Mutualism, market socialism, libertarian marxism

Welfare policies are insufficient, they don't alleviate the inherent deficiencies of the capitalist mode and for-profit production.

They're going to suppress their own wages so they can keep firm running in a competitive environment. What, do you really think capitalists just blow all their surplus-value on luxuries for themselves? The demands of capital must be met, whether you organize the firm as an oligarchy or democracy is irrelevant. So long as it's actions are forced to respond to profit it still behaves as private property.

It's always amusing to see how badly liberals react when confronted with communism and any real radical change of society.

vague labels with self identification by much varied movements
why dont you make some arguments instead of throwing down labels and asking us to solve the puzzle?

Basically anarcho-capitalism but with democratic workplaces
Yugoslavia and/or mutualism but with the state existing
Anarcho Communism with a different name, the belief that Lenin was wrong and no transitional state is required to usher in Communism

Wrong. Mutualism uses LTV and isn't capitalist. Anti-state capitalism employs Austrian economics and is of course, capitalist. Wrong about libertarian socialism too. Mutualism and Proudhon are recognized as part of the libertarian socialist tradition. Go read.

Mutualism wants to maintain markets but abolish interest by creating voluntary mutual banking institutions so commodities would exchange at their exact embodied values.

Marx would find this extremely naive since finance capital and state taxation is exactly what's central to equilibrating the rate of profit. Without the forced redistribution coming from interest payments an average rate of profit in the economy cannot emerge. Sectors with different compositions of variable and constant capital would naturally yield different profit rates which would be extremely irrational. The only way sectors which employ more constant capital could deal with this would be by paying their employees much lower wages.

The whole point of libertarian marxism isn't to make commodities which contain equal value exchange for each other but to abolish wage labour altogether.

marxists.org/archive/mattick-paul/1934/10/communism.htm

So what is a commodity? Are there to be no commodities under communism?

Commodities are goods which are produced for the explicit intention of having their exchange-value realized on markets to generate profit for reinvestment to generate more profits yet again to continue the accumulation process.

Obviously commodities wouldn't exist under communism since production would be carried out for generating use-value not exchange-value.

So is communism even possible at today's age? Will there be shortages? What about entertainment goods and food?

Well obviously exchange-value regulates global production and distribution today but state taxation and rent extraction is very essential to the whole process of circulating profits around to boost the rate of profit and this rent/tax/debt burden keeps on growing as a portion of the global economy at a faster rate than the growth of corporate profitability.
A pure rentier economy based on sucking up rents through the increasingly monopoly ownership of capital and land from the (increasingly less) profits of the productive sectors doesn't seem like a viable option people would put up with for long.
Communism should emerge as a necessity and response to the failure of carrying out production/distribution on the basis of exchange-value instead of use-value following a global breakdown crisis.

This isn't necessarily true. Right now mutualists tend to emphasize markets, but historically this wasn't the case. Even someone like Kevin Carson has kind of moved away from solely emphasizing market means in a stateless society.

So what does Kevin say now?

He still talks about markets and stuff, but from my perspective he sees market exchange as another option rather than the center of economic activity, let alone the predominant form. He sees ample space for gift economies and alternative models of economic activity.

This article might give you a better picture of what I mean in his own words:
c4ss.org/content/30862

Command economies are inefficient and gift economies are a naive pipedream. Market socialism is the sort that makes sense to me.

I guess it's easier to make these types of definitive and dismissive comments on the subject that it is doing research. I'd start with David Graeber.

How are gift economies meant to work on a large scale in a complex society?
How are command economies meant to produce a wide range of goods and services?

Gift economies working in primitive socities is no evidence it can work in a modern society.

Technically speaking it's not the market itself that allows a wide range of goods and services to be made, but the ability for firms to autonomously and spontaneously enter a market or change production.

That comes with all sorts of quantifies that doesn't exist in the phrase "gift economies are a pipe dream", considering they've actually existed.

That comes with all sorts of quantifiers that doesn't exist in the phrase "gift economies are a pipe dream", considering they've actually existed.

Can these exist in a command or gift economy?

Gift economies are a pipe dream in an advanced, complex society.
Better?

Technically the state could have a 51% stake in every firm without controlling them. Wouldn't necessarily be a market socialist economy, though most likely. Could be neither though.

marx would disagree with that

Admins are banning Marxists now? Wow.

Daily reminder that market socialists support a system that literally enables class division and oppression

why is someone entitled to what they work for, and why is that a freer scenario than working collectively to provide what people want?
that's my issue with mutualism/market socialism, it holds on to very spooky notions like rights and natural law

We're talking about the crippled here. There is no fundamental difference. We either give them free shit or they die.
Oh no! I'm going to have to reinvest into technological development! The horror!
It's amazing to see how badly liberals shrug off being wrong.

Might as well be a soccer
It's a nice temporary fix to the problems of commodity production and the market
Tech will make it pointless if not impossible in a generation

Might as well be socdem*

But people being given the full value of their labor is literally the whole point of socialism

no it isn't, people having control over their work is

Pretty sure it's exploitation. This stems back to even Ricardian socialists. If it was "just" about having control over your work, I don't see why socialists would be opposed to an economy of employee run co-ops.

because some co-ops would own more property than others and the people without property wouldn't be in control of their work

You seem to be going from:
1. some co-op enterprises will be larger/ have more influence in the marketplace than others
2. ???
3. therefore people in smaller enterprises will have no control over their work, despite that being the definition of what a co-op is.

There's something missing here and it's a different sort of objection than the typical "self-exploitation" response I usually see.

Or you're saying that unemployed people would have no control over their work. Which is pretty obviously always going to be the case.

the fact of there being smaller and bigger enterprises limits economic activity
a smaller co-op could only work with what they have, you'd need to provide a reason why the bigger co-op is entitled to its property
it's my same rejection to mutalist and regular conceptions of property; it limits what people can do for no justified reason

I'm not even 100% sure I even know what you're talking about. Mutualists don't even believe in the type of capitalist property norms you seem to be bringing up as a criticism. It's all based on occupancy and use.

I just charitably took your use of property to mean the scope of the enterprise, but it's not actually clear to me what your criticism is.

That people who are unemployed should have control over their non-existent work?

That workers who collectively manage their workplaces also don't collectively manage their workplaces because they have to compete in a marketplace?

That mutualism is necessarily marketbased, despite having it shown to not be the case in this thread?

Or that socialism is about the vague idea of controlling your work, rather than the more concrete analyses of systematic exploitation. And then your related idea that employee owned co-ops somehow don't allow this, despite it being true by definition.

I suppose what I meant by controlling work was controlling production, in clearer terms. The reason I brought all this up anyway is because in communism you don't get the full product of your labour, and communism is certainly socialism, so what you said earlier implies that Marxism, the goal of which is communism, is not a type of socialism.

Sorry for being kind of vague, it was my fault there.

That was another user, friend. I wasn't trying to speak for him. Sorry if that caused confusion.

He seems to be repeating a claim that Benjamin Tucker made (which was historically accurate, but also kind of misses the point).

They will be the death of any revolution

...

You socdem faggots are worse than the fascists somethimes

Double nigger, please

Nice get tho