What's the deal with market socialism anyway...

What's the deal with market socialism anyway? What's the problem with letting the businesses just be controlled by the workers, democratically? I don't really see a reason to change a whole lot beyond the workers controlling their business, not some rich fuck.

Other urls found in this thread:

nytimes.com/2016/06/12/nyregion/donald-trump-atlantic-city.html
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Market of capital goods.

Just because you substitute individual capitalist with co-op that exploits other co-ops, not much is going to change.

How does a co-op exploit another co-op? Competition?

The same as capitalist does with workers: by taking away labour and paying "what is fair".

Isn't socialism just state capitalism according to Stalinist.

I don't understand. The co-ops are individual businesses, just run by the workers. The capitalist exploits his workers, not his other capitalist executives.

Workers don't start businesses or take any risks in the venture. They wouldn't know what to do to 'control' them anyway. Workers just apply for the job and sell their labor for a price. The investment is just time and effort and if they don't like it they can just quit and go somewhere else. A business owner is tied to his business, has an investment in it, probably owes money on it and can't just discharge himself like an employee can.

Plus businesses require a hierarchy of control, from the top down down to the bottom, like sports team or a military unit because they require specialized knowledge of different fields. The janitors are good at cleaning but they don't know shit about marketing, and the marketers are good at marketing but they don't know shit about accounting. And so on. Eventually you get to the big bosses who have to oversee a ton of different areas and chart a course for the future.

And anyway the people we are against are the shareholders, not "the boss". Owning private property is not a reason for owning private property. If the boss is truly fulfilling a duty the workers can't fulfill he will be given extra compensation. But in the way communist and anarchist(besides agorist and ancap) organize things, it's done in the context of a community funding the business and helping the workers so everyone benefits. And even if this includes a boss who's labour is "skilled labour" compared to the "unskilled labour" of the worker, there is absolutely nothing the shareholders do.

Democratic state exercises monopoly (not necessarily "direct control" monopoly) on MoP.

Here we have no monopoly. I.e. nothing prevents situation from eventually deteriorating into simple capitalism.

Once co-ops start entering binding agreements with other co-ops, they will not be "individual" in any sense.

To put another way: poor co-ops get poorer, rich co-ops get richer.

What are you even talking about?

Shut your lying mouth.

Venture fails - workers are on the streets, faced with possible starvation.

If capitalist fails, banks will cover most of his expenses. And if the banks pay too much to failed capitalists - we get a bailout. With workers paying to banks and covering expenses of poor capitalists that risk too much.