Create a state controlled market

pleb

Well of course that is what the theory is for, to determine where best to use markets, although some theory of markets themselves is indeed needed for that as well.

I bet you believe the internal operations of a corporation qualify as a market too. It's almost like you don't actually know what a market is.

...

...

smh fam

Both you and OPs understanding of the issue is fucking shit.
Firstly, capital cannot emerge from the exchange of non-circulating credit for consumer goods. No accumulation can occur as the credit/vouchers/whatever cancel out upon being spent, and therefore no exchange occurs between the producer and consumer. It's simply a method of rationing.
Secondly (and more importantly), as the allocation of producer goods is determined through calculation in kind, no market exchange takes place at the level of production: there are no separate enterprises (state owned or otherwise) selling goods in order to make a profit.
Thirdly it's not just "ultralefts" that propose something like this. PDF fucking related: it's written by stalinists.

...

...

yes I will absolute read that book when I finish the one I am currently reading, however, for the sake of discussion, might try to point out exactly how you will achieve production without central planning authorities?

you are talking about credit/vouchers/whatever being used to rationing, let me ask you something, how did you come up with the idea that each vouchers accounts for a certain amount of commodities?

you had to make an exchange value judgement before, otherwise I could go to whatever place you are talking about and I would simply ask for everything inside, and take it home

the credit/voucher clearly must have certann exchange value

...

oh snap user btfo

I forgot I was purchasing a commodity on a market with a money commodity when I went to public school, drove on public roads, or received ration stamps which I EXCHANGED for milk at the food dispensary center
Measuring scarcity for distribution and renumeration for labor is totally a market transaction

woah
like
everything is capitalism man
tell the right-wingers they don't need to attack us anymore, we're all on the same side now

wut?

I can't imagine a system that isn't a market if that's how you define it
also what does this have to do with leftcoms

...

leftcoms are tankies now?

If one person controls both ends of the transaction, how is that a market?

markets imply exchange of property. There is no property in what marxists propose.
Fucking sophistry

kek
read Marx.

like, why are people who've obviously never read a single page of critical and scientific engagement with the mechanics behind capitalism treated like their opinion matters? They don't get basic definitions and if you call them out on that you get to hear how Marx doesn't apply anymore and some sophistic bullshit like "muh but that's YOUR definition". Fucking opportunists
read Bordiga
libcom.org/library/historical-invariance-marxism-amadeo-bordiga

Jesus Christ.

Look, I get that the recent influx of a few left communists, whom are generally really well-educated in political economy from a philosophical materialist angle, asspains you a whole lot, and especially the anarkiddies and market 'socialists', but it's not an excuse for such terrible posts. Truly, shame on you for unironically posting such truly awful garbage.

Can someone explain what they want instead of the market? Central planning? Why would central planning not be the failure it was in the Soviet Union? Or, why would decentralized planning be better, if that is your alternative?

What do you mean by "failure?"

There's nothing wrong with markets as a tool for deciding how limited resources should be best allocated to meet demand. The problems come when people start treating the free market as a sacred god and using it to make every decision. Markets, like any tool, are imperfect and only useful in certain circumstances. Other tools are needed to constrain markets and ensure that they don't degrade into tragedy of the commons situations or other undesirable failure modes.

Markets are no tools and cannot be constrained. Quite the contrary: their inherent logic, the logic of capital, constrains people and transforms them in tools.

You lack imagination. The essentially unregulated free markets of capitalism are not the only kind of markets. Capitalist markets cause problems because they coexist with a system which allows private property and exponential accumulation of wealth. Capitalist markets allow for the emergence of traders - people who do no useful work but simply sit on assets and profit from exchanging them.

The most basic essence of a market - allowing people to exchange certain goods for one another according to the perceived value - is not such a problem.

This is a contradiction in terms.

well, post-primitive accumulation it is

Okay, explain to me what you get if you have a market where you can exchange "labor vouchers" for products but those labor vouchers decay over time so hoarding them is pointless.

?

I exchange them for gold/silver/whatever and then hoard it instead.

Yes it is user.

You still couldn't use that to to obtain private property. You'd just be sitting on a big heap of gold. It would be your personal property which you had earned from performing labor. Other people would have more useful things like better transportation, nicer food, or a bigger house.

Okay, how do you determine what to produce then?

… or a more efficient factory, with which they will outcompete me, making me have nothing to sell but my workforce.

With demand.

You mean a more efficient one-man factory?
Remember, the means of production are owned by the workers or the state.

If this person can actually automate the means of production, then that's a good thing. Those designs should be copied and used everywhere so nobody has to work to produce that product any more.

And "the workers" cannot buy a better factory than other "the workers"?

A 2-word answer isn't very satisfying.

Let's say one person demands antimatter (extremely hard to produce) and another person demands sand (abundant). How do you balance the production between those two demands?

He builds a nice factory full of the best machines. He can't employ anyone to work in it because that would be equivalent to slavery. What does he gain from that?

I chose between the two.

Wait, there is no collective of workers in you ethic capitalism utopia? Everyone works alone?

So you're assuming this is a cooperative of workers who are using their wages to improve their factory?

I still fail to see how this is a bad thing. Nobody is getting exploited and there are physical limits on efficiency. Most improvements in efficiency are achieved through better technology - not through simply paying more for machines - and there would be no patents or copyrights restricting the spread of new technology.

Cool. Good to know we can rely on you to manage millions of industries and balance quadrillions of variables to ensure there are no shortages of resources at any stage between primary industries and consumers.

You start your nuclear plant when?

On me, on you and on billions of people around the world user. As a matter of fact, you already do: market or not, management is still a thing.

Information about demand is propagated through the system by the market. If you remove the market there's no way for the people mining coal to know how many steel objects are going to be required by people on the street.

"people will figure it out" is a terrible answer.

That's really an argument in favor of state ownership of all means of production.

Are you stupid?
If I walk into a store, take something I need, signal it to the cashier but don't give anything in exchange the store's manager won't know it?
If the store's manager give a call to his furnisher in order to complete his stock, but doesn't give anything in exchange when delivered, the furnisher's manager won't know it?

Oh, awesome. I always hated washing clothes. Now I can just get new ones every day.

Wew lad.

So all products would be rationed?

Let's say you have two products which are rationed, A and B, and two people who want those products Alice and Bob. If Alice only wants A and Bob only wants B, can they agree to each take the other's share of the product they want so Alice ends up with 2xA and Bob ends up with 2xB?

No, since people aren't stupid wasteful children who want new clothes everyday.

Sure. That would constitute the last remnants of trade in a tradeless society.

That's a nice ideal. You're talking about a culture where people routinely buy the latest iphone despite having a perfectly functional device already and where people will spend money on a "game" which encourages them to throw their phone high into the air.

If you allow that, then all trade is possible. It will just be really fucking convoluted.

You act like those are natural consequences. society has literally nothing to do with buying habits right?

No, I am talking about socialism.

Sure. But only if:
- Alice doesn't have enough with 1 A.
- Bob doesn't have enough with 1 B.
- Alice knows Bob.
- There aren't enough people lacking A so that society would simply decide to produce more A.
- There aren't enough people lacking B so that society would simply decide to produce more B.
Apart for that, trade will still be possible, yeah.
Please note how, the more Alices and Bobs there are, the more likely they are to meet, but at the same time the more likely society is to produce more A and B so there are less Alices and Bobs.

You don't understand. It's human nature!

Look, if we assume that nobody will ever make wasteful decisions then we don't need an economic system. We can literally just all do exactly what we want and everything will work out fine. Hell, the world should be perfect already because the capitalists should just realize that they are being wasteful and redistribute resources to those who need them.

This is why people criticize communism as being too idealistic. Because one of your most basic assumptions is that people will just all get along nicely with each other and not use more than is strictly necessary as soon as someone gets rid of the big bad evil capitalists who are somehow also nice people inside who are only acting the way they do because of the material conditions of being really fucking rich and being able to do whatever they like.

I consider myself a leftist, but this is just nonsense.

Sorry, I forgot, humans are perfect and our brains were created miraculously without any kind of attributes at all.
This is the most retarded meme to ever come out of this board because it can be disproven trivially by the mere existence of concepts like "acting weird" or "strange". We have an internal model of how we expect humans to act, and the very fact that that model works better than random is proof that humans are predictable to some extent. When was the last time you went to a shop and the shopkeeper attacked you with a knife? If humans were really the perfect random actors you seem to think they are, that would happen at least as often as a successful transaction.
Seriously, take a fucking stats 101 course.

Also, I should add that I'm pretty sure the respected leftist academics have figured out solutions to all of this and come up with rigorous arguments to defend their own ideal systems. Nobody on this board uses those arguments and totally misrepresent the systems. People would be far better off reading actual leftist theory rather than arguing with you idiots.

Can you point to any? I'm pretty sure that hasn't actually happened.

how many jugs of milk could you exchange with it? all of them, you were limited to a certain amount?

thats because each stamp has exchange value

it absolutely is, otherwise how do central planning authorities know how many workers they have to be sent to X working camp?

they have to make an use value judgement before, commodifying the production in the process, and then when delivering them to the workers, they have to make an exchange value one otherwise how do they come up with the amount of commodities each worker gets?

because they engage in exchange value judgements

kek

bartering???

pure ideology

What is your ideology?

...

Do you hear yourself when you say these things?

Oh but they will! But you know there is a reason why communism can come only after capitalism: it needs very developed productive forces. The truth: already by Marx's time, these forces were sufficient to produce more than what was "strictly necessary".

… determined by the society we live in, not the other way around.

Please, do go read Marx rather than arguing with is idiots.

I just label myself as a marxist

ideologies are a spook

Forgot to remove my shitpost flag.

How many jugs of milk could you drink? All of them, you were limited to a certain amount?
Thats because your stomach has exchange value.

If ONE person controls both ends of the transaction, who the fuck does this person exchange with?

You should probably actually read marx before you do that.

let's pretend I can drink 8 and my buddy over there 6, but there are only 10 jugs of milk

what happens now?

who decided we should only have 10 jugs of milk? we couldn't produce more because central planning authorities decide to employ workers on something else rather than chocolate milk jugs

first the central planning authorities had to make a value judgement between chocolate milk and the other commoditiesbefore starting production, X commodity being worth more than choco milk jugs

then they had to stablish exchange value between my work hours/work vouchers/ration stamps/whatever and the amount of milk jugs I could have, thus commodifying the jugs of milk and my work

b-but its totally not a market

because this person has to decide to emply the limited amount of workers to certain activities, over other ones, based on a value judgement made before, and then they have to decide the value of my work and the commodities produce in order for me to exchange them in whatever rationing office/product dispense/whatever

sick burn dude

ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/

I've read most of the book and it's pretty awful. It's basicaly "we're going to have central planning" without answering any of the objections to central planning that exist.

I don't believe that. The question in post is what lead to the request for a book, and the book answers that question.

Alright, but how are you gonna stop them from circulating? And how was this different from what the Soviet Union had?

Let's think for a second here. How exactly do you intend to make in-kind calculations? Certainly you will need an intermediary unit, something to signify how many oranges are equal to how many apples and so on and so on. But then of course, how do you decide these evaluations? And if so, how is it different from a well-regulated market?

Regardless, as co-ops are capable of running at zero-profit, certainly a similar situation can naturally occur in market socialism.

Electronic consumption budget that is on a thing you carry with you resembling a credit card with your mug on it.
That's about technical co-efficients in production that are true regardless of the demand pattern.
What is a well-regulated market?

Alright, but here's the deeper issue. Why should it not be transferable? Why should people be denied using their labor vouchers or whatever for getting things from other individuals. You are so focused on developing a successful theory you fail to have a theory on failure! If the state is not doing its job for whatever reason, why should people not have the ability to start cooperatives to solve their own problems?

But then how do you measure quality and externalities?

A market that is subject to the will of a worker controlled state and structural limitations.

? But user, I've already read about market socialism.