To market or not to market

I'm a Market Socialist because I believe it is simply more pragmatic. However non-market socialism "FULL COMMUNISM" is something that has interested me for some time now. How is this better than the market? How many different anti-market approaches can we take? Am I being pragmatic or have I just not been exposed to the light of "FULL COMMUNISM" yet?
If some MarkSocs would like to come in and defend there view that would also be Gr8.

Other urls found in this thread:

forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/08/14/for-some-worker-cooperatives-emerge-as-an-alternative-to-esops/#60eb4e5348dc
forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/08/14/for-some-worker-cooperatives-emerge-as-an-alternative-to-esops/#6476dd9e48dc.
marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm.
spectator.co.uk/2015/04/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/
spectator.co.uk/2015/10/i-invented-virtue-signalling-now-its-taking-over-the-world/
lesswrong.com/lw/i6l/open_thread_july_29august_4_2013/9hlz
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Markets produces classes.

I believe in a market system as something that could more easily adapt into full communism - AKA market socialism as a transitional strategy, as opposed to leninism. It doesn't do away with the contradictions of capitalism but they're not as exacerbated as much as they are under a private system, and wealth is naturally more evenly distributed. It's also easier to sell people on "workplace democracy", when they already idolize the Small Business America, than it is on society-wide economic democracy. It's also more compatible with the brand of "capitalism isn't the problem, it's corporatism" socialists who think that competition is necessary but dislike corporate rule.

My point of view is really just based on my observation of what could be possible in my country. In other countries with a more radical left, an immediate transition to a market-less system might be preferable, and in some a stateless system.

You mean oportunistic and reformistic.

It's not pragmatic, it's got a lot of problems. Neither of them are very pragmatic. Fuck the left tbh

Rebel pls

I agree
however how are we going to pull off successful central planning?

Full communism is of course preferable to market socialism as it is by definition a state of general abundance, most likely brought about through technological innovation and full automation, something that would eliminate the need for markets.

The real question is whether or not a transitory state should have markets, which I think of course they should.

But how can we be sure that such automation will happen? It's not that easy to build, repair and power robots who can do all the work for us. Did anyone do the maths behind communism?

thats because current markets work towards profit, not towards automation technology, if the ruling class develops robots that achieve full automation, capitalism will collapse, they need employed population to buy products, and they also need unemployed to support their status quo

Market 'socialism' is not pragmatic by any stretch of a material analysis of what makes capitalism capitalism and what it is that reifies it and brings us its consequences. It's a liberal non-solution to the inherent machinic functions of capital.

Would it be nicer to be exploited democratically in an ethical capitalism as opposed to autocratically? For sure; but that's about it.

Read ___Marx.

If I see a retarded leftcom post ONE MORE TIME…

more pragmatic than leftcomism

Because of capitalism and profit and capital. Apply the idea of competition to capital. Capitalists but continuously reinvest profits to keep being capitalists and stay profitable. When everyone does this it brings the rate of profit down over time because the cost savings get transferred to price instead of profit thanks to competition, at least to a certain degree. The capitalist must continually invest and invest to reduce labor costs until they hit the end point, where there are no labor costs and everything is fully automated.


like he said, capitalism would collapse in this scenario, and could possibly transition to communism but it's just as likely to transition into something regressive. Market socialism would be much more likely to transition to communism.

we need the functions of capital to reach communism. or can you not into stages of economic development?

for

This is a liberal interpreting historical stages of material conditions.

And just like the liberal he is, he really likes Tito more than the tankies because it's a safe idol.

Stay assblasted, my opportunistic friends.

I get that, but the capitalist is limited by the finite supply of matter and energy on Earth. Even if we go full socialism how do we build such machines if there is no more metal or electricity?

Industry does not equal abundance. Marx thought it did, but he was incorrect.

And just like all leftcoms he condescendingly dismisses anything but sacred orthodoxy.

LEFTCOMS OUT REEEE

absolutely true


Nigger, are you stupid?

are you high

There is a wide gulf between what leftcoms say and what they do.

Dismissing what has been proved wrong sounds like a good idea to me.

At least they know their fucking Marx.

And what do they say they do?

Marx wasn't right about everything.

They say when lenin-poster posted, but then keep their theory stuck in the 1800's

Hi gais, can I into socialism?

Marx was gay and stupid coz he didn't realize that people's worth can only truly shine if they are competitors in the job market, but that's okay.

What? Marx was right? No he wasn't, he didn't know jack shit about communism, unlike our great dictator Tito (pbuh).

Everybody else who doesn't get the need for the market just wants another genocide.

As I usually say: "the free market will fix it!"

haha
ciao :^)

market socialists aren't free market fetishists. everyone here acknowledges that markets require state intervention, regulation and other reforms to work properly.
Tito was a good leader but market socialism in yugoslavia had many flaws. It's our duty to learn from them.

Let's introduce instability, accumulation, competitiveness, unequal development with the one hand [market] just to try to fix it with the other [state]!

This is a great plan!

This is what Jesus meant when he said "do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing!"

somebody's angry

What the fuck does this mean? Full industrialization provides the material sufficiency for abudance.

This is the equivalent of saying 'we can't have communism just yet', and completely confirms the liberal basis of your beliefs and low-key makes you admit that there's nothing beyond your program than making capitalism a little nicer and ethical with your market 'socialism'.


Nobody here really has any good arguments for their ethical capitalism meme, but you and your pirate flag really takes the cake for non-argumentativeness. You're so infantile I'm forgetting I'm supposed to be the leftcom in this thread smh.

lol.

Tbh if you don't see market socialism as even a viable (if not desirable) intemeridate step between capitalism and market-less socialism then you are lost.

The transition would be easier to pull off, and market socialism itself could easily naturally evolve into syndicalism or another form of socialism as co-ops grow and swallow each other up. Not to mention that full automation under market socialism would essentially immediately lead to FALC instead of the total collapse of the system.

Yeah. It's the current year, everyone knows this! Coops are so anti-capitalist that even Forbes likes them: forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/08/14/for-some-worker-cooperatives-emerge-as-an-alternative-to-esops/#60eb4e5348dc !

So from local ethical capitalism to unionized ethical capitalism? 🐸☕

100 years later, still stuck in reformism.

You realize that syndicalism can be implemented within the framework of a planned economy correct?

And I never said you had to like market socialism as an end point, but it has value as a transitory period to socialism.

Do you have evidence to support this claim?

Tbh if reformism can reliably get results then it's superior to revolution.

What has syndicalism to do with market "socialism" and coops?

What does it provide that compels society to push over into socialism proper?

Anarchists on Holla Forums, everyone.

It doesn't because it's just ethical capitalism like social democracy, which has been around for now almost 100 years and nothing has ever occurred to advance the communist movement or inspire an actual anti-capitalist movement. If anything, market 'socialism', while at least getting a few more points in ethics than social democracy, is the perfect new pacifier for the proletariat. It's basically the latest resurging meme after OWS and parecon died like the memes they are in the late '00s and '80s American anarchist cliques respectively. It's pure liberal reformist drivel and it's no surprise liberals love it.

I'm rereading this now only a minute later and I'm only just now realizing just how absurdly illiterate and uneducated Holla Forums. I wish you idiots would spend even a few minutes understanding what ideologies you supposedly came to understand properly and then 'support', because this is just pathetic. If anyone is up to the challenge to read a single fucking book, start with PDF related. It's not long and you'll look like much less of a retard in the future and you'll have something to be proud of. Holla Forums needs discipline and actual self-criticism for there to be any worthwhile discussion here. Do yourself the favor. Please.

I see your point.
So what is your plan for the Proletariat?

...

A trade union is just an organization that includes all workers of the specific industry. In a planned economy the unions could coordinate the planning and the execution of it.

Just because in early capitalism they used to be an effective form of class struggle does not mean that the same organizations couldn't have more useful functions after the dictatorship of exchange value has been abolished.

Abundance is a state where there is enough of a given good to meet requirements at zero price. For example, there is an abundance of water in scotland. Certainly, there would not be enough of most goods to meet requirements at zero price.

We can't.

And what is that basis, all-knowing leftcom?

for

an elimination of the capitalist class, and a legal/material structure to transition to socialism.

I don't have a plan, truth be told. And as the meme would go, this is all leftcoms do, right? Just whine endlessly about how shitty, unfound and uneducated everyone else's plans are?

So do I just have a boner for telling everyone how wrong they are? Maybe. I must admit that it's fun. But honestly, I do have a point to make. And this point is that my lack of propositions does not come from armchair criticism, but from the fact that I genuinely do not know. Between the failures of 20th century Stalinist communism, the anarchisms and even the anti-Stalinist movements, there is simply nothing to take basic inspiration from and build with.

The time is now not to desperately and opportunistically jump to what 'appears best', but to reinterpret our material conditions once more and come up with an actual plan of action. With this must come ruthless criticism of modern popular leftist tendencies, because they must not fail the workers of the world again. We must truly start anew and concoct a true plan of action that seriously threatens to undermine the rule of the value form, or we are destined for another failure which we cannot afford.

(PDF related is a great related read, please check it out.)

Yes, within the confines and context of an economic system where labor specialization is relevant to the selling of labor power.

This would be a worker's council, of which the functioning is not to function as mediator against capital for collective bargaining (a trade union), but to discuss the internal workings and properly reregulate the flow of necessary goods and services.

That is because your ideology is a straight-jacket that holds you back from understanding global capital and taking any steps towards socialism. You have no tools to analyze the global political economy and thus have no way of formulating any viable plan, now and forever.

Ha. Haha. See, this is rich from the guy who ignores basically every conclusion from the foundation of Marxist political economy and suggests an 'alternative' to capitalism that is basically capitalism with a human face.

We should absolutely do marksoc TODAY
but I don't believe it's and end goal or free of contradictions and problems

you see this is exactly your problem, you can only see the conclusions and not what created them. Your faith is blind and your thought is impotent.

You mistake our support of market socialism for an end in of itself. Yes, we see it as something different from capitalism, but it is also has several of its problems. But, the key part is that it is a dialectical necessity for further human emancipation, just as the political emancipation of liberal government was compared to what came before.

If you have actually read any anarcho-syndicalist theory you would know that the trade union is supposed to become what you call "workers' council" during the revolution.

Shitting on them just because you don't understand their terms is kinda sad.

Yeah, the part of the user's post I quoted.

And this:

It can't.

Do you also believe in rape as something that easily leads to romance?


Are you shitting me.
A capitalist who uses machinery in some innovative way might be able to make a ton of profit with very few workers, this is no proof that this strategy can work out for the capitalist class as a whole. Think of it this way: Can you make $$$ of something that is abundant? Singer of course notes that Marx distinguishes use value and exchange value, and then he makes an argument of the type implicitly assuming that if there is use-value, there must be profit (and with more of a use-value, profits can only go up, eh?).

Is this your take as well? Or did you not read the whole of this tiny booklet?

Labour vouchers, argued for in the Critique of the Gotha Program, are not premised on material abundance.

I don't see how the change of what one regards as a basic need is a good example that much of human nature is fixed.

...

As a matter of fact, they most certainly would find their profit dying. Why would anyone buy something that can be made for free?

As co-ops grow they will begin to swallow up other less competitive/smaller co-ops, much like corporations do to each other under capitalism. Inevitably you will end up with an oligopoly in each respective industry, at which point you simply merge the co-ops into a syndicate and implement syndicalism and a planned economy.

And yet market socialism would naturally set the stage for syndicalism and the implementation of a planned economy, all without the blood, chaos, and instability of a violent revolution.

Ah, the coop virus. Truly the most revolutionary weapon of the proletariat today. It cannot fail!

Replacing corporations with co-operatives would totally de-power porky. Only autistic Tankies and leftcoms get triggered by the concept of collective enterprise and direct worker self-management.

Haha yeah. It cannot fail!

forbes.com/sites/darrendahl/2016/08/14/for-some-worker-cooperatives-emerge-as-an-alternative-to-esops/#6476dd9e48dc.

Ethical capita- cooperatives are so anti-capitalist and subversise to the logic of capital that Forbes, one of the best members of the modern Comintern, is promoting them for us! Porky will never see this de-powering coming! A fool-proof plan!

do you have an actual argument though?

...

More specifically:

The fucking Guardian writes about income inequality, I guess trying to eliminate it is a bourgie liberal SJW conspiracy then!

Yes. Forbes wrote an article about an ethical type of capitalism they really like.

Cooperatives are economic units as any other and do not by themselves constitute a break from the capitalist mode of production. Socialism and capitalism are not compatible and cannot coexist. The difference between the two is more than who owns the means of production (that essentialist definition of socialism is reductionist), it has to do with the entirety of production.

Capitalism is (among other things) defined by generalized commodity production and exchange, production for profit (surplus value) and private ownership of the means of production. This private ownership does not necessarily mean a single individual; in fact, it rarely does. Within capitalism ownership manifests itself in different ways, sometimes internally democratic (as in cooperatives) and sometimes not (as is the norm). The former poses no threat against the larger capitalist mode of production, all it does is change how exploitation is carried out. Commodity exchange, production for profit and consequently production of surplus value can, and do, remain within worker cooperatives, which are still subject to the capitalist system. In a worker cooperative (which by definition lies within capitalism) the workers are both capitalists and workers; both exploited and exploiters. They still have to produce for profit (most of which necessarily goes into accumulation of capital and the sustaining of the cooperatives) and alienation of labor persists (which one could and does care less about, and is only one of the aforementioned facets of capitalism). Making the business democratic does not make the system democratic. It's a non-solution.

Socialism is the abolition of capitalism, not the democratization of its economic units. What group of people have ownership (the bourgeois state, capitalists, workers, etc.) has no effect on the economic system that is capitalism.

The hell of capitalism is the firm, not the fact that the firm has a boss.
- Amadeo Bordiga

What do you propose as an alternatve? How will stuff be allocated? Central planning has been shown to be a failure.

I don't deny any of this, and I don't deny that market systems in general are completely flawed. What I am saying is that market socialism is a system that would

A) break the power of the porkies and give workers control over themselves and the product of their labour, as well as lead to more equitable distribution of wealth and economic (and therefore political) power

B) would naturally evolve into socialism proper

People who reject the entire concept and any possible value it might have in bringing about other forms of socialism more effectively than a direct leap from capitalism are being unnecessarily dogmatic.

Socialism.

Planned distribution via decentralized worker's councils using a centrally-defined system of labor vouchers.

Centrally planned capitalism, yes: marxists.org/archive/dunayevskaya/works/1941/ussr-capitalist.htm.

Economic planning is far from impossible and becomes less and less cumbersome the more we develop computer technology and their threading and blocking speeds improve.

OK.

Market 'socialism' is not socialism. Why did you say
only to reiterate the shitty meme that is 'ethical capitalism is socialism'?

So, you were saying…
So it's the meme of 'if we democratize the functions of capital accumulation and fluctuating market distribution following the law of value' then we have 'worker control'. Gotcha.
Market distribution is equitable and simply shifting around the legal recognition of capital ownership means a movement away from the destructive contradictions of capital?
Where is the evidence for this? How is this 'market socialism' meme any different from 20th century ethical capitalism with social democracy, and why do you think social democracy never led to anything beyond it but succumbing to liberalization or state interference because of the naturally contradictory nature of market exchange?

An ancom basically rewording the liberal argument of 'it looks good on paper, but it's just unrealistic man!' against actual socialism. That's rich.

Because it triggers autistic leftcoms.


If we give worker's control of the MoP then we have worker control. Yes they are still impacted by market forces, so it isn't 100% control, but to deny that it is not in any way an improvement on capitalism is stupid.


Markets dominated by collective enterprise would be more equitable than corporate capitalism yes. Especially when any capital accumulation is further mitigated by taxation and redistribution. It doesn't eliminate all the contradictions of capital, but I never claimed that it did. I'm not proposing marksoc as a desireable end goal, merely a transitory state.


This is just a hypothesis I have. Oligopolies naturally for me in markets. Under market socialism oligopolies will form, as under any other market. Once this happens they can be consolidated into syndicates or soviets, and a planned economy can be implemented.


I didn't say socialism proper was unrealistic or unachievable, just that market socialism would be easier to implement. Tbh if I believed that reformism could reliably bring about socialism then I'd be a demsoc, but market socialism could be more easily achieved by a revolution. Once it's established it can naturally evolve into socialism proper.

If only leftcoms could think outside the box of their dogmatic orthodoxy.

Serious though how are markets supposed to prevent companies from forming syndicates?

...

...

Adopt the mutualism flag now. If you would waste revolutionary forces on establishing market socialism, you are in no way a communist, anarcho- or whatever.

nice market you have there, buddy

Leftcom is such a qt

If you define markets this loosely then literally every human society has been market based for all of history. That's von Mises grade bullshit right there.

markets are simply defined by a system where an exchange takes place, the ownership of the means of production is irrelevant

only a limited amount of use-values will be able to be produced under any form of central planning, this is fairly obvious, this means you still need to commodify them, as central authorities still would need to engage in an exchange value judgement when delivering them to the workers

first, because not every worker will demand the same goods, and you can go even further left and arguee that that is irrelevant, but that is fundamentally flawed because, if a worker gets sick, is allergic to something and so on he will need a different use value compared to the other workers

again, in order to hierarchise the production of use values, central planning authorities have to engage in an exchange value, they have to commodify them, simply because they have to decide that producing basic goods is more important than other use values

another aspect of this is that since you can only produce a limited amount of use values and you have a defined amount of workers, central planning authorities have to decide how much each worker will receive, it doesn't matter if you ration it in an egalitarian way or if you stablish some form of hierarchy, you are still transforming use values into commodities, and therefore assigning them an exchange value, eventually transforming it into a centrally controlled market

...

K. Marx, Critique of the Gotha programme:

What does this mean?

retard alert

Just wtf?

let's change the books with workers


how do you establish the value of X and Y workers without following to market forces?

workers will demand A amounts of beans and B amounts, they need that to survive right?

Does that mean that you should abandon the symbolism of communism because you want a transitory period of socialism? By your logic anybody who doesn't want to immediately implement full communism isn't a communist.

This guy's posts are just so fucking awful. He can't be older than 16.

that is, quite literally, not an argument

>goo-goo gaa-gaa!!

You don't.

did i just witness a virtue signal where the poster used reading fucking SINGER as a point of reaching his level?

leftcom is projecting his own lack of readings and recommending we read something so fucking terrible as singers intro jesus christ

kys

so how do central planning authorities decide where to send the workers?

central planing authorities are supposed to decide where we are going to work, right? how do they decide such thing?

According to what is actually the most useful to produce.

I think it was recommended for Holla Forums illiterates precisely because it's so simple and easy to read.

Also kinda funny to see leftists using alt-right buzzwords (virtual signal).

virtue signal was stolen from tumblr

how wouldn't marksocs be able to decide and produce what the most useful commodities are?

how isn't the central planning authority not making a subjective judgement when they decide what commodities are the most useful to produce

do they have some form of data gathered from the commune? do they ask what commodities satisfy individual needs?

if so, then what is the point of a central planning authority, where the people that want to satisfy a need, can simply joing the workers co-operative and do the work themselves


no, its stupid to belive that

and now that we discussed production, tell me how would the central planning authorities be able to ration whatever useful commodities were produced, without an exchange value judgement between the work time/vouchers/ration stamps and the commodities?
what mechanism is going to be used? and how does this stop commodification, exchange value judgements and thus, a market?

Actually, virtual signaling was a term invented by a convervative columnist in Spectator in 2015. The alt-right quickly adopted it because it fits their buzzword category.

See: spectator.co.uk/2015/04/hating-the-daily-mail-is-a-substitute-for-doing-good/ and spectator.co.uk/2015/10/i-invented-virtue-signalling-now-its-taking-over-the-world/ for proofs.


Because their market 'socialism' and the fluctuating contradictions of exchange-value distirbution will decide the prices, not them.

Planning isn't tied to central authority. In fact, the entire premise of communism lies in decentralizing planning via councils, with the roles of central authority being the universalization of labor vouchers.

This flag indeed posts the most awful shit on this board.

yes, they can't decide the price, we both agree subjective value theory is garbage, don't we?

if a use value, which by defintion satisfies human needs is produced and exchanged in the market, the one that satisfy my needs more will be the one which has the most use value

If I can spend my labour vouchers/rations/whatever on 2 watermleons that were planted in some field, vs just 1 produced hydropinicaly in an arid environment, thus increaseing the object,subjects and labour and therefore price

and I am currenty in need of 2 watermelons, despite the fact that they are of lesser quality, the two watermelons satisfy my human needs better, thus having more use-value

if however I am in need of just one watermelon, and want one with really good taste, the hydriponic watermleon satisfies my needs better, thus it has more use-value

I already posted in the other thread how the quantity if commodities is subjective when discussing use-value

nice market socialism you have there, you even have currency

As I mentioned the last time someone posted this image, certainly a large sector of co-ops would be a big political accomplishment. While the idea of them out-competing capitalist firms is rather silly, it gives us a base of support for further reforms.

here

that guy is speacial snowfalke, dick sucking faggot just ignore him

What does this mean?

That person may claim that, but the term virtue signalling is older than that.

lesswrong.com/lw/i6l/open_thread_july_29august_4_2013/9hlz

I'm sure that thread wasn't the first instance, either. It also isn't something that is exclusive to left or liberal groups, so I find it silly to claim that it's a term only conservatives are allowed to used. It means a person performs some sort of ritual to signal to peers that person deeply cares about issue X, while not being very efficient at actually improving the situation (or even having zero effect). This doesn't just apply to SJWs (pretending to) being offended on Twitter, but also to many charity events. It applies to greenwashing campaigns. I'm sure digging through columns written a hundred years ago will also yield some term describing pretty much the same thing.

Personally, i think that we need to get rid of every capitalist nation in order to abandon markets for good druže, even though i like markets because it gives the workers more freedom to choose what commodity they want.

This is true at least.

Why do you think planned production would result in less freedom to choose which products to consume? I'm pretty sure no one here is advocating having planners choose what you consume.