Socialism is about more than just MoP ownership

...

They're not "utopian".

As I said, workers' ownership of the MoP is not sufficient or else you basically accept that self-managed capitalism is somehow socialism. Co-ops aren't socialism.

Not an argument bucko.

Really gets the noggin bobbin.

Isn't that just your typical M-L?

communism is abolishing the present state of things

Kek. So you are butthurt because market socialism actually works unlike your shitty state capitalism?

...

wew

Maybe, but it is the definition of the dictatorship of the proletariat, which is the first immediate goal

...

What the fuck are you talking about? You do realize that Tito's regime was an instance of state capitalism, right? Just because it had a bunch of co-ops doesn't make it less so.

...

they aren't socialism that's for sure.

Loving all this worker ownership fam.

WTF am I reading? Read Kropotkin, you tool.

So if you would not call it a commodity what would you call it then?

Thorough and sourced BTFO of Yugocucks/Titocucks (really just alt-Stalinists), written by an ex-Yugo communist: insurgentnotes.com/2013/10/yugoslav-self-management-capitalism-under-the-red-banner/.

What even are you talking about?

A computer, a fridge, a pencil produced for use and not exchange are not commodities. They're just consumer goods.

So it would become good production instead of commodity production? We already have this.

There is nothing self contained in the phrase 'good production' to specify it is a good that has been produced for use.

This is why you should say production for use instead of abolition of commodity production.

Commodity production implies production for exchange. Read Marx.

Yeah, I really don't understand where you're going. But if you're more comfortable with the assertion "production for use in lieu of production for exchange", then go ahead with that I guess.

I'm aware of the implication, but that is it - an implication. The act of exchange is only implied, a commodity is still a commodity regardless of whether it is exchanged or not.

No. A good becomes a commodity when it's use-value can only realized once it fulfills it's exchange-value. I know your dictionary uses a rather broad and vague definition but using dictionary definitions for complicated concepts is kind of pointless as they are descriptive instead of prescriptive.

I know you love to parrot the patronising 'read kapital ch 1' but what would you say to the situation of an infinitesimal exchange value? Are all goods commodities at that stage? What is the conditions necessary to reach such a situation? Oh extremely developed productive forces - there is a name for this social system 🤔🤔🤔🤔

Your dogmatic approach is a bit ugly tbh why don't you think for a second?

Why don't you just read some Marx instead of arguing anons about dumb shit that you would see clearly for yourself if you just opened a book.

The arbitrary amount of profit isn't what turns a good into a commodity. I already stated it but a commodity is a good whose use-value can't be realized until it's exchange-value has been fulfilled. Until that requirement is met it exists materially but not socially.

Honestly I'm not really sure what your point is.

It's a foundational text and it's not even 40 pages long. Read it for fuck's sake.

I'm ancom actually. by anarcho-liberalism I mean how a lot of modern day anarchists are lifestylist, hippies, LARPers, crypto-liberals or crypto-sodems etc.

...

My point is that the material commodity, the physical object that is useful to people can be exchanged or it can be not exchanged. The purpose of a commodity can be altered to suit the situation, you say the purpose of a commodity is to be exchanged. And I posit the situation where exchange is redundant due to advanced productive forces (socialism) does the commodity cease to exist at that point? No it is still a useful material object, except it is no longer exchanged.

It would cease to be a commodity.

That's the whole point we are trying to get across to you. A commodity is something that's use value is fulfilled through exchange. Under socialism/communism commodity production ceases to exist, along with it commodities. Things produced for their use value only are not commodities. Again, read some Marx and you will understand the points that are being made. Why try and argue with Marx?

Ignore the first part, forgot to delete it became I'm writing from ny phone.

You don't even have to read capital, here's a short entry from the marxist.org glossary:

See marxists.org/glossary/terms/c/o.htm#commodity for a more detail explanation. And stop embarrassing yourself.

Halfway there.

t. someone who's never read Marx

The dictionary disagrees.

I would agree that having a social economy isn't going far enough, but I think it's a bit pedantic and dogmatic to claim that a social economy isn't socialism just because it doesn't address all the problems of capitalism as shown by Marx.

You can point out that other ideologies are flawed without claiming that only your specific brand of socialism deserves the name.

Because it’s still socialism. This user is retarted.

...

No

Could you substantiate that claim with detailed theoretical evidence? Otherwise I won't learn anything.

Here, it may cure your retardation.

Not all socialists are Marxists.

...

And using dictionary definitions for word with specific meanings is beyond retarded. Even if you do not agree with Marx on some points, he gives the best definition on what makes capitalism what it is and what makes socialism what it is.

Because there is no buying and selling, thus abolishing commodity production.

You have to actually change the way you produce things to have a different mode of production.

MY ALMONDS
THEY ARE ACTIVATED

...

By your standards the pre-Marx socialist weren’t socialists because they didn’t talk about class conflict.

...

Where does the dictionary definition come from you stupid tool? Should we go back to using the utopian definitions of Fourier, Owen and Saint Simon?

Not an argument

They weren't. They were utopian techno-fetishists.

That definition does come from Fourier, Owen and Saint Simon. Because they were the first socialists, and they decided what it means, not Marx. And in my option we should go back to Utopian Socialism because it’s theory is MUCH better than Marx.

They can.

Through democratic control of the economy.

They weren’t many turned business into worker cooperatives and set up communes to test there ideas. Which were about worker control of the means of production.

That is a different way of producing things.

...

No. That's a different way to manage capitalism.

Utopian socialism has no way of getting where it wants because it is precisely utopian. Are you retarded?

They just formulated the systems they wanted to have, without any regard for realizability. Marx was one of the first to do this.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Yes, and maybe we could have some kind of system where people choose what they want to consume and are able to offer their produce to others in exchange for something of their choosing. I wonder what that would be called.

And maybe perhaps, we could have some kind of thing that is universally traded along this system for goods and services so people can acquire anything with it. Maybe in some form of paper or small pieces of metal so it's easy to carry.

Marx used the terms synonymously. Marx never differentiates the terms or says anything about socialism being the first 'stage' to lead to communism.

Well because the google definition is the one Fourier, Owen and Saint Simon used when they coined the word Socialism that’s the deffiniton.

But they did set up communes to test there ideas. They also spread there ideas, advocated for revolution and helped create the Paris Commune.

Marx has been wrong in terms of historical determination. Societies have gone from socialist back to capitalism, example Yugoslavia. Also there is no proof behind historical determination or Marxist analysis of class.

Jeeze, sounds an awful lot like capitalism. plz read Marx, it's not hard.

>assuming all socialist are Marxists. Accordion to the deffiniton of socialism, market socialism is a type of socialism because the workers own the means of production.

And Marx was the one who formulated socialism in a scientific way. You ignore him at your own peril. This book has examples on the utopianism of these socialism: please read it. How do you reconcile views which are directly opposed?

Also the Paris Commune was based mainly on Marx, not on the dreams of some forgotten writers. Read this.

Wew.

stop pulling out your fucking dictionary, we are talking about political economy here, your dictionary has no use. 'market socialism' is fundamentally no different than capitalism and no amount of dictionary spamming will change that.

Wrong, socialism means worker ownership of the means of production. Although, a key part of worker ownership of the MoP is the democratic planning of the economy, making market "socialism" an oxymoron.

Yugoslavia never had a socialist economy. I love how you're clinging to the utopian notion of socialism while chastising Marx for having "unproven" theories. How do you manage through all that dissonance?

Can you offer up a better analysis of class?

Again Engels ignore the fact that many utopian socialist started communes and applied the scientific method to there ideas. Also the French Commune was supported and based on the ideas of both.

Except in Market Socialism there’s an equality of power.

And these communes were not socialistic because the were capitalistic in the first place. Your socialism is just capitalism with coops. You should put back the Yugoslav flag.

This has nothing to do with whether it is socialism or not, because it is capitalism to begin with

Utopian Socialist set up communes and tested there ideas. While Marx just waited for revolution Also class analysis is easy. Some people in our society own the means of production (bourgeois) and other people (proletariats) to work to build product and provide services. In return the pools get a wage that is worth less then the value of there labor so the bourgeois can make a profit.

Not all of these communes were market socialist. Some had central planning.

That doesn't make them socialist.

Damn son I was being charitable when I described utopianism as unproven but you're right they tried and were utter failures because you can't alter the mode of production by starting the socialist version of Galt's Gulch.
Whoa

Marx was irrelevant to the Paris commune, even if it influenced his own development heavily. The majority of those in it were mutualists, with a smaller segment being Blanquists. Reminder that it was Proudhon who first formulated a scientific socialism based around surplus value theory, not M&E.

What happens to the workers who worked in co-ops that get outcompeted in market socialism? Where will they get the capital to start a new one? Do they sell their labouring power on the market?

congrats, you found out market "socialism" is just capitalism

The point I was trying to make before I went to bed was that for something to be produced only on the basis of its use value what are the conditions necessary for this to occur? How do you realistically move from commodity production to use-value production?

This can only occur if the contingent exchange value of commodities (food/water/energy etc) being produced is pushed closer and closer to zero through advanced productive forces. What are the factors that control the exchange value of a commodity? The relative supply of that commodity in relation to all other commodities. In order to reach the point where the exchange value approaches zero (infinitesmal) the supply of commodities>>>>>>demand.

At this stage the object that has been manufactured is still not a use-value good - it has an exchange value. But that exchange value is essentially zero and can be ignored. In the process of arriving from objects with quantitative exchange value to having objects with infinitesimal exchange value, these objects are still commodities at every single stage including the last one.

You're that guy from that thread a few days ago who was already whining about pre-Marx socialists, right? You didn't answer my question back then so I'll ask you again.

What pre-Marx socialists are you talking about? Utopian socialists like Fourier and Owen? Because those are deeply flawed and obviously outdated.

Oh okay, you're just a complete retard. Should have guessed as much.

What? No they didn't. The whole point of utopian socialism is to not concern oneself with the present state of things and just go build some egalitarian community within capitalism. That most of those experiments eventually failed shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone.

I didn't deny that. What I said is, to define socialism as no more than that is hardly sufficient.

Owen, Saint-Simon, and Fourier where all dead long before the Paris Commune. The ideas of Proudhon and Blanqui were much more influential in the commune. Blanqui was even elected commune chairman in absentia.

The answer is to get rid of the market economy, and buying and selling altogether. Value is not some physically existing quality but exerts its
influence upon us by way of the market. It is a social phenomenon. You cannot find an atom of value if you dissect a commodity. Read Marx if your gonna use the Lenin hat.

Can you explain how in the world today you would get rid of buying and selling altogether, in some direct action, assuming you had the ability to do so?

I belive the previous user meant to say getting rid of buying and selling/markets as the predominant mode of distribution. You can't reali stop two kids trading sweets on a playground, but that isn't our issue here either. To do this, we have to challenge the conditions that predate and necessitate the market, thereby eliminating it's need. This won't work by just pushing a top-down law to institute socialism like in the USSR, while still keeping the conditions that create the market (as seen by the existence of black market).

You see the lack of a direct answer here is exactly why I'm pushing this point for so long. They just say 'abolish commodity production' and leave it at that.

There is literally no arguments against the points I raise, its just semantics and wordplay

...

So you're basically looking for a twelve-step program on how to bring about socialism? Also, what wordplay did you see in my comment?

Whether they want to admit it or not, most of their understanding of the functioning of capitalism comes from Marx's writings.

Nah not you specifically, your comment was fine. I'm talking about the above comment chain

Can you point to specific comments. I mean, being an imageboard, it's understable that not every comment is a thorough discussion of theory, although I did link a imo good entry here , but I could try and expand on things other here said.

Uhh… no, labor is what creates value. Value is not some concrete thing every object has, it's a social construction that capitalism bases itself upon. Again, commodities do not have use-value until they have exchanged, that's what a commodity is. Why are you so averse to Marx but use the Lenin hat? Please read something comrade.

Would it have been better had I said the socially necessary amount of labour used in that commodities production relative to all other commodities?

Do you need everything spelled out? You can keep arguing semantics over minor issues or you actually discuss whats being said. Why are you playing cat and mouse about this?

It would have been better, because it's true. I'm not playing cat and mouse, I'm trying to get you to understand commodity production.

At what point does a commodity cease to be a commodity? And don't say 'at the point where it's exchange value ceases to be realised'

What is the realistic transfer point where commodity production stops, and production of objects without exchange value begins. And what is the necessary conditions for this to occur?

A commodity ceases to be a commodity when its use value is realized without exchange. The realistic transfer point is at the point of revolution when old capitalist relations are destroyed and give birth to communist relations. The necessary conditions are global proletarian revolution. This is simple stuff, again a reading of Marx would suffice.

You realize you're not saying anything of value right? I'm asking you for a realistic materialist transfer point in the production process and you just regurgitate things we already know.

Are you a materialist or an idealist? You think that just because you want to transfer to production for use it will happen just because you think so?

'When old capitalist relations are destroyed and give birth to communist relations' …as if this will just spontaneously happen smh

Not him, but what are you even asking for? "materialist transfer point" … as in a point in time?

We're basically taking about the "reverse" (to put it simply) process of Commodification. You can look at how that developed in history, what necessitated it, what the social relations were that brought it about, etc. to get an idea about how this would be "undone" (of course, without falling back to pre-fedual modes of production). Ifnyou are looking for a precise moment, you won't find one, neither in the coming about of the commodity and commodity relations as the predominant nfor of human relationships, nor in it's abolishment.

kek

Cool so you don't know, lovely what a waste of time

Take off that hat.

honestly co-ops are much better than the shitty version of capitalism we have now.
I'd rather work for myself than for others.
whatever…

Do you expect you to predict the future, or what do you want?

The point is that no matter who you work for your labour will be diciplined by the law of value, or more specifically socially necessary labour time. The problem, and thus the enemy, is not the capitalist class as in the induvidualist capitalists, but the capitalist class as in the unanimous force of capital. Even if capital somehow
lost all it's expression as a class of individuals (kill the 1%), it would still exist as a social force.
Also, I have yet to see what market socialists propose workers who want to start a co-op but lack the necessary start capital do.
Free healthcare is better than the current alternative, and liberal democracies are better than repressives dictatorships. This should not be the extent of our demands.

A more relevent question to ask is "do co-ops have a corrosive effect on the capitalist mode of production?" Co-ops are not the extent of our goals, but they may be a tool to achieve them.

I'm giving you the only answers possible. Yes, revolutions are spontaneous. What do you want? A cookbook for communism? Sounds like you are being the idealist here.

While that might be truez the danger lies in getting too many people on board believing that's what it's all about, effectively building up a resistance when one wants to proced on from co-cops. Also, it could give false perception of control.

okay fam

*cough*

Seriously, read "Fundamentals of Revolutionary Communism"

I'm not convinced accelerationism works and porky is too smart to let people become too dissatisfied.
I want better working conditions now, not when I'm 100 years old. What do you suggest, fam?
I don't really care for future communism. I want to get paid much better, work less, free health care, free housing, free food, etc, but now. I want for rich people to stop influencing politics to my detriment. I want to stop being fed propaganda 24/7 by the media oligopoly. If people get too satisfied and don't want to move on to communism, well that's too bad for them, I'll probably be in my last years. What's wrong with this? (not a rhetorical question)

I'd rather have the least shitty version of capitalist prison possible.
But yeah, I get what you mean.

I implied co-ops are a less shitty version of capitalism, not socialism.
The point I'm making is that I don't really care for the distinction, I just want to live better.

Isn't Communism (as any radical Left ideology) about giving better working conditions right now? That's how it always worked: Capitalists are getting the shaft because people are tired of waiting for trickle-down economy to trickle wealth down - rather than piss (or toxic waste). Granted, you might have to win a Civil War for this to happen, but it was never about far future.

Or are you talking about some post-modernist definition of "better" that actually means "worse"? Because I'm not drinking brain bleach to understand your convoluted logic, if that is the case here.

How are co-ops going to make anything better? If you want to become rich by creating a functioning business (regardless of who will be working there), you need to have money, to be sufficiently rich already. Otherwise it's selling yourself to the banks into financial slavery.

Less shitty version of capitalism is when you go and rob the bank. Not when you go and take a loan from the bank.