Consumer co-operatives

knowing reagan he probably meant employers get to literally own their employees
co-ops are still shit though

Consumers are overwhelmingly workers so I've never really understood why people try to make a distinction between the two. Unlike that of labor and capital, the interests of workers and consumers are generally not diametrically opposed.

...

Well over 95% of society are workers, so, yeah, I think I can make a pretty fair assumption that most consumers are workers you thick fuck.

Oh my bad. I misread "workers" as "wonkers" for some reason and were shitting on consumer advocacy. I am an actual moron.

My bad, comrade. I get defensive easily.

Marx and Engels clarified on many occasions that the MODE OF PRODUCTION under capitalism was socialized production on the small scale and constantly moving towards socialized production on the large scale, all of which constantly came into conflict with private ownership and the anarchy of production.

Here's what Marx actually said about cooperatives:

As for data of cooperatives more generally: uk.coop/sites/default/files/uploads/attachments/worker_co-op_report.pdf

No fuck you lalalalalalala

He's saying that co-ops are a proof of concept not that they're full communism. For fuck's sake you quoted this bit at the end. This is the same point you're supposedly arguing against. The only people who think co-ops are bad are retards. Most of us just want you to realize they're not the end goal like thinks.

It's really retarded to me when people go against co-ops, they are likely 10% tankies trying to revive their dead ideology and 90% leftcoms who want "spontaneity".

Like yeah, I get it. Commodity Production + Coops isn't Communism. But it would be much fucking easier to transform into a classless market economy and then go to full communism (going into production for use-value instead of exchange). Waiting for everything to happen at once is fucking retarded and makes no logical sense. Fuck leftcoms.

Actually I think it's the degradation of the concept over time. People would post Wolff and talk about co-ops and some leftcoms would remind us that this isn't full communism. Then some newfags see that and all they learn is "co-ops aren't communism and it's important to tell people." I imagine most "fuck co-ops :DD" people are in this camp and still haven't lurked enough to really understand what they're saying.

And I never said that they were full communism either. They are, however, certainly socialism on a small scale, both in production and in property, all that is missing is the coordination and planning. I was mostly replying to that original poster, who was saying that the primary problem with coops was their method of production, that is clearly not a marxist position. Clearly, they are not the end goal. But, and Marx shows this very clearly in his detailed analysis of capitalism, it doesn't really matter whether the market socialists, or the cooperative movement just want coops as an end goal. The logic of capital and the market naturally lead to consolidation, to vertical integration, and to planning. In order to prevent that, as has happened in the past, they would have to use the state to actively undo the consequences of the law of value, through regulation and anti-trust laws for example. Certainly, with the capitalist class eliminated, and such monopolies and their greater efficiency now benefiting the public, this would be an easy scenario to escape.

To be clear, Marx's only objection to coops was that they did not end the anarchy of production, this is a very easily solvable problem compared to achieving a dictatorship of the proletariat. His objection was not, as some have implied, that coops as a method of production are not socialist.

this.

That's partly true, but this has also been a leftcom talking point for a long time, a very stupid one imo.

Fug, I need to stop using the word clearly so much

it's okay user, it was still a good post

This is a semantic argument honestly. If we mean socialist in the sense of a socialist economy, then no co-ops are not socialist because they are still subject to the distribution system of capitalism. If we mean socialist in the sense of a real movement that will abolish the present state of things then yeah co-ops are socialist probably.

Well you were trying to be as clear and possible and it clearly shows.

When I was saying socialist there, I did not mean either of those definitions. I mean that internally, they are "socialized" they operate according to the logic of socialism. Here's a passage from Socialism: Utopian and Scientific that utilizes the definition I am using. Pic related.

I think consumer co-ops are a more niche idea than producing co-ops for a good reason. Consumption is a more individualistic affair than production. Also, doesn't organizing in a consumer co-op mean you will mingle with your class enemy?

That was funny you definitely get a (you) for that. It's not exactly socialism obviously but it's definitely a serious step in the right direction and there's a tremendous amount of irony in a bunch of republican douche canoes applauding their lord and savior Ronnie "Ruin Every Facet of American Society Seriously What Did This Guy Not Fuck Up?" Reagan (pbuh) after saying that.