Workers market coops are not socialism, but reduce the class power of the bourgeoisie

It's like you're seriously a fucking retard.

According to Marx, they will inevitably become socialist, because that's the natural course of history, or something like that.

It's a "historical inevitability" because of the inherent instability of the capitalist system. Eventually it will collapse, but the means of production will remain, and for the people to survive they will have to appropriate them for their own use at the expense of their "owners."

full retard

Great! You read like the perfect person to explain to me what "capitalism" is?

read proudhon fagget

What does economic collapse have to do with the relinquishing of force?

proudhon was not a socialist, he was a borderline ancap early on and later a federalist.

...

As long as there is production for profit and wage labour and all the problems that come with it it isn't socialism.

What is that even supposed to mean? But no, coops in the frame of a capitalist world economy do not pose a threat to capitalism.

If people don't want to starve to death they will have to take the productive land or factories or whatever, which the capitalists won't be using because there is no one left to sell these commodities to.

Either porky's paid goons will have to kill or otherwise perpetually stop this acquisition or the sheer popular weight will overcome the proprietary force of capital.

what good would explaining capitalism to you be when you don't even understand what class is

it depends on definition of socialism

Yes,

Because the co-op can continue to produce for reasons outside of capital, something a corporation would never do.

For example a farm co-op can continue to grow food for their community even if that community has no capital to give them back in exchange. They can accept other forms of payment, extend credit, or just forgoe it all together.

I know that seems like a weird idea but we could potentially be heading to a time where there legitimately isn't any capital to chase int he economy soon.

Haha what are you ancraps?

...

daily reminder that market socialism is literally the only kind that hasn't fallen completely on its head

If you nigga read anyone worthwhile you'd know why I'm right.

wew

ITT

...

...

...

Socialism is the colective ownership of the means of production

why aren't worker co-ops socialistic? If workers own the means of production, all other considerations are null, it's socialistic.

Though honestly, asking whether a thing within a system is "socialist" is silly. The system is socialist, not the aspects. The summation of the aspects make it socialist.

A society of market co-ops would be socialist.

Take off the trip you double nigger

workers always own the means of production- themselves

Yeah but there's no capitalists and workers own whatever surplus value is produced. We still need the contradictions of profit to reach full automation, after which markets would be disintegrated by the state.

sure thing porky

"B-but nihilism isn't reactionary"

Op here
Production for exchange on the market for money, with competition forcing continued investment in capital, is capitalism. It's more egalitarian, but production has to be for use by the whole community democratically to be socialism. You still have competition, you still have the need for endless compound growth, you still have competition forcing commodity prices to be mediated by relative labor times, etc

Co-ops, imo, are absolutely progressive. They would reduce wealth inequality, increase aggregate demand, and increase investment (co-ops will invest in productive expansion on lower margins than capitalists will). They also provide a platform for a broad left-wing movement, much like unions have in the past. If the entire economy was co-ops and national production, there would be no capitalists pushing economic liberalism and fighting reforms to the market economy, and fighting expansion of socialist production.
Worker co-ops won't move production to the third world, worker co-ops won't fund right wing parties.

I think you're missing the fact that without capitalists in the political economy many of the features of social democracy and democratic socialism would be able to flourish beside the market co-ops. For example, within a market socialist country the state may very well decide that power should be owned by confederations of municipalities, that certain industries should be nationalized even if most are not. Not to mention, I think most market socialists would support socialized capital, an investment fund owned by the state which held a sizable portion of shares in the biggest industries (perhaps all companies beyond a certain threshold) the proceeds (surplus value) of which would be split between the state and the citizens. There's no reason to expect the people wouldn't use the state to check industry, and that should be encouraged by the platform of any market socialist party.

Essentially, I think market socialists should stand for first as the co-op becoming the hegemonic mode of production, but to use social democracy and democratic socialism to fill in the gaps around the margin.

I still wouldn't call producing goods for sale on the market using money as a medium of exchange as socialism, but that's semantics in regards to this discussion
Yes I completely agree, that's what I mean when I say reducing the class power of the bourgeoisie
I think cooperative-izing the economy alongside evolutionary socialist policies (state-led investment in public goods) would be a worthwhile experiment and would compliment eachother, with the government investment bringing us out of the current crisis.