Closet Capitalism

What the fuck? Who?

Oh boy, oh boy. You didn't know? Give me one moment, user.

The baby market is actually about adoption which is from Murray Rothbard but I havent seen the other stuff myself. He also promoted child neglect as justifiable.

"It's okay to kill your kids as long as you let nature do it!" - Murray Rothbard
"Like, regulating who can have kids and who isn't is TYRANNY, MAN!" - Murray Rothbard

I can't seem to find the part on fucking kids, so I'm guessing it might be my interactions with lolberts melding together in my mind. All of these are from the Ethics of Liberty, by man named above.

Notice the scare quotes around neglect. He is also implying that one cannot harm children, as they are property.

He literally said they don't have to feed them so they should take care of themselves.

Its the only socialist system that works in real life. Until we get FALC like conditions planned economy is just not going to work. Market socialist economies could easily compete with capitalist economies and lay foundations for real communism.

Okay.

I only use a mutualist flag because it's the closest representation of my ideology. I support a government that would make worker and consumer coops the only legal form of enterprise as well as provide a military.

You may as well Yugo, then. Yugoslavia may have been a highly flawed and dysfunctional state, but its the image it draws up in most is closer to that than Mutualism.

It worked so well that it collapsed into a bloody civil war as soon as Tito died.
I already know the west was subverting Yugoslavia. The fact that they couldn't counteract American sabotage is a weakness of the system, as was their over-reliance on the IMF.

Yugoslavia was too authoritarian, and it's government too involved in economic direction for my taste.

It was nationalist wars between ethnic groups that collapsed the state.

It was a political mistake that really isnt an argument against market socialism.

Mutualists are crypto-ancaps. Proudhon had some interesting ideas that were built on in anarcho-communism but to still believe in bullshit like mutualism and market socialism is retarded.

Enjoy your utopia.

The CIA was able to subvert Yugoslavia so effectively because of their economic system and connection to the IMF.
If Yugoslavia hadn't accumulated so much debt America wouldn't have been able to pressure them so much and fund the ethno-nationalists who split the country.

Yes simple debt but like i said it was a political mistake made by the leadership and not an actual argument if market socialism works or not.

The ethnic issue is another matter and is yet one example more how nationalism fucked up the Eastern Bloc.

I'd like to note that Yugoslavia's economy was not this freely operating mass of proletarian democracy that its supporters like to claim it was. Yugoslavia's co-ops were often heavily, if not completely, tied to state bureaucracy, often to the point where it became very difficult for them to do anything. Not only that, but self management was used as an excuse to arrest workers who criticized the Yugoslav system or tried to organize their labor outside of state controlled orgs. Strikes and protests were effectively banned.

Yugoslavia's market reforms were also handled terribly and contributed to much of their issues, their reliance on the IMF, and their eventual collapse. Yugoslavia had the highest unemployment in the region as a result of the reforms, and one of the largest in the world. I've had supporters say "Well it was okay because they had good welfare!" – this is clearly not the case, because the economy was incapable of standing on its own two feet and needed constant cash from the US, IMF and USSR to keep afloat.

do you think market socialism can work in the modern world without needing loans and debt?
I'll agree with you on this 100% tho

How will it not?

No. Every cooperate and the goverment needs loans but you can make good financial decisions instead of taking loans that you cant repay.

Its good to hear because its a important lesson for all communists to learn.

Because it changes literally nothing

Check
check
check
check
check

Literally nothing changes .

Check
check
check
check
No. Worker keeps the whole value of the exchanged commodity.

How is this scenario mutualist at all?

And what gets invested back into the firm?

How do you intend to keep key industry running after it becomes unprofitable with such a system? I'm assuming you support taxes and subsidies.

It's literally just the "RED COMMIES WILL STEAL UR TOOTHBRUSH!!" but for Mutualism.

You mean the things that are necessary to thrive as a society?

no they aren't. Markets didn't even exist in ancient civilizations.

That's more accurate.

Because capitalism is a mode of production not a mode of management. You have to actually change the driver for production (exchange) to alter end capitalism. Simply switching out your boss for a workers council isn't fundamentally changing the way in which we produce things or how those things relate to us.

Goverment bank gives loans.

Commodity production definitely did

If a cooperative is unprofitable it goes bankrupt. If it is profitable the workers share the profit.

Cooperatives cannot grow any larger then small niche markets in the global capitalist system. Any cooperatives who try to grab hold of any serious mode of production, like lets say for example ship making, they will either be out competed by other companies, or be forced to adopt a managerial system, in which case, they are no longer cooperatives any more.

This isn't some hypothetical, cooperatives either die when they grow too big, or they just become regular capitalists.

It did on a very small scale. We're talking about generalized commodity production. The kind that exists under capitalism.

What makes you think that there cant be managers and worker ownership? If every worker owns one stock and the structure remains the same what changes?

That's not socialism.

Thats the definition of socialism.

The workers have the democratic ability to impeach shitty managers

Let's say someone takes out a loan and start a business but flops, who has to eat the cost? is bankruptcy still an option? Also do you have to have good credit to take a loan? does credit still even exist? help me out here…

That's the basic bitch definition.

The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss.

commodity production in pre-capitalist society was mostly small producers in guilds, not the kind of mass production we have in capitalism today.

Mind = blown

Subsidies and state aid are an essential part of any market economy, like it or not. Great swathes of all economies in the world are held up by government aid and taxes, especially farming and certain natural resources. In my country, for example, the shrinking steel and increasing steel exportation is one of the factors stunting our industry. Your cooperatives are not going to be able to grow comfortably if they have to go with more expensive international prices for something which could be produced cheaper locally, thus having the cost of the subsidies even themselves out. If your government isn't going to support the unprofitable with taxes and redistribution, you're going to wind up with an economic collapse that you will NOT recover from when some failing but necessary industry falls and the ripples spread through the entire economy.

Think for a moment of the US farming industry. It's decreasing in value fast, and most farms are only alive thanks to state grants and corporate meddling. If these subsidies were to stop, the socioeconomic effects would be absolutely disastrous.

The shitty one. Porky will gladly allow your shitty little coops as long as capital, commodity production and wage labor remain unthreatened. Read Marx.

mutalism far predates ayncrapism

Socialism and capitalism are about ownership. Its irrelevant how commodities are exchanged if the worker get full fruits of his labor. In communism there is no money and planned economy but that is a later stage of socialism.

I would imagine market socialist society would have large welfare state and high taxes like in the Nordic economy model.

Now we've unironically fallen to 'nordic states are socialism' levels of ridiculousness.

Cant have your state and eat it too

They used to have all heavy industry in state ownership. It really worked and now they are worlds richest countries.

Please, open a book. Your knowledge about socialism is literally muh big gubermint tier.

Jesus dude…

Like i said its about ownership of private property not this "i dont like markets" bullshit.

Where did you learn about socialism?

/r/socialism?

From communist party members when i was young.

Stop shitposting and read Marx ffs.

Its the only realistical solution to our current problems with planned economical theory.

Mutualist here.

I personally don't think this ideology is the ultimate end goal but I think for any revolution to get anywhere, this must be our first step.

This will get people into understanding that workers should be making the decisions and own their destiny. I do eventually we should branch out into something else. I agree that markets and coops can get out of control if people get greedy.

Reminder: All mutualists are anarchists otherwise they aren't truly mutualists. I do think that ancoms have really good points but I think depending how they want to structure things have mutualism has kicked in. I feel they will end up making a whole new bourgeoisie class of Government officials. I am still skeptical of their end goals. I'm like an Anarcho-Libertarian Nihilist I guess.

Can you answer my questions?

You are NOT going to be able to support a massive welfare system when you're going to be unable to obtain the capital to fund it. Modern welfare systems are extremely expensive (your system will still be reliant on capital, so you are not immune to this) and nations keep a buffer of debt to keep them functional. You are going to have an economic collapse when certain, important industries are no longer profitable and cannot be run, and good luck having a welfare system with an unemployment rate over 30%. Yugoslavia could barely handle it with 10% and foreign funding up the ass, from all sides.

This doesn't even qualify as low as red capitalism, this is "THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT!" splashed with some pink paint. You are embarrassingly naive.

I should proof read next time.

edit:

but I think depending how they want to structure things after mutualism has kicked in*

I think the workers themselfs who operated the business should eat the cost.

Yup, basically ancaps. No difference here.

Well it works here.
You should take capital as loans but not trade with stocks because the means of productions are in worker control.
The worlds richest countries have it. The worker cooperatives accumulate capital to make the country richer.
All self respecting countries have debt. Its about GDP to debt ration.
Economical collapses are part of market economical cycles.
This is just bullshit. Most of the economy would be in worker cooperative control and the rest important ifrastructure would be in public ownership.
It was a NATO operation and has not much to do with private capital invest.

This doesn't even qualify as low as red capitalism, this is "THE FREE MARKET WILL FIX IT!" splashed with some pink paint. You are embarrassingly naive.

...

However much the workers DECIDE to invest back into the firm. And since they own the firm, they're still getting that value from their labor. They're just getting it in a non-cash form.

Here are the rules for loans in Mutualism:

Any person may become a member of any association and may borrow the money issued by the association, by giving his promissory note therefore, and by pledging improved property to the association to secure the payment of said note, or by having his loan insured as hereinafter provided.

Loans may be made for an amount not exceeding one-half the assessed value of the improvements situated upon the real estate pledged, or in an amount not exceeding one-half the value of goods, chattels, implements and machinery used in productive enterprises, or upon shares of stock of such enterprises, and upon warehouse receipts. The period for which loans shall run shall be determined by the marketability and possible depreciation of the security offered.

Loans may also be discounted by the association, for those who have no property to pledge, upon the payment of a sufficient premium to insure the risk with an authorized insurance company.

The rate of interest shall always be zero. The charges for which said money shall be loaned shall be determined by and shall just meet and cover the losses sustained and the expenses of the association.

embers, by paying their debts to the association, shall have their property released from pledge, and be themselves released from all obligations to said association and to the holders of its money as such.

If you want to learn more.

Read: Clarence Lee Swartz - What is Mutualism? panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html

This book is something I need to keep reading. I will say this, there some things subjective. There is a gold standard of what 1 dollar in a mutualist society but the value of what a "loan dollar" is can be change and is subjective to what the labor value equates to a "loan dollar" is.

These loan dollars aren't legal tender either. They can be only used for what you wanted the loan for.

We don't use captial. You clearly don't understand mutualism. We don't use money. We use labor and the means of production like other ideologies. We won't have unemployment levels that high because there will be ways to still be productive. Our welfare system will build funded by everyone with their means of production.

The market that you are complaining about is COMPLETELY OPTIONAL. We Mutualists don't necessarily need the markets. It's just an option. You can use your means of production for normal socialist exchanges or you can do market exchanges if you desire. We don't care how you use your means of production.

I don't understand how we are even close to capitalism when we don't even use capital.

You mean like a co-op? Sounds dope, we should do that.

My brothers, our work here is done.

All they can do is strawman us as ANCAPs. Here's more reading on Mutual Banks

Hello porky

Yeah, porky is telling you to read Marx and abandon your /r/socialism tier understanding of capitalism.

Just a bunch of utopian marxists who are still ass blasted at Proudhon after 150 + years and some utopian ancoms whining.

Daily reminder that markets isn't capitalism, and central planning isn't socialism.

Why would anyone borrow money then? Its simpler to just keep it until you need it.

wrong, kiddo

TBQH, a Bordiga meme would be more appropriate there, though Cockshott does the heavy lifting in providing an actual alternative.

...

You called?

...

Honest answer:
Because capitalism kind of works as a system to keep 10 billion people alive.
Most stuff just doesn't work.

Maybe there's something worth preserving there?

That came out wrong.
I mean it kind of works in the way that a damaged engine running on cough syrup works. Not in a smug way.

t. never read Cockshott, he bases part of his work off Lange. Plus in his later years Lange said he overestimated the need for a market due to computers.

That doesn't mean market socialism doesn't work. Gitlow was a communist who later converted to conservatism. Does that mean communism doesn't work?

I've never understood how this works.

how does the nap mean that parents own children. If theres no age of consent how do children become adults? do you have to buy yourself out of slavery if your parents sell you into it? Can you start working at five and move into a house at ten or can your parents take your wages at five? Are five year olds allowed to open bank accounts without parental consent?

conflating people with ideas. Lange-Lerner-Taylor models were well incorporated into modern economic computability theory, if you want to see Lange old ideas implemented, look no further than modern China you Dengist

YUP, MUTUALISM SURE IS CRYPTO-CAPITALISM

Yes.

No.

Lad you'll make a great comedian.

Ok mutualism is nice after all

...

If markets and capitalism are the same then humanity has been capitalist for fucking ever which is obviously wrong. Markets are just markets.

Stop it.

You haven't disproved any of what we mutualists have posted. You don't get away with calling mutualism capitalism any longer faggot.

Markets and commodity production didn't dominate the economies of previous civilizations in the same way they do in capitalism. Nobody is saying markets=capitalism. What people are saying is an economy dominated by the market and the law of value is capitalism.

What is there to disprove? The Mutualist argument is either that they recognize the issues with generalized commodity production and that market based socialism is only a transitional phase or that capitalism is simply a matter of management and that how/why we produce things is of no importance. Your arguments are trash.

However much the market dictates*

read a book nigger.

Plenty to argue for. We do see it a transitional phase because anything can be improved but we don't see that capitalism is simply a matter of management. No ideology cares how things are produced. They care if we are producing it and trying to use it's value for either labor or capital. That's the biggest thing. We use it for labor. Just like any ideology. Yes we believe that markets can be socialist BUT we don't DEMAND you to exchange on the market. It's fucking optional. We aren't capitalists. You can do whatever you want with your means of production as long as you aren't trying to attain capital.

Your argument is very flawed. We have another thread on people trying call Mutualist capitalism and we mutualists always defend ourselves from strawmen attacks. You never will disprove Mutualism as a valid form of socialism ever.

You can read this:
Clarence Lee Swartz - What is Mutualism:
panarchy.org/swartz/mutualism.index.html

Also you can read this material here if you keep thinking markets are capitalism:
c4ss.org/market-anarchism-faq-2