If you can get rid of all capitalism's contradictions by abolishing wage labour why not just do that while keeping markets, money, prices, production for exchange and the state?
Why not keep all those aforementioned things that many socialists want to abolish while simply abolishing wage labour through worker ownership of firms and profit sharing?
but this isn't true
Because wage labor is intrinsically related to those things.
If you keep the state thats market socialism. If you get rid of it that's Mutualism.
Harvey says it's true in the pic.
But you can abolish wage labour while retaining the other things.
No he doesn't, read the quote again dumbass.
No wages for workers = no money to buy commodities = no demand = no supply = no market = no prices = no production for exchange
UBI comes back to the same problem since it relies on there being enough wage labourers to support the basic income.
Obviously just abolishing wage labour isn't going to do much, but the point is that it's impossible to abolish just wage labour on its own.
No it doesn't. You don't need any wage labourers at all. the state can simply give people money.
He literally says it.
I didn't say implement UBI. I said workers own the firms and get paid in profits. So there is no profit/wage dichotomy.
'entails' doesn't mean its the only thing, it just means its a necessary part of any solution you retard.
Wage labor is an inherent part of this. Market socialism is a non-Marxist concept that takes a more positive mainstream view of market economics, but rejects capitalism on other, usually ethical grounds. In practice, the difference between these economies and capitalist ones are pretty small, though admittedly they were much better for average Joe in the short term.
A planned economy is almost certainly necessary to resolve the inherent contradictions of capital, though it could be argued that market socialism would make the transition to this planning easier.
Mutalism can only be successful if you implement economic nationalism.
What other major problems are there if you abolish profit/wage dichotomy through worker ownership? Surely you're 90% of the way there to ending exploitation since surplus value is going to the workers.
Wage labor is just a higher expression of exchange and capital.
Could you elaborate?
Welcome to market socialism. Here's your cooperative-provided Yugo flag. Enjoy your stay.
the states of western countries can only afford to give UBI because of the enslavement of the third world
How does that change anything?
The fact that to maintain your system you have to exploit the workers of other countries through wage labour. It's no different from exploiting your workers at home
en·tail (ĕn-tāl′, ĭn-)
tr.v. en·tailed, en·tail·ing, en·tails
1. To have, impose, or require as a necessary accompaniment or consequence: The investment entailed a high risk. The proposition X is a rose entails the proposition X is a flower because all roses are flowers.
He says "only solution" which means singular.
Right. That singular solution entails getting rid of wage labor but that doesn't mean it's the sole facet of the solution.
FTFY
It means the only solution includes it, not that it is the only solution.
...
This guy is a Holla Forumsyp pretending to be multiple people. Just give non responses if you have to, and move on
Probably the same retarded lolbert from the Nazi/socialism thread
they still engage in production for exchange ergo they are capitalist
...
It is though. Read Marx.
Not having a division of labour would be a disaster for productivity.
And?
Lower productivity is not desirable.
Please elaborate,
Less productivity means more labour time or less consumption.
The goal is to reduce productivity or at least redirect that energy into more sustainable avenues. We produce too much shit as it is. Production for use doesn't preclude specialization, though. Specialization existed before capitalism and I'm pretty confident it will continue in socialism. The problem lies within the logic of generalized commodity production where the division of labor is used to reduce SNLT to the point where a worker becomes a cog in the byzatine labyrinth that is the modern production process. Specialization is now dictated at the level of the firm where the vast majority of workers "specialize" in isolated, menial tasks and are largely excluded from the rest of production process.
I don't consider that a problem. I think it's a good thing.
Why exactly are you a socialist again?
I'm against exploitation and poverty. I want every person to have the best possible life and participate in all the fruits of civilisation rather than just a narrow ruling class.
Why do you equate socialism with more work, less leisure time and less productivity?
Your understanding of wage labour exclusively as the forced surrendering of personified labour's (the proletariat's) surplus value to personified capital (the bourgeoisie) stands at the bedrock of why you can imagine generalized commodity production (capitalism) as somehow being fundamentally altered through a different form of its management (democratic, horizontal, etc.). I strongly suggest you refine your understanding of what the capitalist mode of production is and is not.
I agree I need to do this. Why don't you give me the main points?
Anything else?
I'm honestly okay with markets for non-essential goods.
Holy FUCK, learn to read.
Don't be so harsh, it's not OP's fault that English is complete shit.
Would it be too far to try and split them into higher and lower capitalism?
Under "lower" capitalism ownership and often management of capital is centralized and the workers are directly exploited. Under "higher" capitalism, workers can own and manage the means of production but if doing so as driven by competitive market forces against firms of other workers or so on, still wind up in essence exploiting themselves. Under both systems - to anthropomorphise slightly - it is the "will" of capital that is being done, as opposed to the will of the workers themselves.
Certainly "higher" capitalism is preferable - living standards higher, closer to socialism than traditional social democracy, less alienating and hierarchical. etc, but nonetheless that fundamental element of capital being a domineering force over man remains, i.e. the structure of society is a capital-ism, as opposed to the abolition of capital entirely.
And then there's something I want to tag on about workplaces essentially being owned by everyone instead of more narrowly by the people who work there with longer-term ties (as in a co-op.) but I'm not really sure where that fits in.
Less productivity means more time doing work for the same output means less time the workers can spend sitting in their armchairs
Even if the workers exploit themselves (always seems dumb to me) haven't you at least moved into a system where it's in the dominant class's interest to abolish the system as everyone goes "man if we got rid of markets we'd be able to be much lazier with our work and have more time off"