How did /our guy/ Richard do in this new heated debate with Stuart Varney and his cronies on Fox Business?

This is apparent even just watching lectures if you watch enough. He avoids going too in depth on the complicated shit because it's confusing and not necessary for what he's trying to do. He will skirt around generalized commodity production and he frequently talks about problems with markets.

Coops are capitalism.

Come back to me with a quote where he realizes the real movement to abolish the present state of things has nothing to do with "self management" and "workers democracy."

okay
user,,,

Cooperatives are capitalist. We should be abolishing capitalism.

they give the workers more bargaining power when deciding their wages in the workplace. if this doesn't matter to you then I don't know what does.

In a co-op the workers own the means of production. How is that the same as some kike living in another continent owning it?

Are they though? Just because they're in the market doesn't make them capitalist.

I am impressed.

They aren't capitalist because they represent a fundamental change in labour relations and put an end to wage labour and exploitation. They aren't socialist either, but that doesn't make them worthless, Soviets and trade unions aren't socialist in and of themselves either, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't support them as a tool that can help build socialism.

Fucking christ, read Capital

"Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist."

"It is just as pious as it is stupid to wish that exchange value would not develop into capital, nor labour which produces exchange value into wage labour."

-Karl Marx

commodity production can't end overnight. and nowhere in Capitalism does it say "the workers shouldn't control how the business is run".

*nowhere in Kapital

Capital is a critique of capitalism, and by extension, a critique of co-ops.

-also Karl Marx

I repeat, nowhere in Kapital does it say "the workers shouldn't control how the business is run".
This is like taking the discussion of Labor Unions and responding with "lol labor unions? read kapital my dude".

How can there be wage labour when there are no wages? Wages are what is paid to workers after surplus value has been extracted, but under market socialism there is no extraction of surplus labour, only workers producing wealth and doing what they please with it. I agree that market "socialism" simply turns everybody into a capitalist, but how does this give rise to wage labour?

Just a few paragraphs before

Marx in that quote was referring to the notion that it is possible to abolish capitalism by any other means than also abolishing exchange value.

Except wage labour is a defining characteristic of capitalism, so while I agree that market socialism isn't really socialism, it can't really be called capitalism either, and I think that it could naturally progress towards true socialism.

If co-ops don't work then what do we actually do?

socialism is built from capitalism, production is already socialized under capitalism, socialization of ownership and ending the anarchy of production at large is the next step.

Transition to a planned economy before markets cause a capitalist class to re-emerge out of our submission to market forces.

Whoops, missed the "don't". Same answer, but faster. Co-ops shouldn't be used as a transitional phase anyway. They're fine pre-revolution as a way to demonstrate to workers some of the differences between capitalism and socialism, and to organize pre-revolution. Implementing co-ops for "lower phase" communism would not be the best idea, but that or any other attempt at transition should be as quick as possible to avoid backsliding to capitalism.

Capitalism, or rather, the market as a mechanism in of itself, automatically leads to a planned economy.

Only according to Marx, who didn't create socialism, isn't an omniscient god, and was quite frankly wrong on key points.

he follows this with
his problem with co-ops isn't that "hurr it's not socilism"

Back sliding is largely a problem created by a lack of global revolution or despotic systems of government that become more the asiatic mode of production than state capitalism (where control of the state is concerned).

Here's what Marx says directly about Cooperatives, I think there's more, let me see if I can find the other sections

Screencapped. I don't know why leftcoms have such a tendency to scream autistically about them. Do they constitute a socialist form of production? No, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing good about them.

hasn't this meme failed everytime It has been tried?

t. free market guy

yeah, that's why we use it when preparing for war and simultaneously ending unemployment . they're so goddamn ineffective.

Only because the planning was being done by alienated state bureaucracies instead of by workers.

price controls seems to be a better idea than what some bureocrats thinks I should be buying.

are you new or? we tend to advocate for democracy here.

Markets are inherently wasteful and bound for crisis, even with price controls. Planning is a great thing when it's done properly, the problem is that tankies form of planning is shit and always will be.

have you guys read sowell?
he explains very well why central planing is worse than markets.

is this bait? I can't even tell at this point

youtube.com/watch?v=FuTO2XUUlzs

Have you read Marx?
he explains very well why markets are worse then central planning

youtube.com/watch?v=FuTO2XUUlzs

m8, lolbert critiques of central planning are almost always contingent on a complete failing to understand or read Marx, usually by almost always conflating value with price. Watch the law of value vids on youtube, they're an easy introduction. youtube.com/watch?v=dGT-hygPqUM&list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

Good info, I'll reconsider my position.

This is based on the complete strawman that central planning can't be based on demand.
Democracy solves that. You demand a product, the production conforms to that.

Marx was talking about an idea that didn't existed when he was alive, meanwhile the critics had to saw the consequences in practice.

I could device something beatifull that will fail in practice.

You can't tell me to use XIX century economics as an answer to refute XXI century economics.

Look up venezuela for a more modern attempt.

fair point, but what's the diference between using the demand versus an average company using sell data to produce shit in capitalism?

surely I don't need to go through all of the problems with capitalism, do I?

Here is where Marx clearly describes how the law of value, created by capitalist markets, leads to socialization of production and central planning. This will happen whether it is coops or corporations, and is only prevented by, ironically enough, class warfare and market populism that forced more decentralization through regulation and anti-trust laws. Coop monopolies have the advantage of being more tolerable to the working class than corporate monopolies and thus are less likely to face similar resistance.

...

You have to actually understand his critique of capitalism before pretending to me that it's no longer applicable. For an example, how is alienation within production and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall no longer aspects of capitalism? How is the basic formula of M > C > M no longer applicable? Watch the videos and get back to me

Holy shit, I'm not even a planningfag and I have to call you out right there. Venezuela isn't socialist, the majority of their economy is privately owned. Plus they don't use central planning, they have a market to distribute resources.

Modern attempt at what? Socdem without the dem?

...

youtube.com/watch?v=VmA-_hsx3XE

who is this asshole?

Technically, they do constitute a form of socialist production. Production within firms in capitalism is socialized. As Engels says:

production of commodities. When it arose, it found ready-made, and made liberal use of, certain machinery for the production and exchange of commodities: merchants' capital, handicraft, wage-labor. Socialized production thus introducing itself as a new form of the production of commodities, it was a matter of course that under it the old forms of appropriation remained in full swing, and were applied to its products as well.

As Marx said in the last quote of that post

the only thing stopping coops from being full socialism is the anarchy of production. Thus cooperative production on a national scale with general planning would indeed be socialism/communism.

Holy shit. How will leftcoms ever recover?

Goooooooooooogle

What do you mean? Councilcoms have always argued for this. Bordigists, maybe not, but their critique was always that democracy is irrelevant, neither a positive nor a negative unless it forms the basis of a false consciousness (market socialism as the end goal instead of stopping the circulation of capital).

I mean leftcoms on here who always complain that cooperatives are somehow a bad thing, which are almost always bordigists though.

And this is also where we see the paranoia of the masses from the bordigsits. Market socialists or democratic socialists can very well bring into being a society that is still capitalist, but if workers have authentic control, they will have no choice but to eventually move past it, as it is not the consciousness of these socialists themselves that defines this system, but the system itself. The bordigist vision of the dictatorship of the proletariat is a state under the total control of a single "class party". We've seen how well that's turned out in the past. Democracy, if it is authentic control of the masses over society, can only lead to communism, in that sense, it is a distinct positive.

You would probably like Bookchin
and I say that as good thing

Oh my Christ, what a fucking dishonest cuck.

What's in the video? I don't like giving those people views.

It's your average skeptic YouTube video where they regularly interrupt the video to interject some lame defenses of the status-quo. This guy was particularly shameless and took out most of the bits where Professor Wolff actually made his arguments in order to make it seem like he didn't know what he was talking about.

Anyone listen to Economic Update this week? So glad to finally get Michael Hudson and him in a room together.

marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1866/08/instructions.htm#05

...

LMAO this is the shadiest shit I've ever seen, show everyone the whole quote why don't you and don't actively misconstrue what marx is saying.

>Restricted, however, to the dwarfish forms into which individual wages slaves can elaborate it by their private efforts, the co-operative system will never transform capitalist society. to convert social production into one large and harmonious system of free and co-operative labour, general social changes are wanted, changes of the general conditions of society, never to be realised save by the transfer of the organised forces of society, viz., the state power, from capitalists and landlords to the producers themselves.

As I've already shown in this thread, Marx was clearly advocated for not coops as isolated islands of production in the capitalist ocean, but the transformation of all current production into cooperatives and for these coops to regulate national production according to a common plan. The first step remains, however, the co-opertization of the economy, the socialization of property and control within the current system!

And by current system, here I simply mean the organizational units of production under capitalism.

Hell, the very next line says just this:

To Marx, co-ops were clearly a tactic to undermine the present economic system, and one that attacked its very groundwork.

...

you know he'd gulag the shit out of the host

What did the leftcom mean by this?

Bump

sorry for being a brainlet, but can someone explain how this means Engels was saying that co-ops in capitalism is socialism?

COMRADE AS FUCK

leftcoms strike me as counter-revolutionaries from time to time tbh

He's not, no one is. What he's saying is that the mode of production under capitalism is socialized and this conflicts with private ownership. Co-ops socialize ownership. If an entire economy is cooperatized, and there is planning between them, there is a socialist economy.

Here's another good marx quote about coops