According to Holla Forums, this person isn't being oppressed, because she works for Mondragon, a co-operative industry

Communism is the end goal. Co-ops are a need progress though.

There's no doubt that it's better though comrade.

That's not what this means, but even then, that's a problem caused by the capitalist society in which the Coop exists, not a problem caused by the coop itself.

Regardless of who owns them, businesses would still go bankrupt in a market economy.

How exactly is she being oppressed? Because she's working?

This guy works for Google, he's a "wageslave" according to Holla Forums, he's being oppressed

There's no doubt that cooperative industries are disadvantaged and suffer more ills than the could be otherwise in a socialist economy because of the capitalist economical framework they operate under. They are something every socialist in this society should support.

He's still being ripped off. He's one of the lucky ones though comparatively

business.leeds.ac.uk/about-us/article/research-shows-the-benefits-of-worker-co-operatives/
At least it's an improvement that's easy to argue for.

...

*exploited
Which is the truth. As terms of his employment, he must produce more value for the his company that he receives back in a wage.

This. He needs to do some amount of work he doesn't get paid for in order to get paid at all.

When u on thhe late night gride u betta SMASH THAT MUTHA FUCKIN SAGE

So you support market socialism as more of a practical step forward rather than an end goal?

So what, are the workers exploiting themselves?

Well no shit!!! You should too

Not anyone that you were replying to, but that's how I see it. It's a transition between capitalism and a planned system.

Markets are exploitative. I don't see the point in fighting to end capitalism only to keep half of it. Central planning all the way.

The workers is a spook

Your vote doesn't matter shit, only your power of persuasion among the cooperative workers does

In the end, the ruler is the worker that's the most charismatic

Depends on what you mean. Is he living in abject misery and grinding poverty? No. But is he receiving the full value of his labour, reaching his full potential, and maximizing his personal freedom? No.

I don't get what you are trying to say, OP.
Are you implying that work itself is "oppressing"?

Yeah. We need to spread the idea that leftism=/=liberalism and make this into a huge popular mass movement. There are sufficiently many hurdles already, no need to scare people with demanding everything at once.

Exactly, market socialism is an intermediary period between capitalism and socialism just as socialism is an intermediary between capitalism and communism.

current state -> market soc -> transhumanism + automation -> anarcho-communism

The key is automation, market socialism is better than liberal shit as in doesn't exploit as badly

trying to skip automation and go raw dog ancom is going to fail

This.
We should be fucking terrified of taking too big leaps.

That is correct.

I think see your point. Market socialism makes a lot of sense but only from a reformist angle. If its going to be built via revolution, why bother with markets at all?
I think Xexizy had a video about this.

I know I'm in the minority in this regard, but I'm not revolutionary, I'm evolutionary tbh

she's ugly, ergo oppressed by bourgeoisie beauty standards
and she's working indoors, in surroundings that aren't pretty, so her aesthetic sensibilities are being opressed.

10/10

Because socialism requires a fundamental change in psychology and culture in order to be truly successful. This change would be best facilitated by a more gradual transition, since working in collective enterprise will create a culture of co-operation and collectivist thinking which will make the transition to true socialism and eventually communism not only smoother, but more secure. If collectivist modes of thought are entrenched under a market socialist system, then reverting to capitalism will be all that much harder, and moving to socialism will be easier.

Also a gradual transition to socialism doesn't preclude revolution, it just means that after the revolution socialism will be implemented in stages. Imo it should go from capitalism to market socialism to syndicalism to planned economy.

No, that person isn't being EXPLOITED. next?

I know this isn't exactly on-topic, but could you explain the evolutionary socialist position? How can socialism succeed in the electoral process when the bourgeoisie have complete control over the information 90% of us have access to, and always act in the interest of their class? Not to mention leftists political groups are often targets of infiltration and espionage meant to dismantle them from the inside-out.

But that's my problem with it, it wouldn't encourage a cooperative culture because the economic system is still predicated on competition and profit. Since everyone takes a share of the profits, it encourages everyone to think like a capitalist, and extract as much labor power from themselves and fellow coworkers as they can. The "greed is good" mentality would only strengthen with everybody embracing bourgeois mentality.

Let's see.

Socialism doesn't have to. We can have non-state proto-socialism in the form of worker coops, and I don't think we can predict the contradictions of the future system. I think we need to take small steps and then see in practice what the dialectic becomes like.

People would still be motivated by profit and competition yes, but it would still be an improvement on capitalism because the idea of collectivizing production would become second nature, as would the ideas of equal distribution of wealth. It would help promote the view that your self interest is tied up with that of your fellow workers, and not just yourself.

In addition as co-operatives grow and merge, some will come out on top and eventually start to eat up smaller co-ops, just as large corporations eat up smaller corporations in capitalism. This would actually be a positive development, because once co-operatives reach a certain size and control a large enough percentage of the market of an industry they can be socialized for the entire population. This would a semi-organic evolution from market socialism to syndicalism, and that much closer to classic socialism.

How? Some businesses would do a lot better than others, so some groups of workers would make much more money than others.

Sure, but in this case "your fellow workers" only extend to those working as the same firm as you are, rather than all workers everywhere.

Of you could socialize the industries from the get-go and not have to bother with further entrenching greed and competition culture

and that would be short-lived as fuck as there wouldn't be a strong labor movement to uphold it

Was Yugoslavia market socialist? How successful was it if so?

There would still be inequality, but it would be massively reduced. The obscene accumulation of capital like what we see today just wouldn't be possible since the bigger a co-op got the more workers the profits would be spread around. The inequality that would exist could be further mitigated by social democratic style polices like welfare, public education and healthcare, guaranteed minimum income, etc.

Debatable, but it would still go a long way to dismantling the selfishness that exists under capitalism. It would entrench the concept of "what is good for my peers is good for me".

You could, but the instability that this would bring would make a newly socialist country more vulnerable to porky attempts at subversion, as well as necessitate an extremely strong central state which could easily devolve into authoritarian oligarchy like it did in many socialist countries.

See the thing about market socialism is that it doesn't have to be perfect, because it's entire purpose is to be an intermediary. What matters is that it is an improvement and is a step along the way to dismantling capitalist modes of thought and production.

Yugoslavia is often considered market socialist. Industry was collectivized for the most part, and balanced with strong social programs. It was extremely successful for the most part. After WW2 even the area around the Yugo capital was rural. Within a decade they were one of the most developed countries in Europe. Things went to shit because when the oil crisis and recession hit in the 70s, the U.S. began embargoing Yugoslavia. That sent them into crisis and they were forced to take an IMF loan out of desperation, the conditions of which were mass privatization of industry and dismantling of the public sector. With economic woes forced on them by the U.S. and IMF ethnic tensions flared up and eventually tore the country apart.

Labor aristocracy, he's still getting screwed but he's better off then a lot of people.

Have you read Parenti's book on Yugoslavia? I wasn't that interested in reading it but now that you mention it I might actually start

Don't worry OP. I'm sure the (co-operative) free market will fix it. We radical revolutionaries of Holla Forums know communism is a dumb utopian idea that's killed over 100,000,000 people, that's why we support more realistic programs like market socialism instead. After all, it's literally impossible for a coop to exploit anyone. Markets are literally perfect and modern CEO's spend 100% of their surplus-value on luxuries, so they're the only problem. Trust us, we're Marxists.

I haven't, but I might put it on my list now that you bring it up.

Daily reminder that market socialism is pure revisionism and straight to a planned economy is the only way

fucking revisionist

Why do people always bitch about "revisionism" as if it's an evil unto itself instead of evaluating whether or not the revisions are an improvement or not.

Protip: Marx isn't Jesus, his word isn't gospel.

The workers' state is a strong labor movement.

Not at all. When everyone owns a competitive business in a market economy, everyone thinks like a capitalist.

This mindset is already encouraged in modern companies because it strengthens teamwork. It does not, however, make everyone realize their class position and strengthen solidarity between all workers. "My peers and I make much more money if we work as a cohesive team" is not a concept that encourages proletarian internationalism.

The instability existed as a result of the capitalists and their sympathizers resisting their property being collectivized. Whether or not there would be a market in place afterwards doesn't make the instability go away.

I would agree if it weren't for the fact revisions have never been improvements, and only served to dismantle socialism every single time.

No it is not. History has continuously shown that trying to impose radical change top-down without popular support has either resulted in said changes being reverted after a short time, failure of the said system due to corruption and inner struggles in "le vanguard". You are so delusional to think otherwise tbh

...

anarkiddie pls leave

Dozens of attempts and building proto-capitalist countries in the middle ages failed miserably. Did the republicans just give up and instead dedicate their efforts to petitioning aristocrats to redistribute royal land and support free markets? No, revolts with the goal of establishing free cities, merchant republics, constitutional republics, etc. kept happening and kept being put down until a few of them succeeded and eventually spread throughout the entire world.

Yes, popular support is necessary, but it can only go so far. The information people have access to is in the hands of the ruling class. Every day people are bombarded with content celebrating capitalism and the status quo, distracting them with empty elections and identity politics, and demonizing socialism. Even if you study history or economics in the most prestigious universities you will never be told to read Marx or any other socialist author.

You need to realize most people will never reach class consciousness on their own, because it's in the class interest of the people running the media and educational institutions to deprive them of it. You are so delusional to think otherwise tbh.

Yes, vanguardism has its problems, but instead of parroting unoriginal criticisms of it, try coming up with a better alternative.

according to OP dicks are the best thing ever and need to be constantly sucked on

source: OP

eehhh, wrong board

>>>/faggot/

yeh
who supports this? do you take me for a b*rnie supporter or what?
That is only true for economics though, Marx is widely taught in sociology afaik and even in English Literature as Marxist class analysis is key to understanding like literally (pun intended) every text
Yes! This is why socialism needs to be relevant to world politics and have the support of workers before it becomes a dominant ideology/economic doctrine imo.

if you're not a burniefag, why are you just as fucking retarded?

Apparently because I disagree with you :'(

What? Of course they did, but definitely not most of them, is my point.

Oh no, don't tell me you fell for the mass action meme

That's interesting. I always though Marx's writings were mentioned here in there in the humanities but not gone over in detail. I'll look into that.
Even so, his work doesn't receive the kind of attention it needs to make a meaningful impact on how society views class and property relations.

But it's not going to be relevant and have the support of workers if those workers aren't class conscious in the first place!

How is that a spook. What are you actually talking about.

Well Marx and Weber are the fathers of sociology basically, you can't really teach a course without teaching them. Sadly idpol stuff is getting more and more popular.

I'm too tired to argue now, have to go to bed. Nice discussion though. cya later comrade

You know that all that goony "We're a free-spirited creative workplace! Come into work in just jeans and a shirt! Ride a scooter around the office! Watch movies in the employee lounge!" shit is to keep nerdy tech dweebs oblivious of the low remuneration and zero overtime pay, right?

G'night, comrade

Economics is just like, all in your head man.

This. We've been down this road before and it never works out.

see

Except the success of capitalism and bourgeois democracy wasn't realized until a massive technological revolution rendered feudalism obsolete and facilitated the growth of capitalism. Fortunately I think we may be on the eve of another such revolution as we approach the ability to fully automate production. In that scenario then I would support a transition to soviet style socialism without the intermediary periods of market socialism and syndicalism.

Full automation -> communism, yes

but in the meantime

Right on gomr8.

...

Your game is so weak I'm going to tell you to go watch Maher.
youtube.com/watch?v=Mh6dTVfHNVI

Well, maybe decentralized planned economy where planning is done on a local level. That way you don't have a nightmarishly bloated and authoritarian bureaucracy ruining everything.

...

...

...

...

Wrong word, Holla Forums

its a stepping stone

It's capitalism. It used to be a stepping stone indeed, but we have been walking on this stone for centuries now. It's time to prepare to the next step.

No we haven't. The economy is still completely dominated by private enterprise. It's not market socialism until collective enterprise is the only enterprise there is.

This would still be capitalism. Wether there are "private" or "collective" enterprises doesn't change a thing as far as the revolution to socialism, just like having despotism or "democracy" doesn't change a thing.

But the means of production are still owned by the workers. You can argue that it isn't really socialism, but it sure as shit isn't capitalism.

But it is. Who formally "owns" the means of production has nothing to do with that.

Actually it does, that's literally one of the main distinctions between the two.

The others being?

Capital accumulation, wage labour, and free markets.

...

So, according to you, a society where you have capital accumulation, wage labour, and free markets, but where the workers of each company "own" their means of production is not a capitalist society?

Cut the transhumanism and then yeh sure

That was me I just forgot to put on my flag. How can it used to have been a stepping stone when it hasn't really been tried… anywhere. Not just here and there but anywhere. I'm not talking sporadic co-ops setting up, I'm talking a fully confederated network of co-operatives. That definitely hasn't been our economy at all.

Do they trade?

There wouldn't me wage labour, since a wage is something paid to a worker as compensation, but is less than the full product of their labour. Workers in a co-operative split profits equally, so wage labour doesn't exist under market socialism. As for capital accumulation it would still technically exist, but on a fraction of a fraction of the scale it exists today. Even the largest and most successful co-operatives wouldn't be able to accumulate capital to nearly the extent we see under capitalism since the larger they get the more their profits are spread around. Any capital accumulation that does occur can be further mitigated through taxation and redistribution. As far as capital accumulation goes it is at best totally eliminated and at worst massively reduced.

Back to your cave /pol

How? And doesn't it contradicts workers "getting the full product of their labour"?

It isn't a contradiction. As co-operatives grow they have to hire more workers, which means that while the total profits may have increased thanks to the expansion of the enterprise, those profits are divided up among more people. Simple as that.

A co-operative can still make more profit than others with the exact same number of workers, or even less, thus accumulating capital faster.

On the other hand, some co-operatives may end with no capital at all, having nothing to sell but workforce. How do you prevent this?

its literally just math
No because the workers control what to do with their "profit". Besides, its hard to decide the "full product of somebody's labor" if they're working in a factory or office system

Aside from mitigating the effects of capital accumulation through taxation, I wouldn't. I recognize that some issues associated with capitalism would still exist, but as mentioned earlier in this thread market socialism isn't meant to be a solution. It's an intermediary period that is designed to dismantle Porky's grip on the reigns of power, reduce capital accumulation, end wage labour, and democratize production to a large degree. Market socialism would also facilitate a transition to syndicalism and then to socialism. I would also argue that it would go a long way to entrenching collectivist thinking to some extent as co-operative enterprise becomes the norm.

But taxation already exists today. It exists in democratic countries. It exists in democratic countries where 90% of the population is proletarian. And yet capital still accumulates, Porky still reigns, and wage labour is norm more than ever.
The only goal your "market socialism" seems able to attain is the democratisation of production, but even this doesn't mean a thing since your solution is precisely to… democratise production.

I get that you don't see this as proper socialism, but merely as a transition to it. But I can see literally no difference between your "transition" and capitalism itself. In other words, "market socialism" isn't a transition to anything: it's capitalism, plain and simple.

Actually, it's a completely delusional version of capitalism: capitalism with "true democracy". Advocating this delusion is the very definition of reformist opportunism.

I forgot a thing:

Capitalism, as it exists today, already does that. Capitalism socialises production. This is precisely the reason why Marx could predict the next society will be a classless one.

Capital still accumulates despite taxation because taxation alone is insufficient because capitalism systematically allocated wealth to the top. With market socialism, the wealth is far more evenly distributed in the first place, so the ability for capital to accumulate at all would be severely crippled. Taxation is just an extra measure to further mitigate any accumulation that does take place. Porky wouldn't be able to do anything to influence the government because no individual would be able to accumulate the necessary amount of wealth to do so.

Capitalism has five main attributes: free markets, capital accumulation, wage labour, private ownership of the means of production, and for profit production.

Market socialism keeps the free markets and (depending on the model) for profit production, massively reduces capital accumulation, collectivizes the means of production, and eliminates the wage system.

Again, it's not quite socialism, but it's clearly not the same as capitalism.

I think I tracked you down.

Please, answer this

Also
Porky is not an individual, but a social function. Instead of individual capitalists you'll get co-op capitalists.

The process that consists in a systematic allocation of wealth (value, actually) to the top is precisely capital accumulation. So what you're saying is basically:
This is a tautology.

And taxation is not an extra measure: it's the only one you came up with when I asked you how you would prevent some co-operatives from accumulating capital faster than others.

And yet you make four of them derive from the last one, since you believe suppressing private ownership of the means of production will automatically suppress wage labour, reduce capital accumulation, and set the basis for a peaceful suppression of markets and profit.

You're right to think there's a hierarchy between these characteristics of capitalism. Except you pick up the wrong one: wage labour, profit, capital accumulation, all of these derive from markets (I'm not inventing anything here, I'm just following Marx).
As for private ownership of the means of production, it existed indeed before capitalism. But it won't survive it. Nor will classes and States.

Ah yes, my old foe..

Naw m8, bureaucrats and high ranking officials clearly had a stranglehold on the political and economic system in the USSR and similarly modelled states, and like any oligarchy they ran it for their own interests.

If by a monopoly on work you mean that a few large co-ops dominate the job market then yes this may happen, but unlike a capitalist system this wouldn't put power into the hands of a select few, but empower all the workers in the co-operative.

Sure there would, but I don't see why this is so much of an issue.

I'm not anarchist, so there would be a state that could regulate the market just as it does under a capitalist system.

Yes but in order for them to wield any influence they would have to mobilize mass numbers of people, at which point they're basically just organizing grassroots democracy.

Yes, because capital accumulation under a capitalist system is different than under a market socialist system. Under a capitalist system capital accumulates in the hands of far fewer at a far faster rate because a far greater percentage of the profits are given to a far smaller number of people. The simple fact that those same profits would be distributed among a much bigger group means that capital wouldn't accumulate nearly as much. Taxation under these conditions becomes far more effective because of the reduced levels of accumulation.

Market socialism will eliminate wage labour and reduce capital accumulation. Wage labour is elminated because splitting the profits of a co-op is different from a wage. The co-op isn't negotiating with the worker how much they will be compensated. Payment in a co-op is no different than an individual reaping their share of the resources while living in a commune. As for capital accumulation it's reduced by the simple fact that the wealth is far more equally distributed, meaning that no individual or group of individuals can accumulate wealth at anywhere near the levels they would under capitalism.

This is why you should reply in the thread you were talking in.

You were not talking about USSR. You were talking about your own Market Socialism.

There:
> The workers would also have complete control over the means of production directly, and would have to rely on a state intermediary that can easily itself become akin to a bourgeois class of owner bureaucrats.

That's one of the specific possibilities. I'm talking about people's right to work being restricted by non-democratic mechanisms. I.e. inability to work in general.

Yes. Several dictators instead of one is still not democracy.

This is literally what is wrong with Capitalism. It's not that Big Bad Capitalisms are being deliberately evil (though some are, and most don't even care), it's the outside circumstances that put them in position of power and force them to act a certain way.

You are pretending that those socio-economic forces that created capitalists will not affect co-ops. Simply because they are collectives, rather then individuals.

I'm sorry. What was the purpose of your Market "Socialism" again? Because I don't really understand what you don't like in Capitalism. Well, except not being one of the rich.

It's called wage system. It's not "grassroots". It's simply hiring people.

I'm not sure if this is shitposting
I guess she could be oppressed if everyone in the coop hated her and voted to lower her wage for shits and giggles

Free markets aren't required in a capitalist system.

Sorry m8 there was a typo I hadn't noticed.

I meant to write "wouldn't have to rely on a intermediary state…" since one of my main issues with central planning is the prevalence of an extremely extensive and entrenched bureaucracy.

Well since its subject to market forces then yes, this could be an issue that wouldn't be solved under market socialism.

Market forces may still persuade a co-operative to behave in a certain way yes, but it wouldn't be the same as capitalism since they wouldn't be motivated to disenfranchise or harm their workers in any way. Any attempt that a co-operative would make to influence the government would have to be approved by enough of its workforce. A co-operative that was actually big enough to do this would be employing thousands upon thousands of people, and if they all decided together that they want the government to do something then you aren't talking about a few oligarchic capitalists influence peddling, you are talking about mobilizing thousands of citizens to petition their government to act in their interests, which is perfectly democratic. In addition any kind of secret low profile lobbying of the government would be much harder, since the number of people that would have to be involved and approve the action would mean that the public would almost certainly be aware of it. Essentially co-operatives wouldn't be able to undermine democratic processes without everybody knowing that that's exactly what they were doing.

What I meant by this was in reference to your statement that "there would be no way to regulate the market" when markets have been regulated for almost as long as they have existed.

What I meant by this is that in order for "co-op capitalists" to be any kind of threat to impartial government or democracy l, they would have to organize large numbers of people to their cause (basicslly just activism) as opposed to a small number of powerful individuals using their excessive wealth to buy influences.