What does Holla Forums think of market socialism?

Bourgeois socialist wishful thinking. The reason why capitalism has to be abolished in the first place is its inherent contradictions that largely stem from commodity production and the market system.

I wish people would just read Marx' critique of Proudhon.

Agreed here. I see it as unlikely that if/when socialism happens, it'd go straight to abolishing markets. Especially with how prevalent markets are today.

Nice as a next step.

memes

Fuck markets. Anyone who wants markets is either a meme-lord or a retarded.

...

You mean stuff like Gorbachev's reforms?

Because both NEP and whatever Kurds have going is more of an emergency measure, rather than an actual choice.

Comrade, you just went full revisionist.

Stalin support markets with consumer-goods as well as co-ops (industrial, yes).

Got any material on this, comrade? I must be off.

cooperatives, mutualist banks, social dividends n shiet

every time

Literal capitalism.

the only type of socialism that works

Most who have called themselves market socialist are only socialist in the same sense that social-democratic parties are. Somebody else ITT beat me to denouncing them as bourgeois-socialist, that being just another brand of anti-communist socialism. In ignoring relations of production they think they have somehow managed to surpass capitalism through their welfare measures. Yet, in truth, they leave the economic base of society completely intact. They are very real enemies of Marxism and not one of us will hesitate to exterminate them with force as we do now with words if they continue to be a threat.

Let me guess, our resident Titoist has started another thread about his revisionism?

But seriously, people like you who support the left just because you think it permits you to call for deaths and be generally edgy are the true enemies of change.

You don't understand theory. That's excusable. But not understanding the plight of humanity and the horrors of war is inexcusable. The socialist and communist drive comes from love. Don't let sectarian hate crowd out the love which forms the base of the true left

We had a thread were we said you can get rid of capitalism but you cannot ban money, because it's literally impossible since something will always "become a money" like in prison cigarettes are money and some kinds of monkey use sex as money for extra food or good sleeping spots.

That is, unless you are very authoritarian and run around with guns inspecting every trade between consenting individuals until you notice many people just seem to be trading cigarettes/bitcoin/bottlecaps back and fourth for things and then shoot everyone found with That item because it became a money.

It's a better transition state than ML.

come at me

Would be a smooth transition to full communism.
I don't think you can just ban currency with a snap of fingers.

God has spoken, folks.

Nonsense, it comes from the fact we have a job and it's necessary to do it.

Ok, friendo.

...

Who decides what that job is? Why is it necessary to obey?

I meant in dismantling capitalism and ushering in socialism.

I understand what you're saying. What I'm asking is, why is dismantling/ushering a necessary job?

This.

Tito was also pretty based.

It`s absolutely only way socialist regime can survive in global hegemony of capitalists.

Thus it`s acceptable and only economically viable option for any country that is socialist.

Good thread.
I was expecting more edgy contrarians.

You're still a huge faggot, socdem. We still want revolution.

Never change, Holla Forums

You're still a huger faggot and you don't get a revolution without a serious reform movement.

faggot

cuck

Get out larper. Revolution won't happen in your lifetime

Economic Problems of the USSR: 2. Commodity Production Under Socialism

NB: translation is … not particularly good. As is always with Stalin's works. I took liberty to substitute "collective farms" with "collective enterprises" to better reflect the original meaning of the article (the actual word used is "kolkhoz", which literally means "collective enterprise"; while most kolkhozs were farms, at the time of writing the word also included non-agrarian enterprises - those dissapeared by 1960, forcibly nationalized by Khruschev).

> It is said that commodity production must lead, is bound to lead, to capitalism all the same, under all conditions. That is not true. Not always and not under all conditions! Commodity production must not be identified with capitalist production. They are two different things. Capitalist production is the highest form of commodity production. Commodity production leads to capitalism only if there is private ownership of the means of production, if labour power appears in the market as a commodity which can be bought by the capitalist and exploited in the process of production, and if, consequently, the system of exploitation of wageworkers by capitalists exists in the country. Capitalist production begins when the means of production are concentrated in private hands, and when the workers are bereft of means of production and are compelled to sell their labour power as a commodity. Without this there is no such thing as capitalist production.

> The effect of this is that the state disposes only of the product of the state enterprises, while the product of the collective enterprise, being their property, is disposed of only by them. But the collective enterprise are unwilling to alienate their products except in the form of commodities, in exchange for which they desire to receive the commodities they need. At present the collective enterprise will not recognize any other economic relation with the town except the commodity relation - exchange through purchase and sale. Because of this, commodity production and trade are as much a necessity with us today as they were, say, thirty years ago, when Lenin spoke of the necessity of developing trade to the utmost.
> Of course, when instead of the two basic production sectors, the state sector and the collective-enterprise sector, there will be only one all-embracing production sector, with the right to dispose of all the consumer goods produced in the country, commodity circulation, with its "money economy," will disappear, as being an unnecessary element in the national economy. But so long as this is not the case, so long as the two basic production sectors remain, commodity production and commodity circulation must remain in force, as a necessary and very useful element in our system of national economy. How the formation of a single and united sector will come about, whether simply by the swallowing up of the collective-enterprise sector by the state sector - which is hardly likely (because that would be looked upon as the expropriation of the collective enterprises) - or by the setting up of a single national economic body (comprising representatives of state industry and of the collective enterprises), with the right at first to keep account of all consumer product in the country, and eventually also to distribute it, by way, say, of products-exchange - is a special question which requires separate discussion.

I consider free market of "capital goods" to be the only important distinction. It's a bit of deal-breaker, IMO (and this "market socialism" includes it).

Fucking this

Saying this because people here can't fucking undesrstand it
MARKET SOCIALISM DOES NOT HAVE CAPITALIST DEFINITIONS OF PROPERTY

Go full AnCap. It should be even better transition state by this logic.

Does ancapistan have worker ownership?
Oh wait, ML doesn't have that either.

Of course it does. One owner - one worker. Everyone else is property of the owner.

Kek.

What does it have then?

I'm not terribly clear on this concept and wiki is always suspect when it comes to politics or economy.

Economic rent is prohibited. All instances of shared use require shared ownership.

10/10 best socialism!

thats because hes a fucking revisionist

I don't quite understand how it's supposed to work.

What if they are always really hungry and fat as fuck?

Brief periods of it to help keep businesses maintaining an effective structure. Lenin had the right idea.

The NEP was not market socialism, faggot.

Stalin supported co-ops just as a intermediate stage between private property and property of the whole people(under central control), and when he died the revisionists did the opposite, giving everything to the co-ops including already nationalized industries, and this together with other fuckups destoyed the central planning, and i wonder how people in this day and age support market socialism if it's the exact same thing that made USSR return to capitalism.
youtube.com/watch?v=MRCBTpOBlzM&list=FLxgJ0vK112MRHzFqHgPKAhw&index=16

Yes, but "intermediate" is historically intermediate. It was basically his plan to keep using co-ops for foreseeable future.

To agrarian co-ops. Every other co-op got nationalized, no?

It was more of a deliberately abolished, rather than accidentally destroyed.

Nope. Apparently, market socialism includes market of capital goods. Soviets didn't have that until late 80s, when Gorbachev went full Liberal.

I'll add here that Rojava apparently uses market socialism (see above - unmanaged market of capital goods). Either they don't know any better or someone has ideas.

The Revisionist gave the factories in the sense that the managers got more powers and basically owned the industries, and surprise surprise the same managers that turned into billionaires when the plundering begun in the 90s
The sell of the tractor stations to the co-ops in the 50s was exactly this.

Markets don't allocate resources rationally, which is why planning is necessary. Markets are literally memes.

youtu.be/K9FDIne7M9o?t=4261

That's why the Yugoslav economy was a planned economy - while, at the same time, being market socialism.

If you want to read more about, here>>800344

reeeeeee

And thats why Yugoslavia was sucking IMFs dick to keep that shit running, as said markets are wastefull and not efficienct. Read Stalin's Economics problems of socialism in the USSR.

That was a one-time semi-mandatory thing, no?

No. The IMF loans weren't being given until Tito's later life. Even if that was true, why didn't the Yugoslav economy fail after the War? They weren't getting any money - either from the East nor from the West.

No.

It was a one time thing, but it poured millions of rubles of capital in circulation, and it was one of the things that contributed to the problems of agriculture, because when the tractor stations were still nationalized they tractors were upgraded regulary, but after they were sell the co-ops didn't have the money to upgrade the tractors anymore

That's because they needed the money in the first place, because thats because they had a market based economy

Damn

Is this some kind of "socialism doesn't work because eventually you run out of other's people money" tier refutation?

You should read the pdf I posted, it gives a great oversight to how the production worked under the planning within market forces.

And Kalecki is great too. Drop the Stalin - at least for economic understandings - because there are better authors tbh.

...

Economic planing can't run on the basis of profit(and markets), because sectors very important to the economy don't generate profit for years(consider heavy industry), the 70s slowdown on USSR economy was exactly by this motive, and surprise, the USSR leaders where trying to copy Yuguslavia and pratically abondoned central planning, and from that same time that Socialism gained the term ineficient, but it actually became ineficient when it tried to use market mecanism in the economy instead of central planing with rudimentary forms of products exchange that Stalin was a proponent of.

If you can understand French or Spannish take a look on this video
youtube.com/watch?v=8VIYSMyXCr4&index=2&list=FLxgJ0vK112MRHzFqHgPKAhw

And do you even dialetics, market socialism is faded to degenerate back into capitalism.

Kalecki has a very in-depth theorization about economic planning. And no, I don't speak french and I dislike reading spanish (br hue).

fated

What? Then how come your lord and savior Stalin crushed the NEP and installed "Real Existing Socialism" in the Soviet Union?

Do you even dialectics? Socializing the means of production is not capitalism, no matter how much you want.

Not even Lenin considered NEP as a final stage, it was only to estabilise the economy.
It is not, but co-ops if not improved to a higher form of propiety (that is public propiety, propiety of the whole people) will leady to the return of capitalism.

Of course it was.

Thus, market socialism is a transitory way. Not a permanent one.

Socialized property is public property.

Hey, for a mustacheposter you're okay, user

I don't think the revisionists after stalin saw it that way and considered Market socialism as the means to reach communism, which is stupid because if you want to abolish money you will need a planned economy to introduce product exchange instead of money, and after the 50s they were doing the exacly opposite and introducing even more market reforms.

It is of course, but it still a lower stage of socialized property and it must evolve not only because it's contradictions but even more because of it's papper in the central planning and the abolition of money that this type of property still need to function together with the public property.

Not him (despite the icon), but why do you call NEP a market socialism?

Market socialism implies free market of capital goods, no? But in 20s capital goods were not freely sold, but rather lent by the state. Imported capital goods were also pretty much in the "not yours any more" category.

Moreover, most of economy was still state-controlled.

By crushing Trotsky and his Concessions Committee (the bureau in charge of MoP leases to private persons and so on).

And co-op != public property, even if both are still socialized property.
revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv13n1/smolin.htm

I just dont see what can be accomplished with markets that cant be achieved with out them, so im still against markets.

It's more about the transition. People like markets and to be able to buy frivolities despite economic scarcity. It's less efficient, but smooth as silk.

It's just take a look in USSR when economic planning ruled(until 57 more or less) and after it gave way to markets(until the collapse).

Not market socialism per se, but it was literally State Capitalism (according to Lenin itself) but it did not "degenerate" into capitalism. And even Lenin aknowledged some kind of market of goods in the rural zone, within the NEP

Eh, it depends really.

Okay.

What. Socialized property is public property. It belogs to society as a whole.

A co-op in seek of profit don't belong to the whole society, a nationalized industry administred by the DOP that use its recurses organized by the central plan, to better the life of the whole population, not only its owners as is the case of the co-ops, it's a truly socialized property.

State-monopoly, not "market". And that was not NEP, but a planned economy he was referring to. Read picrelated, at least.

That is irrelevant to the market socialism, no?

Okay. I really don't understand what market socialism should mean then.

If you consider public property to be state property, then co-ops are not "public", even if they are socialized (their society is limited to the workers).

You realise I posted the Lenin quote in the other thread, which you are reposting now, to disprove your img about "what is socialism", right?

And no, read "The Tax in Kind" by Lenin, if you really want to know what the NEP was. It was not a planned economy in the rural sections of the Soviet Union.

No.

If you even dared to read the pdf from Vanek, or even the one from Varoufakis, you would know.

But since they are not Stalin, you'll cling to your own savior till every single of us are dead in the gulags.

Sounds good. tbh.

This board is so fucking liberal it's painful.

Refute what he said.

...

Nope. How does it disprove anything? Are you capable of arguing?

I don't even know what you are trying to say here. Seriously.

Some NEP policies are in the attached file.

Ye-ep. Getting real intellectual here.

You can still use money as acounting but with the centralization of the economy the money loses its value form with is the worst because enables people to acumullate power.(this is also an argument against co-ops because they impede the abolition of money in its value form)

markets should be used only for non-essential consumer goods/services. things like restaurants or video games

Shit i wrote it wrong

reposting because i fucked up the picture, and forgot to ctr v my post gg cripple man

Because you cherrypicked a passage from Lenin, without putting it into full context. And no, socialism isn't just "state capitalism"

Some NEP policies are in the attached file.

You realise that the article "The Tax in Kind", by Lenin himself, is where he explicitly puts in details what the NEP entails right? I'd rather read from the man himself, about his own plan, rather than someone else. Pic related

Sorry, I'm not fond of getting economic advice from Stalin.

A unit of exchange doesn't have to be money. Labor-vouchers that many socialists have advocated cannot be money as it isn't an accumulated commodity. Their is no exchange of ownership when a worker "buys" from a communist enterprise, the voucher is simply dissolved and he/she is given a share of the communal stock. The vouchers just serve as a method for judging an individual's contribution, it isn't that thing that turns concrete labor into abstract labor. Furthermore, under fully-developed communism with all units of exchange absent there will still be no need to crack down on any "voluntary" exchanges so long as the economy hasn't totally crashed somehow.

...

Explain how it is "wrong". In words. Your words.

Nobody said it was.

Irrelevant. Intentions are nice and all, but if we are discussing NEP we need to look the NEP first.

He goes ballistic at the mere sight of Stalin-icon, but refuses to read anything not written by Lenin, despite Lenin not actually being around to see the NEP itself. Fascinating.

Are you alt-Left by any chance?

State ownership of the means of production is not social ownership, niether is it collective ownership. Not socialism.

The picture you "made" said it was. And a bunch of anons said it was shit.

Says the Stalinist. How ironic.

I'm not going ballistic. It's just really fascinating how you, a stalinist, just goes ahead and "rewrites" Lenin for your own sake, to prove something you hold as the truth.

Lmao.

Nice to see that you ignored everything I posted, the pdfs, the books, the pictures.

Never change.

What's up with the fetishism with markets, like cental planing is way better as USSR showed us in the early years.
Its like abandoning markets is the last step before a person embrace full central planned space socialism(and communism in the future of course), as it was the case with me.

most people were taught since birth that the market is inherently good and "the freer the market, the freer the people", also extreme anti-planning and anti-soviet propaganda. market socialists are always the first to jump to the neocon train with the trots when shit hits the fan

Tbh he was using the wrong terminology. He should have called them currencies.

No he shouldn't have. Currencies circulate, labour vouchers do not.

People will resort to barter or invent their own currencies if their needs are not met.

But they will be met.

What's up with the fetishism with central planning, like market socialism is way better as Yugoslavia showed us through out its history.
Its like abandoning central buracratic planned econony is the last step before a person embraces market socialism as a transitory step towards a fully overcoming of capitalism itself.

So communism isn't your end goal, as you'll keep producing commodities for the market and letting the law of value intact and the problems that come with it e.g. Falling rate of profit, overproduction, irrational distribution that comes with exhange value etc.
In the end you would make the same mistakes that the revisionist did in the USSR.