So after anons made a joke about Georgist-Mutualism here >>1666778, it got me thinking how compatible the two are

Yes, because either you're ignorant enough to think there's no difference between markets and capitalism yet want to give your opinion anyway, and you know the difference but you just want to be disagreeable.

or you know the difference*

Mutualism would literally be a DoTP, but with markets, and wage labor, and with absolutely no chance of reaching a point of actual classlessness as proles end up exploiting themselves even with the absence of a Bourgeoise because the value form still exists. Ironically these are all the same mistakes the USSR made more or less.

Try reading before you say stupid shit. There is no wage labor in Mutualism and classes don't exist. You could mention problems with markets and how it doesn't create a free society, but stop being dishonest and saying it's Capitalism.

Take off the red and black if you're going to be this much of a fucking retard.

...

As I said, take off the fucking red and black, ansyns would be ashamed to count you among their number

Not even sure what you're trying to say.

Just because I understand what markets are and how they're not Capitalism doesn't mean I believe they're an optimal system.

Markets in general might not be capitalism but the retarded shit proposed by Proudhon is most definitely still capitalism, as is market 'socialism' and George's reforms. Repeating 'markets aren't capitalism' like a complete fucking retard doesn't change any of those facts. You fucking idiot.

In what way is a Socialist market system Capitalist? Because people are competing against each other in the market? And here I thought Capitalism depended on wage labor, exclusive ownership of the MoP by a small class, and profit seeking.

Literally impossible.

read marx faggot

marx was wrong on a lot of things

I never said that, there's nothing wrong with markets, the issue is the value form, as well as the persistence of a proletariat even with the absence of a Bourgeoisie. Christ, it's like arguing with a tankie about whether the state can own private property, it's pointless, the issue is production for value itself.

That's where you're wrong bucko :^)

LVT not LTV okay :DD

What is the value form and how does it persist in Market Socialism?
How can the proletariat persist if all workers own their own MoP?
Why is that the main issue with Capitalism and not exploitation and lack of control?

production for exchange is still capitalism
marx and kropotkin not george and proudhon ok? :DDDD

Production for value as opposed to production for use. Mutualism is essentially Capitalism but without a Bourgeoise, worker managed Capitalism.
The existence of the Proletariat isn't necessarily predicated by the existence of the Bourgeoise, the USSR did not have a Bourgeoise, but there did exist a society which was thoroughly proletarianized, which is and endgoal of Capitalism, not Communism. In a Communist society there would be no workers, a DoTP is the most primitive stage of Socialism.
Don't get me wrong, a functional Mutualist society would be a vast improvement over our current Capitalist situation, but it falls short of the possibilities of what a truly classless and stateless society could look like. I'm not saying Mutualism or Market Socialism are as bad as Capitalism, Mutualism would have most of the characteristics of a Capitalist society, simply with more workplace democracy and more direct participation in the economy. Now that's not the worst thing in the world, but the goals of Leftists, I think, should be something a bit beyond that.

It would presumptuous to assume any society is the absolute endpoint given we have no idea what the future will bring into existance, but I think it still a good idea to take things in steps with what is most probably the most emerging in the given system.

i agree for the most part tbh. On the other hand i don't think Leftcoms and Ancoms are wrong to reject Stagism. I think in a protracted lower stage of Socialism it's easy for both a.)people to loose their revolutionary fervor, and b.)for new unforeseen antagonisms and hierarchies to arise that may discourage people from moving forward, like the development of a Nomenklatura in the USSR. Admittedly that second one is unforeseeable, and even the most advanced stage of Communism may have it's own unique contradictions and antagonism, but hopefully those contradictions and antagonisms would not be delineated by class, otherwise the revolution has failed.

Who knows, maybe with new advances there will be some new factor that communism that doesn't take into account that isn't the class or state and that we currently can't comprehend, like some strange transhumanist quality.

That's interesting. Of course it'd be impossible for us to know, but it is fun to speculate. My own personal theory has always been along the lines that once the artificial competition, division of labor, and "meritocracy" of Capitalism are stripped from society we'll then have to deal with more natural and organic divisions between people, i.e. actual meritocracy. I don't mean that in a retarded racialist or eugenic sense, but I think differences in competence and ability would seem a lot more pronounced in a Communist society, my only hope is that a Communist society would then be humane and civilized enough to not discriminate by people's natures.

I think the biggest questions will relate to the way people just are and how super-advanced technology relates to it. If I can download into a virtual world, does it matter if its equal there since its fake? If the virtual world is instead made equal, does it matter if the "real" one is? If peoples brains can be hardwired to feel "good" or "bad" to certain things, does communism matter? If I can be made to feel "good" no matter what, what becomes "oppression"? What becomes of society?

This is worth a whole other thread tbh.

Wha….?
Taxes shift the supply curve leftward, do they not?
Is that diagram even an appropriate way to model exchange of land in the first place?

Land supply is essentially fixed.

Supply is distinct from the quantity of something that exists, as supply refers specifically to market exchange. It is possible to disincentivize exchange of land to where supply becomes zero (for instance, a hypothetical 100% tax on the sale price with sufficient enforcement to prevent under-invoicing and other "tricks")
If the graph shows supply of land and demand for land, rather than for things using land as an underlying asset, the tax shown is on exchange of land, not use or occupancy of land.
I don't think it's valid to assume that land has a perfectly inelastic supply, as the weight of incentives to sell/rent or not depend on what one is, or could otherwise be, doing with the land. All landowners won't necessarily jump at the chance to sell all their land for pennies per square mile provided demand drops that low, as the graph seems to indicate.

This.

The land-value tax is NOT a tax on selling land.

So the diagram is an incorrect illustration of the Henry George Theorem? Thank you. Fuck.

There was no bourgeoisie but neither was there worker control of the MoP. Market Leftism involves the elimination of the proletariat.
Are you saying Communism can only exist under universal automation?
I agree, that is why I'm not a Mutualist, but I think it is sectarian and dishonest to say it is the same as Capitalism.
The only negative characteristic it would share would be the inefficiency of production for exchange and the unnecessary competition inherent in markets. Everything else would be eliminated, especially the most egregious like wage labor.

…
What makes you believe that?

It most certainly does not.
No, but a prerequisite for a classless society would be the absence of wage laborers who use their labor time to produce abstract value to be exchanged on a market. Also, yes markets=/=capitalism, don't worry, I'm not that retarded, it's the other stuff that worries me.
It really wasn't my intention to be sectarian at all, or to be intellectually dishonest, I actually like certain aspects of Mutualism, I was just sharing some of my reservations on Mutualism as a whole. As for the whole calling it Capitalism thing, "Capitalism without Capitalists" is literally how I've seen Mutualists describe Mutualism in the past. I wasn't trying to be insulting, I actually think it's a pretty good descriptor for Mutualism, Market Socialism, Social Democracy, and Marxism-Leninism.
I had always gotten the impression that wages still persist under Mutualism, but that the workers themselves decide their wages through democratic processes, am I wrong? Apologies in advance if I've completely misrepresented this aspect of Mutualism.

See and

Under both Market Socialism and Mutualism the workers control/own their own MoP and receive the full fruit of their labor. They are not proles because they do not sell their labor, but the products they produce.
Again, there are no wage laborers because there are no proles.
Sounds like some very shitty advertising on their part.
In a sense that's true, but it conflates the kind of "wages" that a petit-bourgeois or a medieval artisan craftsmen decides to pay themselves from the profits their business makes while reinvesting the rest, and the type of wages proles make from selling their labor. Being a wage labor is being a prole, it is being exploited while having no control over your livelihood.

The land-value tax is not paid at the moment of selling or buying land. It is paid while you own land. So that whole thought experiment in completely misses the point.

Idk fam, from what you just described it sounds like labor power is still going into the production of abstract value, i.e. "selling products", and the fact that some of this value all goes to reinvestment is proof in and of itself that workers don't have direct access to the fruits of their labor, the origins of reinvestment are tied hand in hand with the origins of Capital. From what you're saying it almost sound like the endgoal of Mutualism is a world where essentially everyone acts as a petit-bourge small business owner.

Yes, that's not optimal and it shares that with Capitalism, but it's hardly Capitalism's worst trait.
They can chose whether or not to reinvest, if they do, they're doing it because they believe they can increase the efficiency of their labor in the long term.
That's essentially what it is, along with coops.

I don't think this is an optimal system, nor do I think it'll likely be implemented on a wide scale, but I think it's sectarian to single out Mutualists as being crypto-capitalists.

I really don't mean it as an insult or slur, it's definitely Socialist insofar as it establishes a DoTP and the democratic distribution of commodities and resources, but it also undeniably many traits of Capitalism. If Mutualism spread in my country I'd both support and participate in it, I think it would raise class consciousness and create a far more humane economy then the one we currently have, just because I'm being mildly polemical doesn't mean I'm being sectarian or think Mutualists are crypto-capitalists.

I kinda like georgism and geo-libs, if for some reason I would become too sick of leftism and would have to pick something more right-wing, it would be it.
Although single tax is retarded in the currend day and age.

I get you comrade and I agree.

George>Marx
LVT>LTV
prove me wrong

Damn, well, with an argument like that idk if anyone can fam :^)

thanks m8 i really put a lot of though in it

I mean
thanks m8 i really put a lot of thought into it
sorry i'm quite drunk rn

I think theirs a bit of a misunderstanding between the anons here and you, graph shows the effects of LVT, the theorum shows under certain conditions all necessary expenditures can be paid.

Well, its definitly still left (though not as left as some) but I kind of disagree that it would be a bad idea in the current day and age as its far better then the SocDems idea of taking out loans (even when they insist they wont) and as time goes on, Nobel Award winning economists like Stiglitz have noted that George was more right then we previously thought and the need for an LVT is more pressing then ever (even Corbyn put it out there). Of course implementing it will differ by country, but in places like Britain and Ireland where land is an issue and a few families control the land the LVT could free individuals from paying ridiculous fees to live in a flat. The only reason its not in use is because a) we really like our really expensive military equipment and other useless expenditures b) money in government and c) convincing the populace to move to a new system as well as myths about the LVT. At the very least Boom/Bust cycles would stop, ending the reacurring housing crisis that happens every 18 or so years.

I realize that. I haven't misunderstood.
I don't think so:

Both of these are true, and responses to "land supply is essentially fixed."
Learn how if-then statements work. In fact, "LVT is not a tax on exchange of land" obviously implies the antecedent is false, which was my point - the graph doesn't illustrate a land value tax.
This just further expounds on the unsuitability of the graph

If you think that my reasoning here assumes that the LVT is a tax on exchange of land, you're illiterate.

I think you should print out this diagram for further study, fam:

I really don't think that's the case, and if it were you haven't bothered to rebut anything I've said. More likely you've misunderstood my argument, even after I clarified it for you. Can you summarize it, just so we can both be sure you've correctly understood?
Honestly, your referring to makes it seem like you're still asserting I've assumed the LVT is something it's not, so maybe a helpful starting point for you could be first clarifying whether or not you still think this, and then either pointing out exactly where you think I do so in my reasoning, or formulating literally any other criticism of what I've actually said.

mutualism and georgism are still capitalism

Hard-working landlords will supply less land as they are taxed. Check out my blog at brownpill economics.

"durrrr I'm retarded"

get out

Link?

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax
Maybe you both need to reread a brief summary

Landlords, who, as every child knows, only take just enough in rent just to get by, will be forced by the land-value tax to take more money from tenants.

communism is only possibly in theory

Less land will be produced as the tax goes up. Simple as that. And if that isn't bad enough, the land that already exists will be disassembled and moved out of the country.

all this is true, also global warming will mean more sea and less land, which means higher taxes. thanks obama

oh boy I better abandon all my efforts then

Those poor landlords, everyone knows how they go out there way to live a life of subsistence so they can put more money in the pockets of there tenets, now they'll be forced to charge them more!

And the LVT, by taxing natural resource use and pollution rates, will only mean that the owners will use up there resources even quicker and pollute more to avoid it. Truly the LVT only means to exacerbate glbal warming!

The problem with Henry George is that he was a city boy. He had no sense of rural values, never knew the soil. You see a sound agriculture is based on the farmer, his love of the countryside, the jollity of the country picnic and dance, the fresh cheeked maidens who eagerly accept the role of sweethearts of country boys and develop into contented farmers' wives.

And this is why the land-value tax is foolish.

Well color me shocked. Time for us to give up socialism, as George already solved all the contradictions of capitalism and antagonisms between capital and labor right there.
No, Georgist policy positions don't merely mediate between the two opposed groups in some way without addressing the fundamental reality and causes of their opposition, whatever could make a guy think that? The bourgeoisie have only heretofore failed to implement Georgist policies because they're stupid and don't understand that it's good for them, not that there's any persistent incentive pointing away from this envisioned "ideal public policy," even under such policy, or anything.

The weight of their incentives can come to balance at a different point when you regulate. It's not a matter of public policy "forcing" people to raise prices above what the goodness of their heart and their best intent would allow, it's a matter of dispassionate rational self-interest pointing somewhere else as conditions change.
Of course if landlords recouped the full value of their LVT through public spending, their supply curve wouldn't shift and their greatest incentive would be to charge the same price as before

Breaking: self-styled left "radical intellectual" can't comprehend basic economic arguments. Better read up on more pomo fags to make up for that, buddy!

For anyone wondering why the tax wouldn't be taxed to the tenets, George explains: wealthandwant.com/HG/why_the_landowner_cannot_shift.html

Well I mean that's a restatement of George's theorem, so I assumed you'd go along with it. Unless you actually meant and unironically.
I'm ardently against postmodern thought, as is most of this board. Are you new?

Saying
is not a restatement of Henry George, you fucking retard. I pegged you as pomo because you recycle jargon from a field you aren't familiar with, you dress yourself in that and pose with it, and you haven't any clue what any of it means. Of course, being a fraud isn't something pomos have a monopoly on, so I take that back.

That is not Georges Theorem, Georges Theorem states that under certain conditions LVT can pay for all necessary public expenditures, landlords are not recouping the full value

I don't think anyone is saying it solves all the antagonisms between labor and capital but it does greatly alleviate the burden from the working class, provides affordable housing, a UBI and access to public services, prevents land sprawl, and reduces the impact of natural resource companies while also utilizing what is basically a progressive tax system that has no dead-weight loss. If you dislike that, such a society would also allow for a smoother and more peaceful transition to market socialism.
Its not really that ba-
Wat

Jesus H Christ why is it that every communist assumes that left rothbardians are the only mutualists.

Mutualism is not diet capitalism. Here's a brief over simplification of what lots of mutualists believe.

Human beings are going to exchange with one another for their respective goods and services, this is an inevitability. The best way to run an economy is to have these exchanges be mutually beneficial for all parties involved.

A mutualist society would not just be capitalism with worker co ops and a keynesian welfare state to accompany it. There would be worker co ops yes but these institutions would create confederations based around mutual aid and network with one another to provide goods and services.

Mutualism is pretty cool tbh. It's a shame it's dead. It has the potential to satisfy advocates of capitalism without sacrificing our core values.

Is this the new "read a book" meme?

I agree. I think mutualism has the nuts and bolts of what a socialist society would need to function.

I think a good route would be Georgism->Market Socialism hybrid->Market Socialism with mutualist banking->Mutualism

Other than declaring exchange 'inevitable' you haven't explained a damn thing in this post. Never mind the fact that exchange was an absolutely marginal part of economic activity for the vast majority of our history. Nothing you've said in this post suggests your system would be anything but 'diet capitalism'.

Fuck off cunt, that's the line porky's been feeding us for the past 200 years ("a fair day's work for a fair day's pay"), you really do sound like a diet capitalist here.

Don't use the Bread Man's words for capitalist ends you shitheel.

Except that "things that would satisfy advocates of capitalism" and "our core values" are utterly counterposed. There is no way of resolving this contradiction. We must completely supersede the Law of Value, anything short of that will just recreate capitalism.

Mutualism has all of the things that a socialist society needs to destroy in order to function.

Good to know where you stand.

Neck yourself you sectarian faggot.

Anti-capitalism isn't sectarianism you fuckwit.

...

None of that shit is relevant when the discussion is about mutualists though, is it? Mutualism is their end goal. Diet capitalism represents the limit of their imagination.

I don't think people are saying any society we know will be function as the last one, just because there is a set destination doesn't mean it will be the last. Mutualism could move into Communism over time as people get more accustomed to the idea (due to its focus on mutual aid) and maybe even beyond that.

Anons had an interesting discussion on it even

Notice how I said it was a brief over simplification, I'm sorry that's not exhaustive enough for you. I don't need to "declare" that exchange is inevitable that's the reality of the situation. You will make something, someone else makes something, you both want eachother's things, this means exchange. Unless every individual has a means of creating everything they could possibly need without another human being there's going to be exchanges buckaroo.

You have to be joking about the fair day's pay part. There's no surplus value being extracted, and yes the transactions are mutually beneficial.

Capitalism= I own the land and trees and everything they produce but I'll be nice enough to let you pick the fruit from them if you give 99% of what you pick.

Mutualism= No one owns the land or trees we all can pick fruit from it together. I pick a bunch of cherries, you pick a bunch of pineapples. I want to trade you a lbs (that's American for kg) for a lbs of pineapples. You want my cherries, however, it takes twice as long to pick pineapples as it does the cherries. The rational conclusion we reach is that 1lbs of pineapples for 2lbs of cherries is a fair and equal transaction.