I've been hearing that Tito's Yugoslavia was market socialist. Can someone please explain this to me?

no, THIS is the meme that needs to die

When did this board get taken over by liberals?

Not all of us are illiterate enough to have our worldviews shaped by a single anti-communist article. Ackerman's program isn't even a form of socialism, it's just a cowardly concession to capitalism.

Yeah, let's try 20th century gommunism (I'm sorry, state capitalism with a socialist face) again. I'm sure it'll work this time.

I'm sorry that the capitalist world opposes any possible socialist state

What the fuck does reformism have to do with anything? I mean come on Im a Vanguardist who just thinks that Yugoslavia did it right

Holla Forums I'm impressed that you have studied us long enough to adopt a few of our memes and fly under the radar but the jig is up.

Okay, bud.
When you grow lots of grain and don't have the infrastructure to distribute it you can just blame the porkies.

You can't give any coherent explanation for why you think markets are necessarily capitalist, can you?

Nah. I can tell from your acceptance of modern leftism (idpol, markets, participating in bourgeoise politics) that you're from reddit

Why do you think we wouldn't have infrastructure? I'm not a fucking anarchist

Markets and central planning are inefficient. The trick is to figure out what works best for each. Markets are shitty at producing public goods and central planning is shit at producing consumer goods, for example.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Agricultural_policy
I was 'avin a laff, m8.

Markets are shitty at producing both. Not every person has a TV, a bed, or even a phone. It exploits 3rd world countries to produce them.
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikita_Khrushchev#Agricultural_policy
We learn from mistakes. The USSR was not perfect, but the vilification from anarkiddies, socdems, and market "socialists" is way overdone

What if workers own the means of productions, work for some hours on the factory and then trade what they made on a market, is this market socialism?

ah, so you're a tankie, then?

Yes. the problem is that markets create many features of capitalism: inequality, drive for profit, accumulation of capital, and private property

What are you: a 13 year old anarchist, a college liberal socdem, or a bourgeoise market socialist?

The only inherent feature of markets you mentioned is 'drive for profit'.
In particular the main driver of capitalism (accumulation of capital) is "simple" to get rid of.
The result isn't necessarily socialist, but it's certainly not capitalist and would work quite differently than a capitalist society.

Market socialism literally enables the accumulation of capital as well. It's just instead of 1 porky its 30 porkies

I mean, if you naively want just 'replace the corporations with coops', yes that's exactly what will happen. You have to go much further.

What other options are there other than planning?

they arn't from Holla Forums they are just idiotic bunkerchan faggots that think anything that isn't "hegelian marxist leninist historical materialist socialist science" isn't leftism. They basically are counting on a revolution that will never happen, and fear any socialist that wants to take steps towards either making a revolution happen or trying to achieve socialism in a way that doesn't require a revolution.

Let me guess, you're a bernie supporter?

In other words: tankies.

If the gulags aren't included in how the economy is organized, then it's not revolutionary. Everything else is just liberal non-sense!

I know right, lets just tolerate reactionaries and porkies. I'm honestly starting to think that you anarchists and titoists are worse than the fucking fascists

even worse, I support the green party!
End your life, tankie scum. Your revolution won't happen unless you have another charismatic dictator which obviously won't lead to socialism. In order for a revolution to happen without a tyrant, socialism must be popular among the people, and the people themselves must have a revolution. The only way this can be achieved is through getting worker interests to be represented in existing government, or with unions. I prefer the latter because I think that it can be used to gradually replace capitalist owned industry with worker owned industry.

so you admit you are just like a fascist

Kind of ironic that an anarchist supports working with the state. A revolution the only way for workers to truly crush capitalism, not some bullshit socdem legislation

Literally how

b-b-but guys, how am I like a fascist?!

nice meme. It's nto about compromise, it's about pushing at porky untill he gives up. Trench wars are about getting the enemy to surrender land, and this situation is like a trench war.

...

Im sorry I don't want reactionaries to destroy everything we've worked for. But what would an anarchist know about sustaining a revolution
Except no matter how hard you push, porky will never give up. If anything, he will push back if he finds himself in a corner. Reformism is a pointless game of back and forth, revolution is the only permanent solution

Theres a reason we call anarchists illiterate

One thing I know as an anarchist that you don't know as tankie scum is to how to have a revolution in the first place. I know that you have to have opular support.

Excuse me, but what have tankies worked for? I fail to see their achievements anywhere in the world, honestly. Can you show me an example?

(not the same user here)
This is the whole point of Marx's Capital, tbh.

My 2 pieces:
Market means concurrence; concurrence will drive you to accumulate capital.

Oh really? When was the last successful anarchist revolution? Talk to me when an anarchist society lasts at least half as long as the USSR

see

lots of stuff comrade, let me name just a few of their wonderful achievements:

Ayy, calm the fuck down everybody

Brought the living standards of formerly agrarian countries up tremendously? Standing up to US imperialism?

CHECKED

It's happening, isn't it comrade?

I know right. Lets allow the idiotic plague that is anarchism crush our movement

It is. One of these days the left will form an anti-totalitarian front and all totalitarians including the ones that call themselves comrades will be purged by the hammer of liberty

good, good prole

these so called "external capitalist influences" were the influences of tankies

The Revolution in Russia had failed long before the fall of USSR, tbh.

You're a bit late, citoyen.

The only way that we will ever get anything done is if we work together with the anarchists.

Don't worry, we will kill them all after the revolution ;)

nigga, are you serious? Are you saying that the capitalist west had no influence in the destruction of the socialist states?

The soviets raised the living standards and prestige of the country dramatically. If it wasn't for the capitalist reforms near the end, it could still be here today

Well, Stalinism is state capitalism, but it's not the west. Capitalism in general is to blame for socialist movements being corrupted into state capitalist regimes.

You make further direct assaults on the mechanisms of the accumulation of capital.
The two most important examples are rent seeking(?) and trade secrets.
What I mean by rent seeking is 'owning property and charging money to access/utilize it'. This most exemplified by housing: porky owns a house, and then charges you rent to live there. But if he can't charge rent, he has little incentive to keep the house and use it to accumulate capital. Things like loans also generally fall under this.
Trade secrets are complicated to abolish, but doing so radically modifies the dynamics of the market.

So did many capitalist regimes. The living standards and the "prestige of the country" (!!!) aren't by any way the mesure of the success of a communist revolution.

The USSR never was anything but capitalist (except for the beginning, when it was still mostly feudal).

you can never stress this enough tbh. When will tankies learn? I am convinced tankies are just Holla Forumsacks that happen to feel like not having their surplus value extracted.

This meme needs to die

You're going to need a bit more than that

The USSR didn't have the massive inequality the west had. And again, the state capitalism meme strikes again

If you say so. Your point being?

The USSR was capitalist, that's all. "State capitalism" doesn't mean anyting imo; every ruling class has always relied on a state to maintain its domination.
The USSR was a market-based society; it was capitalist, by definition. Communism will be moneyless (aka maketless).

This is the most braindead retarded shit I've ever read and Marx would shit on your face for analyzing Capital that way.

State capitalism is just a "meme". Nothing more than that.

Oh, and:

Yugoslavia had a higher standard of living the many eastern European countries (Probably because of their revisionism, am I right? Praise Stalin). So what?

Well yes, in some sense all capital accumulation is rent: but clearly abolishing direct rent is one of the most important things.
And I never said that doing so was sufficient!

Capitalist countries have massive inequality. Thats my fucking point
But it wasn't
But it wasn't

Yes, yugoslavia sucking the west's cock sure didn't help, right?

the profit motive drives the accumulation of capital

a market can still price things without profit

Then whats the point of a market if a firm can't make money off their goods?

Let's see what Marx had to say about socialism:
In other words: no market.

But it was.

It was a planned economy, you leftcom/anarchist faggot

Nice argument. The Soviet Union sucked so much US cock to propel its own industrialization, while the Yugoslav didn't. And so what, just goes to prove that "socialism in one country" doesn't work :^)

"The US didn't fall because its own contradictions! It was the west that did it!"

"Yugoslavia only survived because of the west!"

OK tankie.

Marx is describing realized moneyless Communism, not the form a socialist transitory state should take

Gosplan still operated according to an idealized market framework and you should probably read up on how it actually worked.

The west actively supported the destruction of the USSR though. Yugoslavia decided to bend over to the IMF and was tolerated as a weapon against the soviets

Markets are a bad idea, period. They promote the inequality, competition, and destructive drive to profit that comes from capitalism

That doesn't matter. Did the USSR have an open market where private firms traded goods for money?

End your life titoist porky

Producers sold their products. Consummers bought them. Market-based.

This tbh.

Let's see what Marx was talking about:
Sounds like socialism to me.

the distribution of consumer goods and allocation of labor was left to market mechanisms

also you're retarded

meant to say

"The S.U. didn't fall because its own contradictions! It was the west that did it!"

gg, tankie shat on a thread about economics.

keep the glue-huffing to weekends my dude

Lemme guess, Yugo failing is entirely its own fault tho?

I guess this only applies to the S.U. Everyone else were traitors to the doctrine of "Socialism in one Country"!

Really? A "weapon" that "destroyed" the Soviet Union just by existing near it!

Given how much of a failure you tankies are, I don't have to worry about my life, to be honest.

Lenin, The State and Revolution.

Excuse me, you were saying?

...

Moreover:
The communist society emerging directly from the capitalist one, when is your market-"socialism" supposed to happen?

...

My gott this economic illiteracy

Just posting the part you are talking about. (not the user you're talking to)

"Here, obviously, the same principle prevails as that which regulates the exchange of commodities, as far as this is exchange of equal values. Content and form are changed, because under the altered circumstances no one can give anything except his labor, and because, on the other hand, nothing can pass to the ownership of individuals, except individual means of consumption. But as far as the distribution of the latter among the individual producers is concerned, the same principle prevails as in the exchange of commodity equivalents: a given amount of labor in one form is exchanged for an equal amount of labor in another form."

Which means there is no more exchange of commodities (= no market)

No market.

Which means there is no more exchange of commodity equivalents (= no market).

Yes, I did read everything.

It wasn't a jab at you, user. I was just trying to enrich your dialogue with the other user, by posting the quote and so on. Geez

Central planning is shit at producing consumer goods. Markets are great at producing them, but are inefficient at distributing them under capitalism. In other words, the high profit margins of executives and low wages of the poor lead to an inefficient distribution of the delicious electronics etc.
t. ankie

Can we be completely without things like these things you've mentioned?
This is my problem with communism; It's utopian as fuck. Instead of synthesis, you want negation. I really don't see the problem with the idea of every porky a worker and every worker a porky.

That basically settles it; Tankies are fascists.

My bad then.

EVERY MAN A KING

Do you have any proof to back that up?
So you're a capitalist? Shouldn't be surprised since thats what most titoists are
It was the "tankie" countries that BTFO the nazis, not the capitalist west

Not an argument

Why would fascists fight fellow fascists?

Why would kings fight fellow kings?

Holy shit, you're a dumbass

Holy shit you're a dumbass

Sure.
Every subject a sovereign and every sovereign a subject.

Do you want me to dig up the ubiquitous anecdotes about lack of consumer goods in ML countries? I suspect you'll simply wave them off as propaganda. As you would if I had hard numbers of some sort.
I don't consider myself one. I think a command economy transitioning into a gift economy is impossible, as the planners of the command economy will simply enrich themselves as the new porkies. Achieving a total gift economy may be possible, but I'm doubtful. I'm in favor of a market economy where those industries which tend toward centralization are controlled by syndicates or the state, and others in the hands of private producers (with wage laborers unionized and having some say in the decision making process) and coops/worker owned firms. You might say I'm not a proper socialist, but I frankly don't give a fuck what tankie babbykillers think :D
It also helped them into power.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler's_rise_to_power#Weimar_parties_fail_to_halt_Nazis
And collaborated with them through trade and the partition of Poland.
Let's also not forget the role that Britain and America played in helping the USSR stave off collapse (second front, Lend-Lease etc)

I would argue that for the case of planned obsolescence, planned economies are better for consumer goods than market economies.

great another shitflining between our resident titoist and Hoxhaites from /marx/

They're not necessarily capitalist, but capitalism is the mode of production centered around the market, in that most production is for the market and most people are dependent on the market for their livelihoods. Market socialism can only be transitory, as the worker-owned firms will reproduce many of the same problems that occur under capitalism, though in a more democratic way

As I understand it, market socialism means economic system, where market agents separately democratically controlled by workers of each economic agent.
Also, there's some variation in regards to financial system, because such system operates on the global scale of the whole market.

But, the key word is always *decentralisation*
And that is where I have problems with such economic system.

Proponents of decentralisation ultimately want to get rid of human factor. They want economic system that solely by it's inner logic tends toward equilibrium of supply and demand without the need of human control.

And I can understand such people, because if someone have control over the system, he/she can use said control to benefit themselves or certain groups of people at the expense of others.
But for me, it's all about how to make such instrument of control democratic.
Anarchists, for example, believe that you just can't, because hierarchy inevitably undermines democracy.

So, decentralised system needs some framework in which economic agents can operate and communicate with each other (assuming that each coop is not autarky).
And so proponents of decentralisation arrive at some form of market, be it in the standart form, or in the form of "automatic cybernetic supply and demand equalization system that heps economic agents to know what to do to achieve global equilibrium"

My point of view is that you just can't achive equilibrium without human control, at least until there's AI that can analyse economic data in the context of *fullfilment* of human needs.
Which implies AI with consciousness, so what's the point?