Why is working class ownership of the means of production through a worker's state preferable to individual worker ownership of their own means of production, and worker cooperative ownership when more than one worker is involved?
It seems to me that if one works a means of production that it is their personal property and that to give ownership of that means of production to anyone but the worker using it is to exploit them.
...
By fucking definition the MoP can't be personal property.
So you think workers are more likely to exploit themselves than a workers state?
That might be the case, my bad, what about the rest of the argument.
That destroys the whole of your argument.
Not really that's just semantics, the argument was that the fruits of workers labor should belong to the workers performing labor and if the fruits of ones labors go to someone else it's exploitation.
What about a nurse?
They should be entitled to the fruits (be it labor vouchers, or dollars, or whatever) of their labor. Who's paying them doesn't effect this (the government, individuals, employers, ngos etc.)
If there is no profit motive what would be the point in manufacturing/creating something in order to restrict it's use from the rest of society?
Just read this to learn the problem with markets and the profit-motive: jacobinmag.com
It does matter. Them fruits are not just formally different under those terms (money, voucher, barter) but essentially because they are expressed in a broader social context that work differently based on them.
No, but that's the wrong question. A market would make workers exploit themselves, no matter if you have a state or not.
"Bruce is entitled to the fruits of his labor."
mfw mutualism
Will do user,
I'm aware I'm not saying that vouchers are equivalent to dollars or barter for sure, I was just trying to say use your imagination I guess :P and I'm not saying it wouldn't be beneficial to have single payer, (health care is a natural monopoly and a human right, it just makes sense)
I think almost by definition their is a profit motive here, you could always work more and earn more proportionally to what others do. I won't lie I'm slightly confused by what you're saying though.
I was trying to say read these books and come back to us as a proper ancom and not a shitty noob mutualist:
I am honestly still working on this problem it is the primary one I see.
...
kek, I've read wage labor and capital, not the other though. I bought capital vol. 1 so I'll finish that before I die I guess. I just use pretty colloquial, wrong, and imprecise English for some reason. That's all on top of my autism of course.
I'm not really a mutualist either btw, I've still got the end goal of attaining communism, I'm just not sure I agree with the ancom, lets go straight to communism, or the traditional lets establish a worker's state.
no
I don't support Degenerated workers' state either, but I was referring to actual workers states here.
Cool, reply to me when you finished reading it, and let me know your thoughts.
Use David Harvey's study guide. It'll definitely help: libcom.org
The commodities (fruits of labor) produced in a profit driven system only realize their use-value once they've fufilled their exchange-value by selling them. These commodities exist materially but not socially because they haven't fulfilled their exchange-value. In a socialist system things would be created for use which renders the exchange-value irrelevant. So what would be the point in restricting access to something's use-value?
I would prefer liberal democracy to a repeat of the failed m-l states tbh
I honestly don't get this angle. someone has to explain it to me
...
Sorry I'm not a particularly fast reader. That is a serious issue obviously. I feel at least part of this is having exploitative enterprises which are large enough to manipulate markets prices significantly by leaving food in the fields, obviously some of it's not.
That being said food shouldn't be a commodity that makes sense, along with and the fact that on the consumer side I have no idea how to reduce food waste amoungst affluent people is a massive blow to the idea of markets, I need to think about it a bit more.
Thanks for the companion, I'll use it!
I don't see how farmers destroying their own crops is worker exploitation.
For the cherry one I can't find any other source that says it was ordered by the government. If anything it looks like a policy the farmers voted on themselves.
OP here, I don't see it as exploitative as much as just stupid.
Work isn't exploitation you lazy niggers
I assume you're thinking that those cherries should be given directly to the hungry instead of destroyed.
It still costs money to package, ship and distribute the cherries so I don't see why the farmers should pay for it. If the government was going to feed the hungry with it, there are cheaper ways to do that than transporting tons of very perishable produce.
And that story was the result of a bumper crop, so the locals probably ate cherries for days.
God damn I'm far to easily persuaded.
I'm going to bed now, thanks for the conversation ppl.
Are you writing a porno or making a comparison?
Actually read most of that stuff. It's all about food waste and there's nothing about worker exploitation.
What you have there is the waste built into a market system.
Again, it was a bumper crop, all produce in the area would be affect by the same boon. Even if you could ship it for free, people aren't going to eat significantly more food just because it's significantly more available. Even in a communism the surplus food would have rotted on shelves.
No problem, comrade!
I think you're getting caught up on "expoitation". I'm not talking about worker exploitation, so much as the absurdities the market produces.
Even in a farming co-op, where the workers there have democratic input in the production, they'll still be inclined to do these absurd, wasteful things, because it's profitable and in their rational self-interest.
There are people who have no food, so your point makes no sense.
Well my original inqurity was about the worker exploitation and it was answered with something unrelated.
If you've ever been a poor college student you should know it's extremely cheap to feed yourself when push comes to shove. You could probably get away with $1 a day if you plan it out.
You don't hear about people strait up starvation anymore. People go hungry because they may not have a house to cook in, not having enough time/evergy to cook for themselves, unstable home enviroment, mental issues, etc. It's not because there isn't enough raw food to go around.
Yeah it sucks that kids go to school hungry, but that's a different problem than farmers dumping a seasonal fruit.
Also you have to remember shipping is a limited resource. For simplicity if we assume cherries are shipped with refrigerated trucks and you mandate that shipping from other areas move all the extra produce, that means other foods people would want like eggs, fish, milk, aren't getting into stores. It's not obvious on the surface but you'd be moving foods that people may not eat (a crate of cherries), instead of foods they've already decided is in their staple diet. That's wasteful.
If those farmers could magically teleport those cherries directly into homes for pennies, I assure you they would.
Both are shit, read DeLeon, market socialism is revisionism, socialism requires the directive coordination of industry. A """workers'""" state is also shit too, the political state is a relic of bourgeois society, only an industrial government with representatives by industry not region is acceptable to plan and coordinate the economy. The domination of the political state over the people needs to end, let regions have political autonomy.
Hell yeah, not enough DeLeon on this god forsaken board.
Would be nice if my fellow Mutualists would stop advocating "private ownership of the means of production". Workers control vis-a-vis usufruct is not the same thing as private property.
Don't the individual workers own their own means of production in DeLeonism? That was the main thing I was trying to talk about with this thread but it got a bit off topic. I've actually been looking into it for a while. It's pretty based.
Are you referring to OP here if so could you explain explain. I'm not really a mutualist. I just find a great deal of equity in the argument for worker ownership of their means of production.