So I have been posting here for a while and I am pretty well versed on all the Jargon but I am weak on theoretical knowledge.
I completely understand that workers owning their own means of production is a good thing and is undoubtedly desireable but the thing that I dont really understand is why, in a world where the workers own the means of production, markets should all be abolished, if everyone is a free agent now that owns the product of their labor then what exactly is the problem?
I am sure I am overlooking something staring me right in the face but if someone with more knowledge than me could explain this I would really appreciate it.
tl;dr why are markets bad if workers own their own MOP.
Because a market implies a trade medium which in turn implies those that make and control that medium and those that don't
And if there is a trade medium, ie cash, and those that control it and those that don't, ie classes, then it's not communism.
Nolan Brooks
Because they would still produce commodities for exchange in the market in stead of use. All the contradictions of capitalism would endure, save for the exploitation of laborers by capitalists. Not well versed enough to tell you exactly what kind of exploitation etc. would still remain in such a system though.
Jackson Allen
So basically there would be groups of laborers who, in competing against other groups of workers, actually hurt the business and therefore the livelihood of worker group B, eventually leading to a situation where a small group has cornered the market and made everyone else impoverished?
Juan Bell
Never change Holla Forums
Asher Hernandez
okay okay quit your bitching
because they reproduce capitalist relations marcsocs shill for the market as a useful instrument, but their argumentation is on level of barter exchange when you introduce money, you introduce delay and this fucks up shit so that say's law is no longer valid
so money becomes the storage of abstract value, and so becomes an end in itself what it means is that profit dominates production decisions it doesn't matter if firms are owned by employees or shareholders they will try to maximize profits, it's their raison d'être and so coops that produce interchangeable products will compete for profits and so by the means of natural selection more profitable coops will eat less profitable and so dominating coop grows and hires labor from the side and so former employees become just shareholders and so coop is no longer coop
Luis Parker
What?
Zachary Russell
Watch this WEBM.
TL;DR: as long as there is an instance restricting free access to the means of production, private property exists. It doesn't matter whether that instance is an individual, a state, a corporation or a cooperative. As long as commodity production continues, you have capitalism, nothing else. You reproduce wage labour as a consequence of reproducing capital as an automatic subject. It is wrong to view private property in a false dichotomy between individual and state (or other structure).
Tyler Powell
He's venting his frustration at a that thread being quite empty while the neighboring bait thread is full of replies.
Connor Gomez
if that was the definition of private property, then simply having anything would be private property, including le meme tooth brush. To have and use something is to restrict access to the use of most goods, as most goods cannot be used by more than one person at a time. So long as there is scarcity of a good, that means there must be some method of restriction.
Call commodity production whatever you like, but eliminating absentee ownership and making the workers the owners of the means of production through either social, cooperative or personal ownership, they become the ruling class, the dictatorship of the proletariat if you like.
