What do the members of leftypol think about Left-wing market socialism...

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_economy

For the love of God, cooperatives are still private enterprise. Just because you collectivized ownership it doesn't mean you abolished it.

Yeah, sure. I have to buy everything with money, but I have no wage (i.e. I don't have to sell anything for money).

...

just drop that flag already

But you see, in our UNIQUE market system you don't get money from wages but from the market. It's markets. Markets fix everything. Even logical impossibilities.

We've been over this. You can trade your personal property which is different from extracting rent for private property

But the means of production are still privately (albeit in coops) owned.

...

Communism isn't the only leftist ideology.

Communism is the only total negation of capitalism. You can't expect me to think of you as a comrade if you want to keep aspects of capitalism.

Define private property by your own definition.

(not that I think this is possible, imo you revert back to capitalism as we are used to it in any kind of market model)

Wages do come from the market.

Yeah, sure…

I actually am a communist. Communism is the purest but it's not the only leftist ideology. Bakunin, for example, was leftist.
Even the Anarchist faq (who is mostly composed of communist anarchists) disagrees with you. infoshop.org/AnarchistFAQSectionG

is when bobby say 'no' to jony when jony want a piece of the means

Why do you think I accept the anarchist FAQ as a respectable source of knowledge or opinions? Don't you feel the irony in posting a "radicalism for dummies" and questioning others based on it?

Markets existed long before capitalism and they will exist after it too.

...

...

Well this might shock you, but as a communist I aim at ensuring that doesn't happen. And this brings us back to the question of comradery.

Indeed.

that fucking flag is becoming the "Dunning–Kruger" flag

This sectarianism is the poison of leftism.

fascinating

Explain yourself comrade.

Thats personal property.
Private property is a liberal institution that guarantees protection towards the property used to establish a business to participate in the market. The state protects your private property from theft, without the state there can be no private property. (Maybe only if you establish a NAP zone by hiring a PMC like anarcho-capitalists do)

Market Socialism is socialism in the sense that the workers own the means of production, the maybe questionable non socialist part is that they base their destribution on markets instead of central planning or syndicalist style economic organisation.

Do you consider it to be capitalist as markets alienate other workers of resources that they desire but cant afford to pay. Pretty mutch not fulfilling the to each according to his needs part in the communist slogan of From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs?

Are you from fucking reddit?

When was that said?

dropped

Kapitalism 101 time

...

...

...

...

...

...

>>>Holla Forums

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

[/]

I don't understand. Why do you meme arrow the posting time?

Haha couldn't you have just provided a link for download?

Sure: reddit.com

Isn't a desire different from a need? Do you reckon that there could exist a hybrid socialist society?

Desire and need are diffrint yeah, Need is something that you need to have to be able to function (be able to exist or exist in society). A need serves your material interest (Need for food/water or housing) If Market socialism deprives others of their basic needs then you could consider it non-socialist but not capitalist in a way of saying its the Big other!

Thats a broad therm so i dont know.

It's the best of both worlds. Freedom in production and freedom in distribution.

But user, markets are oppressive and hurt my fee-fee :^(

Are you an actual mutualist? If so, how are you treated by other anarchists?

Oh, look at those happy mutualists stroking eachother's beards.

Many of the main problems with capitalism are caused by the market (anarchy of producution, inefficiency, alienation, crises, etc)

Also pdf related makes a good point on why markets can't work properly without private property. See the last chapter.

production*

They'll just reply back to you that it's "not THEIR kind of market."

I'm having a hard time differentiating these fags from "an"caps

…enormous waste, commodity fetishism, inequality……..

Ehh, they were first… They're not even close to "an"-caps.

No different from other kind of anarchist I guess, probably because I'm not a sectarian.

explain shit like this then:

it's literally the same logic:

"an"cap: it's not the GOOD KIND of capitalism!
mark."soc".: it's not the GOOD KIND of market!

Don't forget unemployment

As a libsoc would say that Lenin or Stalin's regime was not the good type of socialism. What's your point?

my god these people are fucking blind, I tell you

:( y u so mean?

that both of those are inherently shit, you genius, and that it is due to the ideological pressure of the current system that people can consider any of those good, desirable, or even tolerable

your parallel with socialism doesn't stand if you think socialism is desirable, you fool

BECAUSE IT'S RIGHT IN THEIR FACES
REEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAD YOU FUCKERS
AND THINK BEFORE YOU REPLY

maybe they can't read because you are pushing them too hard into the fucking cake, "genius"

but we don't have the time, ffs

Plenty of socialists wouldn't advocate for the erection of an authoritarian regime policing people's lives and holding the means of production. Socialism alone doesn't denote goodness. It isn't that simple. Ideological pressures pushing individuals or groups towards the thought that "anarcho" capitalism (which should really just be called anti-state capitalism) may very well exist. But does that substantially hold plausible or true for mutualism? The erraticness and hardships of today's times leads to people looking elsewhere, and this of course includes communism.

I believe so, yes. There's no rational justification for wanting a market, imo. And even worse, one more similarity with ancaps: that it would most likely collapse and regress back to the status quo ante.

Well perhaps today's more or less fetishization of markets does lead to people being more accepting towards mutualism, but this is what should be utilized in order to attract liberals (market adovcators) to the left. Mutualists are actually leftists and thus comrades unlike the Bernie bros. It's also much more preferable to today's system.

Thank you based user. Polite sage

The only real differences between "left wing market anarchists" and ancaps, is that the lefty version wants co-ops and somehow thinks they'll be able to enforce their property rights without protection rackets. Maybe they'll just nicely ask us commies not to expropriate their shit.

Private property over production just means the use of a MoP has been monopolized by one part of society to be used against another. Markets inherently retain all that and wage-labor, which is the distinguishing feature of capitalism. What is socialistic in this? Nothing. Proudhonianism is nothing more than petty reformism. It's good that some here reject this right-wing nonsense and the sooner the rest of this board does the better.

The founder of modern anarchism was not a right-winger and market anarchism still is radical. Although they do stress evolution more than revolution, they're still to the left. It's stupid to call whatever isn't completely communist, "right-wing". I'm sure you would say the same thing about anarchist collectivism.

Best system.

Also easier to sell to norms bcuz markets and democracy. Its easy to sell democracy to liberals and its easy to sell markets to conservashits.

You will bamboozle them when you first tell them you are a communist
but that you also believe in markets because normies have a boner for commerce. They can still trade their little things and muh iphones and whatnot. You explain this to them.

Then you hit them with the abolition of private property

I might add, I see this system as a good transitional stage, I do not see it as the completed commune. For the above reasons I think it would be a good path to attempt to take liberal democracy.

I'm starting to understand why leftcom poster is such a bitch.

I agree. It's a very good tool for convincing the market worshipers to move to the left and this time, without get fucked by porky.

What do you mean?

The only reason market "socialism" should ever exist is as part of an incrementalist approach to actual socialism, and even then it will probably exist as a part of a "mixed" socialist economy.

Well market socialism IS socialism but yes, the conclusion of all socialist ideologies is communism. If something is lacking though, a sort of socialist market could be appropriated though.

I'm okay with it as a sort of transitional thing, as the masses are more likely to accept a world full of co-ops than full communism, but it should still be seen as nothing more than that. It's socialism, but a very flawed form of it. Proudhon's critique of capitalism was 1000x better than what he wanted to replace it with. "uh..we'll set up mutual banks, and capitalism will just wither away :''')".

Also all the keks to the posters who think any market system is inherently capitalist. Markets have been around for over a millenia; capitalism is a very recent blip in the history of our species.

Yup. Capitalism to them just means whatever reminds them of capitalism which would include markets. Most anarchists are social anarchists so this sort of sectarianism is expected but should not be encouraged. Market anarchists ARE comrades. If Proudhon was a capitalist than shit!!! I guess "anarcho" capitalists really are capitalists and are just taking back anarchism's original "capitalist" components and us social anarchists are truly those who stole it from the right. This is ridiculous.

I meant to say that if Proudhon was a capitalist in his mutualism, than "anarcho" capitalists really are *anarchists.* But of course this is bullshit

I meant to say that if Proudhon was a capitalist in his mutualism, than "anarcho" capitalists really are the real *anarchists.* But of course this is bullshit

What's to stop these worker owned co-ops from using cheap fossil fuels to save money instead of clean energy? A revolution has to be conscious of the environment, or it's doomed to fail.

Not really, no. Markets carry a lot of the problems inherent to capitalism. For one, exploitation of the workers shifts from the bourgeoisie to the cooperative; workers will still have their surplus labor taken so that the cooperative may grow and remain competitive.
Socialism isn't just worker's control of the means of production, though it certainly requires it: it's also about getting rid of the value form. After all, what's the point of getting rid of capitalism if all its problems are just going to follow us?

But mutual credit banks WILL whither away capitalism.

If you set up a bank and stipulated that you would charge no interest on the condition that said loan would be to create a democratic business cooperative, there really is no reason people would not take you up on the offer.

Get some free money to start a business with your friends, pay it back when you have a business.

As I see it, the 'vanguard' in this sense would just have to be people willing to start their own co-operatives and pay into a fund for starting such co-operatives. They would basically have to shoulder the initial investment with their own cash instead of risking their lives gunning down porky

Nothing really, but if you were part of co-op, what would you vote for?

Or if you were part of a community of co-ops, what kind of energy grid would you vote for?

If you take the accumulated wealth out of the hands of single capitalist oil barons, you loose the lobby which crushes the renewable market.

Renewables should be cheaper than fossil fuels, they require less resources, the only thing that makes them more expensive the flaws in capitalism

That's true, markets have been around for a long time, but the markets we have today are much different than the ones of old.
Markets in capitalism are fiercely competitive, but back during the feudal era, the factors of production weren't seen as commodities, and thus weren't available on the market- land was owned by feudal lords and would almost never be sold, labor was also owned by the lords in the form of their subjects. Capital, the means of production, were often made for use rather than exchanged. Thus, the market was made up mostly of luxury goods, which made up an incredibly small part of production.
Even when merchants sold off these (mostly) luxury goods, competition was often avoided, as it was thought to be bad for trade.

Remember that markets, like all things, are dialectical, and as such they will change to meet current material conditions. It's silly to think that the markets of 1200s England would resemble modern markets in any way.

If I was a normal person? Which ever would make me the most money, of course.

They may not be as socialist as us but they are socialists. Again, if Proudhon was a capitalist, this really fucks up the social anarchists' credibility. This is not to say that he a non-capitalist for this reason but that's to be kept in mind. They are considered by many known social anarchists to be part of the broader, more liberal socialist movement. The anarchist faq even argues this.

I'm not saying Proudhon is a capitalist or that mutualism is capitalism, I just don't want comrades to think that market socialism is "easy mode" for ending capitalism.

Oh I agree. Revolution is necessary but I also think that the evolution market socialists promote could come in handy as well. Markets could possibly have a place in a socialist society but not just any type of market. Are you well read on the works by individualist anarchists comrade?

Couldn't markets exist solely for desires and luxuries whereas needs are to be handled in a communist fashion?

If you're already able to "handle needs in a communist fashion", then you've already long surpassed the needs for a market. At that point, a market would be an inconvenience.

In a hypothetical anarchist society there would still be government, just one that's organised horizontally instead of vertically. So {theoretically} there would be laws and regulations to protect the environment, but with market socialism we do run the risk of wealthier co-ops buying out votes so they can skirt around doing just that…

Could you elaborate on this? From what I understand all the money made in a co-op is divided up equally among the members, so it's not the same as a capitalist selling a product more than it cost to make and becoming richer than the worker who created it.

Do market socialists/anarchists believe in UBI/free healthcare, food, etc. to everyone?

Because if not, I don't see why it would be in any way preferable to a socialist society unless it was a socialist society in crisis. But I could see it making sense before post-scarcity to manage peoples' access to non-essential luxury items.

Sure. As it stands, what you say here-
-is incorrect. Remember that the capitalist does not exploit simply to fill his pockets, he also must do it to pay for maintenance for his capital and also to grow and thus remain competitive on the market. As such, cooperative will have to do the same.

If the members of the cooperative to not self exploit, i.e. take surplus labor way from themselves, then no money will go into the business. They won't be able to maintain their workplace and capital, nor will they grow and remain competitive, and thus they will be unable to stay in business and accumulate wealth.

You must keep in mind, though, that this governance would also be voluntary. Freedom of association is an important part of anarchism.

Ah okay, that's what I thought you meant, just wanted to make sure.

From what I understand though, social anarchists aren't pure voluntarists: after all force/threat of force is necessary to ensure private property and capitalism don't return.

I need to read more into anarchism tbh, but if they do want governence on a purely voluntary basis, then I would seriously question how that society could be run efficiently and whether I can consider them comrades in the long-term.

That's a pretty good point I didn't consider. We'll need an anarcho-comrade to weigh in on this, I don't know as much about anarchism as I should.

Anarchists want "police that is not police" and "army that is not army".
Couse if you call it "militia" it sundently become something else.

And yet, for over a millenia, 99.99% of people didn't find their subsistance on the market, nor did they work for the sole purpose of producing goods they could exchange on a market (commodities).
It's only when this happened, i.e. when the whole production system became based on markets, that we had capitalism.

So what? If they're wrong, they're wrong, and that needs to be said. Or is their credibility more important than the revolution?

Exactly!

As was stated, that doesn't change anything and it was just a point aside the main point. Market socialists are socialists either way. If you think it's flawed and won't work, that's fine. I think it has issues as well. The preparation for the revolution is more important.

The question remains: revolution for what ends? You can't just disregard this for sake of unprincipled unity.

Revolution for the emancipation of all people. For a freer society. The unity is based on the concept of socialism. I (as you probably do to) prefer non-market socialism and more specifically, communism.

A concept on which obviously we don't agree. If I think market "socialism" is not socialism, how could I unite with people who advocate it without putting the revolution itself in jeopardy?

Don't worry, the market will fix it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-wing_market_anarchism
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism
It is socialism. It may be too close to liberal for you, but that's something else. I agree. We can't have it all. Us social anarchists outnumber them and are probably more willing to take action. Compromises must be made or a real effort for change will be too sloppy. It's worth noting that many libsocs see authoritarian socialist tendencies in a similar way you see market socialists as not "real" socialists. I know many who wouldn't even associate themselves with them with any efforts in agitation etc. As shown through history, you know the authoritarian communists have persecuted other leftists as "not legitimate" (anarchists) whenever they saw it as suitable. At least individualists probably wouldn't do shit like that since they stress evolution and wouldn't be able to since they don't have the numbers. They're useful in bringing people to the left and its for people not to see that while they get all excited about Bernie's truly non socialist campaign.

democratising the means of production is the destruction of private property.

No we won't ask, you try to expropriate my co-op and I will cap your centralizing, homogenizing, Tsar Nicholas with a red flag autist-leninist ass

Co-operatives exclude those that aren't members and such such merely transform one form of private property to another.

So you faggots in your shitty little co-op are gonna fight off a proletarian state? Remind me how that worked out last time cunt.

But they can't sell or alienate the property, and that's where the key difference lies. Under capitalism you can exclude people from the house you're renting from the landlord, but that doesn't make it your private property. Even under full communism you would be able to exclude people from your dwelling place ffs.

[jesus christ at misuse of "alienate", but nvm, I'll role with it]

IT IS ALREADY """"ALIENATED""""
read again:

I'm using alienate in the legal sense as in dividing off a piece of your property and selling it to someone else. It should go without saying that under a market socialist system that would be prohibited.

What are they gonna do with the product of their labour then?

I'm referring to real property/realty, not personal property/personalty

...

Are these all still on youtube?

...

If people democratically choose to then yeah why not. Also there will be public meetings every week or so in the commune so that these public affairs can be discussed.

So they do sell their products. What do they do with the money?

Anyone?

All markets take capitalist-based premises, that people are inherently "rational" (read:materialistically selfish) which they evidently aren't.

have you actually read Proudhon?

Yes.
youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3F695D99C91FC6F7

What happened to him?

I'm guessing you've never read Marx then.

For those who claim that socialism and markets are incompatible, this is what Richard Wolff has to say: rdwolff.com/content/what-“market-socialism”-can-markets-and-socialism-coexist

There is the implication that they can work together.

Yes, doesn't mean I agree with everything he wrote, what's your point?