Left-wing market anarchism

It's not really ancapism. Ancapism is operating under the wrong assumptions.

why do markets have to exist?

So it's libertarianism but you pretend you don't hate niggers and queers?

I think they have their heart in the right place and are what libertarians and ancaps would be if they honestly cared about freedom, but I think they're not visionary enough and are attached to an obsolete rationing system. Could be useful for attracting libertarians to leftism.

They're not ancaps, don't be an ignoramus.

Please explain how markets don't lead to capitalism. That's always been my problem with black orange. Also how isn't this mutalism

Well, let me ask you: Would there be any technological progress under ancom? I'm sort of an anarcho-transhumanist too.

Please don't dodge my question.

Because there's no state. Since there's no regulation nothing can be big enough to be a corporation. It's just individuals doing business.

This is what I think about it

It's pretty cool.

that sounds like ancap logic.

That's capitalism

Simply put, because Capitalism depends on statist intervention for capital accumulation, and further depends on it to protect itself.

Here's a good, short work by a modern Mutualist talking about the history of Capitalism and how it has nothing to do with a free market.

Probably significantly more than under a market, since every guy with an idea would be able to work on it and every person with intelligence would be able to use it, and not have to worry about making a living being a factory worker or subsistence farmer.

...

Ancaps make room for exploitation. Like I said, they operate under the wrong assumptions.

Wow, that's pretty cool.

It's basically ancap but instead you argue in a leftist way that the free market will lead to cost being the limit of price and that capitalism is the system of capitalists using the state to control production, whereas a free market will tend towards independent producers and big co-operatives without government in the way.

So, basically ancap but if you think it will lead to communism, and they don't call themselves capitalists but free marketers. There are some neo-mutualists like Kevin Carson that essentially make the same arguments, but unlike classical mutualists they think private property is okay. They are more similar to the individualists like lysander spooner and benjamin tucker who argued that socialism is just cost being the natural limit of price and that a free market and property outside of government monopoly would achieve that. They are kind of the far-left wing of some internal ancap spectrum where they call "statism" capitalism instead of socialism and think that profit is fraud and will wither away in a TRUE free market tee em. Heart in the right place - wrong theory.

Thanks fam

Gonna eat. Let the ideas marinate fags.

markets are bad. Exchange should be banned in socialism in the first place.

It's pretty disappointing to realize how much science and technology is held back either because it wouldn't be profitable or because it'd fuck over the profits that an existing tech creates.

No problem comrade. I don't like markets but I think it's important to separate them from Capitalism so that you can prove to ancaps that they're still just bootlicking statists.

No

Comrade, would you like to borrow my hedge strimmer while I borrow your drill?

Exchange for PROFIT is bad, which doesn't necessarily happen in all varieties of market.

...

...

No lies, in a market economy like we have now - technological advancent is held back. Speaking about my own field: it incentivises boner pills over cures to tropical diseases. If people do science for the betterment of your fellow man then we don't have that problem.
On tech profits, most of it doesn't even funnel back to basic research.

Capitalism can't return immediately. Stop deifying it as a force of nature and actually look into the conditions that brought it into existence. Without a state there literally cannot be Capitalism.

See

...

Im not sure what you mean by this. I am a med chemist.

Yes, I know markets aren't optimal and outside forces still influence you, but my points still stand.

I was referring to myself in a personal instance of how Capitalism brings down technology to my detriment.

Dude you didn't even watch those videos did you?

Q_Q sorry comrade. I just won the birth lottery but y'know still am a lowly worker.

Yes. You do actually need to ban people from trying to engage in wage labor, for example.

I did and it didn't refute how market socialism somehow still has exploitation (self-exploitation is not close to the same thing), wage labor, or how the MoP is not in worker's control.

because marxists have failed to create a better way to allocate goods? Instead of even coming near explaining a possibility of how to they engage in vapid and shallow critiques using humanist arguments which are constantly repeating, as if saying them once again make them true

case in point:

Kind of like how Stirnerites constantly repeat terms like spooks and "moralism" as if saying them once again will make them true

...

butthurt marxist detected

did you even watch the video

Ain't my fault that people in your group are only Stirnerites so they can dismiss all criticism by calling everything that disagrees with them a spook

Watch the whole of these two videos all the way through because it makes more sense if you understand the concepts he is referencing youtube.com/watch?v=hSP-crYjeoE&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7&index=11

yes and it is utter shit, in the first one:
the problem with this argument is that even without machines, the skill of the worker is what determines output, is an skilled worker that produces more value exploiting an unskilled one?
and? according to thermoeconomics, which dictates that energy is finite, why shouldn't we reward people who make better use of energy? this isn't exploitative, what is exploitative is that we have to waste energy on procedures that produce less value with more energy
moralism faggotry

his argumenst are flawed since the beggining, he is simply critizicing cooperatives, not the market itself, and fails to create an argument for
a)abolishing, since he doesn't present an alternative
b)prove it is exploitative, markets reward productivity above market values, and this is good because it enables efficient use of energy, as work, described by physics is applying energy

t.butthurt marxist

the second video:

using what units exactly? how do you measure a commodity using value?
this is incorrect, Marx also talks about the raw materials being the source of value, and he also forgets energy, without energy there would be no labour time or no raw materials

Marx needs to be revisioned in the sense that we should consider energy consumption aswell

this could work, but ONLY if they consume the same amount of energy and raw materials, and produce equal values

Does Kropotkin or any other ancom write about technological progress? And if so, in what book?

just as anarchists have failed to create a better way of organizing society without a state

Not even ancaps can come up with such retarded 'rebuttals' of Marx.

Oh look mommy I posted it again

I can provide several articles on how, can you do the same about the problem for allocation of goods?

obv too dumb to understand that was sarcasm

lovely flag consider I am on hunger strike

too much heterosexuality, gayness is the only truth

Source ?
I know, I should read more Marx

Not really sure. He mentions technology and its rewards being the collective labor of past generations that reward the present in Conquest of Bread. But I haven't read that much of him to give a definitive answer.

Where'd you get that from then? Just reflection? I'm not trying to knock that. That's how I get a lot of my insights.

look up Kapitalism 101 on youtube

How does technological progress equate to open source? I'm not seeing the connection in my mind. At least not the way you said it. Please explain.

In my (purely-software oriented) view, if everyone can have access to the source code of GCC or the Linux kernel, more people can fix things and get a better computing environment, it's that simple.

Microsoft practices "security through obscurity" for example, by hiding their source code. The source code of Windows might be a fucking mess though and bugs could creep there and there, for what I know. The guys who developed the WannaCry ransomware certainly did know where these vulnerabilities were hidden.
Linux, on the contrary, is secure through transparency, since you can download and modify its source code if you want right now. If you make something cool out of it though, you have to share your changes back, because it's licensed under GPL. And it works fine, I guess, because the majority of internet servers run Linux.
I could start talking about surveillance too, or debate the cases when proprietary software can be useful, but I'm tired tbh.
Sorry for deleting my OP, I wanted to autistically correct a mistake

And not to be an annoying gnat, but how does that relate back to anarcho-communism or anarchism?

moralism detected

really made me think

Well, I was only justifying >>1744893's statement about science and technology being held back by capitalism, I haven't studied enough theory to answer your question because the only anarchists I have read didn't address the issue of technology in this way.

I mean
enjoy your transitional period?

almonds=activated

His point was that if the problems of soviet central planning invalidate any argument against markets, than the failure of anarchists to create stateless societies (even more so with stateless market societies) invalidates anarchism.

...

If we're going to go full smearmode and avoid all actual arguments, we might as well give OP's C4SS an co. a ride:
>[C4SS] founded by two literal ancaps (not even kidding)
>one of the founders was a pedophile who raped his own daughter (again, not a surprise coming from ancaps "market socialists"
>Markets Not Capitalism, on of the website's least non-successful exports, is written by every ancap member of the website (they didn't even bother to have any of their marksuccs author it)
So honestly, if you're not going to separate someone's accurate representations of Marx's theory versus their shitty individual political opinions, you may as well hang yourself if you're a marketcuck.

It's literally just capitalism.

How's your business going faggot? You bankrupt yet?

marcucks BTFO

Oh I don't give a shit about c4ss, I just don't like people spamming those videos like that guy is an authority when it comes to politics. His economic description of the law of value may be correct, but I find his prescriptions to be bankrupt.

Yeah, I thought it was weird to use C4SS as the OP pic. They're fairly ancap.

HOWEVER, there are strains of left libertarianism that are socialist, and of course there's more market-friendly veins, as well, like mutualism. After all, OG libertarianism/anarchism was inherently socialist.

OP should read more about mutualism.

Market socialism is the only option until marxist can produce a better economic theory.

I'd recommend reading this this as a starting point.

Oh boy, here we go.

C4SS was founded by Roderick Long and Brad Spangler, two left-libertarians who personally thought that elements of ancap theory could be re-purposed for left-wing ends. Specifically those jusftifying the efficiency of markets over planned economies and how free markets could be used to deliver services which the state monopolises. They are not ancaps.

C4SS features content from mutualists, egoists, agorists and individualist anarchists. To call it an ancap site is disingenuous.

Brad Spanger admitted to molesting his daughter and turning himself in to the police. This makes him a despicable human being, but doesn't make C4SS or left-wing market anarchism wrong or immoral.

Markets not Capitalism is a collection of writings from left-wing market anarchists, mutalists, left-rothbardians and agorists about how free markets can be used for left-wing ends and how markets freed from both the state and capitalism can be used for anti-capitalist, anti-hierarchy, anti-state ends. The books was literally written to show how markets can be used for left-wing goals.

The essay that Rothbard wrote for the book is called 'All Power to the Soviets' in which Rothbard says that workers of firms can use the lockean homesteading principle to takeover their workplaces and run them for themselves. Here, read it for yourself.

Interesting.
I already know this part is going to make people here nervous, though:
Can you go into depth about this?

Why would it make them nervous, I think I know why but I'd like you to say.

why would I reward anyone for efficiency? if they're not doing it for their own sake then saying 'gtfo' is all the energy I am willing to expend upon these statist fucks
t. stirnerite

Better theory will certainly not come from marxists, they're bound by dogma.

its a fucking meme
it's just ancap with less autism

communism must eliminate commodity production (in the marxist sense of a commodity) because the value form of products is responsible for the depletion of meaning and banality of human existence via fetishism.

isnt it just mutualism?

He lost me at:

I'm sick and tired of this catch-all ancap solution to problems "free market will solve it".

What work would you recommend to redpill someone who's into C4SS?

I know the book gets mentioned a lot but "Mutual Aid: A Factor for Evolution" by Kropotkin.

Does you or anybody have a pdf of this?

The Anarchist Library hosts a copy.

theanarchistlibrary.org/library/petr-kropotkin-mutual-aid-a-factor-of-evolution

And because of its age it is in the public domain, so it can be found on Project Gutenberg's website.

gutenberg.org/ebooks/4341

A simple google search for the title would also have yielded results.

Thanks.

Left-wing market anarchism rejects a lot of the central tenets of ancap, so how is it ancap apart from the advocation of markets as a mechanism of exchange.

It's not ancap at all. Would people claim that barter is capitalism? Some people are just so extremely narrow-minded. Not you, but the user you're replying to.

how is it different from mutualism?

Not sure if shitposting, but this was addressed in the first part of the thread. Many people from C4SS are mutualists.

Is there any left-wing market ideology/author but with some kind of minarchy or direct democracy decentralized state, instead of anarchy?

Not sure. Does anyone know?

I have pretty warm fuzzy feelings about them. It's the passion I guess, but also that they seem more practice-what-you-preach than most? Idk

What is with all of the "mutualism is capitalism with co-ops" maymays coming from? When mutualists hear that it's like when liberals say "socialism i when government does stuff". Honestly I think left-rothbardians are the only ones who actually adhere to that. There are different tendencies in market socialism, we're not all the same.

Mutualism, although is definitely a form of market anarchism, is distinct from anarcho-capitalism in ways other than the co-op factor. Mutualism is predicated on the idea that exchanges between individuals or institutions should be voluntary and mutually beneficial, hence the name MUTUAList. We don't have the stupid ancap idea of mutually beneficial as in "durrr if i duznt wanna work for 5 cents a day im free 2 starve somewhere off this doodz property!!!!!Fck yeah thats freedum". We adhere to a labor theory of value and a system of exchange based around that in which exchange equally with others as either individually or collectively.

In a nutshell we would establish collectives in a syndicalist fashion and these various factions would form confederations and basically see how much labor is required to make society "tic" so to speak.

Your work environment and responsibilities would not be coming to work everyday for 12 hours in exchange for currency. You would only need to work as needed and you could have the option of working more in exchange for more luxurious compensation.

Kek. So instead of "capitalism with co-ops" it's socially responsible capitalism with co-ops.

production for exchange is still capitalism

read debt: the first 5000 years
the specific part about barter starts at page 52

what about it is capitalistic? it is a for use society still

this is on the same level as nazis saying the means of production were owned "by the volk"

There's always going to be exchange in a society whether you accept it or not. By exchange I'm not using it in the Marxist sense of the word it's meant to be as literal as possible to the point of a simple truism.

Until every last person can provide everything they need 100% independently there's going to be exchange in a society in the sense that you make something that ends up being used by someone else.

Having an economy based around people making equal contributions to one another and the system as a whole is the most fair and efficient way.

What are the major distinctions you see between how a mutualist society would operate as opposed to a centrally planned socialist stage economy? Please keep in mind that mutualism isn't just capitalism with worker co-ops, remember exchanges must be voluntary and equal and will sometimes be conducted individually or collectively. For all "well amazon has 80 people and it makes 80 billion dollars so everyone gets a billion dollars" and "dude people can still do stuff like price gouging" and "what happens when a business fails" arguments you're only demonstrating you don't understand mutualism.>>1753322

Would literally rather be a capitalist stooge and go to hell rather than lead a revolution just to absolutely waste it and duck the people. But it won't matter right because nothing matters even though things clearly matter.

Fucking take it easy, user. Geez…

I thought that sounded kind of jokey, but now I feel bad.

I'm suffering from Poe's law.

but you're missing the point. marx's project wasn't a matter primarily of thinking up some new system but rather critiquing what exists and showing how its contradictions develop. That's not to say that his notion of communism played no role here but rather that communism was what he revealed through the critiques of capitalism. "markets without capitalists" do not evade these criticisms. the fact that you represent marxist criticisms of the market as

shows plainly that either you have never read marx or have not understood him

Firstly, by using the term "market exchange" in such a manner you've made it devoid of all meaning. By your logic exchange is occurring within even bees in a hive are engaging in exchange. Secondly I'm yet to see a mutualist explain how they aren't advocating exchange in the marxist sense other than saying "we'll make it fair and shit honest!", as if such negotiated exchanges don't occur every fucking day in capitalist society.

Should be: By your logic even bees in a hive are engaging in exchange.

Sage for correction

I never used the term "market exchange" just exchange and it's different than a capitalist market exchange because it isn't based on a market price it's based on labor. What is the problem with two laborers trading each other's respective services?

I don't think you get what we mean by the term market.

It's kind of like this; you want to make a new type of cereal. You go to whichever worker union handles the food production. You comply with their standards and they approve your idea and allocate some resources for your new cereal. You make cereal and distribute it through the grocers in the federation the cost of which is however much labor goes into each box represented in labor notes or whatever is used to quantify value. If lots of people buy it this demonstrates that this is something the people want and because of this you get more resources allocated to produce more cereal. Your compensation doesn't change, you don't get richer because you sold more. There might be some incentive provided by the food production collective to reward who ever produces the most popular item in various categories but that's as far as it would go.

There's more to it than that but that's a brief summary. It's distinct from the capitalist market place and a centrally planned economy which most socialists advocate for.

This is still commodity exchange, and would still be governed by the law of value. While in your example there seems to be an absence of individual capitalists, society would still be acting as an "abstract capitalist" in this scenario, just like all forms of market socialism.

What would occur differently under centrally planned socialism? How would cereal be produced and how would it be distributed? Why would this way of producing cereal be more beneficial to society? I understand that the guiding principle is "each according to their ability each according to their need" but this doesn't really provide any substantive answers.

...

How is it still governed by the law of value if all commodities are exchanged under conditions of equal labor? Price is determined by the amount of labor and resources that go into producing a product not by market forces.