How can you not be Market Socialist?

Yeah just as good as that time in history that an Anarchist society didn't get destroyed by an outside state.

Cockshott's whole point was that it already can be implemented. And he wrote the book in 1991, ffs.

That's nice OP, but
1) Yugoslavia abolished zero aspects of capitalism
The idea behind "democratic ownership over the means of production" is that it implies abolition of class society. That'd be nice if Yugoslavia didn't have literal millionaires.
I get that you like the yugo aesthetic but it'd be nice if you'd read Marx and drop red, white and blue capitalism already.

...

ugh, that 2nd greentext was supposed to have a 2) before it

If we were ever in a position to implement socialism, it would mean the old order has been completely routed. Why, in that situation, would we go for capitalism lite? It makes no sense, the clear answer is to continue to push through to actual socialism. I see no reason why that would be more disruptive to the economy than market socialism, when most economic activity is done by huge corporations, how would you turn them over to worker self management without disrupting the economy anyway?

He's ridiculously vague about how everything will be organized though. He dedicated like one paragraph to how quality of labour is rewarded and basically just said "it's up to the supervisor to decide who gets what because I actually have no metric to define the quality of someone's labour", he wrote the book to say it CAN be done, but it's not a manual explaining exactly how. That would be the product of years of research and experience.

Supercomputers mean that flexible central planning is now possible. Market """Socialism""" is an artifact of history. Stop trying to resurrect it.

Another artifact of history along with bolshevism. With a centralization in planning comes a centralization of power and bureaucrats establishing themselves as a new class. Planning shall be decentralized.

can someone explain to me what decentralized planning acutally is? sounds like private property to me

You can have central planning without a massive centralized bureaucracy. The only central component would be supercomputer(s) which would be running planning algorithms for the national/global economy. It could easily be made to respond to input from local worker councils.

See cybersyn
What makes you think that?

I'm pretty sympathetic to market socialism as a concept, but it just straight up isn't socialism. Dividing a piece of property up among multiple people doesn't count as socializing it, the MoP are still privatized, just by different people. Not to mention there are still loads of problems that stem from the profit motive itself. That being said I don't consider it to just be capitalism since it does constitute a fundamental change in economic organization and the distribution of political power. I also consider it a desireable short term measure on the road to true socialism.

Err wasn't that central planning?

That means it's decentralized. Honestly, let's not get too much into semantics and agree that the way you proposed it ("respond to input from local worker councils") is ideal.

Decentralized planning in my view would just mean that demand is related to the engines of economic production through a series of economic plans put together to meet the needs of small local populations, rather than setting out to draft one comprehensive plan for the whole country.

I dont see why its cannot be used to develop and modernize some economic sectors in a socialist country, thats what NEP did in soviet union.

But i prefer the idea of Indicative planning for a transitory period, with cooperatives instead of capitalist enterprises.

Daily reminder that Marx said capitalism is what negates itself, as well as markets, not some revolution or a group of revolutionaries. Anti-trust laws, other capitalist state interventions, have prevented this from happening.

In this sense "market socialism" is a needed transitory phase to communism, as the conditions for revolution against capitalist control are here, but the conditions for communism itself are not.

I recently made a video about this topic.
youtube.com/watch?v=myOs0FYnI7A

As for yugoslavia, not something that we should strive for. Workers did not have genuine control of their society, particularly in terms of the state and other important institutions, thus it was never a true dictatorship of the proletariat. Beyond that, it had many structural defects and its place in the international capitalist economy ensured its eventual destruction. Any future endeavors of socialism must indeed be global, and begin at such power centers of capital as the united states, or possibly soon, china or the European union as a whole.

When I hear decentralised planning I imagine small communes making their own economic plans and then trading stuff with other communes for the stuff they can't make themselves. Isolated producers, production for exchange, etc. etc. which implies private property.

To be completely clear: this is just what I sort of imagine when anarchists talk about decentralised planning. As I said, I'm completely ignorant on the subject.

To paraphrase marx, to simply let things rest at a bunch of decentralized producers of either households, or communes, or whatever, is to yield to mediocrity forever. There are many efficiencies to larger economic organizations, economies of scale, so to speak. There is a place for smaller units of production, and certainly they provide their own qualitative set of benefits, but they shouldn't be a universal principle we should strive towards.

cybersyn was realized almost half a century ago, imagine what we could do now

Oh no, definitely not. By forming a federation of worker's councils you could organize large scale societies.

Ok whatever. I've always assumed input from local communities and workers councils was going to be a part of any functioning system of central planning.

That's not what I'm implying at all. What I'm implying, and what marx explicitly said, was that capitalism through its natural tendency towards consolidation and vertically integrated supply chains, would make most markets and private property superfluous. The problem was, as capitalism began to become too consolidated, the state stepped in to save the system from itself. The first anti-trust laws were passed only some 10 years after Marx's death, and in response to massive bi-partisan popular outrage which if not addressed, could have easily led to revolution.

All I'm saying is that instead of constantly resetting the clock on capitalism, we should let this play out, and the only way for that to happen is with worker control.

Soviet Yugoslavia created Melania cutie cutie

That's literally what market "socialism" is. You amputate part of it (private property) so it can continue. Eventually, like in Yugoslavia, it'll revert back to regular capitalism.

North Korea and Cuba are indisputably more successful than Yugoslavia because they actually still exist, despite the difficulties and compromises they've had to make. If you want to advocate for market socialism, you should use the example of China, but because it actually exists you avoid it. In other words, you're not even for anything, you're just a stooge.

This is a new level of depravity. Kill yourself.

It's like you took the best armchair meme I made to self-satirize left communism and not just took it seriously but made it live a life in your brain.

As Trotsky once said: shoot out of hand.

what did he mean by this?

you should be ashamed of yourself

central planning can turn a third world country into a economical potency

I have a feeling you didn't watch that video to the end.

Also
We're reaching reddit levels of discourse right here.

It isn't bad. You just have to be careful about the bureaucracy. Thus why AI is essential.

nice meme mate

fucking Christ, and these liberals mock other people's education.

Stop believing in silicon magic fairy

I agree more research needs to be done. You have to read his book in context with regards to being a theoretical refutation to the Austrian ECP. PlusYou can't make an exact plan for the future as it will be developed out of the material conditions. read marx Btw Cockshott himself literally said that market socialism would be a transition phase to a cybernetic planned economic. SEE:
youtube.com/watch?v=l9Ist8i-JlU&t=200

I am but with Corporatist elements

Well not everyone can be a capitalist plant.

But you keep on it, good boy.Follow your dreams.

Bump

Yeah and I'm critical of Yugoslavia. If you'd actually read the OP you'd know that.

Mutualism is the best way for this transition.

No one has ever disproved that mutualism wouldn't be a wonderful plausible way to transition as the first major step into socialism.

We are going to get a lot of people after this post say that mutualism is not socialism but time and time again, we will post our books and proofs and they will not be able to disprove it from being a valid form of socialism.

What I meant by this is that reproduction of capital is an impersonal process. Yugoslavia was capitalist.

so fascist?

law of value

Nah man we will have computers n shiet that plan the economy. Then we just wait for the population to starve to death like last time. Ps. Read Cockshott

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
you unironically should read cockshott

holy moly
an actual yugo flag that is not a blatant troll
a rare specie indeed, we need to be careful not to scare it away

how long are we talking about exactly? soviet NEP long, or Socialism with Chinese Characteristics long?
also, you have to explain how your marcsoc would gradually evolve into a planned economy

so how are you gonna combat Chicago boys and neolibs in general?
you know that Yugo academic economic school was heavily influenced by neolibs, right?
Yugo economists made contributions to the neoliberal economic theory in general
their ideal was an ancapism but with coops
in confrontation with neolibs you will have to answer this question "if market is a cybernetic system that gets the job of allocating scarce resources done then why do we need to waste our so scarce resources constructing artificial cybernetic system that would do the same job?"

unsubstantial claim
prove it

historical fact
in Yugoslav firms majority investment decisions were made by senior management with a passive approval form the collective
very rare rank and file workers brought their own investment proposals to vote

this is where the power of management stems from
this was the reason why CEOs were so influential, often CEO would take the job only if he got full carte blanche in investment and wage policy decisions

so much for worker democracy

topkek
so who is gonna organize shit? welder needs to weld for production to continue, so is he supposed to also be a part-time bureaucrat? I sure would love to do some bureaucratic work after my 8 hour shift or on my weekends mate

what about inter firm planning?
what about Supply Chain Management and Advanced Planning software?
it already uses linear programming among other techniques that Cockshott proposes
the only constraint for finding an optimal solution is a computation time
here is your stepping stone

as Lenin said "socialism is merely state-capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly"

never the less IMF was able to influence Yugoslav economic policy by using its position as a creditor
also, growing debt trend indicates underlying economic problems
SU was able to self finance its own growth without constant borrowing from a third party

dude I hope you're only pretending to be this retarded

who would create jobs in your market paradise?
coop MOPs are owned only by the members of said coop
in a market economy, only effective demand matters, coop will not give you free shit even if it has an unsold surplus
more likely coop will burn, dump in the sea, or otherwise waste this surplus, so that it can keep prices and profits from falling

you're assuming that problems of consistent economic growth are not related to the market led production in general
but growth is limited by effective demand, and effective demand is limited by a population growth dynamics
if population growth cannot sustain economic growth your marksoc economy would enter a zero or even negative sum game, big coops would eat the small and grow even bigger and in the end we would be back at square one

Marcsoc was never tried, huh? :^)

as far as I know self-management was widespread
but as I said it only resulted in a passive ratification of management decisions

questions of wage policy were the only exception
collective meetings discussing and voting on wage policy sometimes lasted for hours with plenty of initiatives coming from ordinary workers

topkek
Yugo position was exceptional
it was a trading hub between east and west
and SU had a state monopoly of foreign trade, so of course access to their internal consumer goods marked was highly restricted

as for the Western market, well, duh..
japs too had difficulty selling their shit in the west with all the protectionist policies
burgers preach open market but when their domestic industry is threatened they quickly erect protectionist barriers as it was with japs and US auto industry

heh, universal Oil Shock scapegoat
sorry mate, I don't buy Oil Crisis as a cause of stagflation

it is always too radical a change
retards were clinging to the market even when storehouses were full of unsold goods and people were full of needs that could be satisfied by those goods but nobody had money to buy them

if this kind of farce couldn't convince people, then nothing will

you think IMF and World Bank will leave you alone?
topkek

*intra firm planning

Being a Tankie is a mental illness.

Mutualism is based on a labor theory of value that holds that when labor or its product is sold, in exchange, it ought to receive goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility"

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

Try again.

not an argument

...

Embarrassing autism of such a level shouldn't be legitimised with arguments.

I, as a mutualist also believe that using the markets early on won't cause this problem but if we rely on them too much, we will end up going backwards.This is why this is only a transition period. Once mutualism pulls away from market socialism and we begin to shift towards anarcho-communism. Tbh, you need us mutualists so we can reach your endpoint.

MLs say the same thing fam

Will the sexual marketplace be left unregulated under market socialism?

So the idea is that you receive the full product of your labour?

But why? See

just kill yourself already

Never.
At least now I know that my clique is growing thanks to that other thread.

See

You seem to be under the impression that the logical conclusion of sexual liberation is a sexual market. Are you implying markets are "free" in any way? Cause then you'd have to fuck off to >>>/liberty/
Real sexual liberation can only occur in post-capitalist societies

I don't usually defend tankies, especially as he uses that Lenin quote which claims state capitalism is socialism but he clearly knows his 20th century history, economics and cybernetics.

Yes but those tankies are purely there because they want to build something completely authoritarian. You know mutualists aren't like that at all. We both are completely anarchists at our core. We aren't some fake ancap people who don't even believe in the labor theory of value. We have true socialist roots. Proudon.

Correct. We don't involve anything involving capital or profit. We simply use the means of production to produce and exchange.

The reason why we believe mutualism is necessary for transition is because we believe markets aren't going to go away. We need to put in a system where they can be used and once we have a great enough means of production that the market is not necessary we'll be doing a transition from mutualism to anarcho-communism happens naturally because many of the things that mutualism has isn't required anymore. Thus anarcho-communism begins to take over naturally. I just pray the MLs don't attempt trying to kill people who believe in anarchism.

Nice, I was waiting for this answer. Now go read Critique of the Gotha Programme, Lassalle.
Also wrong. Capitalism has reduced the SNLT enough by now. A hundred years ago you might be able to make this argument, but it's been outdated for atleast a few decades.

I thought you were trying to trap into something but I was hoping out of good faith. Shame on me since this the internet.

You keep trying to twist mutualism into capitalism. It's not. It's based off the same labor theory of value as your theory. That book has nothing in disproving mutualism. Mutualism produces no capital, no profit and yet you keep thinking I'm saying we need more capitalism. I have never said that. You probably don't even understand mutualism in the first place.

Once again, there is no capital to be gained or made. Anachro-Communism is the end goal for anarchy. It will happen but mutualism must come first.

yeah and the people programming said algorithms hold no power at all and could certainly not be considered an elite who is in control of the system. enjoy your pipedream.

anprim tier argument, knowledge = power, would you also say doctors have the power over your life?
The computers are there only to facilitate democratic voting on a mass scale, The code will be open sourced and viewable by anyone, ensuring it is not rigging the vote one way or another.

read:

I think we are done here.

yes. if i'm sick i depend on them.

you have way too much trust in the open source = flawless meme. only a tiny elite has the knowledge and spare time to review the massive amount of code it would take to run an economy. these would be the people who hold the power in your system. look at the recent problems with open source software… does heartbleed ring any bells?

of and before you accuse me of being a ms shill, i use linux on all of my machines for seven years now.

Of course it was capitalist, but that means precisely that they didn't abolish private property!

did you read

??

Open source isn't perfect sure, but it's still far superior to closed source software in terms of security, scalability, and reliability. Plus it keeps dead labor from being destroyed by porky.

The only thing propriety software is better at is being profitable and being able to get huge amounts of resources applied to software projects since porky hopes to turn a profit on it.

You're probably a red hat shill.

Further proof that leftcoms are Reddit trash

reddit.com/r/shitleftistssay/comments/6p4lv2/hot_new_take_on_marx_from_leftypolyp/dkn72lo/?context=3

In the future people will be as literate in code as they are in writing, reading, and math. The UK already has mandatory computer science education at all levels
theguardian.com/technology/2014/sep/04/coding-school-computing-children-programming
under socialism, everyone will have the benefit of free education and digital literacy and thus be able to understand the code
bugs and security flaws =/= blatant rigging of the system. I'm pretty sure most people can control+F 'public static void rig_vote()'

Did you just time-travel here from 1985, Sir Clive?

Let me remind all posters of the dangers of magical thinking

i agree with all of what you said. and i'm not a red hat shill btw. what you said doesn't adress my point though.

my point, i repeat, is that only very few people have the knowledge and time on their hands to review an incredibly vast and complex piece of software necessary to steer an economy. the tiny fracture of population withe these skills will be the effective rulers of such a system. you are pathetically naive. do you remember how long it took to audit truecrypt? nah you probably never even heard of it. and it was a comparatively small project.

so they'll be ignorant as fuck on average? like i said you're naive and should shad your utopian and idealistic dreams asap.

pic related, y'll should browse it more often.

did hear of it in fact, but its dead so now I'm using VERACRYPT.
If its software thats used to run the whole economy, im pretty sure a lot of eyes will be on it. Even if good coders are a minority, there are still hundreds of thousands, if not millions of software engineers in the US alone, not to mention the rest of the world. What do you think, that all those people will engage in a conspiracy to rule over the non tech literate?
There won't be even one whistle blower, even if the source code is freely available online? it will be a nick landian dictatorship of the software engineers? There is 0% chance some guy will look on github and ctrl+F the "rig_the_vote()" subroutine? get real.

...

You're getting fully BTFO there tho, while your amazing "theory" is basically the worst leftcom strawman unironically.

Hi /u/insulasol/, pulling an A.W. there are we? Further proof that every anti-lebbit memer is a hypocrite that doesn't even have the principles to avoid the place he considers cancerous.

...

In case you didn't notice, I hadn't made a post on that account in months, and most of my posts are sharing bunkermag articles anyway. I despise Reddit with all my being.

Also

The fact that you haven't made any arguments in this thread and just ran off to your Reddit buddies is very telling.

I've heard of true crypt ass hat. Didn't it get forked into veracypt.

How did we end up with this vast ecosystem of open source software in the first place. Skilled people creating it, we can cultivate people who can audit too. Programmers aren't scarce now, that a porky meme. What's scarce is programmers that will work for 3rd world wages or free. That's a problem inherent to capitalism not open source.

...

Tell us again how socialism is when the Ltd. does stuff.

dude, open source enormously helped capitalism to grow
just imagine a world where AT&T copyrighted concepts used in UNIX
no more GNU project
no more dirt cheap server software for the hip tech firms like facebook

if burgers ever did something right, it was to ban AT&T from entering a computer market

Market economies are unefficent even if there are market mechanisms in the state like in the lange model normal planning is better
Thats retarded cybernetics worked in the 1970 under allendes chile

Lmao

Oh look, it's a man made entirely out of straw

What other system is capable of providing for the many consumeristic needs of a post industrial society then?

Also how did Cybersyn "work"?

there is no such thing as transition period, the change either manifests or it doesn't.

cybersyn.cl/ingles/cybersyn/cybernet.html pshhhhh shut up and read this

Nah I'm not gonna read a whole infosite tyat looks like it was made in the 90s just to prove your point. Tell me in your own words how it "worked" or don't bother. Cybersyn doesn't even seem like it was anywhere near a system on the kind of scale Cockshott calls for. Btw you just ignorant my initial reply.

Keeping you is no benefit, and killing you is no loss.

Again, read:

Cockshott HIMSELF says market socialism is needed as a transitional phase!!! watch that YT vid!!!

Okay so you have no actual argument. Cool.

Hmm.