So I've been reading a lot about Bukharin, the purest of comrades, recently, and this has made me wanna learn more about market socialism.
So what's the deal? Is it good? Is it bad? Is there something to be learned from it?
Any pdfs or general readings is appreciated, thanks in advance.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtu.be
marxists.org
marxists.org
marxists.org
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
The inherent contradiction of capitalism is that the organizational purpose of a corporation is to extract surplus value from workers and send it to the capitalists. Yet without a customer base, capitalists have nobody to sell that surplus to, and thus no way of converting their stolen production into what they want to consume.
Market socialists seek to return profit not to the capitalist financiers, who do none of the work, but to the workers themselves. This their goal is to maximize the value of the production for those who produce it.
Basically, when everybody's a capitalist, nobody is.
So it's basically like a capitalist market economy, but with more people earning higher salaries?
In its first stage. It transitions into fewer working hours as the cooperatives begin to prioritize quality of life over profit margins. This avoiding entirely the problems of exploitation, of overproduction, and of capitalist economic collapse.
Capitalism is basically a state manipulated market economy, while market socialism is a freed market economy. Markets are not inherently Capitalist so market socialism is not some variant of Capitalism.
Market socialism is what happen when you don't read/understand Marx.
How can have markets without private property doe?
This is a pretty easy read, and a pretty good model for how marketsoc could work imo.
Coops
this.Competition is a fact of nature.
Some coops would control much more capital than others. This would allow them to leverage their capital to exploit other coops. For instance a coop with a lot of capital could loan out that capital at interest. Over time, assuming the coops acted in their rational self interest within the market, the coops that started with more capital would dominate the ones with less capital. A hierarchy of coops would thusly necessarily exist, and would become less and less egalitarian over time. Vid related.
The Illuminatus! Trilogy - Hagbard Celine on muh privilege
youtu.be
Bukharin was dank as fuck before the civil war
You're assuming coops act the same way as normal capitalist bussniesses do which is absolutely WRONG.
Instead of driving out competition agressively ,a cooperative would benefit much more from merging with another.
And you're assuming they wouldn't operate in a competitive manner based off of nothing other than your fee_fees.
do your own fucking reasearch.
...
k
gross generalisation on your part but yes.
I'm just fuckign busy and can't post any links atm.
Sry for being rude.
With the seizing of the means of production by society production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer. Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organisation. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then for the first time man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature because he has now become master of his own social organisation.
marxists.org
a fact you say?
So what would happen to a coop that wasn't acting cooperatively with the other coops?
People would stop buying their products which would either force them to cooperate or drive them out of business.
every society based upon the production of commodities has this peculiarity: that the producers have lost control over their own social inter-relations. Each man produces for himself with such means of production as he may happen to have, and for such exchange as he may require to satisfy his remaining wants. No one knows how much of his particular article is coming on the market, nor how much of it will be wanted. No one knows whether his individual product will meet an actual demand, whether he will be able to make good his costs of production or even to sell his commodity at all. Anarchy reigns in socialized production. But the production of commodities, like every other form of production, has it peculiar, inherent laws inseparable from it; and these laws work, despite anarchy, in and through anarchy. They reveal themselves in the only persistent form of social inter-relations — i.e., in exchange — and here they affect the individual producers as compulsory laws of competition. They are, at first, unknown to these producers themselves, and have to be discovered by them gradually and as the result of experience. They work themselves out, therefore, independently of the producers, and in antagonism to them, as inexorable natural laws of their particular form of production. The product governs the producers. […] *With the seizing of the means of production by society, production of commodities is done away with, and, simultaneously, the mastery of the product over the producer.* Anarchy in social production is replaced by systematic, definite organization. The struggle for individual existence disappears. Then, for the first time, man, in a certain sense, is finally marked off from the rest of the animal kingdom, and emerges from mere animal conditions of existence into really human ones. The whole sphere of the conditions of life which environ man, and which have hitherto ruled man, now comes under the dominion and control of man, who for the first time becomes the real, conscious lord of nature, because he has now become master of his own social organization. The laws of his own social action, hitherto standing face-to-face with man as laws of Nature foreign to, and dominating him, will then be used with full understanding, and so mastered by him. Man's own social organization, hitherto confronting him as a necessity imposed by Nature and history, now becomes the result of his own free action. The extraneous objective forces that have, hitherto, governed history,pass under the control of man himself. Only from that time will man himself, more and more consciously, make his own history — only from that time will the social causes set in movement by him have, in the main and in a constantly growing measure, the results intended by him. It is the ascent of man from the kingdom of necessity to the kingdom of freedom. […] Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. *Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible.* The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. *In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.* marxists.org
But what if the coop controls certain resources that allow it to produce products at a higher quality/lower price? It would take a tremendous amount of willpower and coordination to not buy their products.
I'm not saying that boycotts don't work at all, but if was that simple then we could have put Walmart out of business by now.
You know what it's called when one organization, democratically controlled>>1560576
by its members, controls all of the production and uses it to benefit society at large?
communism
Ignore random link in the middle of a sentence. Phone is sperging out.
(checked)
Dude.
Right, so "Market Communism" is an oxymoron.
Dude.
tbh dude i'm just shitposting i think market "socialists' are just crypto-ancaps
Dude.
Does the "significant other" have to be another group of humans though? Can't it be the environment itself? Can't be be cancer? Can't it be boredom?
Why can't all the humans be on the same team?
I'm not saying it won't happen, just that it's not in a co-ops best interest to be predatory.They function differently due to the way they are internally organised.
Coops are also the only way to organise the incredibly sophisticated labour process of the 21st century unless you want state-owned companies to be a thing.
From my knowledge, yes. Or it would have to be at least similar to humans. There is an observation that radically different breeds of animals can coexist or sort themselves in the food chain, but the most similar ones (different subspecies of birds, mammals etc.) always push the other away or exterminate it. Then competition continues within the species. The former would be an equivalent to war, the latter to capitalism/mating/powergrab etc.
The war (whether real or ideological) bands the similar together against a degree less of similar. So it is with all ideologies; Nationalism has the other nation/race, Communism has the bourgeoisie, Anarchism has a Statist etc., and the other is always more similar to you than anything you mentioned.
Even if there were no distinctions of nations, races, class etc. the Will to Power would be directed against individuals, on individual basis.
...
Thanks!
Oh fuck I really wanna play HoI IV now just to play as Bukharin led Russia
Thanks guys
Stop this immediately.
en.wikipedia.org
*community*
*species*
*species*
Competition between individuals =/= Theory of Evolution. This is non-scientific bullshit.
in market socialism, banking would be non-profit and finance be socialized.