Market Socialism

...

That's why we start with the US

There's no such thing as a perfect system.

...

that wasn't an argument for the status quo you dumbfuck

...

yeah it is, but if you want to circlejerk about only working towards full communism and become an autistic leftcom only capable of critiquing others while being incapable of action, then by all means!

But hey, now at least you get to be the one to decide whether you work hard to meet your 'coop''s profit quotas or starve!

yeah its totally capitalism

Also, a state planned economy has its own problems and contradictions. Certainly where resources are scarce the workers will be subjected to the cold logic of state planning and distribution, and there arises the danger of bureaucrats becoming the new capitalists.

Market cucksialists that result when you try to fuse Marxism and anarchism.

Trying too hard now.

Whatever faggot. Your poorly disguised version of capitalism is not gaining any traction.

It's a transitional phase, like state capitalism.

...

Hello, socdem. Why don't you kill yourself?

The reason social democracy doesn't work is because of the effect of capitalist money on the political process. In market socialism there will be no capitalists.

not even Lassalle would've said that this constitutes socialism lmao
wew so capital in socialism?

No that's not the reason

Then what's the reason?

Markets were still more efficient than direct planning because you didn't have to pray to god your leader wasn't a fucking idiot that demanded farmers make steel in their backyards.

like syndicalism, it doesn't actually break the cycle of capital

no one cares about your special snowflake definitions autist. Any basic marxist critique of capitalism is neutralized via market socialism unless you buy into the leftcom stupidity that we shouldn't have an economy, we shouldn't have economies and we shouldn't have firms.

It prevents the capitalist class from stopping the transition to FALC. The reason syndicalism didn't work was because it was a form of anarchism.

Wow, great argument/10

Well, capitalists aren't going to be around to do anything in market socialism, and syndicalists failed because, like all anarchists, they were unable to sufficiently defend themselves from outside threats.

it's not a special snowflake definition. Those are the fundamental pillars of capitalism that were described not only by Marx but to an extent even by bourgeois economists before Marx. So fuck you, this is like saying e=mc^2 is wrong bc "fuck your special snowflake definition". This relativism is what is killing any leftist critique.
So either you engage with critics and theoretical approaches to the capitalist mode of production or you can continue being a a fucking philistine.

You're not arguing over what even capital and wage is your just saying that having workers own their own enterprises isn't socialism.

If you are going to critique capitalism for not allowing workers to have the surplus value created in the process of creating commodities but then say it doesn't even matter if you abolish that theft then what is the point?

at least syndicalism actually does something once in a while

because this is not what our argument is about. I'm not your teacher, there are enough resources and reading lists compiled for you to read. If someone wants to defend market socialism as a socialist system I expect this person to understand basic marxist terms like capital and wage.
And we're not criticizing that capital isn't allowing the workers to control the surplus value they create; a market economy depends on the surplus value (ie abstract labor, 'exchange value') being reinvested for the next production cycle so even more surplus value could be extracted.
This basic premise isn't even remotely attacked by 'market socialism'. In fact market socialism was Tito's response to the crisis of the Yugoslavian command economy. In a way Tito (or rather Kardelj) forced the workers to accept the logic of capital by making them responsible for the success of their individual capital.
And you're seriously overestimating the power worker enjoyed in self-administration. Their position in the factory councils was more advisory, the party and the managers appointed by the party were the real power brokers.

t. yugoslav

Do you think I'm an idiot, I'm trying to use yugoslavia as an exact model, I'm just saying they got the basic idea right. The problem with the yugoslav model was the over dependence on state planning and the corruption of that same state.

I assure you I do understand the concepts of wage and capital, but what I'm trying to do here is argue my case so that NORMAL PEOPLE understand, something I don't expect a leftcom to understand.

But that's exactly the criticism! The criticism of how the boss is not paying you to do your work but that you are paying him to make you work! Think for a moment what a market economy would be like without the essential contradiction of class, of employers trying to squeeze as much out of their workers while their economy depends on those same workers needing money to make purchases in the economy. Suddenly without the capitalist demand increases, stability increases, growth increases, the democracy of the political economy increases, and equality increases! I would say that's an accomplishment for any system.