>tfw even Bookshit understood that co-ops and "market socialism" are just red sticker capitalism


Other urls found in this thread:


delete this thread quick before the black flag poster get in here and this turns itno another 2 month long argument




Let him sperg out, it's great. I remember a month or two back I literally just copy and pasted random shit from a completely unrelated thread and with the 10 seconds of effort that cost me he burned up dozens of minutes of his life responding to my posts in minute detail. It's basically legal bullying of autistic kids.

call it however you want but god I wish I worked for a co-op instead of the private thing I work for rn.

You really don't: libcom.org/library/myth-mondragon-cooperatives-politics-working-class-life-basque-town.


you can believe both of these things at the same time. Wolff even stresses this himself.

Truly Reddit tier shit op.

Yeah, great for workers, as Reagan reminds us, which (engendering proletarianisation) is totally what communism seeks:

thats not even a responce to what he says. Surely you admit working is a co-op is better than working in a private company even if they aren't socialist.

No, I don't. I linked to a text before that shows what the most idealised co-operative ever actually looks like under all the rhetoric and rambling by two-bit academics and college kiddos who've yet to actually work in one (or ever really find the necessity to), and reminded you that "co-operative vs. private" is a false dichotomy, which any proper socialist with a materialist understanding of capitalism should know.

You would admit they do pay higher wages however

Perhaps. But this all comes at the cost of spending hours upon hours negotiating this and all other manners part-owners are essentially forced to, which translates to a lot of unpaid labour and, most importantly, time spent on a job, a task traditionally relegated to but a few select owners or at best the manager employees.

People need to realize that just because something in and of itself isn’t socialism doesn’t mean it isn’t a good thing. Anything that empowers the workers is good, and you can’t sit there with a straight face and tell me that marksoc (which isn’t socialism to be fair) doesn’t provide workers with more power than traditional capitalism.

Agreed. I also just see arguing for coops as a good way of getting people to think. I don't necessarily wholeheartedly support them, nor do I think they are any real solution, but they at the very least get the average worker thinking about the structure and organization of the workplace. A huge step in the direction of class consciousness, IMO


Market socialism predates Marx, and is indeed socialism, and no matter how much you kick and scream will change that, socialism isn't defined by planned economy, especially since capitalist planned economies have existed before and are becoming more of a thing in modern capitalism by the day. Modern economics are becoming more "mixed" as time goes on, by a combination of government regulation, markets, and planned economics.
Its just a matter of scale, market socialism is usually more on the market side than on planned but some like Oskar Lange's is more planned, its not just fucking co-ops but an entire economic system. Market fundamentalism and anti-market fundamentalism is dead in modern economics, as time passes the dogmatist slowly being left behind.

if we are going to throw any idea that words have meaning out the window, you can't say that hitler or bernie wasn't socialist either as they both called themselves that.
So basically "anti-capitalism and total capitalism are dead in le modern progressive movement! we need a mixture of socialism and capitalism!"

support bernie sanders tier.
yeah because if you force people to exploit themselves thats a ton better than being exploited by someone else!

expecting capitalism to disappear on its own is even more utopian than co-ops.

bad news for all you lovers of pants out there, most of history's greatest monsters wore pants on a near-daily basis.

markets =! capitalism


What is this a critique of? Bookchin? over a dozen US military bases in Syria? Who?

Using Ricardian/Sraffian analysis doesn't imply having a market-socialist position.

What examples is he talking about here?

Its just funny to me he leaves the other thread then thinks he can simply make a new one instead of facing me like a man there.

ahaahhaa you are actually ridiculous, as was already discussed in the other thread, this link is a link to the blurb of a book, and you couldn't even quote anything from it, I highly doubt you've even read it. Which is funny being that are so obviously from reddit ironic innit bruv. Meanwhile, in most actually existing co-ops, the vast majority, pay is higher and conditions are better. All the evidence backs this up, and your blurb of a book means fuck all.

and on top of that as
says it doesn't answer the question.

oh yes and i suppose you can quote from that text, which you have onbviously read and isn't just the blurb of some book you quickly googled.

LMAO then he admits it
says who? your blurb?

he talks of being autistic and yet continually DOES argue for corporations over co-operatives

im proud someone was so ass hurt they made a meme all about me

by the same coin i suppose you are also claiming that China, the USSR, Cuba, etc was not socialism, because socialism to you is some dreaming concept rather than a peoples movement based on the actual conditions they live in at the time and responding to them. For all the talk of the real movement you have an extremely rigid definition of how exactly it should be.

This thread is fucking gold to me, for any body who wants to see all of these pathetic ideas beat out over 200+posts, in minute detail, come to the real thread this fag bitched out of


Here's why I don't think co-ops are that great of an organizational tactic.
Co-ops have 1 benefit over private corparations which is higher wages. These higher wages are at the cost of fast growth, but co-ops can grow sustainably. As for the whole "mutual aid" stuff, I see no reason why a private corparation that exists to create profit (and can pay higher wages if it makes more profit) would donate much of anything to the community. If you give most workers a choice for higher wages and more profit (which they do want, why else would they not invest in tech instead of paying themselves more) or giving stuff away I'm pretty sure the workers would choose a higher wage for themselves especially if the basic services like sanitation are allready provided by the goverment. Plus if workers are so Keen to give away wages (or potential wages in the case of profits) why don't richer workers in more white collar areas give away some of there personal money to build the community allready? Co-ops are like the minimum wage, basically reformism. They give the workers a little bit more money but do not change much about the fundemental structure of capitalism. Like Oscar Wilde said "Just as the worst slave-owners were those who were kind to their slaves, and so prevented the horror of the system being realised by those who suffered from it". Co-ops would make workers less revolutionary by making the basic structure of capitalism a little more barable. For any revolutionary movemeny we can't just settle with that we have to uproot the basics of our economic system not just give workers opiate so its not as bad.

Generalized markets = capitalism.
In no other system has that happened.

Its sad how idealistic kiddies dismiss the only socialist economy that works.

Its sad how capitalists think that markets work.

that's why Yugoslavia is such a prosperous nation today, right?


Its nationalism that killed yugoslavia not its economy.



Hi, Holla Forums.


You and every other illiterate retard who believes that you can just throw around "material conditions" as an excuse to ignore individuals and their activities are the ones who need to read, not me.

He doesn't even say that. In the text you quoted, his position is a lot more nuanced - he doesn't just wholesale condemn it all as "red sticker capitalism."

Are you saying you don't think Saddam Hussein died because he was shit at economics?

Lol have you even seen a book?!

So the collapse of Yugoslavia and the rise of nationalism was just random action and had nothing what so ever to do with the economic situation and material conditions of the time and place?

RIP in pepperonis Dialectical Materialism?

Didn't yugoslavia collapse partially because of the Soviet Union being dissolved leaving them as the last "socialist" place alive (since post-Dengist China was not socialist in the slightest)

who is this black flag poster and why does he make these massive responses

Partly. But mostly because Tito died.

A lot of loyalty for a shitposter that does it for free.

or perhaps he's wondering why someone would argue with a man for 2 whole months

some nerd that came to Holla Forums like 6 months ago, probably from reddit, and he has a massive coopboner and autism that makes him make these massive posts nobody reads. he feels like the type of person that thinks that as long as they're the last one with the reply or the most autism to keep posting the sheer effort in making the posts, no matter how bad and dense, are what yiels victory in a debate (you can really tell he cares about "winning" on his own terms this way). in this way he's like your average fedora/internet 'skeptic' except without a list of fallacies on wikipedia by hand. he got banned a few times for going further than he usually does too.

The system there also relied on Tito himself to reproduce, when it couldn't reproduce because Tito died, well…

shut the fuck up






they may have been more resistant to the fall if they hadn't taken all that IMF loans out


Fucking lel

Don’t attack Wolff. He might be a market socialist, but he is the only person who has the capability to radicalize most americas.

Is nobody going to answer me?
This is am important point in Bookchin's critique so I'm surprised it's not being discussed.

Karl Marx himself admitted that capitalism was needed before communism to generate wealth to a high enough level before communism could spread it.

The same way Germans got radicalised?

Get real. His fairy tales are all based on the idea that Capitalism is fixable. Wolffists will resist Communist propaganda, Wolffists will resist Communist reforms, and should Communist revolution happen, Wolffists will support Liberals (i.e. Capitalists).

Any radicalisation Wolff will be part of, will be based on respect towards private property. I.e. if any Wolffists will take to the streets and partake in violence, it will be Communists they will be killing.

M8 is this a joke

have you ever read a single thing Wolff wrote or watched a single lecture he's done.

Yeah and he thought Germany in his time was ready for a revolution. Everywhere butthe most backwards parts of the world is industrialized. The time for capitalism to generate wealth is finished.

His underconsumption theory implys that if you just paid workers enough to by the products they were making then we could have nice crisisless capitalism. He's a socdem at best.

You are a joke. I can replace Germans with Italians, but you would still find a way to sperg out.

Yes. Even made rar-ed jpeg with his book.

he's also argued that this won't happen because the bourgeoisie will always look to increase exploitation and squeeze more surplus value out of workers.
One of the arguments he's repeatedly made is that capitalism can never escape crisis because workers wages are constantly being driven down and they can no longer buy things. He's probably said this in almost every global capitalism update.

Doesn't matter. It logically follows that if strong enough regulations were put in place or capitalists were nice enough crisis could be averted without destroying capitalism. In Marx's crisis theory the only way to avvert a falling rate of profit crisis is to destroy capital.

Why are you comparing Wolff supporters to fascists at all?

Then why doesn't he advocate for this?

once again Wolff believes that crisis cannot be averted under capitalism and that capitalists are prevented by their economic interests from being "nice" to the workers. It doesn't matter if you think this is what logically follows when Wolff believes the exact opposite and has argued as such.

It doesn't matter what he believes. The underconsumptionist theory is a keynesian one and a crisis could feasibly be averted with a universal basic income or proggressive taxation.

So you're arguing that he should advocate capitalism?

He does, just under a thin Marxist coat of paint.

I'm not sure whether Keynes actually thought that low demand is what gets you into a recession, and not just that propping up demand could help with getting out of one.
I don't think Keynes ever proposed that. The first proposals of UBI and negative income tax did not come from Keynes followers, nor do I see much support from that group today.

Your right, its not Keynesian its social democrat economics. The point is its not Marxian.


Because they are comparable. Fascism did not develop out of fervent belief that rich should get all the money - or something about state/race. The movements it hijacked were semi-Socialist, and Fascism constantly tried to pretend that it is anti-Capitalist in some way. Nazies literally called themselves "National Socialist German Worker Party", referred to each other as "comrades" and had marches - that were mimicking Socialist marches.

The whole idea of Fascism was about being a "civilized", "improved" alternative to old Socialism - by removing the actual core of Socialism. And this is exactly what Wolff is about.

He does not. He is a fraud that constantly lies (which is not limited to terminology). When he uses the same words as Communists, those words have a completely different meaning. His "Socialism" is co-ops: workers of each separate co-op decide what they do by themselves, separately. His "Capitalism" is about having a boss.

Wolff actually is anti-capitalist and I don't see fascists arguing for workers self management.
showing your ignorance here. Nowhere in his more serious writing does Wolff state that co-ops are the end goal of socialism. That's just what he focuses on in his videos because its easily digestible for Americans.

No, he is not. I already explained this bit.

But Wolff is not arguing for real self-management. You need to have Central Planning to abolish the tyranny of market economy, and he does not argue for this. His words suggest the opposite: each co-op decides for himself. I.e. private property is the basis of his "Socialism".

And what did you read?

Class Theory and History: Capitalism and Communism in the USSR
> our focus on the multiple class structures that interacted across Soviet history enables us to extract and construct an argument not found in the available literature. That argument develops two especially controversial points: (1) that a particular kind of capitalist class structure comprised the actual class content of Soviet “socialism,” and (2) that communism occurred only in very limited, subordinated realms of the Soviet economy and took the form of a communist kind of class structure.

> Many of those organized into collective farms began to appropriate and distribute collectively the surpluses they likewise produced as a collective. Thus, a form of the communist class structure made its first and only mass appearance in the Soviet Union. It occurred in agriculture, not industry, and in the 1930s, not during the revolutionary decade after 1917.

He literally calls Soviet kolkhozs Communist. And kolkhozs were co-ops, if you aren't aware.

I need some big proofs for all of these pal.

< I'd like to waste some of your time
Read the goddamn thread and make some arguments.

ShopRite pays minimum wage in NJ and PA.

all you did was assert that Wolff isn't really anti-capitalist because you interpreted him as pro-capitalist.
Once again, Wolff does not believe that co-ops are an end-goal, merely a way to emporwer workers today and transition away from capitalism in the future.
You're well aware that book uses odd terminology, right? the point isn't that Kolkhozs were full communist but that they were only portion of the economy to operate under worker self-management (which isn't the same as full communism)

< keeping private property does not make one pro-Capitalist
Do you ever read what you post?

Please, stop asserting things and start providing quotes. I already did provide mine.

You are literally arguing against me pointing out that Wolff's terminology has nothing to do with Marxism. Do you admit that I am correct?

What the actual fuck. Kolkhozs were one of the most backward parts of Soviet economy (the other were industrial co-ops, of which Wolff is apparently not aware of).

Private property is not "worker self-management".

lel the kolkhoz were the most capitalist part of the USSR

yeah i went to work at a agricultural cooperative (mostly grape selling and riping), and i also just get barely above minimum wage for the 45 hr work weeks. and i'm from a region that had such coops for basically almost 2 centuries, and i work at one of the best known ones in the region, very wealthy, yet barely nobody gains in free, good quality free time from it more than any other business type in the sector.

i worked there for three years until i decided it was enough and now i just live in a camper van i bought from the internet part-timing 20 hrs at a regular business manufacturing bedwear (stuffing pillows, sewing duvets, etc.), getting along just fine and with much more free time, less stress and wear.

Is this what you call a fresh meme?