A story of socialized capitalism

This is for the mutualists, market socialists and other co-ops fags out there.
Do us all a favor and read:
And maybe listen to the leftcoms every now and when they ramble on about generalized commodity production, value form, law of value etc. cause you might learn something about what it actually means to surpass capitalism as a mode of production.

Other urls found in this thread:

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htm.
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-1.htm
twitter.com/AnonBabble

dammit, should've checked for mistakes

Like buying more means of production? Where's the profit in that though? Making more money than you yourself can earn with a day's work would either mean you cloned yourself to work a dozen shifts or you own a factory and skim profits off workers you employ in it.

Is that the competitive Market-Socialist game strategy you posted or did I read that wrong? Cuz that sounds like some bourge-shit.

Like more people owning the means of production instead of just one guy, but still exploiting workers for labour and profit.

...

You develop productive forces to produce under the SNLT. Fucking read value, price and profit.


How nice, you can go from socialized capitalism to regular capitalism. Based Tito!

Wolff doesn't like markets at all. He thinks they'll be necessary during the transition to socialism, but that's not the same as being a marksoc or Titoist.

Shut the fuck up nigplasm

cause that worked out so well last time

what exactly are you referring to?

For a start that's a ridiculous scenario, giving coops the power to buy other coops and exploit them defeats the point of having coops in the first place. But when has a Market Socialist ever denied that competition still wouldn't exist under a Market Socialist system? That's the entire reason it works. Because the competition allows workers to provide for the insane amount of consumer goods that a centralised economy could never have the organisation to plan for. Also stop wanking off over factories, in case you haven't noticed we live in a post-industrial society.

Woops. Fucked that sage up.

I might as well greentext the entire post for how much bullshit there's in it, but this one takes the cake:
Are you for real?

Not him but in the West we are actually in a post-industrial society, 3/4 of the activity is tertiary.
Also to avoid mono- or oligopoly, you simply have to federalize the smaller coops instead of buying them.

Nice argument

What you're describing sounds ideal.

Why would a coop pay money to someone who doesn't work there anymore? The point of coops is they are the property of the workers themselves, not shareholders

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHha

Do yourself a favor and read capital volume 1, chapter 32. Monopolization is a key part if capitalism that socialized the means of production and makes the socialization of property possible. Consolidation is one of the key forces that makes communism possible.

"SNLT"?

Socially necessary labour time. Fucking read Marx, namefag

Especially since consolidation under marksoc would be a good thing, it would centralize production under one massive worker controlled organization that would essentially already create planned socialism. Marksoc has flaws but it's essentially an easy bake oven for transitioning from capitalism to planned socialism precisely because of consolidation, and how relatively easy it would be to move from capitalism to marksoc.

New flavors of capitalism every week!!!
Social Democracy, Democratic Socialism, Market Socialism, Titoism, Dengism, Mutualism, Stalinism, Trotskyism, the choice™ is yours! Only on Holla Forums™ !!!

This is a good post, though I'd add that it goes even further: capitalism is the socialization of labour. As always all this implies is the necessity of one mode of management over the other; fully Chandlerian, limited shareholding, equal shareholding, cooperative, self-managed, et cetera. But capitalism is a mode of production; it has no qualms with embracing one mode or the other as long as its existence is perpetuated.

ITT you will, I predict, find the more refined proponents of cooperative private property, the agorist types. For some background, agorism has its roots in right-libertarians like Rothbard, who were huge fans of the workers' councils first established by workers in the early 20th century as an answer to the poverty of trade unions.

But they are fans in a particular way: they want these organs to remain, because they want the death of the "unfair" corporation, and they want them to remain not as their impetus first guided them towards: the total destruction of private property and capital. No, what they want is them to function as nuclei for ethical self-managed wage-labour. The agorists are a type of counter-economists: they unironically think that man is vulgar matter; for them, capital is historical subject and not man and his struggles, in various subject-class forms (plebeian-patrician, serf-lord, proletarian-bourgeoisie).

This is why the more "left" or "progressive" types in this group will think that, if we configure capitalism as a mode of management that is fully ethical, it will by itself give us gommunism. They are like the Stalinists and Bookchinites: they have no understand of the genesis of the value form and combine this with a machinic materialist view, leading them to believe that such a configuration, with State private property or cooperative private property, will lead to the abolition of scarcity and thereby bring us post-capital.

The notion is hilarious, and frequently the arguments of prior examples of it failing will be entirely in the superstructural domain, as a priori problems: they weren't democratic enough, there were revisionists in charge, they didn't understand ecology enough, and so forth. They utterly ignore the fact that workers themselves already veered towards not establishing an ethically socialized capital, but rejected this altogether and started hammering at the commodiy relation itself. In other words, they fall under what Marx in the manifesto and Poverty of Philosophy called petit-bourgeois socialists: people who have a vulgar, machinic materialism and exist to entirely unconsciously of it perpetuate capital ethically (and will, by the forces of this unchecked capital, never even manage to establish an ethical capital in the first place or keep its shoddy levels of ethical even remotely constant!).

The sweetest are always the crypto-agorists, who don't know they are, who will try to utilize Marx and actual anarchists' theory to support their self-chaining. Most hilariously, Marx was the first to realize that the agrarian revolution itself already triggered the communist movement to exist, by establishing the generalization of commodity production through universal socialization of labour along private property lines. But even better, Marx has gone on record several times in his texts and, most verbally in many letters, to literally say that the mode of production could already in later stages of the feudalist mode be established by exterminating the State's ontologies: private property, capital, wage-labour and value. An example can be found here: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htm.

his fantasy where communism happens overnight.

USSR, China, Yugoslavia, all of it.


Competition means some co-ops go down for not keeping up with technological developments. Read "Value, price and profit", where Marx explains how textile workers suddenly have to work double hours because other companies can produce unde the SNLT. Hell, just read anything by Marx, yugofags are fucking pathetic when it comes to reading. What do you read? Guessing by your market fetishism and insisting that the only alternative to markets are stalinism, I'd guess you've been reading Hayek or Mises.
Commodities appear out of thin air now?


Factories are heavily mechanized so they require less labor to run. Despite all the outsourcing, "first world" countries still have an impressive industrial output.


The workers are shareholders. A co-op that produces under the SNLT and can thus buy up those that produce above it has a way stronger bargaining position. They won't just nicely add some workers to their company, they'll pay them less.

So why bother with market socialism at all? And why did Yugoslavia go from socialized capitalism to regular capitalism?


nice post, co-op fags BTFO

For your first point, if the means of production are not yet socialized by the law of value, you must then socialize them by force. USSR and China both attempted this to disastrous results, and doing so also requires a certain level of despotism that renders the dictatorship of the proletariat impossible.

One, they never had a dictatorship of the proletariat. Workers had control of industry, but not the state which acted alternatively fecklessly or despotically. The specific way in which workers had control and the high turnover rate ensured that it was in worker's interests for their firm to use debt to make new investments and simply dump all the profits into wages. Ultimately, the central state was on the hook for this debt. A similar situation is currently going on in China with the local/municipal governments.

Secondly, their place in the international capitalist system always ensured their destruction so long as workers did not take control globally. They were at once targeted by western imperialism, and their market socialism system and later on, the weak central government, meant that Yugoslavia could not enjoy the fruits of the international capitalist markets that came with a surplus of labor or stability, as countries like China later would.

Good. Technical advancement decreases labour time necessary to produce goods. It should be encouraged.
Yes you're right user. You've probably read a million books while I've read none, I'm so sorry for ever disagreeing with your solid opinions that are rendered invincible by the power of BOOKS
Yeah, and the alternatives to that are systems that don't work. ;)
No but factories are the least of our concern. The majority of the population in most western countries now works in the services sector.

its easier to abolish the value form after that


Would you vote for this? More likely to happen without worker ownership and on terms even less favourable


is better than "boss in factory x decide to withold wages" and is again, less likely to happen on unfavourable terms than the current situation.

The point is to give more power to the workers, its not the entire revolution, its the lower stage.

Once the means of production are in control of the workers, they are in a much better position to dispose of the market system all together, particularly is the idea is a union of co-ops also focused on providing community services to organise the proletariat around, with a focus on essential industries i.e housing or healthcare not just advocating people to make their own random co-op

Yeh maybe I'll read those books, become a Leninist, fight off imperialism but ultimate fail to create communism,

Or maybe i'll be a bog standard ancom, make a little patch of syndicalism or maybe arrange a few free exchange agreements, get farm yeilds up nonethelesss, but not fight imperialism and ultimately get crushed

Or perhaps I could be a leftcom, and advocate…. no real clear revolutionary strategy or any historical examples to back it up

Or, I could try a new strategy, that doesn't actually rely on


which is preached on and on here, and yet almost none of you would so do much as throw a rock at a cop, so the chance of an armed revolution are 0-non. Which means all your talk as if the proletariat is ever actually going to have the power to centralise production in one swoop is quite frankly a laughable idea.

The only way we are going to be able to succeed is by creating structures which can exist alongside/within capitalism that reverse the processes of atomization and alienation and go some way towards claiming back some power for the workers, in order that they may use it to get themselves more power.

How are you going to finance your revolution? Who is going to arm you? Who is even going to fight for you? How many people do you know that might think about opening a co-op with some friends? How many people do you know that might think about taking up arms against your government? How many of these people do you think would last a day in an armed struggle?

Don't these workers, by virtue of being workers at the now consolidated factory, also share in the ownership of the consolidated factory?
Co-op is not a one-time affair, every worker employed is always an owner.

Oh god I do love this nice hot steaming cup of leftcom pure ideology.

He at once complains about all the socialists calling foul about a lack of democracy but then goes on to exclaim

Well? Which is it!? If workers had authentic control, authentic power, then they would have already abolished the commodity relation!

You at once buy into the premise of this post, that consolidation somehow leads to capitalism, when Marx clearly outlined the exact opposite, and then you criticize the agorists for wanting the death of the unfair corporation and using self management to do so. Either the worker councils shut down this process, and prevent the socialization of labor, or they continue it, which is it? If they continue it, it will socialize labor in which case pave the way for socialization of property, if it doesn't then they've somehow broken the law of value and are no longer operating in capitalism. Obviously the first one must be the case.

But, let's take a moment here for a second to analyze exactly why labor hasn't been socialized to the degree marx expected. Certainly, if the law of value had its way, monopolies and oligopolies like the ones OP mentions would have completely taken over and wiped out much of the atomized producers. Well, guess what, we have laws preventing the creation of such monopolies which would socialize production. they were brought about precisely because capital is not the subject of history, because the workers fought against this and the state was forced to concede to them. Thus, in this case, the workers fought against the socialization of production and FOR private property. Why? Because from their perspective such monopolization could only benefit the capitalists, even if it made production itself more efficient. This is why worker ownership, worker democracy is so important. It is the only situation which makes the socialization of production go in the worker's favor.

>to literally say that the mode of production could already in later stages of the feudalist mode be established by exterminating the State's ontologies: private property, capital, wage-labour and value. An example can be found here: marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/reply.htm.
Except he literally says the exact opposite of that.

A more favorable chance for your argument is found in the first draft of that letter, but upon closer examination, we see what Marx really means by this.

Fucking poetry

Forgot link to the first draft
marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1881/zasulich/draft-1.htm

what indication was there that these states were transitioning to socialism that makes you claim a transition to socialism is somehow an absurd idea.

Poetry

I'm also not talking about reform or revolution, more like building structures so we might one day have a revolution, rather than expecting a global revolution to pop out of the ground, particularly when the ruling class want to do anything they can and will do everything they can to stop that. Yes I want a revolution, but no I don't think the means of production can be seized with violence in the west

Why aren't you supporting the Tsar utopian?

This assumes a laissez-faire market. Government regulation and oversight could easily remedy this hypothetical scenario.


Much of the creation and flow of money occurs in FIRE (finance, insurance, real estate) industries. Post-industrial means that the economy is no longer based primarily on productive industries.

Because it offers a stable, sustainable means of transitioning. Yugoslavia's economy was still directed heavily by the government, not a model most market socialists have advocated for.

Stupid Niggers Love Trannies

ITT people falling for the "mutualism is just capitalism with co-ops and like a welfare state" maymay. Jesus it's like trying to explain that socialism isn't everything the government does to ancaps. What part of reciprocity don't you understand?

Then with what will they be seized with? Capital isn't gonna abolish itself. If the capitalist revolutions could succeed (with violence) in the the strongholds of feudal society, then why can't they be seized with violence in our times?
And what is so special about the West, in particular

Mutualism is to market socialism as anarchism is to socialism

No, they will be seized by expanding the co-op network, which buys outright land and tools. Capitalism will literally sell us the rope with which to hang it.

Gee I dunno the billions of dollars pumped into their military and police forces? The relative comfort of their middle class?

ebin

Funny how an AnCom is telling us to read Marx when it was Marx himself who said that their ideology was flawed for the fact that you cannot actively abolish the state. It can only disintegrate when the material conditions necessary for it to survive no longer exist.

Well there was this massive US bombing campaign…

The shift to regular capitalism happened at least 10 years before the bombing (1989) so no.

He was the money bomb before the actual bombs

What kind of fucking mental gymnastics are this?

Whoops forgot muh Tito flair.

And when they don't work there anymore they cease to be shareholders.
I really don't get this.

Only as long as they are employed at that workplace. That is the strength of a Chartered Democratic Workplace, outside individuals can't extract wealth from the productive forces of the workplace.