and not a consumer good, is a stove a producer or a consumer good?

If the individual is the one who decides, then it is easy to understand how a group of individuals could decide to specialize themselves on certain roles, and later on exchange their products of labour on the basis of exchange values, why should the collective stop them if they do not cause harm to others?

why should the planning organs hold authority over the individual? what is stopping the organic instititution to rellocate possession is the fact that they need the authority to do so, so there will be forced labour, as workers has to abide to a plan. why would people care about your value-form of whatever when what they need is, as you said, goods, and the market is a proper way to allocate them

lets see
which is pretty stupid to claim when I am arguing in favour of voluntary possession and cooperative market exchange

planning isn't one

Marx is talking about how exchange value is constituted, he isn't saying that commodities lack use value. Do you completely lack comprehension?

In any case, none of this changes simply because the firms are cooperatives. The exchange value of the commodity would still be determined by the abstract labour required to produce it. Just because you claim the workers of the co-op care about the quality of the product and the welfare of the consumer doesn't mean that this would somehow magically change.

Kek. It's clear to me that you understand nothing even if you have read marx.

Care to prove this? If no commodities are exchanged and goods are freely available how the fuck does SNALT still determine anything?

Let's say you have to share a stove with several other people - your family, for the sake of argument. As a head of a household "possessing" it, do you sell its use to them? No, that would be dumb. You let them use it if they're qualified (for example, I wouldn't trust a 5 year old to not burn himself or spill something) because it helps them and hurts no one in the process - mutual aid.
The whole concept of anarcho-syndicalist (or anarcho-communist) planning is that each workplace has a delegate to negotiate with communities and interest groups what needs to be produced, and is self-managed. Production beyond the local level is managed by larger syndicates and labor exchanges of each industry.
It is only in longer intervals (as with the yearly election of the ataman in a Cossack stanitsa to redistribute land) that the local democratic government reapportions capital goods in negotiation with those who are qualified to use it. There is no "personal" character to an efficient system for this.
As pointed out by Marxists and anarchists alike in this thread, the market, whether we like it or not, gives capital its own agency to control the workers
*sigh*
I give up.
Until the next thread.

I showed above how it still exists nominally but doesn't actually affect anything under a system of production for use because productive capacity is no longer maximized in order to maximize profits. This guy is just retarded.

Could one abolish bullshit financial instruments (Think very broad here: big restrictions on shares to basically ensure they're investments instead of poker chips, possibly no futures markets whatsoever, or highly restricted so that you're making a necessary hedge - like an airline fixing fuel prices with the oil company - instead of gambling, etc, etc, etc) without fundamentally deviating from recognizable capitalism? Or would you just trap yourself in constant cat-and-mouse schemes with porky, or "crash the economy"?

Thinking a slightly more extreme variation on postwar keynesianism, probably somewhere around post keynesianism (definitely, capital controls feature, and the focus is on production instead of speculation.) but only in very general terms.

For context, it's a worldbuilding background interest instead of something particularly political. (So I'm not proposing it's actually an ideal system, just that it'd tidy things a bit story-wise.)

The whole point of Crisis Theory is that the collapse is inevitable and the system is more or less deterministic. That wouldn't really translate well to a game with multiple players.

Not him and don't really know much about crisis theory: Don't some variations allow for counter-action on the part of porky to postpone collapse?

That's something that translates quite neatly to a gameplay mechanic if so: Capitalism is about to collapse, so porky can take countervailing action - if the cause is porky's fault, he can turn to Keynesian policy - but if he turns to Keynes too often, the full employment empower the working class and you wind up with another form of revolution. Conversely if things are looking too good for the workers, Porky can engineer an environmental crisis as a counter, weakening the workers but damaging Gaia [bit handwavey here, since I'm thinking of the 1973 oil crisis which was probably a good thing in driving down oil usage.] in the process, increasing the chance that Gaia wins, and so on and so on and please don't notice I'm not actually sure how you get the third part of the triangle where workers and Gaia co-operate.)

use-value exist only upon use, Marx specifies this, a commodity that is exchanged by the capitalist has no-use value for him as he doesn't use it.
literally re-read Marx

piece wages. (im using the term wages here solely for context, there are no wages under coops) If we grab two commodities, each of one with equal exchange value, as Marx point out earlier that commodity has an exchange value based on supply and demand, then the commodity that was manufactured outside the realm of SNLT has the same exchange value as the other, first because the people engaging in trade doesn't know how many labour hours or how intensive the work was, and second because the profit obtained from exchanging the commodity cannot be measured simply on money, and third because the "profits" of said commodities do not have to pay an hourly wage

when Marx arguees about piece wage, he purposely still mantains strict labour hours and the bourgeois system of wages, so he never argues outside the bourgoise implementation of the market or outside the SNLT, in fact never in chapter twenty did he analyzed piece wages in the context of cooperatives
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch21.htm
completly the opposite of what I am arguing here, if the working-day has 12 hours, then there is still SNLT, but what if the labour-day is undefined, what If I decide to take whatever time I want?
while you could arguee that in the end the Labour Time a commodity requires would shift into a determined length, given that we work withing certain technical capabilities, nothing is forcing me to comply to it, as I get profit via pieces, and don't have to pay wages or rent.
If a cooperative needs to produce certain amount of goods to comply with their demand data, then they could decide to take 1 hour or 10 hours, at the end, the use-values would be the same, as an specific commodity, let's say a ball pen, doesn't have more use-value if its manufactured in 10 hours or less if its manufactured in 1 hour

sure, but first feel free to provide a system , that is not a market,( and this means no labour vouchers that function as money and a plan that serves as an artifical demand) that is able to do so

I see you understand how difficult it is to determine if something is an MoP or a commodity, given that a lot work as both, this exact problem is presented by Proudhon, and he solves it by claiming that all property is theft

but what if someone doesn't want to comply with these plans? maybe he belives the collective is wrong or that the method will cause harm, it happened under planning production in the soviet economy

based on what? money? if we understand that the use-value of money is to be used to account, then labour vouchers or any other method of control functions just as money, as it can be used to allocate production according to demand, and the planning serves as an aritifical deman numbers

it doesn't work outside the realm of capital, you cannot hide the value-form behind a state-like institution and call it socialism

you just explained how the planning authorities will force workers to labour in order to meet the production numbers

Then your firm will be inefficient compared to more organised firms in the market, and you will be pushed out of the market.

Yeah, if you look at the screencap each arrow is a button you can press to adjust the system. It's still deterministic in the sense that there aren't random elements. If there were, you could replace the random elements with another player. The basic concept could certainly be used for a competitive asymmetrical board game, but it would need to be retooled to the extent that it wouldn't really resemble Crisis Theory, which is just a basic simulation of Marx's model for capitalism.

The issue I see with a multiplayer version is that it should be possible for any player to win, but capitalism will eventually lose and the better capitalism does at the game, the longer the game goes on for. You could abstract this out by making Capitalism's win condition to survive a preset number of turns, but that's pretty arbitrary. You could make it so capitalism lasting until the end of the planet (Gaia being destroyed) is the win condition but then that encourages capitalism to destroy the planet at the expense of maximizing profits. If you use the latter option, that gives the workers a reason to work with Gaia though. I'd consider adding another player or two - technocrats/inventors who can control the pace of technology and bureaucrats who control the state and security forces and can go for either the workers or the capitalists in a revolution.

I was thinking that an optional fourth player would be a state who reduces the rate of profit and saves for investment into capital reserve but idk what sould be their win-condition.

I was actually thinking that porky could just win via saving enough money to ride a helicopter to their private moon base or whatever, and giving gia the self-destructive win condition to force conservation.

You seem right about different demand elasticity for women buying stuff. I heard that about the market in casual vidya. I also heard a theory about American Apparel making shit quality products for men and better quality for women, with the reason being that women buy their own clothes and make decisions to buy stuff for their boyfriends based on their experience with the brand. Well anyway, AA is in a dire financial situation now, so moral of the story is I have no idea whether that worked out. I guess with fashion high price itself is a positive feature, as it ensures that not too many people are wearing the same stuff you wear.

I guess with women being a bit less involved in work that they directly get money for, they have on average a slightly less intense mental connection of money = sacrifice. My point here is not to complain that if only womminz worked more for money, they would know the "true" importance of it. You can just as well look at the difference in demand elasticity and conclude from it that men obsess over money so much that they are more vulnerable to impulse-buy special-offer crap they don't need due the illusion that they are saving money that way. Now I need to go and buy this drill that is only cheap right now and that I am going to use for twenty minutes of my whole life.

That's nothing. I know people who bought dog food for the cat because it was cheaper. I'm not sure if that's a good thing to do.

The irony of not just using a comic that trashes communism as a supposed anarchist, but of using a comic obviously made a 9gag-tier libertarian who'd go as far as to call the Russian Federation and PRC communism, for which it's been up to 40 years of them not even pretending to be or flat out no longer being communist.

Also using your non-ironic use of Victorian era pirates as not just an example of anarchism, but successful anarchism, when comparing to tankie hotbeds is top tier cringe.

Why haven't you just switched to the ancap flag yet?

Mad he got meme'd on

Marx does accept that SNLT reduction does not imply use-value reduction. He denies that aggregate profit growth means growth in the pile of use values produced, even though it may appear that way from the point of view of a single business owner. (And, unlike with society as a whole, for the single business owner who increased his profit, all sorts of methodological/philosophical issues with measuring some pseudo one-dimensional aggregate use-value don't appear: He can now buy the same pile as before and some additional stuff, hence he is richer in use value no matter how he weights the different things and services he now can get.)

He does claim both for capitalism, where use-value has not much to do with exchange value, at least when it isn't hard for new producers to enter the market.

I think I now see what your point is. You claim that when people produce useful stuff in exchange for other useful stuff, and getting useful stuff is the goal, society's "profit" if you will, then that sort of "profit" doesn't fall with increased automation.

I of course agree with you on abolishing patents, but I need to know what else needs to happen to prevent the capitalist dynamic where you need to grow and be aggressive or else you die. I think access to food production is key, whether people actually do it or not, they need to be able to start doing it by themselves to have real freedom.

don't bother. the poor guy obviously has trouble with his ideals not fitting material reality.

are you retarded? if we understand that I earn money via pieces and my equilibrium point is perhaps selling 5 widgets, and I do not plan on achieving material wealth, just live day by day, why would I get pushed out of the market

how, via automation and new productive processes, as we can see, you are still criticizing cooperatives based on the framework of bourgeois private and intellectualñ property rights, if you want to make a proper critique, arguee on the basis of mutualism

ironic coming from a planner

pretty much, only by making the disctinction of use-value and labour-value is it that he can manage to create the theory of the falling rate of profit

you don't have to, capitalist competition exists due to property rights, where decreasing the SNLT exist as a desire to increase profit and demand more exchange-value in return
the decision to reduce the SNLT by a coop firm is not the increase of profit, but the reduction of labour hours, workers do care about working less, just ask any worker

every part of agriculture can now be automated, a coop that works on agriculture only needs to mantain the equipment until equipment that can mantain itself is created

on a coop market, people would still use price signals to determine which coop would they buy food from, however if we understand that, by abolishing private property and intellectual rights, every other coop would be able to automate their production, there would be no necessity to have a market for food, as labour is no longer required to produce it, this would be the second stage

All the market anarchist shitposting is literally from one guy. You can tell because all his posts have the same misunderstandings and the same unnecessarily antagonistic argument style.

I'm a market socialist (I see it more as a transitory stage then an end in itself), but I would never call marx a hack or marxists idiots like this guy does. Anyone on the radleft, except maybe tankies, have views closer to mine than the vast majority of people. He's also has autism (not that there is anything wrong with that but it explains a lot).

pussy

Anarchist antimarxism is based on antisemite superstition, their "theorists" explicitly exposed themself as such.

They might as well just go back to Holla Forums and feel right at home.

Anarchism fuck off. You're fucking hypocritical when attacking Asserists and Nazbols. At least they stand proud to being retarded and don't try to gloss over it like you scum.

Not true, I've seen at least 3 mutualists with different writing styles, 2 different annils (although I'm not sure if the other one is a market-fag) and 1 pirate-flag.

nice try, shame that Marx was alss a fucking bigot tho

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/jewish-question/

On some level that's not even inaccurate tbqh. The basic degree of critiquing Judaism for being naturally reactionary is one thing, and it's a thing most Marxists have made apparent, but basically every single instance of non-Jewish anarchists getting angry at Marx's critiques were followed by sour and non-principled anti-semitic jabs that only made them frustrated and intellectually defeated.

Bakunin and anarchism becoming unpopular in the IWA because of Marx and Engels' contributions? Autistic anti-semitic screeching from Bakunin. Poverty of Philosophy is published and nobody in the revolutionary milieu takes Proudhon seriously anymore? Autistic anti-semitic screeching from Bakunin (and another layer after Marx's mentions of Proudhon in the Paris Manuscripts).

Don't think anarchism can be branded as inherently anti-semitic though. Quite on the contrary, it's had many figures of Jewish descent like Goldman and outspoken critics of anti-semitism like Malatesta.

wtf the labour theory of value was debunked by bawerk in like 1890 lmao

I am no LTV fag but good god that is some weak ass shit right there…

Bawerk had been BTFO by Bukharin tho.
archive.is/CQrQU

I smell Holla Forums levels of bs here.

You've also forgotten that one time when Bakunin was autistically screeching 'joo' at Marx.

I was specifically referring to the shitposting. I'm totally fine with people having a mutualist POV, the issue with the above poster is he has a very flimsy understanding of what he's talking about and his posts are extremely sectarian and filled with personal attacks.

It would be nice to go like 5 posts without a strawman or an ad hominem, but alas. It would also be nice if he actually used a mutualist flag so I can stop assuming all anarcho-nihilist posters are him.

Don't take him seriously. He has clearly neither read Bakunin nor considered the relation of Bakunin's ideas to his own (which would dispel them entirely).

Bakunin's anti-semitism is incompatible with his own anarchist ideas taken to their logical conclusions - namely, that antisemitism and all other forms of identity politics are idealist chains upon the individual.

It's a shame that he was an anti-semite, but that has no bearing on modern anarchism. We do not call ourselves Proudhonians or Bakuninists or Kropotkinites, we name our ideologies by the structures and relevant ideas they advocate: mutualism, anarcho-collectivism, anarcho-communism, platformism, anarcho-syndicalism, etc. We are not defined by what private beliefs our luminaries may have held, but rather by the content of what they advocated first and foremost. While there have been sexist and racist anarchists in the past, there is nothing to suggest that anarchism is intrinsically either of those things. If anything, the broader history of anarchism (of the IWW not discriminating in who was organized, of the importance of especifismo in Latin America, and many other instances) suggests precisely the opposite.

This "anarcho"-nihilist is not an anarchist (and seeing how he hangs onto the market so dearly even where real nihilists like Nechayev advocated barracks communism, probably not a nihilist either) and does not accurately represent what other anarchists believe. He seems a mentally troubled guy or an edgy, idealistic teenager. Either way, just ignore his posts and threads.

Planned economies can be brought to equilibrium via a socially nessecary MMORPG to model the economy.

But the bait is too strong……I can't resist it.

Meant this for this

Why do we need to disprove something that makes sense?
The labor theory of value does not account for speculation, price manipulation or simply raising the price because you can.

...

All monopolies that have ever existed were created by the state, read Mises.

Have you got a screencap of the anti-LTV argument?

All these answers are trash. OP the reason people will pay certain prices for certain products is simple, they benefit the consumer to a degree that they are willing to sacrifice resources for other products in exchange for that particular one. Its just opportunity cost and as you briefly alluded, elasticity. The inelastic nature of makeup products is due to the incredibly high utility of makeup to female consumers. A women must look good at work, for friends (especially female and male "friends"), Significant Others and of course so she can feel better than other women. Her identity and social status depend on her beauty and womanliness if she is to survive she must protect this. Therefore paying hundreds for makeup every month or so is a small price to pay, compared to being ignored by friends, passed over for promotions and denied opportunities to ravish herself with beautiful sex w/hot men. She is willing to make that sacrifice because its logical from a standpoint of self interest. That's the demonic nature of market dynamics, there is nothing transcendant or tragic about it, no deep repressed psychological reasons. its pure self interest and responding to incentives. If we incentivized not wearing makeup and women being self sufficient they would run from the make-up aisles and the industry would collapse. Whatever is selected for is what will be bought regularly. Right now expensive hardware, software, training and entertainment are the hottest commodities. If we reach an age of art and warfare, those things would likely become less selected for by market pressures. Demand would collapse and we would see very low prices for CS training and advanced comp hardware.

Bakunin legitimately though Jews and Masons controlled global finance and were metaphysically evil tendrils of Capital's domination over mankind. He probably would have advocated for a mass culling of Jews and Masons to be safe. He also advocated for a secret society to rule from the shadows, ferment revolution, preserve the virtues of anarchism and to snuff out Capital. So there's a lot of baggage that goes with his ideas. Marx's critiques of Jews were distinctly anti-semitic, ethnic, religious and psuedo-biological in nature. His hatred of Jews presages the critiques of Karl Haushoffer, Deitrich Eckart and other lunatics in post WW1 Germany

kek, nice damage control, you started with the idpol fag, not me

not an argument

hello, show me the basig egonomigs :DDDDD

What is the so called problem with planned economies?

Literally nothing. This annil guy is just obsessed with markets. IDEK what his problem is.

Yes, Bakunin was batshit crazy when it came to identities and substituted that for a proper understanding of economics. It's not relevant to modern anarchism in any way, however.
flag.blackened.net/revolt/anarchism/writers/anarcho/anarchism/bakunindictator.html
Bakunin's proposal was for a union of individuals to agree on a common platform to advocate in various meetings of workers' assemblies.
libcom.org/files/Anarchist Organisation - The History of the F.A.I..pdf
Although the FAI was started by individualist anarchists (notably Federico Urales) as a response to the potential bureaucratization of the CNT itself, it effectively fulfilled the role of Bakunin's invisible dictatorship: its members would advocate for anarchist ideas in open discussion with everyone else. I don't see what's wrong with that. It's far less dangerous than a party with the explicit ingrained goal of taking state power and imposing its ideology at all costs, to say the least.
As aforementioned, Marx was a Jew. The general consensus of academia, to the best of my knowledge, is that his famously "anti-semitic" article was a satire of an actual anti-semite. I can't speak to the exact influences upon the others who you mentioned, but I seriously doubt that Nazism has a firm basis in an obscure article written decades before by Karl Marx, their sworn "Judeo-Bolshevik" enemy whose ideas they believed to be behind the "backstabbing" of Germany and subsequent loss of WW1.

A tankie arguing to read Mises? This is getting weird, to say the least.

See, now, I've read so many Post-Keynesian refutations of neoclassical economic explanations of just about anything that I've come to the conclusion that no one, and I mean no one, really understands /how/ the market works. All that matters is that it creates certain common forces upon firms, which, being internally free of markets, are ripe for an analysis of capitalism as it relates to actual people. There's just too many psychological, pseudoscientific bullshit variables and assumptions to account for otherwise. I don't think that we will ever understand microeconomics in any real depth, and moreover, it doesn't matter. You can ultimately chalk up just about anything in neoclassical economics to "social superstructure", whereas the same can't be said for Marxian economics. Your argument makes sense, but what if there's another one that also makes sense? How do you prove either one? Polling is unreliable. Advertising is always one step ahead and getting better by the day with stuff like deep learning. The more we develop tools to analyze markets, the more it pulls itself ahead in complexity.

What do monopolies have to do with the labor theory of value?

I have. And the labor theory of value just isn't correct.
The price of a product is generally determined by the price the sellers thinks it can be sold for. Which is based on the seller's perception of the size of the end-market, the willingness of end consumers to pay the full price, etc. Generally just maximizing both profit margins and throughput. Though other factors can apply such as maximizing market share, undercutting the competition, creating artificial surplus and demand, speculation, testing the waters, etc.

And before I get another "Read Marx": I invite anyone that hasn't to actually start a business and see yourself how it works.

The labor theory of value is debunked voodoo economics, I don't get why people keep pushing it for the sake of being "orthodox".

...

What is your point?

pantsu on head retarded

Marx doesn't arguee againts this, the LTV considers agregate prices over the several productive cycles, not on an individual and isolated exchange, he says that, as time goes by, the amoutn of prices will always become closer and closer to the labour time

this is why people think fiat currency is the finally nail on the coffin for Marxism

Marx didn't advocate the LTV. He even explicitly stated in Capital that the domain of marginalist economics is not what he is arguing in. Let me put it this way: the exchange value of a commodity, in terms of its exact price, may be determined by how much a consumer subjectively values a product. However, that value which the consumer puts on it wouldn't even exist if someone hadn't put in labor somewhere, someplace, so that the consumer is willing to buy it instead of finding an alternative solution.

If you want to buy a can of beans, you may be persuaded to pay more for a particular brand because of advertising, taste, etc. If you could pull a can of beans out of nowhere, however, the whole argument of why people buy anything would be moot in the first place. Someone had to do the work of growing the beans, picking them, cooking them, transporting them to a factory, canning them, and bringing them to a store to be sold. Without this labor, there would be no incentive to buy beans or anything, really. If a commodity has an exchange-value, then logically there is a use-value as well, determined by someone's labor. If someone advertises a bullshit product to sell it, then they're still adding use-value through their labor of marketing. If someone beats a piece of mud repeatedly with a hammer and no one wants it, then there was no use-value added.

Is this a tautology? Yes, in fact it is, but neoclassical economists literally deny reality and stick their heads in the sand to justify their narrative of "free markets give everyone optimal results!".

The classical LTV of Adam Smith and David Ricardo does indeed operate within the realm of marginalism and can therefore be refuted by it (although Piero Sraffa's improvements on it reopen the argument on the LTV's side). The Law Of Value, however, extends beyond it.

I can't believe I'm humoring this with a response…
See here:

dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/standalonearticle.pdf

It's literally from this same thread. How illiterate can you possibly be?

Thanks, this makes more sense.

I skimmed right to the bottom.

Cute, but you still need to provide how you will calculate the rest of the producgive process, mainly, the porcess in which the iphone ended using X amount of silicone and Y amount of metal

Themcalculation problem does not only appear in labour part of the economy, there are a series of other deciaions to be made that current AI cant solve

As far as I'm aware, the 'calculation problem' is a misnomer, because if the market can allocate resources using some algorithm, there's nothing in it that a computer can't do as well.

Getting peoples' preferences in a timely fashion, that's the problem. Once you have that information, calculation should be easy.

What capitalists firms in fact do, because of course they can't know everyones' preferences, is that they guess and overproduce to try and maximize units sold. This is inefficient, but the consumer usually prefers overproduction to underproduction.

Food for thought if you want to avoid shortages - always overproduce.

If there's no consumer in the picture, all you need to do is build a design or prototype and look at the materials used.

You'd want to allow margins of error in your calculations to minimize shocks.

I was replying to the annil when I said that.

If you actually read the 41 page pamphlet linked (which, judging by the time it took you to respond and what you just said, you didn't), then you'd know that economic linear optimization was originally developed by Kantorovich to solve for which productive process was the most efficient given particular circumstances. Once again, your arguments fall apart if you simply READ. READ before you post, ok?

Also,
Nothing here is suggesting AI. Rather, what's needed is an application for syndicalist planning committees.

There are actually two calculation problems, the formal one expounded by Mises in "Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth" and the informal one put out by Hayek.

What you're referring to is the latter one, and it applies only to centrally planned, non-real time systems (aka 5 year plans).

Here's a good article on the real-time, in-kind solution: worldsocialism.org/spgb/socialist-standard/1990s/1993/no-1066-june-1993/beyond-capitalism

It actually takes your "slightly overproduce" suggestion and develops it into a full system of consumer info gathering, under the section called "Stock Control".

Never mind the section smearing anarcho-communism, they're basically advocating anarcho-communism in its syndicalist variant under a Marxist cover anyways.

Until Kantorovich devised a solution using linear optimization to select between productive processes, that's how it was done in the USSR. It stifled things horribly.

Thanks for links

Surprised the optimization is only a linear program though, I thought it'd be much harder given the emphasis put on the calculation problem.

There will be no prices in socialism.

Given that what you say was already said (here ), your answer must be also trash. Because of diminishing marginal utility, your contribution made the thread even worse.
What sort of analysis is that? The commodity is "hot". Well then. For certain jobs, you need a particular certificate to be allowed to work in that job. The people in the trade keep the number of newcomers limited to keep their income high. And your "analysis" of that is that the training is a "hot" commodity. Your are ignoring the market structure on the supplier side. Not even a neoclassical hack would say it's demand elasticity alone that determines the profit rate.

That's not an explanation of prices, it is a capitulation. All you say is: What happens is what happens, and it happens in the minds of the people dood!

I know each word but don't know what you mean by this sentence.

shameful tbh

Remember, the Austrian school is a retarded meme, literally. It's just throwing pseudo-intellectual anti-communist bs at the wall and seeing what sticks. That's how we got "marginalism refutes Marxian economics", "praxeology", ECP as a kneejerk response to /anything/ related to socialism, etc. Their arguments, in general, can be summed up as "but what about those FREE MARKETS, man?".

As I understand it from various other writers (I should probably read Smith and Ricardo someday), Smith and Ricardo believed that the amount of labor put in to making a product translated directly into its price - in other words, what marginalism tries to do and does better than the original LTV (although I need to read more about Sraffa's variety to see if things really did turn back to the LTV's side). Marx's Law Of Value doesn't do that.

Even freedumz-hating gommies have to sleep.

Truly Nazis are the true masters of economics.

Either one player will win or all players will lose.

I know. That's why the Nazis were such fans of birth control.

…

Is this the kind of stuff Holla Forums actually believes?
The nazis had to go to war earlier than planned because their economy was going to crash, and they promoted large families and population growth.

It was capitalist imperialism from the beginning.

nice revisionism pal. naziland was great and YPG is for fags. get fucked

I got it from there, so presumably they do.

Kek, that writer is playing mental gymnastics to convince himself Nazi economics wasn't Keynesianism with down syndrome

I say this completely intuitively with no rigorous theory to back it up, but I suspect that in a capitalist economy with a significant amount of coops in any given industry, a sort of natural capitalist business relationship would form as a cartel between the various cooperatives in order to curtail competition, and ultimately this would result in a more planned economy.

I only say this because it is already the case that firms consolidate not only out of raw aggression, but out of collusion and explicit recognition that competition is a pain in the ass. Of course, this kind of talk was actually far more common in the robber baron era, when it was less of an ideological necessity to champion competition with the successful revolutions of the proles in various parts of the world looming over capitalism's shoulder. Back then you'd have quotes from industrialists saying "we had to consolidate in order to curtail the inefficiencies and brutality of competition".

Given that that is the general incentive otherwise, I'd assumed that worker's cooperatives would eventually also want to curtail competition, and they'd be able to meet with other cooperatives with similar incentives and be able to say "look, we are all worker-owners of these companies, but we are having the horizon of our choices in our own companies limited by competition. Why not make agreements/consolidate and end this state of affairs?"

I think initially this would seem bad because monopolists would still be able to sell products at inflated rates as in current capitalist, but the solution would be to cooperate across industries, and eventually the market would start to be abolished. This seems like it would be a natural conclusion, given that even beginning to discuss the barbarism of competition would open the doors to its abolition.

bump

I did read it, the first 20 pages at least and I finished now

the issue with planning is achieving the ability to plan how to produce it, but what to produce, you are simply dealing with the calculation part of the process, the economic calculation not only talk about how to produce commoditios but how to decide WHAT to produce, planning offers no solution to this

while you can plan how to engage in production, planning what to produce is a lot harder, and if you belive being forced to produce what someone else decided isn't alienating and doesn't involve division of labour, you are mistaken, and have to go back to Marx

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01a.htm
society regulates the general production and thus makes it possible for me to do one thing today and another tomorrow, to hunt in the morning, fish in the afternoon, rear cattle in the evening, criticise after dinner
ONLY through societal production is that I can spend my labour in anything I want, and planning stops me from doing so, as I would need to allocate my labopur power according to the plan

For being such a vocal faggot that I should read and that I am retarded, YOU have proved once again to be illiterate retard you claim I am

...

Your citation says the exact opposite.

Dont be foolish, it doesnt matter if its the society thqt decides to alienate me from my labour, I am still being alienated

In order to trully be free from alienation we must understand that, neither the for-profit forces found in capitalism nor the economic plan must allocate my labour

Say that to Marx. You have the right to disagree with him, but for now you have merely proven you don't understand a word of what he wrote.

Good luck with that.

I would gladly point out his incoherences to him but sadly can only debate his devote apostoles

Stop being undialectical

Obviously you can't.

And you just proved that by reducing my post into a petty and childish discuasion about wether or not I can debate

I think you are projecting

...

...

Uuhhh, user, If we have to follow a plan, how exactly do you belive there will be the possibility that I could decide to devote my labour into anything but the plan?

Yes, basicall, voting is the same as rolling dices, read schopenhauer

You are the one who decides of the plan.

Ok there are two argumenst against this, the first, am I really conscious of my decisions? Like am I truly aware of what I am voting for, or was that what I desire manufactured? i think we both know that we can manufacture consent, could my decisions on the plan be previously determined?

The second, If I decided that I want to work as a doctor or a farmer, I am essentially alienating myself, as if I ever have the desire to become something else, if I now want to be a teacher, I couldnt, as I have to follow what I previously planned

Marx and friends loves to ramble about how you exploit yourself by obeying the market, but make the same mistake as ancaps they belive humans are driven by purposely action, this is empirically false

For starters because the plan is general, it doesn't dictate who does what happens at an individual level, and secondly because planning is updated in real time to take into account the changing situation. The same is true for firms operating in a market: if a decide to leave my job or reduce my hours then management has to find a replacement or find some other way to deal with the changing circumstances. This problem exists under any system, the market doesn't magically fix it.

But then what dictates what happens at an individual level?

Even if planning is updated in real time, what is stopping all doctors from deciding to stop being doctors? Or farmers from plowing fields, if you allow the plan to be disrespected, then it has no authority, if you enforce it, then you cannot get rid of alienation, and I am directly quoting Marx here, as purposely allocating your labour onto a certain role would stop you from beimg truly free, as whatever you choose, you have to follow it

There is no escape

Um… probability? Common sense? Other people becoming doctors? People enjoying the roles they fill? There being a limited amount of potential work in any given field at any given time?

Your example is daft, people quit jobs to pursue different careers all the time and that doesn't stop managers of a firm from adjusting their *plan* at any given time.

How exactly do you think it is okay to expect doctors to keep doing their jobs just by probability??? Are you fucking insane???

Yes, people love to follow careers, and a lot of people also hate the path they took and would love to change it, others just quit, humans do not make rational decisions

How precisely do you adjust the plan if people decide to stop being doctors, miners or other labour intensive work? You have patients that cant adjust their illness according to the new plan

How do *you* intend to stop them from changing their careers? Free market magic?

No, first i dont recognize Marx's theory of alienation, I dont belive humans can decide how to allocate production, it doesnt matter, if a doctor accepted to take care of a patient, then the doctor, and the cooperative hospital in charge must respect said social comtract and take care of the patient, if we also understand that perhaps no one wants to become a doctor, then there must be certain incentive to keep people from being doctors

It doesnt have to be only a material incentive, doctors could be recognized as incredibly smart people, and respected by everyone, as in older tribes, the patient could agree to gift something to the doc to cure her, the idea of receiving love and gifts could be one

We dont need markets for this, but they wouldnt be disregarded

Fucked it up, english is hard

Unsure about that. Picture a decentralized market system where only co-ops are legal, and that it's up to the workers in a particular co-op to decide how many open positions their particular place is going to have. I imagine they would restrict output and hire only a few people, who would have to go through apprentice phases where they do a lot of dull and humiliating tasks, like in Sumo, some bullshit you have to do so you know your place. Long apprentice phases where you do a lot of shit that has nothing to do with learning productive activity until you finally get your freedom to bully the new underlings is something which makes people strongly identify with the particular workplace, which I also don't see as a good thing.

I'm not a fan of people in local production units for thing X or Y having the monopoly over the decision how many people are going to work there.

...

Okay, so you don't want to force people to perform certain roles, that's good, but in that context you're really saying the same thing that I am, that there is nothing forcing people to take on a certain role, only social incentives.
That said, a planning organ/federation of councils/whatever can still perform general real time planning/coordination in such a context, it wouldn't be able to force people to perform a given role but that doesn't mean it can't advertise the fact that certain roles need to be filled in order for society to function, and help provide the soft incentives needed to entice people into such roles.

But I do not care if people do not want to perform certain roles, as long as such roles are not imposed by them using coercive means, if someone asks you to do something, and you agree, then you are fucked and have to take responsability, but no one forced you to

On a planed economy the plan is what decides, as you decided to be a doctor, you planed to be one, you stipulated it, or a farmer, or whatever
how exactly can a planned economy work, if you can disregard its authority by deciding not to be a doctor?? If you do that, then what is the point of planning to be a doctor or another activity?

The plan that is disobeyed cannot hold authority, and if it doesnt hold authority, then it cannot plan things

How can you tell me that you can plan the economy and at the same time tell me that you can disobey it, they are in direct contradiction

I just have a thought, while you could maybe decide to plan only to attend or work for a determined amount of time, like for example, I want to be a doc for 6 months, or I want to farm 6 tonnes of corn, and therefore you could arguee that the plan is not coercive, you still have to follow it, not on a basis of being asked by someone else, but because you imposed it on yourself, you dont escape alienation, no matter how you modify the plan

The allocation of production must obey societal needs, as Marx said that we must have societal production. Planning therefore coeant obey societal production, it obeys the individual's, as it is unable to respond to unplanned needs, if, as I previously exemplified, stipulate that you want to be a doctor just for a couple of months, and there is an emergency, the plan wouldnt be able to respond, as such event is outside the plan

Therefore CANNOT oney societal production*

Are you sure you're replying to the right person? Didn't you mean this post ?

Will each economic crash get worse after every bailout that sustains the bubbles?

Yes.
youtube.com/watch?v=0hUc9IvHi10

When you people learn that you can just use whatever flag you wish regardless of your real ideology? This only goes to show how much people falseflag under the tank.

I'm actually a Dengist (ultimate tank), and don't believe Austrian and Marxist econ is incompatible.

The market might force their hand on that unless they reach a good size, though. They might want to restrict employment, but if there is another firm that is bringing in more employees and cutting wages little by little then they'll get undercut. I think you can only have that amount of control if you're pretty large, and that usually requires buy outs and initial, brutal competition.

Either that or the sort of collusion that was outed between what was it, Microsoft and Apple? Or IBM or Intel or whatever. They were agreeing not to hire eachother's people and to suppress wages/benefits if I remember right. But that is the thing I think would ultimately benefit workers in a co-op dominated market, because the incentive isn't squarely with the owner class to exploit workers, but the workers are attempting to exploit themselves for greater profit. The contradiction will become obvious when they are both the ones trying to steer the company in a more self-interested way, but the company is being steered in an exploitative direction by the market. The same reason that capitalists collude or consolidate will lead the workers to do so, to not be controlled by the market. The desire of the capitalist is to become a sort of total dictator of industry, but the co-ops will be pushed by a desire to just control their own destinies.

yep flag checks out

Yes sorry

bump

how the fuck is it on page 20 already

bump

bumping

daily bump

Hi, OC here. Can a marxian please tell me if this info-graphic is correct enough for public consumption?

Hi, OC here. Can a marxian please tell me if this info-graphic is correct enough for public consumption?

well, do you want it accurate or do you want it simple?

simple enough for broad consumption. Accurate enough to not seriously misrepresent anything

Hi, OC here. Can a marxian please tell me if this info-graphic is correct enough for public consumption?

Capitalism expands for Labour, not resources.

youtu.be/x7RjbEq_yxU?t=4m35s

so ecological crisis is impossible?

It has nothing to do with Capitalism or a Marxist analysis of Capitalism.

extraction doesn't have to continually expand to keep the value of constant capital low?

wo do you make these yourself? what program you use?

yes. I use the free software program "inkscape".

inkscape.org/en/

Can someone enlighten me on the ECP please? I see this really frequently bandied about but I'm not sure how to respond to it consistently. Is there any Marxist reading on it? Responses from any school of leftism?

bump

Why does mainstream Economics think the law of value is false?

I don't see any philosophical grounds on which it could be false, since the transformation problem has been solved.

You can hold the ctrl-button and f to search for a string of letters (e.g. calculation problem) within a document, my child.

how cute

I'm an idiot. Thanks.

Good to see more people reading based Cockshott. Indeed what is great about this is that it's completely feasible given the computing power normally available today. Here's another text by him and Allin Cottrell exposing their arguments for a computer-planned socialism: dcs.gla.ac.uk/~wpc/reports/quito.pdf

how cute

this is the worst /econ/ thread we had because marxhead hasn't posted in a while, don't judge.

hide all ancap posts

is pic related a good critique of neoclassicism?

name one product that is literally the same and they sell it for more. I have never seen a case where it's completely the same with different prices.

Trademark clothes contra copies

this is a bump to forum slide Holla Forumssubversion but please also answer my earlier question here :

How to deal with the "central planning doesn't work because value is subjective" crap?

bump

Value is inter-subjective to the point of objectivity

Law of Value

All socially nessecary labor creates equal value

labor theory of value is empirically accurate
users.wfu.edu/cottrell/eea97.pdf
this is the most oft cited paper on leftypol, but below is another one to the same effect which may be slightly easier to read through.
reality.gn.apc.org/econ/marxts.pdf

I'm actually emailing him atm on a question of how exactly one can use the labor theory of value and the law of value in socialism.

I hear that under Socialism, the law of value is abolished. What do people mean by this, and is it true?

And how does labour theory of value work with large scale advanced automation? Do the products that come out of these machines have a low labour value?

And how is labour quantified? For example an hour of engineering a microprocessor is different from an hour of say, cleaning a street.

Sorry for noob questions.

yes, production is done directly for the purpose of use rather than translation into the money commodity

Correct, this is why automation makes things cheaper.

Both are socially necessary labor hours, they are totally different but the same value to society.

This confuses many people because they are used to thinking of value in terms of the price of wages, which varies drastically. The work of a street sweeper and an electronic engineer are not quantitatively comparable. The engineer makes more money primarily because the economy cannot get all of the socially necessary labor of the engineer's variety to be completed.

I actually plan on writing a bunkermag article on this topic, as there's a lot of debate. these are not "noob questions"

this is one of the biggest issues. On one side, is kautsky, leftcoms, and some strains of orthodox marxism, who believe that the law of value will be abolished in socialism. In fact, much of their critique of market socialism rests on the fact that it does not abolish the law of value. With this they mean that labor and production will no longer be disciplined by market competition and the quest for profit. I do believe this leads to some problems though, down the road thanks to their

On the other side of this debate are of course the market socialists, marxist-leninists, and W Paul Cockshott, the economist mentioned several times earlier in this debate. They say that the law of value is necessary even in socialism because ignoring it comes with high economic and political costs, as the law is underlined by important economic principles regarding growth and resource allocation. Rather than focusing on the law of value, we should focus on eliminating exploitation, democratizing both the workplace and the political economy, and inequality (chiefly through the elimination of capitalist control). And obviously, there is some difference between these opinions on whether the law of value should be kept through a market or through planning.

When I emailed him on this topic, here's what he said, see pics related. The graphs were what he attached.

As for the other questions, I defer to this user

Although I disagree with his assessment of the law of value.

Thank you both very much.

Read the critique of gotha you dumb tankie, he points out how value also comes from natural wealth

Paul replied back to my last email this morning, and I thought it was also relevant to our conversation.

paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2017/03/05/why-law-of-value-really-applies-in-socialist-economies/

That's the blog he mentions.

...

How to respond to the following conversation? This guy is pissing me off, we've been arguing for ages:

me: So show me where the workers own the MoP, please. In NK, Venezuela or wherever. In order for it to be property of the workers, private property and products are made to be used not exchanged, and items have use value over exchange value?

liberal: Don't have to. Socialism isn't limited to the workers being the sole owners of the MoP.

He's being retarded on purpose, and is now in full damage control. He's probably thinking hard about it right now, meaning he could change his mind. Now is time to stop arguing with him and let him argue with himself.

Good idea, I was getting tired of giving my time to these arguments anyway.

You might try asking what else "constitutes socialism".

I've been accepted at the New School masters program for economics. Does anyone else /gradschool/?

Just a semantics problem.
Just ask what he means by socialism and explain what you mean by it and then work from there.
If for one socialism is workers ownership of the means of productions and for another it's a stealing of toothbrushes then it isn't going to go anywhere.

have you studied under professor wolff?

youtube.com/watch?v=f8KhlejNwyU
Any /econ/ bros have a good response to this?

can we get a summary?

...

How should public utilities and other natural monopolies be structured under socialism? They can’t be nationalized because that wouldn’t be worker ownership of the means of production, they can’t be left alone because that would lead to a market failure, but they in all likelihood can be regulated to the benefit of society but then you have a slight calculation issue. How do you determine how much to regulate in order to give the workers their complete surplus value under perfect competition while not giving them inequitable wealth by allowing them to exploit their natural monopoly?

There's more than one way for worker's to have ownership of the means of production. If workers have authentic control over their political economy, then nationalism will work just fine. alternatively, you could use a customer owned cooperative.

Isn't the surplus value of the workers still being stolen in consumer owned cooperatives.

I don't understand this, shouldn't workers have control over specifically their own means of production, and the surplus value derived specifically from their labor?

The problem, as you've already mentioned, is with monopoly. In a monopoly, most profit comes not from labor power, but market power.

Well, there shouldn't be a specific "other" person with control over their means of production and surplus value. But unless you're an anarchist, government will still exist, as will social/public ownership. You need people to build the roads, provide basic services, ect. Keep in mind that surplus value is still an expression of rent. Why would you want random people to be able to make rent off of the water and electricity everyone needs?

...

Yes of course, but I’m looking for a solution in which workers in monopolized industries earn what they would in perfect competition. In a consumer collective the public would steal the actual surplus value of the laborer just like a capitalist currently in search of greater profits. A consumer run collective isn’t that different from nationalization which I would be fine with if I could figure out a way to do it correctly.

I’m looking for a state solution, I just can’t find one that balances societal benefit and equitable reward for labors. I think a solution can lie in regulation and things like public utility commissions but I just don’t know how to get past that issue of calculation.

I’m not sure how surplus value is rent. You seem to think the more social value a laborer produces the less they should be entitled to the fruits of their labor. They shouldn't be able to make rent off of the electricity or the water but they should be entitled to the surplus value created by their labor.

Perhaps a system of contracts could work where the public owns the utility but contract out to companies to install infrastructure?

There problem with this is you are still thinking in terms of independent firms trading with one another in a market, something which is incompatible with socialism. Don't think of socialism as nationalised firms or separate co-ops, but rather one big co-op encompassing the global economy.

Sorry I feel asleep, I guess I'm being a bit mutualist. Why is collective ownership of the means of production more desirable than ownership by use?

fell*

How does a specific monopoly come to be? If the reason is patent protection, that is solved by abolishing patents. If the reason for very high revenue is the location (e. g. a restaurant in the center of a city will likely see more customers than one at the periphery) or the great quality of the land itself, that's what land-value tax is for.

If competing would require a huge investment and building massive things that are basically redundant, it is better to regulate the prices of the products and services. In the 1970a, Abba Lerner and David Colander proposed a general framework for regulating prices in the US, the Market Anti-inflation Plan. MAP is similar to the concept of trading pollution rights. That is, the prices are set, but they are not set in stone, they are only initial prices. A business that wants to raise its prices above the initial allowance can do that by buying permits from businesses that keep their prices below allowance. So, this procedure fixes the price of a basket of products and services while still allowing price flexibility. This gives you "artificial" competition in that it will reduce the dispersion of profit rates.

My memory is a bit muddy about the following detail and I think they only mentioned it in passing, but I believe in the original formulation of MAP they didn't even propose to fix initial prices linked with precise definitions of different products, but to do it like a value-added tax, the assumed value-added per work-hour being different based on the kind of education and job training different people have, and that is the thing to be bureaucratically fixed.

I was mostly concerned with the high cost of entry low rate of return yah. The MAP seems like a extremely interesting solution, a sort of market solution to market regulation, I'm going to have to think about it more but I think I really like it.

I was thinking and could it also be solved by public ownership of the land? So the public owns the land that water pipes are run on. The water company tries to derive economic rent from water distribution on the public, and the public responds by deriving economic rent from the water company or vise versa. The water company has the public as a captive consumer and the public has the water company as a captive consumer. The workers would still own the means of production and all of their surplus value, but wouldn't be able to derive economic rent right? or does it run into just as nationalizing because a agreement has to be come to between the water company and the public about the value of the labor?

econo bump

Why do bourgeois economists hate Marxian?

Marx Ricardo and Smith got their economic analysis from the study of capitalism in real time in real life, orthodox economists study capitalism first as an ideal perfect system [they literally have theories of """""perfect competition"""" and ""market Equilibrium""] and reality is nothing but the differentiation and intrusion of the imperfect implementation of the perfect system…

In the Heterodox economic sphere Marx is still the bigboy.. many get a lot of things from him…

Because they're right

What the fuck did you just fucking say about me, you little subjectivist? I'll
have you know I graduated top of my class at liberationschool.org, I've
been involved in numerous internet debates, I have over 300 confirmed thought-
experiments. I am trained in Dialectical Materialism and i'm the top Marxman in
my local naxalite-maoist insurgency. You are nothing to me but another bourgeois
economist. I will fucking shatter your individualist ideology with materialism
the likes of which has never been seen before on this Earth, Marx my fucking
words. You think you can get away with saying this shit about "Marginal Utility"
and "Human Nature" over the Internet? Think again fucker. As we speak I am
contacting my secret network of entryists across the USA and your party
membership is being traced right now so you better prepare for the oncoming
crisis, Maggot. The crisis that wipes out the pathetic little thing you call
"market equilibrium". You're fucking dead, grandpa. I can be anywhere, any time,
and I can debunk your economics in over seven hundred ways, and that's just with
the first volume of Das Kapital. Not only I am extensively trained in 18th
century political economy, but I have access to the entire Marxists.org Internet
Archive and I will use it to wipe your immiserating ideology of the face of this
earth, you little shit. If only you could have known what revisionist
retribution your little "economistic" comment was about to bring down on you,
maybe you would have held your fucking tounge. But you couldn't, you didn't, and
now your paying the price of yet-another-economic-crisis, you goddamn idiot.
I will shit a-prioi concepts all over you and you will fucking drown in them.
You're fucking dead.

How does this description contrast with Marx?