Why do you object to mutualism?

Because

Is a slap in the face to any critical thinker. Capitalism exists as a means of using private surplus to exploit the existence of a market economy. Most anti-capitalist approaches involved limiting the market to such a degree that Capitalism ceases to be possible coupled with seizing and redistributing existing privately help property. Mutualism allows Capitalism to creep back in.

wow you really thought this post through.

Where's the ancom poster that gets mad every time the flag is upside down?

N I C E M E M E

citation needed

How? Under mutualism everyone would be a laborer freely exchanging with other laborers, it's only be a "market" by default. Also, how do I get a flag to show up on my post. New here.

...

...

As an ex-ancom: fuck that stupid ass politically correct picture.

>2. voluntary communes
This shilling for right libertarians.
Literally wut? Communists are not individualists, you fuckwits.
Fucking kill yourself Proudhonist idiot. Ancoms have read Marx.

kek
Reminder that this image was made by a 16 year old kid thinking that political philosophies are like cartoon and music trends people chose to express their personality.
Wut?

Mutualism is libertarian socialist.

I forgot how much of an autist you were.

Mutualism is the most paradoxical shit ever, so you can call it anything as far as I care. I'm pretty certain that Libertarian Socialists of the 20th century would have a problem with that, but hey.

How?

How can markets be "anti-capitalist" if they rely on private property in the first place?

Because commodity production
Also automation caused unemployment would still be inevitable

Defective.
That is not the point.

The irony is that during that epoch, Proudhon called himself a socialist, was recognized as being part of the broad socialist movement, and adherents to mutualism (which is simply the libertarian school of market socialism) even called themselves libertarian socialists.

Proudhon books are great tho. I love when he talks to the crowd. He even makes the noises and exclamations himself. Crazy guy.

Well, they are not necessary capitalists as they existed before capitalism. Unless you think capitalism = trade?

...

How is it a meme? Mutualism is anarchistic, it is inherently anti-state.

Nigger, can you read?

Not that I don't support cooperatives 100% as a way of transitioning to socialism
I fucking wish the US was 100% co-oop

[Citation needed]

its againts the state-controlled means of production

What are some good resources to learn more about mutualism?

But it's also against any function of the state. Proudhon was an anarchist.

Wow that was really fucking hard to research

you undoubtedly need some form of state to enforce property rights and the well-being of the banking institutions

not him but I can read, still not picking up what you're putting down.
market is just exchange of goods? without private property its just the exchange of the fruits of your own labour for the fruits of someone elses.

Why can't the coop workers enforce those right themselves, in the same way you would defend your house from thieves?

In a mutualist system there'd be "currency" not "capital".

No automation would not cause unemployment it would just reduce the amount of work for the collective.
Let's say we have a small widget shop that requires two people to work 10 hours a day in order to be productive and efficient.
One of the workers creates an innovation to the widget making technology that doubles productivity.
Because we're a collective we're not going to fire anyone A. it's undesirable B. how the fuck would anyone person have the right? we're a collective

What would instead happen is we would either collectively produce more, cut our working time in half or a potent mix of the two.

the police would be constructed in a co-operative manner, but you still need a central figure that the police must report to

individual police forces will be less effective and can lead to violence between them, you do need parallel police forces, but they still should not be fully autonomous

either a republic, a voluntary democratic goverment or a technocracy, the central figure is in charge of whatever the co-op police might do

Explain to me exactly why thats a problem?

How do you exchange something that you don't own? You can't.

You seriously think that a 5 manned car factory that produces 100 cars a month are entitled to their factory and to all their cars to sell as they see fit? And to top that you dare to call that 20 cars / person "personal property"?

meanwhile these faggots will compete with much more labor-intensive and far less rewarding jobs on the job market

kek, you keep blowing my mind
So, under mutualism we'll have market, private property, money, commodities, jobs, etc. and that makes you an anarchist how?

kek, WHO PAYS THEM?

and this is supposedly not the same as the ayncrap version of private police companies

you are an anarchist how?

I don't get why you're singling us out. No one reads on this board anyways :^)

ok

if you don't have a central figure (its size being irrelevant) in charge of police, how do you control the police forces from turning into paramilitary forces that can use their force to take control of the means of production and actually turn the whole situation into anacapism?

very good meme

Don't know how to greentext did i do it right?

1. Private property. Correct me if I'm wrong but I always thought "private property" were means of production owned by the capitalist in order to extract surplus value from the workers.
Under mutualism the workers of the factory would own it and democratically decide what to do with what they produce. I don't see how this is "private property" is there something I'm missing?

2. A market in a mutualist sense of the word is the default means of exchanging goods and services and I don't see what's wrong with that.

3. Jobs. People wouldn't have "jobs" under communism? I don't see what the difference is. People are going to labor and produce things in both systems and neither system would have a boss or master that would have complete control over the workers.

4. Commodities. Yes, there will be things created by workers in mutualism. These things can be used or traded to other people for their respective things. Sounds horrific, I know.

5.Money. Like I said previously money wouldn't have the same function as capital and there might not even be money. If I have money the only thing I can do with it is give it to other people in exchange for their goods and services. I can't buy means of production to exploit workers, buy property I won't live on to charge rent etc. It's just the medium of exchange calm down bruh cakes.

Yeah but automation is uneven some jobs may be eliminated completely before others are touched. So sure, you can do retraining. But what happens when certain people become a greater cost than a resource?
I'm not dead set on this argument, I don't know how automation would play out in a cooperatives economy, but I see potential problems

the main problem with automation is that you might get to a point where the ruling class will be compossed of people that "understand" the automation itself

people that can create and program robots will, without a doubt, rule over the ones who dont'

No, it's pretty much anything economic. And to a certain degree it's besides my point, which you naturally completely ignore. If you tie ownership to occupation and/or use it's still ownership. And in my example, how the fuck would 20 cars be of personal use to you anyway? Under your mutualist nigthmare I can decide to hoard my fucking cars with my fellow car producers, jacking up the price. Which brings us back how fucking irrational producing for markets is.

And market in a shamanistic sense is the exchange of spirits, and I couldn't care less. A market needs private property. It's irrational. It's wasteful. And it's a conservative idea.

No, they wouldn't, you cretin.

But how they produce matters a great deal. Your arguments mirrors those of right wingers, ffs.

Except you are describing a 100% ancap world, the only difference being that you don't like calling property property.

Well the owners aren't the ones who understand the tech now, so that's why I want democratic ownership

I am reminded of that classic Proudhon quote: "Property is something the state should guarantee"

I'm not quite sure that I follow could you please elaborate or point to a specific hypothetical scenario where the use of automation would cause someone to lose their position in the collective as opposed to just lightening the work load of the collective.

I respectfully disagree. Although automation may make things easier, it's not going to substitute human reason and creativity which is vital for production. If this alleged ruling class of creators of automation began extorting people we could simply boycott their services. We would still be able to produce.

Agree but there's literally nothing wrong with Market socialism under a state, and it did a lot better than the USSR.

Well. the problem would be the typical anarchist critiques of the state.

Are you referring to Yugoslavia? If so, comparing it to the USSR in such manner is pretty absurd IMO, as if it didn't get a lot of economic advantage from deviating from the main line set by the USSR, being open to the West and East. On a global scale that's a parasitic relationship.

The main problem with market socialism is the market. Give it 2 generations after a revolution and you'll get wealth inequality, accumulation, uneven development, and the accompanying ideological productions (in the case of Yugoslavia: nationalism).

I'm finding it hard to see how a market soc. system could provide a basis for transitional development towards communism for the same reasons.

Not everyone is interested in communism tbh m8.

And I'm not interested in everybody tbh m8

I think it's a fair assumption that you are a communist by posting on Holla Forums. If you aren't, than reddit might be more your speed.

That's generally true, but mutualists aren't communists for example.

They aren't anarchists either, quite apparently.

read motherfucker

cars anot actually means of production, they are commodities

you wouldn't use a sports car as a taxi? you would use an electric vehicle that is solely designed for transportation

Ehh… there are a ton of pretty shitty mutualists everywhere.

In this thread we have a self-proclaimed mutualist that doesn't think Proudhon and Ben Tucker were against the state…

Ok, but it would help a lot if you'd tell me what.

I'm legitimately confused as to what you're implying and what you're objection to this system is. It seems you have this impression that mutualism is just diet ancap, and I hope I can clarify as to why it's not.

>private property is just MoP

There'd still be "economics" in any society. Economics is just the allocation of resources and until post-scarcity arrives we're going to have to allocate resources in some fashion.

Yeah, but why would you in the first place? What makes you think that every worker in every car production factory is going to unanimously go along with you?

I'm not going to address the other points actually. In all fairness I don't know exactly what type of economic arrangement you advocate for and I've never had a communist exhaustively explain how the production process would function outside of "workers councils would do everything".

I'm not trying to knock communism because at the end of the day it's what I assume we all want but I don't see why mutualism is so objectionable in the interim.

""""marxists"""" """""leninists""""" showing his true colors

if you are interested in eliminating the capitalistic system, it is because it serves the human cause

btw he's right. Private property is just the means of production

not even trying to make a worthy meme at all

I asked you people how do you enforce policing without a central figure and literally no one replied

pls try coming up with better memes

I don't understand why you call yourself a mutualists if you are not an anarchist.

Ah yes, land isn't private property, neither is my 12 villas and yachts, neither is my impressive car collection. Nope, that's personal property. Oh, and that factory? That's not private property either, because it is owned by the five of us.
PROBLEM?

Gee, I don't know.

I'm an anti-humanist, fyi.

I'm not really sure what you're trying to say here. If the land is being used in production and it's ownership is being leveraged for exploitation, then yes… it is private property and it is also a means of production in the form of natural capital.

Are you seriously having this much trouble applying a basic marxist concept?
You're a pr shitty leninist

go read a book you ignorant prick

...

This is not a Marxist concept btw.

except a yatch or a car collection are commodities, not means of production

welcome to the methaphysical problem of property, this is why Papi Proudhon says property is impossible

Commodities with obvious economic and political significance. How would you categorize the tons of products hoarded by the Venezuelan bourgeoisie, stopping them ever reaching the shelves in an obvious attempt to further worsen the crisis? Personal property? Absurd.

wow
read your theory holy fuck

Ah, okay now I see where your objections lie.

Side note: can you please elaborate as to how resources would be allocated under your particular system, I'm not looking to just arbitrarily shit all over them I am quite curious and maybe we can come to an understanding.

I don't personally have a problem with you owning a lot of things because the only way to obtain them is to actually work for them. You wouldn't have been able to have all those things by exploiting labor the same way porky does. There's no interest, rent, extraction of surplus value or any other usury that exists in capitalism.

With regards to your comment on ownership of MoP you emphasized the word "owned". I apologize I misspoke, I was using the word owned as more of a colloquialism than the actual meaning in leftist jargon. No one would "own" the factory. You couldn't arbitrarily prevent workers for producing in it in order to maintain monopolistic control over it.

In a nutshell I believe that if laborers were to freely exchange either their labor or their respective fruits of their labor with one another the market would reach a point of a sort equilibrium where for only maybe one or two days of working a few hours you could easily sustain a very nice lifestyle.

If you only had to work ten hours a week (I'm just using 10 hours as an example don't hold me to it) and could feed your family, own your own home and land and be able to travel, invest in all the hobbies you want, pursue artistic and creative endeavors with your spare time what would incentivize you to be "greedy"?

Even if you were greedy and wanted to waste your fucking time producing more and more just to buy completely useless luxury items it doesn't hurt anyone else, you'd be the only one suffering.

The reason why people hoard expensive fancy shit is because it's a status symbol. It's only a status symbol because of the massive inequalities in society. There are few people who can afford a nice car, a boat etc but if we're all just laboring with one another there's no reason for us not to be able to possess those things.

The USSR being unable to trade with other countries freely does not make Leninism or ML a favourable system - stop having a victim complex.

No, a strong state with anti-trust laws will prohibit that. I fail to see how nationalism is a result of markets and not a result of the ruling class conjuring spooks.

Yes it's personal property. Is this Muke? Did you come back? And you still haven't read?

Venezuelan bourgeoise are exploiters??

do you think Chavez was not porky? Chavez, his party and families are class traitors

the idea of owning a commodity is not the issue here, owning a commodity by exploiting the other's labour is

the only way you can exploit the others is by theft, which is why private appropriation of the MoP is theft

sure, if porky owns a mega yatch, several sports cars and several resorts is because he stole them, the exploitation is not the ownership per se, but how you acquired said ownership

try harder, faggot

Muke we don't want you here you embarrassed us. In a revolution we'd use you as bait, because that's all you're good for.

you are the reason nobody respects leninists

KEK. So owning two tons of bread in the middle of a famine is not an issue.

I see now why your so bad at this, Muke
You do read, it's just that comprehension and context are alien concepts to you

let's pretend you own those two tons of bread because you worked for them.

like lets say you came up with an amazing evolved plant that somewhow managed to give crops all year, aswell as a super efficient production line which was made solely by yourself and it can produce two tons of bread instantly

lets say you alone managed to come up with the two tonnes of bread, let's ignore the problem of how you used communal land by thinking you found some unexplored land that somehow no one couldn't use and that you produced the two tonnes of bread in an instant so that the argument of how you were using the oven as a private entity

once we somehow manage to solve these simply unsolveable problems let think that yes, you do have two tonnes of bread that you alone came up with

why would you give them to the people? (I am not saying you shouldn't since I am agree with the utilitarianism concept of ethics and morality). What was the rest of the commune doing? where they too busy watching furry porn or what?

funny how you are grasping at humanist arguments to defend your position yet you claimed not to be a hummanist before

nice cognitive disorder

...

Why would there be a famine in the first place?

Be nice to Muke, he's spreading the message the best he can. He's one of the few in a medium dominated by alt-rightists.

Muke talks too much shit to not get some bullying in return.

It depends - is the worker planning to sell the bread? Did he produce the bread himself? In market socialism your critique makes sense(which is why I said the mutualist notion of a socialized market functioning without a state is a pipe dream) because the worker(s) is most likely trying to create scarcity. But in a planned economy, the worker has the right to keep what he procures(provided, he gives the appropriate amount to the public funds that he makes use, of or has made use of in the past). If he, or a conglomerate of workers wants to keep the remaining bread to eat themselves - why shouldn't they. You seem to fundamentally misunderstand what Marx was critiquing, the labourer being estranged from his labor - society becoming an abstract to him.

Let's say a worker has a small plot himself and he theoretically, toils himself produce two tons of bread. His plan is to withhold the bread during a famine, and then sell it when scarcity of bread is at its highest. How do you curb this, without a state?

you most likely can't, which is why I think there should be a central power
this central power has to be voluntary

also, a worker would need to seize the control of a piece of farmland and somehow skew his production figures, and then cause a famine

This is implying that the worker can only live from his own labour which is practically impossible. Even in mutualism you would be dependent on other's labour no matter how insignificant in your daily life, the hypothetical worker would be denying himself participation in society itself by hoarding food, because why would any other worker offer up his labour for the one which does not do the same for him, while capable?

The question is why would there be a famine in the first place? Why would all of the rest of the people who are in the bakery trade suddenly stop producing?

This might happen if let's say some disease or parasite infested the wheat fields.

Even if he does hoard it during a famine the community that needs it can just fucking steal it if need be. We're mutualists not ancaps we do have a heart and understand that there's a time and place to break the sacred NAP lol.

We have a firm that manages an app.
Everyone at the firm is a programmer except Jeff. Jeff is a translator we hired to work with our partner company in China that works on the same app.
A translation program comes along that mashed having a translator largely unnecessary. Jeff is only needed 3 hours a month to double check the translations. Jeff is 50 and is to old to be retrained as a programmer. What do we do with Jeff?

I'm sure english to chinese translation has many other uses that translating an app

I see where you're coming from comrade.

This, I was literally going to say something to this effect and you beat me to it in a matter of seconds.

Even if Jeff serves no other purpose other than to check the translations he's still needed and should be compensated for his labor regardless.

I can't speak for all mutualists but personally I am adamantly opposed to the division of labor. I think in a new society we can teach people a variety of skills starting at a young age.

I'd like a world where everybody knows something about everything and everything about something.

This is theoretical - a famine is just a situation where workers might withhold commodities from production in order to drive up scarcity.

Which leads me to ask why you're rejecting planned economy in favour of a market if there are situations where you need to break autonomy of the workers.

He could sell small amount of bread or deceive as to the amount of bread he has. We've seen the lengths people will go to when an economically advantageous choice is offered up to them.

Not an anarchist but I suppose he could just do busywork in the commune. Still, I think you're doing a good job of pointing the flaws in an unregulated market, regardless of who controls the MOP.

Work and exchange doesn't happen in a vacuum. In a market society if I work in the aforementioned car factory I'll be rich as fuck in a month, but if I work in a factory producing plastic bags I'd remain poor as fuck. There's absolutely no inbuilt guarantee to counteract this basic flaw and this is where your indifference towards property or wealth other than the MoP shows its true colors.

There's clearly accumulation, value-form, private property here. The mutualist illusion: remove surplus value and we're in post-capitalism.

Right, so there's this car factory coop. I just go there and say I want to work here, because money. And then they have to let me work there even though my presence is superfluous to the actual labor process? No, that's nonsense. Clearly not everyone can work at Boeing and Volvo, so most of the population is stuck with shit jobs getting shit in exchange for their fruits of labor.

>You couldn't arbitrarily prevent workers for producing in it in order to maintain monopolistic control over it.
Restate sentence. You meant to say "from"? Then the problem I already outlined. There can't be any number of workers present in a factory. There are physical limitations.

Yes, we are all familiar with this kind of reasoning. The market, this essentially stable and equal place is wronged by some outside influence, but if we truly left it to its own devices it would create miracles.
And this is not right wing how?

Can't you see that the "bread in famine" was an obviously extreme example of trying to show the inbuilt inequalities of your system. Again, back to the car factory. I can horde around 1000 cars in ten years, yet still live a comfortable life. Why would I do it? I'm a car pervert. I want my kids to inherit shit.

But getting commodities off of the market freely is just one crazy aspect of the market. The more core issue is that producing for the market has a totally crazy logic of being removed from serving human needs directly, and its wastefulness.

I don't see, to put it bluntly, how the luring environmental crisis can be solved under a global market.

Just wut?

Nice fedora tipping.

Yes, your perfect utopia over-rides natural disasters too.

You seem to rely on the young Marx here. Old Marx revised his prior views about alienation (still a Hegelian/Feuerbachian concepts) and used it even in a sarcastic way in later life.

But let's not sidetrack from this high quality thread.

Kek. It's this "my violence is pure violence" shit again. Just drop that flag and go with the donkey.

well you made those cars

let's say you devoted your life into making those 1000 cars

literally who should stop this from doing it as long as you don't pollute or exploit workers or deplete all the resources

I completly get your point I understand how some form of libertarian markets can easily turno into capitalism again

however if you suddenly stop selling your cars how exactly are you going to continue producing them if you don't take part in the market exchange? I don't understand how you will be able to continue producing goods, without exploting workers or seizing control of the land without any sort of income

literally not even an argument
see

I'm kekking hard at how people ITT are actually more worried about the minuscule details of the "bread - famine" scenario than the point it was intended to make.

But let's not sidetrack from this high quality thread.

I wouldn't consider Capital volume one to be unrepresentative of Marx's views. Nor The German Ideology to be an insignificant text of Marx. The class antagonism that results from capitalism is what Marx focuses on, and you can't separate alienation from that.

That being said, I'm still not clear if the point about the bread was in regard to a market or planned economy, because the appropriate responses are polar opposites.

The commune, of course. Such a waste of resources is intolerable.

nah everybody is just pointing out your 'point' is fucking dumb and inconsequential

your point makes no fucking sense

centralized production has proved to be shit and will end in authoritarianism

the only reason a workers co-op would be able to affect certain community is if they own the monopoly, which a market directly stops from happening

what if you are not wasting resources tho

at what point does production becomes a waste of resources? what if producing something will directly help said commune to develop more efficient ways of production?

It is not my opinion that Marx drops his alienation theory. It is a fact.

And yours will regress to capitalism. You are not above the USSR. A "voluntary" central authority is incoherent, when do you get to opt out of the central authority? When it's inconvenient for you? At what point does the central authority voluntarily

All a "worker co-op" needs to do in a market is overproduce to drive smaller co-ops out of business, once they reach a certain size of course. And I mean the size of Mondragon, not Mcdonalds.

I'm waiting for you to provide me with such factoids Muke. I think it might be hard since you don't read, which is probably why you got beat in a "debate" by a group of e-fascist.

Then you are not in a market system. Markets are wasteful. You can't predict the total supply and demand, your competitors next move, etc. so producers first and foremost intend to keep their position in the market even at the expense of the quality of their products, or overproduction. Just think about how ~60% of businesses don't survive the first 5 years. Your price was undercut by a larger producer, or it turns out there's not enough demand, or a better product obliterates your sales.

When the production process isn't under total direct control of the people. With a market you can't have direct control, because you maneuver and calculate by its abstract (and idiotic) rules.

le ussr maymay authorizes me to be a market shill

kek

You sure act like him. Wanna provide me with when Marx said a commodity could exist in a vacuum, where it WASN'T being produced for a market. Please show me that, and then show me where Marx said the estrangement of the worker from his labour is wrong, and we should go full blown collectivist.

You put the ancom flag upside down, what the fuck is wrong with you

Mutualists…

wew, liberal identified

I don't think Marx said that.

I don't think Marx said that. He usually doesn't discuss things in moralistic terms.

I'm pretty sure Marx didn't conceive of the individualist - collectivist opposition as a scale where you can land somewhere in between the two.

you're equally stupid so y'know

...

Earlier in the thread(unless this was another autistic leninist) you conflated owning a boat(which is personal property) with private property because of its "political significance". That implies that commodities can exist outside a market as the boat is not being traded on a market or MOP.

That's because he never ditched the alienation of the worker from his labour.

Marx conceived of the individual but recognized the emancipation of the individual can only come to fruition after the emancipation of the collective. The idea that in times of hardship, a worker(keyword being worker) is not entitled to what he toils to produce is completely antithetical to what Marx advocated.

only if its left unregulated, which is why I need a lawful goverment and educated citizens

remember that while capitalism is the system where a small portion of the population has the ownership of all the means of production, it still needs a base and a superstructure, something that without existing, capitalism will be impossible to exist

something that won't happen?

think about this, a voluntary central authority consist of people who take part in politics because they need or want to participate, not because of economic reasons, the main problem today is that politicians are inside the sphere because of political and economical power

the only way people will be able to make a living there is by lobbyism, that takes place because co-ops pay them to particpate

they key issue is that since it is completly voluntary and completly nonpartisan everyone can enter, co-ops that start getting driven out of buisness can take part even if they don't have the economic mediums of doing so, there are no elections

plus if you think about the idea where co-ops must make their productions public by law it would be very easy to detect is a big co-op wants to drive someone else out of buisness

but you can make commodities recycleable, you can automate the production of essential commodities

there are many ways you can produce commodities so that they don't end up being wasteful

but why should you predict supply and demand?

while agree with the crisis of overproduction, it is a crisis because the capitalists horde the products and stop them from being delivered to the people, plus they avoid the workers from acquiring them via trade by exploting them with wages

the crisis of overproduction inside capitalism is not only caused by overproduction, but by a state that supports the capitalist denial of delivery

what you are not understanding is that a workers co-op that intend to create a false shortage is by definition exploting not only themselves but the community, why is the community going to keep engaging in trade with them?

its that easy, we currently cannot do such thing because of the concept of private property and the superstructure behind it, but again, by eliminating both the base and the superstructure, by making it """""""legal"""""" to kick a working co-op out of certain farmland because they wanted to create a flase shortage we can stop it from occuring

le market = capitalism meme authorizes me to be a planned economy shill

was that a filter?

I'm pretty sure I wrote we need

its not good in theory either :^)

No you fundamentally misunderstand capitalism. The base of capitalism is not private property, it's commodity production. Private property exist outside of capitalism, commodity production does not. You want to eliminate capitalism without eliminating its base. The base/superstructure is just explaining how the economic system within an epoch ultimately affects most of the culture or styles of governance(for an example) that arise within that epoch it does not mean that capitalism needs a certain "superstructure" to survive. Anarchs-Capitalism could feasibly exist and did for quite some time. It will indubitably regress to the state, that is not in question. But just because there is a period where there is no state, does not mean it isn't capitalism.

Why not?

And what if co-ops choose not to participate? We always hear libertarians talk about incentives but this is true - what incentive are you offering them? Is it protection via a police force? I'm genuinely curious. Like I stated before - at one point does the co-op get to opt out of the central authority? How do you prevent coercive force from being used when the co-op will most likely opt out when they're threatened?

So the solution to the problem of the state is to take refugees of the market, and give them busywork in a bureaucracy?

That line of the argument stopped pretty much on both sides, because it became merely semantic after I proved my point (that owning excessive amounts of products do have political and economic significance). Be my guest if you want to call owning 3 tons of toilet paper "personal property" (while knowing fully well that it's "not intended for personal use"), I'll stick with "private property" since it implies that it has been deprived from somewhere else (and if you consider the full scale of the Venezuelan organized sabotage you even got class violence in the picture). But again, useless semantics.

Wut?

This would mean that Marx didn't split with the essentialist views of Hegel and Feuerbach. (Which he did. But you clearly don't understand what I'm saying here, so nvm.)

I'm pretty sure he didn't. Even the term "individual" is suspiciously absent from most of the works of Marx & Engels, because that's a pointless level of abstraction from the POV of dialectical materialism.

wew, m8

let's compensate for excessive overproduction and the creation of false needs with recycling
and this is not right wing how???

I'm done with this thread. Pure autism, as always.

Yeah I would call it personal property, but I think how that was acquired and wether it should be expropriated depend largely on the material conditions of the society.

Commodity festishism, which would still remain when a workers labour must be expropriated by someone else. The relationship between them becomes an economic one, not a social one. He revised his theory of alienation, he did not abandon it completely.

the base of capitalism absolutely is private property, hence why anacraps are so obstinate in defending it

how? let's say I make a vase for holding water, how is this capitalistic?

its literally the opposite, the base of capitalism is when the capitalist claims ownership of the MoP and threfore is entitled to get part of the proft generated by the workers that make use of said provate facilities

it absolutely needs a superstructure to survive, otherwise the ruling class would not spend profits on propaganda and counterintelligence

because there is no superstructure supporting it

I'll try to be more clear with this subject, the whole reason american patriotism as an an excessive for of jingoism is the superstructure itself, it is not caused by the american population, it is instructed to them

that is the superstructure, american jingoism exist to defend itself for internal dissent

why would they chose not to participate, why would they literally cuck themselves to the ruling co-op?? the incentive being not being ruled over by a working co-opertaive cartel? It could be via police force, where the whole citizenship would decide if the police should stop a co-op from turning into the ruling class

if the abusing co-op decides to opt out from the democratic process then there would be no one defending it, the rest of the citizens would democratically elect to sieze the property that was co-op was allowed to have

they are not necessarily refugees, lets say you are part of a co-op and you for some reason need to make an investment, let's say a dam, you need to invoke a meeting about it, people would be allowed to participate in order to decide if said dam is a good investment or not

no one is going to get paid, no one is giving anyone work

I understand your legitmate concern for an abusing co-op from forming, but how does central production prevents this? the central planning authority is now itself the co-op that holds he monopoly

this is something leninposter has also failed to adress

well you are implying production by itself is wasteful, apart from being able to reutilize the commodities produced, how exactly do you get rid of the waste in the production process

don't tell me centralized production will because >muh vanguard party because that clearly did not work anywhere

because it was the workers the ones who decided to produce said commodities, and keep the profits generated by exchanging them in a market??? knowing that they can't pollute their communities or exploit themselves??

are you legit autistic or what??

how is centralized economy ging to remove the conflicts you are presenting?

...

did you forgot your meme image?

No it isn't. It's commodity production.

Commodities are produced for sale on a market, they hold no intrinsic use value to the producer.

That is the base of the capitalism, but why does he do that? What does he do after he claims ownership of the MOP?

I said it doesn't require a specific superstructure to survive, the superstructure will be subservient to whatever stage capitalism is in.

I asked you why a co-op couldn't overproduce to drive out competition. The superstructure in this case is the market. Do you need an economics lesson?

So how is this not a state if a co-op can't operate independently from the central authority?

I don't really understand the point you're trying to make with the dam part, because it sounds like you just reaffirmed what I said about giving people busy work if their co-op fails.

You democratize the central production the same way you would do with a co-op. Think about it like a large factory.

...

IMO you two are talking past each other by using the word "base" with two different meanings:

base1:
Private property is an absolute prerequisite for capitalism.

base2:
Commodity production is the differentia specifica of capitalism.

From a Marxist perspective commodity production is the pre-requisite for capitalism and private property follows suit. It's not exclusive to capitalism it just takes on a particular form special to capitalism. Just like the division of labour.

I understand that, but why? do you agree a vase is not capitalist production, and clothes in a sweatshps are?
then its easy to see how its not production of commodities in itself

because he needs to control the base of the capitalist mode of production then support the ideological structure that exist to keep capitalism safe from dissidents of course, since he already controls the base

the superstructure will, without a doubt affect the base, without propaganda you cannot mantain a capitalist state

first of all the market is part of the base, since it clearly affects the way people relate to the means of production, I understand and can see how seeing the market as an ideological entity (ala muh free market) becomes part of the superstructure tho

well a co-op can't overproduce because he isn't the owner of all the land and the means of production

in order to overproduce, let's say sugar, you would need vast amount of fields, how is the working co-op going to claim ownership of these fields, in order to engage in overproduction? these fields are being used by another co-op, there is no buying and selling of land, there is no surplus value being stolen either so they cannot use the profit stolen via wages from the workers to buy it either

now if the goal of stopping overproduction as a tool to gain full control of the market share is to mantain a healthy relationship between co-ops, how exactly is giving full control of the market to a central planned authority evading this problem?

think of this, you are trying to evade a working co-op from gaining full control of the market share by creating a single entitiy that will control everything of this said market share, how is this even remotely possible?

it is a state? a co-op cannot operate independtly from the society, otherwise they would enage in a capitalist form of production, again claiming ownership labeling property as private is capitalism

how is the co-op failing? when do you make the disctincton between necessary services and burocratic buswyork?

and what is stopping this central factory from creatinga crisis of both overproduction or shortage production? now the idea of a large factory, think about a large factory, but with several companies distribuited all over the land, and each factory has certain degree of autonomy, autonomy that is used to drive innovation and competition, which is undoubtedly intrinsic in markets

clearly not

there is a state*

idiocy levels: critical

then its easy to see how its not production of commodities in itself
Are you producing it for sale? I wasn't clear on that.

He does that to hire workers to produce commodities for sale.

Capitalism and state are not mutually exclusive. Capitalism started off stateless, but it was still capitalism.

The market is the means by which producers distribute commodities and compete with each other. The market arises out of the pre-requisite for capitalism, which is production of commodities for sale.

They can overproduce, they flood the market to drive demand down just like a capitalist would do. Just because it's a collective decision doesn't mean it won't happen at all.

Okay so this is basically a way to advocate for market socialism within a state, which I actually agree with as an intermediary to get to communism.

When no one is buying their products on the market. The distinction is relative, a government can reach full employment just like anything else.

It's run by the workers. Major production decisions like that would be voted on in direct democracy, while minor issues would be taken care of by representative. I only advocate switching to central planning once we can simulate a market, or most service work is automated. I'm not a Marxist.

pls end urself

:-CCCCCCCCCCC

pls revive and end urself again

1.- a working co-op simply does not have the amount of resources to create a monopoly, a central planning authority does have them, plus you are forgetting how to explain how a working co-op will be able to gain control and claim ownership of all land and resources

2.- you have to be stupid to belive efficiency and improvement in the methods production is a bad thing, a working co-op that manages to find a magic way of creating matter out of thin air is forced to share the technology the the rest of the wroking co-ops, since all his information is made PUBLIC simply because it is not a private entity, hence not being able to create a cycle of overproduction in the first place

try being less fucking retarded

...

All it would take is a company the size of Mondragon to overproduce to eliminate most of the smaller co-ops. If they can bleed money for longer they will, do you think that a capitalist does take a pay cut himself when he does this? The amount you would need to exploit yourself to eliminate other companies is relative.

This could of course be curbed by the intervention of a state. Dogmatic Marxist are dumb, but I agree that market socialism if used as the end and not the mean, will eventually regress to capitalism.

Central planning isn't always bad. Sears split its company into competing sectors because the CEO loved Ayn Rand and the company tanked.

I agree. It's monopolies and states that disturb the otherwise rational market. Entrepreneurs and small businesses will take care of them.

He advocates for a state you mong.

da fuq is mutualism?

the way capitalists overproduce is that they have the capital to invest in new machines to increase production and they have the capital to invest in new resources

this capital comes from the surplus value stolen from the worker

as productivity rises, wages don't, hence the capitalist can use this surplus to continue investing in machines that overproduce commodities
Mondragon would need to exploit themselves, and somewhow become the propietor of more and more resources in order to gain full control something that the society simply would not allow

in a capitalist society, it doesnt matter what the society thinks, because a company the size of mondragon can buy land and silence evry dissident because of property rights, but in a system where the society decides if this company can continue to expand and use more and more resources its simply impossible that mondragon can overproduce, it simply does not have the amount of resources to do so

of course not, but a workers co-op would, thats the key difference here

I do not subscribe to the idea that market socialism is the ends either, it simply cannot be the end, it makes no sense to belive so in a world with limited material resources

until we can fully automate all three sectors of the economy we need markets, the left variant of them being the ideal version

true, but diversifying the secors isn't always bad either, think of Volkswagen group, they own Bentley, Porsche Lmaborghini, Audi, Ducati, MAN, Skoda and of course VW cars, they actually produce every single category of vehicle that exists and they are one of the richiest and most succesful car companies, they are fucking shady, specially with emissions and reliability, but they have not tanked

capitalism started stateless indeed, but only until capitalism managed to control both the base the superstructure was it able to success and become the ruling system in our society

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_capitalism#Origins_of_capitalism

thes, they could but how are they going to do so if they don't have acess to the resources

but the goverment can't produce everything the citizens want

mutualist.org/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)

All growth a co-op experiences in a market economy is from self exploitation.

That isn't what I meant, feel free to read this. pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously/

That's like saying because Coke owns multiple soft drinks they are somehow competing with themselves.

I know. That's why I said how the superstructure interacts with the base is dependant on the stage of capitalism, but it's still capitalism.

I don't completely understand what you wanted to do with workers from failed co-ops. So I just pointed out that a certain point Government will reach full employment and not need any more workers who I referred to as, "refugees of the market".

You already kind of caught on to what I mean( I wasn't being to clear), which is they would engage in self exploitation to drive out business. This could be curtailed by a central authority like you said.

the idea that 72 thousand people are going to exploit themselves trying to get a bit of market share that can easily be taken away by the state via democratic elections is inane

basically a central authority would stop this from happening, but the central must be a democratic one, glad we agree on that

I don't know honestly, I haven't tought about that, need to read more but this brings me to my next point

I feel that the actual problem with market socialism is neither the exponential growth of co-ops, the way the property would be controlled or failed co-ops. I think the actual problem would be commodity fetishism, a failing co-op will undoubtedly engage in added value theories to stay afloat

ok, but how, how do you reach full employment?

change that to choice

I didn't know the State was involved in this I thought mutualism was a form of anarchism.

How do you reach full employment in any company? There will eventually be a time where the government no longer requires any additional law makers, councillors, etc.

Yeah, commodity fetishism will persist so long as a market does but it's improved by having the MOP controlled by the workers.

personally I am againts the sate as an indivudal, as a entity that is in control but not as a tool or as a form of union, like a workers council, imagine the state like a council made of all the workers council,

the state should be the tool used by the people, to debate between other people, not by a group of repsentatives

well here's the thing, a role in the goverment wouldn't be a job, you wouldn't get paid, thats the clue, you would need to work somewhere else, that way you automatically represent your role as a worker

think about this, current politicians represent the interest of provate corporations and they are able to change and modify laws to further enhance their power, we know this model works, the thing is it doesn't work in the interest of the workers, it is a very dangerous scenario because of the lever that corpoation can apply to the system

if instead we have a system where the people themselves represent the interest of each economic sector they belong to and they can change their laws in their favour, not to further increase their profits or change the laws in their favour, but to benefit the society, we would end with a system that is not dependant of a elected group of people who get a monthly salary+ lobbies for being good workers, like in the current system, but a system where the representatives are democratically elected, and in case they start getting corrupted, the rest of working co-op can vote to kick them out of the co-op, rendering them voiceless

I really don't know how to explain this idea further plus it's getting late

I think i could resume it with this

That's the price to pay for freedom :^).
I think I understand how your system will work, but I don't think we can call it "Mutualism". "Market Socialism Minarchism" would be more appropriate.

Please tell me something, mutualists.

If I get it right, mutualism embodies generalised markets and commodity production. The core difference with capitalism is that it is forbidden to own MoP that you do not use yourself; the MoP you do use yourself, you can "own" collectively with your colleagues.
You are well aware if the risk for one collective to try and control the others, but you are confident that the democratic law will prevent this.
Do I get it right?

Now please tell me. I live in a democratic country with about 90% of proletarians, namely France. Why don't we have mutualism yet?

no working co-ops
no direct democracy
no armed citizens
/idpol/
no goal of fully automated economy
private property

Proudhon was french aswell, quite jelly you can read him in his own language

But we do have democracy. If it's enough to prevent co-operatives to go back to capitalist businesses, surely it's enough to force capitalist businesses to become co-operatives, no?

Democracy =/= Direct Democracy

So direct democracy can force capitalist businesses to become co-operatives, where simple democracy can't?

But how? What does make direct democracy different from simple democracy in that regard?

Representative democracy has the flaw ofmaking politician a distinct class whose interests coincide more often than not with the interests of the Bourgeoisie.
Penche toi donc sur l'ENA…

If you want to do markets you shouldn't also take any control by society away from it and bank on the hope that people will follow the rules this time.

And yet we have scarcity of food/water only in third world companies. A communist society would fix the scarcity, no more private distribution of goods away from the impoverished.

genuine question as I'm not sure, how would one collective control the others? The only reason one guy can control a collective currently is because private property rights mean their ownership claim is backed by state force. Are mutualists not calling for a removal of the right to private property rather than the addition of an active element which suppresses accumilation of private property.

as for why we don't have mutualism yet, is it because private property is a very integral part of the system that would be very complicated to get rid of, as well as people not understanding what constitutes private property and why it would be in their interest to get rid of it.

didn't you kill yourself?
why haven't you killed yourself?

I am well aware of the bourgeois character of our "democracy", my question is how, concretely, direct democracy is gonna change this to the point where it will actually force capitalist businesses to become co-operatives?

mutualists don't have a transformational program

By being more efficient than its concurrents, then accumulating value in some form faster, to the point where said concurrents, unable to make a living by competing anymore, won't have a better choice than to become subcontractors of the successful collective.

What do you mean?

M D R
D
R

They do not have a doctrine about how enforcing their system i guess…

Please read and the following.

i'm ideally a commie, i just think the revolution should be a mutualist one since 1. afaik the proletariat isn't spooked af about it like they are with communism. 2. will abolish the state while balancing out that whole scarcity problem allowing for a transition to communism to be much easier

Your fellow mutualist had pretty convincing arguments about how mutualism is not conceivable without a state.

i guess i mean will moreso put the state in the hands of the proletariat so it can be more easily abolished

Would accept as a transitional thing tbqh comr8

me tbh

What do mutalists think of free market anti-capitalist ideas like market socialism and left-wing market anarchism?