What's the difference between democratic market socialism and social democracy with co-ops?

What's the difference between democratic market socialism and social democracy with co-ops?

There isn't any. They're both variants of self-managed capitalism — which is arguably better than neoliberal capitalism but definitely not in any way "socialism".

...

One is a recent social democracy flavor while the other basically the original flavor lite.

None of them address the underlying contradictions of capitalism, they only delay revolution

I'd argue if most means of production is worker controlled and private business growth ability is limited it's socialist enough. Just like how just because slavery still exists in the world doesnt mean we live in serfdom.

Capitalism doesn't become socialism just because it's "nicer" or "ethical".

It's not really capitalism if most capital isnt owned by capitalists. Like I said by that same logic we don't live in capitalism we still are in slave societies.

Capitalists aren't the defining feature of capitalism, capital (in the sense of self expanding value) itself is. As long as the M-C-M' cycle governs production, the mode of production is still capitalist.

You still have production for exchange. And there is literally nothing preventing re-accumulation of capital. Your dream of socialized capitalism is nothing but a reset button on capitalism as a mode of production and the best way to ensure its long term longevity.

Market socialists want to gulag bourgeoisie and social democrats sell their souls for corporate interest.

None.

Does your system provide for the enforcement of private property?
If yes, you are pandering a variant of capitalism.

Name it as you want.Propose all the "safeguards" you want, any sytem allowing for the accumulation of capital in private hands eventually leads to capitalism.It's not a system to aim for?

...

On one hand you're right.
But you're right for the wrong reasons. Stop frogposting and kill yourself and fuck off back to /r9k/ and kill yourself.

opinion discarded

None cares about your favourite variant of capitalism.


Read a book or go back to /r/socialism.

>>>/r9k/


You're either defending the idea of capitalism existing without private property, or you're defending /r9k/ ideology.
Either way friend, don't.

Oh hey ancap-annil, how's that business going?

If you knew anything besides repeating whatever platitude you read on Holla Forums to try and fit in, you'd know socialism can't be reduced to workers' ownership of the means of production. The abolition of commodity production for instance is also a requirement.

"Market socialism" can't really be considered capitalism because it doesn't fulfill one of the fundamental requirements for a capitalist economy (a capitalist class/private property).

But it's also not socialism for obvious reasons. So it would be somewhere in between.

See:

Correct. However, I think such a system is probably what the DoP will look like.

Please, show me this capitalism without private property.


I never said that you tool. I said capitalism has private property.

What's to stop a rich group of co-op owners from bribing politicians like they would in a capitalist system? I mean, let's say we can make co-ops MANDATORY, and let's say everyone plays along, what's to stop an alcohol/luxury clothing/drug/prostitution co-op from telling a representative to vote against other co-ops?

this

Property doesn't have to be "private" in the narrow sense you marketfags mean it for commodity exchange and capital accumulation to exist. All that is required for capital to exist is multiple economic units to be engaging in exchange. This includes state property, conventional "private" property, and co-operative property. It even includes usufruct rights over something that isn't formally owned.

This means that literally every attempt at abolishing capitalism in the 20th century was still capitalist. From the soviet union to yugoslavia to anarchist catalonia, none of these places managed to abolished capitalism despite making massive changes to the way property rights work.

How could you have a form of non-communist socialism with such a broad definition of capitalism?

dude what

like mutualism for example

You're effectively asking how capital and socialism can co-exist: the point is that they can't. From a marxist perspective it's simply nonsensical. This is isn't to say you could have a "lower phase of communism" with rationing according to work done (though some leftcoms would contest this too) as marx advocated in critique of the gotha program, but such a system is very different from what mutualists advocate (it doesn't feature generalised exchange).

Should be: This is isn't to say you couldn't have a "lower phase of communism"

sage for error correction