Are there any criticisms of market socialism and mutualism from capitalist economists?

because markets are brought into existence and perpetuated by the state, read graeber

I'd say this is satire but this is also the kind of post you'd expect from yugofags.

...

yes, pretty much

they took benefit from healthcare and free education, only retards who don't read marx would say the transition between capitalism to communism will be due to a magic high-automation explosion in every industrial sector.

it depends on the commoditties, market socialism is still better than having a boureocratic state dictating what to produce to a certain price.

funny, actually the left in greece is strong af.

Nice one, red capitalist. What have you read, the manifesto?

now tell me about what do you read, you dumb cuck

...

meme book.

it's undoubtedly the wisest way to achieve socialism tbh. unless you have an alternative to abolish law of value without developing capitalism until automation of work is absolute.

Sure you have. Reproduction of capital, law of value, wage labour, all of these still existed in Yugoslavia. It was capitalism.
You're kidding right?

jesus christ

listen you chip idiot, socialism is only possible once a capitalist society reaches high levels of automation in every industrial sector.

wow, really ancoms are the worst type of anarchkiddies.

No it isn't.
Oh yeah, I bet you're more of an ancap guy. Markets are the most efficient form of resource allocation right? Supply and demand bro, basic economics. Read Rothbard. Don't tread on me.

read marx
unless we have an almost absolute rate of automation in every industrial sector, yes

Marx mentions in The German Ideology that the prerequisite for socialism is the presence of big industry, nothing more. A certain degree of automation is desirable but not necessary. We certainly have enough automation now, the SNLT is low enough for post-scarcity leisure communism.
Besides, what is automation really? It's just a multiplier for labor power. Robots still have to be made and maintained. This labor power multiplies is high enough now and can become even higher under communism. Just think of how many farmers it takes to feed a population compared to 100 years ago. Then compare that with 1000 years ago. Or are you assuming the MoP don't get developed further under communism?

Markets are shit, I don't know what you're doing here if you defend markets. Try >>>/liberty/

*this labor power multiplier

try >>>brownpill

???
it is

unemployement when private property still exist increases frustration and revolutionary potential.

tell me how this is a bad thing.

Based on what definition of efficient? It seems to me that markets are responsible for high rates of production, but only because wage slavery forces the proletariat to work to survive. People should not have to be coerced by money to work - they should be motivated by need or desire. The only argument supporting markets is "muh efficiency" but I have never seen any real world examples of this, only countless examples of markets leading to economic depression and income inequality. Seriously name one good thing about markets that isn't a complete false generalization.

So unemployment in Yugoslavia was good because it would lead to revolution? Not sure what you're trying to argue here.

unemployement is a good thing because it reflects both high revolutionary potential as well as automation high enough.

obviously markets aren't as efficient as a gift economy, but a gift economy is only achievable once scarcity is abolished (aka full automaiton of work).

i still do prefer labour vouchers tho

Production for exchange is the driver behind our wasteful production habits.

It's like you're trying to make me mad.
Unemployment in Yugoslavia is good? Praise glorious market socialism :DDDD

im not stating that labour vouchers=gift economy, im saying i do prefer labour vouchers before markets.

unemployment and crisis is the inmanent nature of capitalism, to accelerate such process is the only way to go. no wonder why anarchists have never acomplished anything and never will.

So automation technology was advanced enough in 80's Yugoslavia for a post scarcity society but 21st century tech isn't up to the task?

no, if it was advanced enough, we should have seen a revolution.

That's not what I was implying. What I was implying is that gift economies are liberal idealist bullshit and as for labour vouchers, see chapter 13 of the conquest of bread.

So you admit Yugoslavia was capitalist?

the book itself is pure spooked, mises-tier pseudoscience.

of fucking course, duh.

...

I have to warn you my anarchist friend, I think you're having a 'debate'.

But you just said that high unemployment was a reflection of automation being "high enough". Was unemployment not high in Yugoslavia? Or just not high enough?

Funny you should mention Mises considering you're a market apologist.
Great to see you admit you like capitalism.

???

Socialism is when you have unemployment and the more unemployment you have, the more socialist it is.

forgot to turn off shitposting flag

That is like asking if there is any argument against a perfect utopia by capitalist economists. You know the answer is no. The issue is that markets will automatically reproduce capitalism unless all other problems are solved first.

Fuck off

When will this very undank maymay die already?

If you take the ideas proposed by mutualists and the very few times they've been put into practice and apply it to today's conditions you'll see that's not the case at all.

All exchange (this is being used in the most literal sense of the word, as in one person makes something and another person uses it, not in the capitalist sense of the word) is based around reciprocating labor.

Worker produces value. Capitalist extracts surplus value. This is exploitation.

Worker produces value. Receives a reciprocal amount for value produced. This is self exploitation.

Worker produces value. Value produced is given to collective. If central planning authority deems it necessary worker can be forced into producing more value than they receive while others don't have to. This is somehow not exploitation.

"how to waste ressource 101">>1856636

let me fix that for you

the law of value still operates and so does reproduction of capital

I keep hearing this argument but never really get a proper explanation of how it still operates. It would make perfect sense that this would be a logical objection to mutualism or any other form of market socialism if the economy functioned just as capitalism does except with worker co-ops. Maybe I'm not understanding the crux of your argument could you please explain how the law of value still operates if "prices" are determined by labor input.

I think when most central planning advocates hear the word market they immediately assume capitalist markets, the market is just a means of distributing goods and services.

You're still selling your labor power to survive, producing commodities for exchange, how is not capitalism with co-ops?

How would these things cease to occur under a system which centrally plans?

Fuck you and fuck your false dichotomy. You are unable to perceive an actual post-capitalist world, you might aswell be a right winger. It's the same defeatism that liberals use: "Sure, capitalism is not perfect, but it's the best we have! If you try to do something else you get the USSR 2.0!"

How did you get that from my question? Who said anything about the USSR? haha like seriously dude calm the fuck down. Can you provide me with an answer? Our whole thing is basically let exchanges between parties whether they be individual or collectively based be mutually beneficial. That's basically our guiding principle.

DAUVE!