How does market socialism differ from "real communism"?

Socialism is socialism and capitalism is capitalism. Just like the function of the state, markets are a separate question.

Markets are intrinsic to capitalism, but not vice versa.

In real communism the commodity form has been abolished.

i actually agree with this. by dialectical definitions socialism is a necessary waste of time. you can't get to communism without it but it is just a lesser evil capitalism

Please read Capital.

I know the criticism, but market socialism came before Marx's shit. Don't give me ahistorical shit about how it isn't socialism.

just because it "came before" doesn't mean shit. if anything it proves the point that it's essentially useless in the grand scheme

It's socialism. Get over it. It may suck or whatever, but it's socialism. You don't get to redefine shit. Don't get pissed when people do the same to your ideology.

i didn't say that it wasn't. i was just agreeing that it may as well be capitalism with more rules. in any case i don't fuck with ideology i fuck with praxis

It isn't capitalism.

"market socialism" is fucking capitalism with liberal dickheads come on

Actually we do. Because calling "socialism" something that is, by essence, nothing else than capitalism, is not only stupid: it's a way to disarm the proletariat.

Hermann Göring was a Nazi, not a socialist

Nazis are pro capitalism, there is no such thing as "market socialism"

Kek

these posts are the reason i still use this shite website

You're a fucking idiot. It came before Marxism and was explicitly anti-capitalist. Oh, fuck, read a book

It has a state and it has money, arguably it still have the capitalist mode of production.

Notice the anal pain of the furious sager as his entire worldview is deconstructed before his very eyes.

Any system with capital accumulation is not anti-capitalist, champ.

Hahaha I'm not a market socialist. I'm just calling bullshit on you guys. Marx didn't invent socialism, okay?

Yeah okay. Are you like 7?

There is a word for this: inconsistency.

Indeed, he didn't. What he did was discovering the characteristics of the future society.

because it's better than "real gommunizm"

Because communism is a stateless, moneyless, classless society. Market socialism is socialism not communism.

As long as profit is used for socially useful things like expanding production of goods for which there's a lot of demand, research & development of new goods and technologies, replacing production machines with better ones etc., there is literally nothing wrong with accumulating profits from goods sold. This is only non-socialist if capital is being accumulated to allow some people to have significantly more personal wealth for consumption than others.

Marx actually talks about something like this in "Critique of the Gotha Program", when he was criticizing another socialist named Lasalle who wanted workers to collectively receive the full "proceeds of their labor", Marx argued that some of the value of goods produced wouldn't be distributed among the workers for personal consumption but instead would be set aside for various socially useful purposes:

Socialism is communism.

Market socialism is for people that still fall for the neoclassical memes that the invisible hand of market is the ultimate tool for the alocation of resources, and that people acting for their self interest is going to result the best result possible for every one.
I recomend this lecture for declasscucking, and a real marxist perspective on the market
youtube.com/playlist?list=PLB1uqxcCESK6B1juh_wnKoxftZCcqA1go

are you saying that a market must have capitalism but a capitalist system doesn't need to have a market?

no the other way around

But what about sdade gabidalism

it was a historic-specific form of (capitalist) modernization in Yugoslavia. Up to 48 Yugoslavia was a command economy, similar to the USSR. Then the Stalin-Tito split happened and Yugoslavia got thrown out of the cominform. Due to the economic war started by the USSR Yugoslavia had to liberalize its markets way faster than its pendant in the east. This was justified using Kardelj's bogus theory of "workers' self-management", invoking some quotes of "young Marx" about how socialism really is a association of free producers (the whole thing about capital accumulation? forget about it).
See, the state is really bad at making people accept the logic of capital. Before the split, people could use the means of production any way they wanted, mostly inefficiently because whether they use them efficiently or not really made no difference, the growth of the individual capital was not in the hands of the firm. With workers' self management however they put individual firms in a more self-responsible position. Each firm was now responsible for the firm's success and each firm was encouraged to use the means of production more efficiently, as they now had to pay a rent for their use. For all its socialist phrase-mongering it was really just a capitulation to the logic of capital.

source: Ernst Lohoff's piece on the modernization of Yugoslavia (Dritter Weg in den Bruderkrieg).

I really have a problem with 'marxists' who fail to employ basic historic analysis and elevate specific historic phenomena to something that is "outside" of history and applicable everywhere at any point in time. What a load of bull.
Like, when tanks and other etatists think that command economies in post-fordist nations have any material basis.

jesus christ

reinvesting the social product in the next cycle of production isn't the same thing as the self-movement of capital for its own sake m8. Capital accumulation is something that happens first and foremost for expanding the production of use-values; this is just a nifty coincidence. Capital accumulates so it can make more profits in the next cycle, so it can exploit its workers more efficiently.

obviously meant to say that accumulation isn't meant to expand the production of use values.

you know capital doesn't have its own will right? it's just how people interact with it that gives it the semblance of that

Market Socialism may not be communism but in today's West (barring a full on collapse) it's the best chance at moving towards communism.