Is 'worker-ran market' socialist or not?

[UnknownPerson]

If all companies are worker cooperatives and instead of having parasites taking away the profit, the profit is given back to the workers of the company, can such a system be classified as socialism?

Is such a system flawed? Please elaborate. Can this give out the same results as a planned economy which distributes "to each according to his contribution"?

[TheGodlessUtopian]

No,such a system is not socialist because the larger capitalist system of exploitation remains in tact.In this sceronerio the workers are essentially exploiting themselves.

Over all: A step forward, though it leaves much to be desired.

[UnknownPerson]

No,such a system is not socialist because the larger capitalist system of exploitation remains in tact.In this sceronerio the workers are essentially exploiting themselves.

Over all: A step forward, though it leaves much to be desired.

Can such a system achieve the same results as a centrally planned economy with a distribution system based on the "to each according to his contribution" socialist principle?

[gendoikari]

No,such a system is not socialist because the larger capitalist system of exploitation remains in tact.In this sceronerio the workers are essentially exploiting themselves.

Over all: A step forward, though it leaves much to be desired.
If I interpret him correctly he means all companies run as small republics, and the profit system I.E. stocks and whatnot, eliminated. Which is close, very close, but no real cigar. expand that out to the surrounding community and you've got yourself something looking very socialistic.

[AnonymousOne]

If all companies are worker cooperatives and instead of having parasites taking away the profit, the profit is given back to the workers of the company, can such a system be classified as socialism?

Yes, I believe market socialism is socialism as it opposes the Capitalist means of production. As long as there is no wage slavery, such a system ceases to be Capitalist, and moves to socialism.

I think an important part of the conception of Libertarian Socialism's ideal of free association is also the ability for different entities to trade and bargain with each other. A market is inevitable in such a state.

Edit: Before I get called reactionary this is all I mean by trade: Trade is the transfer of ownership of goods and services from one person or entity to another.

[Welshy]

Yes, I believe market socialism is socialism as it opposes the Capitalist means of production. As long as there is no wage slavery, such a system ceases to be Capitalist, and moves to socialism.



So commodity production for profit isn't a feature of capitalism?

@OP: This topic has been effectively discussed in this thread http://www.revleft.com/vb/mutualism-form-capitalismi-t156607/index.html?t=156607&highlight=Mutualism, so you may find your answer in there.

[gendoikari]

Yes, I believe market socialism is socialism as it opposes the Capitalist means of production. As long as there is no wage slavery, such a system ceases to be Capitalist, and moves to socialism.

I think an important part of the conception of Libertarian Socialism's ideal of free association is also the ability for different entities to trade and bargain with each other. A market is inevitable in such a state.

Edit: Before I get called reactionary this is all I mean by trade: Trade is the transfer of ownership of goods and services from one person or entity to another.

Well SOME very limited competition is a good thing, not so much as it exists under capitalism. Under capitalism, it's there to spur the making of money. Company X has to do better than company Y. Under socialism Competition is there so that people who don't like X can have Y or Z or A'. That only goes for consumer goods though, mostly entertainment, So I guess variety would be a better word than competition. The same concept doesn't translate well into other areas, like water supply, even the US has seen that.


So commodity production for profit isn't a feature of capitalism?

Life gets boring without xbox's and the latest Halo. Difference being under socialism without the need to push the next game quickly down our throats, Halo will have a story line, and actual thought put into it. .... so it wouldn't really be halo anymore.

[Gustav HK]

The cooperatives would still be in competition with each other, which means they will be forced to employ "special people" as managers, and sometimes also fire workers, both for effectivization.

Those managers would probably demand a higher part of the profits, moreover will those cooperatives be allowed to get investments from corporations in other countries?

[Gustav HK]

Titoist Yugoslavia was capitalist, if you are thinking of a model like it was in Titos Yugoslavia.

[UnknownPerson]

The cooperatives would still be in competition with each other, which means they will be forced to employ "special people" as managers, and sometimes also fire workers, both for effectivization.

Those managers would probably demand a higher part of the profits, moreover will those cooperatives be allowed to get investments from corporations in other countries?

If proper social programs, welfare, etc are instituted, isn't socially necessary labor time a good thing? It makes the costs of commodities lower all the time, and leads to such development of the means of production that the highest stage of communism with the distribution based on need could be achieved.

[AnonymousOne]

So commodity production for profit isn't a feature of capitalism?


For profit I'd say yes. However making things to trade, to try to get other things wouldn't be. If I grow potatoes, and I trade my potatoes with someone for some carrots I don't think that'd be capitalist. I'd still be engaging in a market though.

Wait, I don't think I read the OP fully. If trade is being done "for profit" than no, it is not socialist in any case. However as I stated in my above point, a market or place of trade would need to exist in a libertarian socialist society.

Thanks for asking that question.

[Welshy]

Life gets boring without xbox's and the latest Halo. Difference being under socialism without the need to push the next game quickly down our throats, Halo will have a story line, and actual thought put into it. .... so it wouldn't really be halo anymore.

I don't think you understand what is meant by that. By getting rid of commodity production for profit, you wouldn't be getting rid of things like gaming systems. You would still have them, but they would be produced because people want to have them and use them, rather than making them in order to sell them and to make a profit. Having to make a profit is a key part of market systems and a feature of capitalism.

[gendoikari]

I don't think you understand what is meant by that. By getting rid of commodity production for profit, you wouldn't be getting rid of things like gaming systems. You would still have them, but they would be produced because people want to have them and use them, rather than making them in order to sell them and to make a profit. Having to make a profit is a key part of market systems and a feature of capitalism.

well in any short term or even long term transition to real socialism we're still going to have "profit" in terms of using currency to buy things. We have a long way to go before we can fully eliminate that part of society. as i have said before on here robotization of the workforce will go a long way in achiving that. after all when 90% of the labor is done by machine, and it is literally impossible to both distribute all the goods society can produce, and impossible to employ everyone, then the days of the monetary system are over at that point. I always thought we'd have communism come in set fair wages for everyone based on work, then set everyones wage to the same, then eliminate the monetary system all together. That sort of gradual elimination wouldn't put too much stress on society, but if robotization levels arrive before that, then we would have to accept them in a capitalist manner, or instantly (at least on a geo-political timescale) switch to pure communism (as in the utopian vision of marx, not the perverted term it has become to connotate stalinism.)

Basically until we get rid of the currency system we all have to eat, and we have to use money to buy food, or at least most of us do. so we need money, and to do that we need to make a profit. which is not to be confused with corporate profits. which is something totally different.

[Welshy]

well in any short term or even long term transition to real socialism we're still going to have "profit" in terms of using currency to buy things. We have a long way to go before we can fully eliminate that part of society. as i have said before on here robotization of the workforce will go a long way in achieving that. after all when 90% of the labor is done by machine, and it is literally impossible to both distribute all the goods society can produce, and impossible to employ everyone, then the days of the monetary system are over at that point. I always thought we'd have communism come in set fair wages for everyone based on work, then set everyones wage to the same, then eliminate the monetary system all together. That sort of gradual elimination wouldn't put too much stress on society, but if robotization levels arrive before that, then we would have to accept them in a capitalist manner, or instantly (at least on a geo-political timescale) switch to pure communism

Profit ≠ money or currency. And to be honest I think that during the transition time period we should use labor vouchers instead. The rest of your post doesn't really make too much sense, IMO.


pure communism (as in the utopian vision of marx, not the perverted term it has become to connotate stalinism.)(emphasis mine)

With that you just proved how little you understand about marxism. I highly suggest you read more of his and Engels' work before you make statements like this.

[ComradePonov]

I think market Socialism is a welcome improvement on Capitalism and helps avoid the traditional problems associated with a centrally planned economy.

I recently submitted a blog on Market Socialism. I don't want to repeat every thing I already said in the blog.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, I believe market socialism is socialism as it opposes the Capitalist means of production. As long as there is no wage slavery, such a system ceases to be Capitalist, and moves to socialism.

I think an important part of the conception of Libertarian Socialism's ideal of free association is also the ability for different entities to trade and bargain with each other. A market is inevitable in such a state.

Edit: Before I get called reactionary this is all I mean by trade: Trade is the transfer of ownership of goods and services from one person or entity to another.

Unless you mis-understand the meaning of 'market Socialism', then no, market Socialism in no way opposes Capitalist means of production. As long as there is a free market, equilibrium is determined by supply and demand. As long as such a situation exists, then the production process, the labour economy and ultimately all economic policy decisions will be at the whim of the free market.

'Market Socialism' is either Social Democracy or some utopian vision, as in the long-run, economically speaking, only the existence of a free market is needed to lead to the concentration of ownership and wealth in the hands of a few, with all its associated ills.

[UnknownPerson]

Unless you mis-understand the meaning of 'market Socialism', then no, market Socialism in no way opposes Capitalist means of production. As long as there is a free market, equilibrium is determined by supply and demand. As long as such a situation exists, then the production process, the labour economy and ultimately all economic policy decisions will be at the whim of the free market.

'Market Socialism' is either Social Democracy or some utopian vision, as in the long-run, economically speaking, only the existence of a free market is needed to lead to the concentration of ownership and wealth in the hands of a few, with all its associated ills.

Market socialism and social democracy are different things. Market socialism means that private property is abolished and the means of production are owned and operated by the workers, while social democracy is simply private ownership of the means of production with a progressive tax.

Wouldn't market socialism fix the wealth distribution problem if the profit that the companies make is returned to the workers?

[maskerade]

quick question that might be off-topic: what are some proposed distribution mechanisms for socialist economies? How would the gaming system reach its audience?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

well in any short term or even long term transition to real socialism we're still going to have "profit" in terms of using currency to buy things. We have a long way to go before we can fully eliminate that part of society. as i have said before on here robotization of the workforce will go a long way in achiving that. after all when 90% of the labor is done by machine, and it is literally impossible to both distribute all the goods society can produce, and impossible to employ everyone, then the days of the monetary system are over at that point. I always thought we'd have communism come in set fair wages for everyone based on work, then set everyones wage to the same, then eliminate the monetary system all together. That sort of gradual elimination wouldn't put too much stress on society, but if robotization levels arrive before that, then we would have to accept them in a capitalist manner, or instantly (at least on a geo-political timescale) switch to pure communism (as in the utopian vision of marx, not the perverted term it has become to connotate stalinism.)

Basically until we get rid of the currency system we all have to eat, and we have to use money to buy food, or at least most of us do. so we need money, and to do that we need to make a profit. which is not to be confused with corporate profits. which is something totally different.

1) More profit doesn't equal more consumer spending power.

2) Profit and 'corporate Profit are the same thing. Whether they are made by medium sized companies or large corporations doesn't alter the state of the ownership of the Means of Production.

3) Ergo, all profit is exploitation. That is the fundamental tenet of all of Socialism. The difference between what it costs to produce a product (labour + capital + raw materials) and its exchange value (the price) is the exploitation curve. The difference is pocketed by the heads of companies when it should be pocketed by the workers, who should own the forces of production in the first place, thus making the need for profit obsolete.

4) Marx's vision of the lower stage of communism at least, was not utopian. I sense from your belief that the revolution's aims are as follows:

a) set fair wages, then
b) set equal wages, then
c) eliminate the monetary system

that you are not particular familiar with Marxian economics. I don't think that any orthodox Marxist has ever advocated setting equal wages. That is utopian and makes no economic sense.

On the other hand, simply setting 'fair wages' has nothing to do with Socialism or Karl Marx. Boris Johnson introduced the London Living Wage of something like £7.50 in London. I'd not say he's much of a Socialist. Same with the minimum wage. Socialism is not a set of beliefs that deals with outcomes, it is a process that identifies and provides solutions for the causes of exploitation in society. Karl Marx was very specific that the main offending cause, with regards to Capitalism, is that the Means of Production are owned by a small group. That inequality and poverty exists are symptoms of the cause.

Also, economies, despite what some Statists will tell you, are organic things. They are not able to be controlled or fully planned with any success. Indeed, its akin to having a game of chess with hundreds of millions of pieces at your disposal. Neither general theories nor micro-management can truly control an economy. Thus, your last point - eliminating the monetary system - will not just happen. Indeed, setting fairer and/or equal wages will bring us no closer to a situation whereby eliminating the monetary system becomes more of a practical possibility.

The only way that we will be able to replace the monetary system with a viable alternative is if the means of production are geniunely moved, in terms of their control, from the bourgeoisie, straight past the Lenins of this world, and right into the arms of each and every member of the working class. Nothing else is good enough, if your aim is communism and your weapon is Scientific Socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Wouldn't market socialism fix the wealth distribution problem if the profit that the companies make is returned to the workers?

No. I'm suspicious as to why someone would want to abolish private property yet keep the profit motive.

Historically, market Socialism has gone hand in hand with top-down economic control or outright bourgeois reformism.

I've yet to see a genuinely proletarian Market Socialist theory.

[Agnapostate]

If all companies are worker cooperatives and instead of having parasites taking away the profit, the profit is given back to the workers of the company, can such a system be classified as socialism?

The short answer is yes. Here is a free PDF of David Ellerman's Property and Contract in Economics: The Case for Economic Democracy (http://www.ellerman.org/Davids-Stuff/Books/p&c.htm).


Is such a system flawed?

The short answer is also yes. The best free summary that I have found is Adam Weiss's A Comparison of Economic Democracy and Participatory Economics (http://www.zcommunications.org/a-comparison-of-economic-democracy-and-participatory-economics-by-adam-weiss).

[AnonymousOne]

Unless you mis-understand the meaning of 'market Socialism', then no, market Socialism in no way opposes Capitalist means of production. As long as there is a free market, equilibrium is determined by supply and demand. As long as such a situation exists, then the production process, the labour economy and ultimately all economic policy decisions will be at the whim of the free market.

'Market Socialism' is either Social Democracy or some utopian vision, as in the long-run, economically speaking, only the existence of a free market is needed to lead to the concentration of ownership and wealth in the hands of a few, with all its associated ills.

I think we're both misunderstanding each other. There is no ability for ownership or wealth to come into the hands of the few, any case in which multiple people are involved is governed by a collective. If I grow a small home garden and I trade some carrots, I can do that. But I can not own a farm. We resist hierarchy, by not having people be paid more or less.

I think the idea that we can abolish private property to be naive, if for example I use a bicycle to make my way to the collective where I work, and someone takes that bicycle I am horribly inconvenienced. Yet in a situation where we have a collectivist notion of property that can happen.

What we need to do is allow for personal property, under the defintion given by Proudhon, i.e have it become defined by use and occupation (which destroys the current understanding of property as defined within Capitalism, which is currently unlimited use and abuse), with entities consiting of multiple being run in a democratic way with all people getting a say.

Trade, as I clarified earlier isn't done for profit, but merely to exchange goods with others.

This is not a Social Democracy, this is a Socialist Democracy.

[UnknownPerson]

No. I'm suspicious as to why someone would want to abolish private property yet keep the profit motive.

Historically, market Socialism has gone hand in hand with top-down economic control or outright bourgeois reformism.

I've yet to see a genuinely proletarian Market Socialist theory.

To have a high economic growth from which the vast majority benefits without parasites stealing labor from the majority. I'm not sure if centrally planned economy can be ran effectively with the present level of computation technology. Planned economies seem to have stagnated when it's economy became complex enough.

[Welshy]

I think we're both misunderstanding each other. There is no ability for ownership or wealth to come into the hands of the few, any case in which multiple people are involved is governed by a collective. If I grow a small home garden and I trade some carrots, I can do that. But I can not own a farm. We resist hierarchy, by not having people be paid more or less.

I think the idea that we can abolish private property to be naive, if for example I use a bicycle to make my way to the collective where I work, and someone takes that bicycle I am horribly inconvenienced. Yet in a situation where we have a collectivist notion of property that can happen.

What we need to do is allow for personal property, under the defintion given by Proudhon, i.e have it become defined by use and occupation (which destroys the current understanding of property as defined within Capitalism, which is currently unlimited use and abuse), with entities consiting of multiple being run in a democratic way with all people getting a say.



Just to nitpick a bit, when Marxists talk about private property they mean the private ownership of the means of production. Things like the bike you use to get yourself to the collective are considered personal possessions kind of like what you were talking about in your second paragraph.

[AnonymousOne]

Just to nitpick a bit, when Marxists talk about private property they mean the private ownership of the means of production. Things like the bike you use to get yourself to the collective are considered personal possessions kind of like what you were talking about in your second paragraph.

Yeah, I know. I just prefer Proudhonist terminology. Not to mention we need to clarify what the means of production are. If for example, I plant a garden and then trade those carrots, is that land considered a mean of production?

Questions like that are why I greatly prefer Proudhon's occupation and use definition of property, in that sense property can't be sold. It can be traded, but not sold, and land can be neither traded nor sold.

[Dogs On Acid]

If it's a worker co-operative market with shared profits and common ownership then it's socialism. If there is private ownership and wage slavery it's not.

[Agnapostate]

If it's a worker co-operative market with shared profits and common ownership then it's socialism. If there is private ownership and wage slavery it's not.

Individual labor cooperatives (along with communes) aren't socialist, since they don't actually convert the means of production to collective ownership and management on a large scale, but are microcosms of the socialist economy that exist in the capitalist economy.

[AnonymousOne]

Individual labor cooperatives (along with communes) aren't socialist, since they don't actually convert the means of production to collective ownership and management on a large scale, but are microcosms of the socialist economy that exist in the capitalist economy.

I believe UnknownPerson is promoting an idea where all entities made up of two or more workers would become communes and then engage in free trade? Is that what you thought he was saying?

Or were you thinking that because the free market economy exists that there would be inequality which would negate the possibility of it being socialist?

[UnknownPerson]

Individual labor cooperatives (along with communes) aren't socialist, since they don't actually convert the means of production to collective ownership and management on a large scale, but are microcosms of the socialist economy that exist in the capitalist economy.

But what if, say, virtually all of the industry is worker co-operatives? Can't it create the same results as a centrally planned economy with contribution-based distribution? Wouldn't economic growth be faster than in a centrally planned economy as centrally planned economies don't currently seem very feasible in an effective manner from the viewpoint of calculation technology?

I also seem to like the idea of decentralized economic planning which isn't based on the profit motive, but I'm not sure how it works and if it can work effectively at all.

[Dogs On Acid]

I believe UnknownPerson is promoting an idea where all entities made up of two or more workers would become communes and then engage in free trade? Is that what you thought he was saying?

Or were you thinking that because the free market economy exists that there would be inequality which would negate the possibility of it being socialist?

Socialism doesn't mean equality. It's a relationship to the means of production. Hence, if it's classless (common ownership), and runs as a market with money, it can be socialist. I doubt it would be efficient though.

[Ocean Seal]

Its not socialism because there still exists an alienation of the labor of the workers as there still exists a market. In order to compete with the exploitative capitalist class mutuals adopt capitalist models for production and are therefore capitalist. However, mutuals should be encouraged as they give workers an idea of how to run their own production and thus make them question why do they need bosses?

[AnonymousOne]

Socialism doesn't mean equality. It's a relationship to the means of production. Hence, if it's classless (common ownership), and runs as a market with money, it can be socialist. I doubt it would be efficient though.

Right I agree with you, Socialism is just a political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

But it sounds like the community within this hypothetical world wouldn't have a say in production, it would all be based on supply and demand.

[Dogs On Acid]

Right I agree with you, Socialism is just a political and economic theory of that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

But it sounds like the community within this hypothetical world wouldn't have a say in production, it would all be based on supply and demand.

Does the community in centrally planned socialism have a say in production? Not much, but that doesn't mean it's not Socialism.

It's all about the means of production, class, and property relations.

[Tim Cornelis]

No,such a system is not socialist because the larger capitalist system of exploitation remains in tact.In this sceronerio the workers are essentially exploiting themselves.

Over all: A step forward, though it leaves much to be desired.

I disagree, because then you would basically define capitalism as "exploitation". Socialism is a system based on common ownership of the means of production + workers' control, market socialism qualifies as socialism.

[Agnapostate]

I believe UnknownPerson is promoting an idea where all entities made up of two or more workers would become communes and then engage in free trade? Is that what you thought he was saying?

Individual labor cooperatives, as that exist now, do not constitute an establishment of socialism, since they do not constitute the general firm structure of the existing economy.


Or were you thinking that because the free market economy exists that there would be inequality which would negate the possibility of it being socialist?

The free market economy does not exist, never has, and cannot exist under capitalism, but can likely exist in a socialist economic paradigm.


But what if, say, virtually all of the industry is worker co-operatives? Can't it create the same results as a centrally planned economy with contribution-based distribution?

I would expect that it would create superior results, given the ability of decentralization to transmit distributed and tacit knowledge.


Wouldn't economic growth would be faster than in a centrally planned economy as centrally planned economies don't currently seem very feasible in an effective manner from the viewpoint of calculation technology?

I would think so.


I also seem to like the idea of decentralized economic planning which isn't based on the non-profit motive, but I'm not sure how it works and if it can work effectively at all.

The most economically detailed work on the subject would likely be The Political Economy of Participatory Economics (http://www.amazon.com/Political-Economy-Participatory-Economics/dp/069100384X).

[AnonymousOne]

Individual labor cooperatives, as that exist now, do not constitute an establishment of socialism, since they do not constitute the general firm structure of the existing economy.



The free market economy does not exist, never has, and cannot exist under capitalism, but can likely exist in a socialist economic paradigm.

Okay, that's what I thought. UnknownPerson is advocating the replacement of all private corporations, companies and factories with ones owned by the workers through common ownership.

We agree on the free market though, it definitely doesn't exist now.

[Comrade Trotsky]

Socialism doesn't mean equality.


Wait, what? Socialism is all about changing worker relations to the means of production in order to achieve a classless, and thus equal society.




As long as there is a free market, equilibrium is determined by supply and demand


I am a little confused as to why you seem hostile towards supply and demand. If people demand a certian product to be produced, then it would still be produced and supplied in a socialist society.

From each according to his ability, to each according to his need. If someone needs something, it would be supplied.

[Dogs On Acid]

Wait, what? Socialism is all about changing worker relations to the means of production in order to achieve a classless, and thus equal society.

We are talking about economical equality of wealth. The only way to achieve such a thing as economical equality of wealth would be to abolish monetary value of commodities, except for statistical purposes, what Gift-Economy supporters like myself want to achieve.

[Dogs On Acid]

Okay, that's what I thought. UnknownPerson is advocating the replacement of all private corporations, companies and factories with ones owned by the workers through common ownership.

We agree on the free market though, it definitely doesn't exist now.

A free market under socialism would be terribly inefficient. It would still make co-operatives strive to accumulate Capital Goods and hence control the Economy. Quality of life in Developed countries would also drop considerably due to the end of exploitation to sustain the quality of life.

I doubt a completely free-market is possible because the Market and Economy at microscopic levels is always planned by the co-operative.

[UnknownPerson]

A free market under socialism would be terribly inefficient. It would still make co-operatives strive to accumulate Capital Goods and hence control the Economy. Quality of life in Developed countries would also drop considerably due to the end of exploitation to sustain the quality of life.

I doubt a completely free-market is possible because the Market and Economy at microscopic levels is always planned by the co-operative.

"Quality of life in Developed countries would also drop considerably due to the end of exploitation to sustain the quality of life." - please elaborate.

[Comrade Trotsky]

We are talking about economical equality of wealth. The only way to achieve such a thing as economical equality of wealth would be to abolish monetary value of commodities, except for statistical purposes, what Gift-Economy supporters like myself want to achieve.

I too advocate gift-economics, I'm just abit confused by the statement "socialism doesn't mean equality"

What do you mean "except for statistical purposes?"

[AnonymousOne]

I too advocate gift-economics, I'm just abit confused by the statement "socialism doesn't mean equality"

What do you mean "except for statistical purposes?"

I believe what he's trying to say that in order for something to be socialist, it just needs to oppose/destroy the capitalist mode of production.

[Dogs On Acid]

"Quality of life in Developed countries would also drop considerably due to the end of exploitation to sustain the quality of life." - please elaborate.

Basically in the so called 1st World we only have toys, nice clothes, HD TVs and Smartphones (Middle-Class and Upper-Class) is due to our buying power. Most of the Electrical components and textile are fabricated in countries where workers are treated and paid like shit. If we were to produce these commodities in a non-exploitative manner, and by our own workers, the price would be too high for us to afford.

The only way to sustain the quality of life to the world's population in the 1st world, is by eliminating value as we know today.

[Dogs On Acid]

I too advocate gift-economics, I'm just abit confused by the statement "socialism doesn't mean equality"

What do you mean "except for statistical purposes?"

Because Socialism is the ownership of the MoP by the workers, simple. If this is performed in a market economy or a gift economy it's irrelevant.

Capitalism is not synonymous to Market. It just means that machinery, land and other properties can be privately owned and enforced.

Maintaining a currency (let's say Dollars) in a gift-economy would only be used to organize goods and compare them. But even this might not be necessary. It would just be for statistic.

Currency would still have no other practical purpose in the economy because money would not be used for exchange.

[Book O'Dead]

If all companies are worker cooperatives and instead of having parasites taking away the profit, the profit is given back to the workers of the company, can such a system be classified as socialism?

Is such a system flawed? Please elaborate. Can this give out the same results as a planned economy which distributes "to each according to his contribution"?

"To each according to his contribution"? Where did you pull that one out of, a Libertarian's asshole?

Look, in a socialist society Marx's generalization that each would contribute according to her ability and each receive according to her needs will likely be true. It'll be true because in a sane social system such as socialism will be workers will no longer be a class of people destined to be commoditized in a marketplace and whose product in turn [is] sold as a commodity for profit. IOW, there will be no profits and no wages as we understand those things today.

The product of labor and the division of that product will radically change after workers take collective possession of all the industries of the land and re-organize them along democratic principles of management and control.

[gendoikari]

And to be honest I think that during the transition time period we should use labor vouchers instead.

what do you think currency is supposed to be?

[Book O'Dead]

I believe what he's trying to say that in order for something to be socialist, it just needs to oppose/destroy the capitalist mode of production.

What are you, his fucking translator?

I for one understand his confused and equivocal statements and questions without the need for your "clarifying" interventions.

[AnonymousOne]

What are you, his fucking translator?

I for one understand his confused and equivocal statements and questions without the need for your "clarifying" interventions.

I just thought that you were misunderstanding him, which judging by your responses you are, no need to get pissy. This is the Learning forum after all.

[Dogs On Acid]

What are you, his fucking translator?

I for one understand his confused and equivocal statements and questions without the need for your "clarifying" interventions.

Chill the fuck out or Get The Fuck Out

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I think we're both misunderstanding each other. There is no ability for ownership or wealth to come into the hands of the few, any case in which multiple people are involved is governed by a collective. If I grow a small home garden and I trade some carrots, I can do that. But I can not own a farm. We resist hierarchy, by not having people be paid more or less.

I think the idea that we can abolish private property to be naive, if for example I use a bicycle to make my way to the collective where I work, and someone takes that bicycle I am horribly inconvenienced. Yet in a situation where we have a collectivist notion of property that can happen.

What we need to do is allow for personal property, under the defintion given by Proudhon, i.e have it become defined by use and occupation (which destroys the current understanding of property as defined within Capitalism, which is currently unlimited use and abuse), with entities consiting of multiple being run in a democratic way with all people getting a say.

Trade, as I clarified earlier isn't done for profit, but merely to exchange goods with others.

This is not a Social Democracy, this is a Socialist Democracy.

Comrade, there is a huge difference between 'property' and 'possessions', which you fail to understand in your bicycle example. Socialism doesn't ever (or shouldn't ever, I should add!) entail state-collectivism on the scale tyhat you seem to be imagining.

I don't think any Marxist has ever advocated collectivising peoples' personal possessions like bikes, cars, iPods, watches, televisions and other material goods.

Property is something that must be abolished, for it allows two things:

1) profit to be made on the actual buying/selling/renting of land
2) the ownership (in business sense) of whichever business uses said property which is owned.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

To have a high economic growth from which the vast majority benefits without parasites stealing labor from the majority. I'm not sure if centrally planned economy can be ran effectively with the present level of computation technology. Planned economies seem to have stagnated when it's economy became complex enough.

The issue here isn't free markets vs centrally planned state economies.

The issue here is top-down vs bottom up, minority control vs majority control, economic dictatorship vs Socialist democracy.

You make the mistake of thinking that the only alternative to the USA is the USSR. That is not true. If you look in many other threads on this forum you will see a range of ideas that have originated from left of Leninism that ignore his State Capitalist pretensions and the economic planning of the Stalin years and beyond.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Does the community in centrally planned socialism have a say in production? Not much, but that doesn't mean it's not Socialism.

It's all about the means of production, class, and property relations.

You've just contradicted yourself.

There is no difference if the means of production are minority controlled, whether it is being done by the bourgeoisie, or by a small elite 'in the name of the working class'.

If it ain't run by the working class, democratically and directly, then it's not Socialist, at least not in the Marxian sense.

[Dogs On Acid]

You've just contradicted yourself.

There is no difference if the means of production are minority controlled, whether it is being done by the bourgeoisie, or by a small elite 'in the name of the working class'.

If it ain't run by the working class, democratically and directly, then it's not Socialist, at least not in the Marxian sense.

No I haven't, because Socialism isn't limited to Marxism. Workers can submit to the authority of other workers willingly, be it due to experience or knowledge. That doesn't make the other authoritarian workers Bourgeois, because they simply don't own the means of production.

BTW, I'm no Authoritarian Socialist.

[Welshy]

what do you think currency is supposed to be?

Labor vouchers from what I understand wouldn't circulate like regular currency. So as soon as you exchange them for a good or service, they are gone.

[Dogs On Acid]

Labor vouchers from what I understand wouldn't circulate like regular currency. So as soon as you exchange them for a good or service, they are gone.

Exactly, they prevent accumulation of wealth.

[AnonymousOne]

Comrade, there is a huge difference between 'property' and 'possessions', which you fail to understand in your bicycle example. Socialism doesn't ever (or shouldn't ever, I should add!) entail state-collectivism on the scale tyhat you seem to be imagining.

Yes, there is in Marxist thought, but I wanted to be clearer as to an outsider differentiation comes across as pedantic. "No, you don't understand this isn't my property it's my posession!" sounds to a layperson a tad bit confusing.



I don't think any Marxist has ever advocated collectivising peoples' personal possessions like bikes, cars, iPods, watches, televisions and other material goods.

I don't pretend he did, I just find it easier to speak in Proudhon's terms. We get to the same point, the means of production being commonly held and personal "possessions" being respected. If we subsume both posessions and property into one entity, which we can call property and then define ownership of property by labor and occupation (the land can never be owned it can merely be occupied) we arrive at the same state:

A world in which the means of production are commonly owned by the workers (people that labor in the factory all have equal share in the factory) and the home of an individual is protected as well as they occupy it.

To me that is much easier to grasp, and is clearer than trying to differentiate between property and posessions, for example:

Let's say I'm a carpenter, and I own a small workshop where I (and I alone) make chairs. In Proudhon's world, I own my workship and my chairs so long as I am the sole laborer, if I hire a helper for the day than I no longer own my workshop, we both own it equally and we both are due to the product of our labor, the chairs so they will need to be split 50/50 for equality.

Where would that fit in Marxism?

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

No I haven't, because Socialism isn't limited to Marxism. Workers can submit to the authority of other workers willingly, be it due to experience or knowledge. That doesn't make the other authoritarian workers Bourgeois, because they simply don't own the means of production.

BTW, I'm no Authoritarian Socialist.

This is correct, but this is a revolutionary leftist forum. If you're interested in Bennite or Fabian Socialism then you're probably in the wrong place, or better yet, need further education on the difference between Parliamentary/Reformist 'Socialism' and revolutionary Socialism.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Yes, there is in Marxist thought, but I wanted to be clearer as to an outsider differentiation comes across as pedantic. "No, you don't understand this isn't my property it's my posession!" sounds to a layperson a tad bit confusing.



I don't pretend he did, I just find it easier to speak in Proudhon's terms. We get to the same point, the means of production being commonly held and personal "possessions" being respected. If we subsume both posessions and property into one entity, which we can call property and then define ownership of property by labor and occupation (the land can never be owned it can merely be occupied) we arrive at the same state:

A world in which the means of production are commonly owned by the workers (people that labor in the factory all have equal share in the factory) and the home of an individual is protected as well as they occupy it.

To me that is much easier to grasp, and is clearer than trying to differentiate between property and posessions, for example:

Let's say I'm a carpenter, and I own a small workshop where I (and I alone) make chairs. In Proudhon's world, I own my workship and my chairs so long as I am the sole laborer, if I hire a helper for the day than I no longer own my workshop, we both own it equally and we both are due to the product of our labor, the chairs so they will need to be split 50/50 for equality.

Where would that fit in Marxism?

The means of production are as follows: labour, land and capital.

Thus, there is a false dichotomy between common ownership of the MoP and the existence of private property.

Put it like this, how can the means of production be worker-owned, if the land that their organisations use for productive or other purposes are privately owned.

Also, and most importantly, private property is the basis of economic Capitalism. There is a great correlation, historically, between the existence of private property and inequality and exploitation. Rent is profit, it is exploitative.

[Thirsty Crow]

The means of production are as follows: labour, land and capital.Capital is NOT a means of production, but rather a social relation of production by which the invariant factors of every production, labour and means of production, are combined in a specific way (capital ushering in the way of "combination", different from previous class societies).

[Jose Gracchus]

Absolutely not. The laborers remain confronted with the products of their labor as form alien and antagonistic to them (commodity-form) which presupposes the tyranny of money and wage-labor. This is borne out empirically in all cooperative systems. The market is a class institution.

[AnonymousOne]

The means of production are as follows: labour, land and capital.

Thus, there is a false dichotomy between common ownership of the MoP and the existence of private property.

Put it like this, how can the means of production be worker-owned, if the land that their organisations use for productive or other purposes are privately owned.

Also, and most importantly, private property is the basis of economic Capitalism. There is a great correlation, historically, between the existence of private property and inequality and exploitation. Rent is profit, it is exploitative.

We misunderstand each other:

1. Land can never be owned, it can only be occupied. Where as if I make for example, a chair, that chair is my posession and my property I can sell it w/e. However, we can not make land, we can only occupy it. It is impossible for land to be sold/rented/whatever. If I rent out my land I am no longer occupying it.

2. I'm not sure how private property can be exploitative, in a society without profit, wage labor, alienation of labor (work is directly tied to production). But, please could you explain?


Absolutely not. The laborers remain confronted with the products of their labor as form alien and antagonistic to them (commodity-form) which presupposes the tyranny of money and wage-labor. This is borne out empirically in all cooperative systems. The market is a class institution.

1. There is no wage labor, and there is no money. There is a means of exchange, via labor vouchers (but if you decide to denounce us as reactionary, take a closer look at DeLeonism)

2nd. The laborers are tied directly to their products, as Proudhon explains, because of their labor they own the right to that product. With much labor many people have claims of ownership on that product, thus the only solution is to divide up the product's labor into a credit system. For example, we'll go back to the chair, if a friend and I are building a chair and I put in 5 hours and he puts in three, we both have claims on that chair, but I have the greater claim so I take from the chair a value proportional to the labor I put in.

3rd. The market can not be a class institution as there can be no class divisions, there can be no single ownership of the means of production, wage labor, or accumulation of capital.

[StalinFanboy]

tl;dr

Every single country that attempted some form of worker's control over the economy (be it through councils or the State/Party "representing" the workers) has always reverted back to outright capitalist relations over time. This is the nature of capital.

[AnonymousOne]

tl;dr

Every single country that attempted some form of worker's control over the economy (be it through councils or the State/Party "representing" the workers) has always reverted back to outright capitalist relations over time. This is the nature of capital.

It's not just "some" worker's control. It's ALL worker's control. It's like Anarcho-Syndicalism, but with a market and an awesome analysis of property.

Understand, there is no wage labor, ownership of land, there can be no ruling class since the means of production are held collectively. I'm confused, how can such a society be considered capitalist in any sense of the word?

[Dogs On Acid]

It's not just "some" worker's control. It's ALL worker's control. It's like Anarcho-Syndicalism, but with a market and an awesome analysis of property.

Understand, there is no wage labor, ownership of land, there can be no ruling class since the means of production are held collectively. I'm confused, how can such a society be considered capitalist in any sense of the word?

A rulling "class", or bully clique as I call it, a small group of workers that attained power through economical blackmail and technological superiority, will soon emerge. With no State to enforce laws against monopolization, what do you think will happen when a small group of workers end up dominating the market due to a technological breakthrough they refuse to give away?

[AnonymousOne]

A rulling "class", or bully clique as I call it, a small group of workers that attained power through economical blackmail and technological superiority, will soon emerge. With no State to enforce laws against monopolization, what do you think will happen when a small group of workers end up dominating the market due to a technological breakthrough they refuse to give away?

Hey, I find that concept interesting. Could you explain what economical blackmail is, I don't know what that means.

As for technological superiority, innovation doesn't occur within a vaccum, a technological breakthrough necessitates a directed research plan. Not to mention, of course that the products themselves have no value other than the labor put into them, within the Mutualist framework. That's why we have, labor vouchers for example.

[Welshy]

1. There is no wage labor, and there is no money. There is a means of exchange, via labor vouchers (but if you decide to denounce us as reactionary, take a closer look at DeLeonism)



Once again, if I'm not mistaken Labor vouchers are just used as a step to a complete elimination of money and the establishment of a gift economy. Also I don't think DeLeonism advocates the long term use of labor vouchers, but then again I could be wrong as I'm just starting to learn more about DeLeonism.

[Dogs On Acid]

Hey, I find that concept interesting. Could you explain what economical blackmail is, I don't know what that means.

As for technological superiority, innovation doesn't occur within a vaccum, a technological breakthrough necessitates a directed research plan. Not to mention, of course that the products themselves have no value other than the labor put into them, within the Mutualist framework. That's why we have, labor vouchers for example.

Let's say that a large and sucessfull co-operative, with research teams, develops an efficient and affordable design of machinery, be it geared toward for example medical care, this co-operative will quickly gain a massive foothold in the Market. It refuses to reveal it's secret to other co-operatives to maintain it's power over smaller co-operatives that use this machinery to offer services to the People: Hospitals, Universities and Medical Centers.

Now that most of the Market is dominated by this Monopolizing co-op, other co-ops will break and focus on something else because without money being involved, they just can't compete by lowering prices of their less advanced machinery for example.

The Monopoly co-op will have ultimate power over hospitals and medical scenters because certain new procedures will REQUIRE this equipment that they developed, hence they can Economically Blackmail these smaller Health Care co-ops.

Now, without a State that can overule this Economical Authority and Monopoly, the only way for the People as a whole to get their hands on this equipment is by overthrowing this co-operative with force. Much like it would be in Anarcho-Capitalist Markets.

And we would end up in a redundant cycle of overthrowing Monopolies.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

AnonymousOne: you cannot simply say that there would be no property ownership if there was private property. That is disingenuous.

Why won't you just support the fundamental Socialist tenet
of abolition of private property?

[Jose Gracchus]

Why don't we restrict Carsonites and Dengists?

[Dogs On Acid]

AnonymousOne: you cannot simply say that there would be no property ownership if there was private property. That is disingenuous.

Why won't you just support the fundamental Socialist tenet
of abolition of private property?

He does, kind of.

I just think a Socialist Market would be too unstable without a State.

[AnonymousOne]

AnonymousOne: you cannot simply say that there would be no property ownership if there was private property. That is disingenuous.

Why won't you just support the fundamental Socialist tenet
of abolition of private property?

We're advocating the same thing I just say it differently. If you define Property as the means of production, than no I don't advocate private property. I don't think you can own the land, or own the means of production.

All I mean when I say private property is what you view as possessions. The only difference is that I think an independent person should be able to own tools/means of production that they alone use. I'm talking about gardens, a small workshop etc. If another person joined in those efforts, they would be redefined in terms of property.

If we define property by labor and occupation, which I do, than the workshop is owned by whoever labors there, the garden is owned by whoever farms there. But understand that this ownership of the means of production is non-transferable, because the moment that you aren't working there it's not yours anymore. It can't be sold.



Why don't we restrict Carsonites and Dengists?

They're not? That's odd, I would have thought that would be the case.

I will point out that I am not a Carsonite, as Carson is merely an anarcho-capitalist wrapped in a few of Proudhon's ideas. He is an apologist for wage labor.

[Thirsty Crow]

All I mean when I say private property is what you view as possessions. The only difference is that I think an independent person should be able to own tools/means of production that they alone use. I'm talking about gardens, a small workshop etc. If another person joined in those efforts, they would be redefined in terms of property.

That proposition still retains private property (as opposed to private possessions for personal consumption).
The point of the elimination of wage labour is to socialize all of the means of production, meaning that de fact and de jure ownership cannot be contained to a group of workers', no matter the fluidity in their actual coposition, but rather to the whole of society.

Consider your example. Another goal of socialism is to institute a world wide production for direct appropriation, that is, for use, and not exchange. I don't think that one can talk about socialism in any meaningful way if production is still carried out for explicit goal of exchange. And that is the unvoiced assumption of your example, that individual producers in small workshops should exchange their product (since they own the product) for other products. But how would that take place, by which mechanism?

[AnonymousOne]

That proposition still retains private property (as opposed to private possessions for personal consumption).

Yes. It does.




The point of the elimination of wage labour is to socialize all of the means of production, meaning that de fact and de jure ownership cannot be contained to a group of workers', no matter the fluidity in their actual coposition, but rather to the whole of society.


As opposed to what? An outside group telling the workers what to do? All you're critiquing here is worker self-management.




Consider your example. Another goal of socialism is to institute a world wide production for direct appropriation, that is, for use, and not exchange.

Well, actually;

Socialism (pronounced /ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩/) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.



And that is the unvoiced assumption of your example, that individual producers in small workshops should exchange their product (since they own the product) for other products. But how would that take place, by which mechanism?

Probably because I can't see a way of a gift economy working out, it makes little sense to me to see humanity abandoning quid pro quo. If I could see an example of that happening, I'll gladly change my views as I think a gift economy would be better.

I advocate market exchange because I believe it's the best way to exchange goods in a world built upon voluntary associations.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Capital is NOT a means of production, but rather a social relation of production by which the invariant factors of every production, labour and means of production, are combined in a specific way (capital ushering in the way of "combination", different from previous class societies).

Thanks for that correction, comrade. Sloppy of me.

[Thirsty Crow]

As opposed to what? An outside group telling the workers what to do? All you're critiquing here is worker self-management. Now, is it so bad that a so called "outside group", that is, the rest of the society, the consumers, direct, by their participation in the formation of a common plan for production, production which is executed by a specific group of workers (who also happen to be consumers and who also happen to participate in formation of the common plan!), in the sense of producing at least a specific quantitative sets of products expected to be appropriated for use? Of course, concrete management of issues of immediate prodction is a matter of the self-management of the labouring people.

But what you seem to be confusing is the self-management at the level of individual unit of production with what I'd call generalized self-management of a society. And it is precisely this that you fail to acknowledge: that workers' are not autonomous with respect to the purpose of their labour, and that purpose should be direct appropriation, use, not exchange. Concrete organization of production, which is a hellishly wide area for labourers to enjoy their autonomy and self-management, is a different thing.






Well, actually;

Socialism (pronounced /ˈsoʊ̯ʃəɫɪzm̩/) is an economic system in which the means of production are publicly or commonly owned and controlled cooperatively, or a political philosophy advocating such a system.As a form of social organization, socialism is based on co-operative social relations and self-management; relatively equal power-relations and the reduction or elimination of hierarchy in the management of economic and political affairs.Actually, this definition leaves out one important factor: the elimination of capital (and no, common ownership of the means of production is a slogan much too vague for me to be able to discern this important dimension in establishing what constitutes a mode of production which transcends capitalism).





Probably because I can't see a way of a gift economy working out, it makes little sense to me to see humanity abandoning quid pro quo. If I could see an example of that happening, I'll gladly change my views as I think a gift economy would be better. It's misleading to conclude that "quid pro quo" will be in any meaningful way abandoned, since free access assumes mutual reciprocity above and beyond relations of exchange based in commodity production and money.
And how the hell would you see a large scale example of a "gift economy" nowadays when the rule of capital is unchallenged? There can be no successful example of a "gift economy" within capitalism as a world system.


I advocate market exchange because I believe it's the best way to exchange goods in a world built upon voluntary associations.
You in fact advocate a modification (however "radical" or "egalitarian") to essential capitalist relations of production, and not the complete overhaul of these relations, and the formation of a new mode of production.

[Kotze]

I agree with those who say capitalism and markets aren't the same, though I also believe that there is something to market mechanisms, whenever there is a possibility for "votes" to accumulate, which makes the development of capitalist relations more likely.
All I mean when I say private property is what you view as possessions. The only difference is that I think an independent person should be able to own tools/means of production that they alone use. I'm talking about gardens, a small workshop etc. If another person joined in those efforts, they would be redefined in terms of property.I think the key question here is how a person can join.

To own something is the right to restrict access to it. This right is used for legal blackmail, since the owners of the means of production can sabotage the production process by withholding what they own. If in the society you want it is solely those who already work at a plant who determine who can join, they can exploit the newcomers.

With land, it is possible via land value tax to effectively turn all owners into people who rent and it makes withholding very costly, and because this tax is regularly adjusted based on demand it also counters bubbles. This destroys the privilege of the land owners, even if they retain the freedom do decide whom to rent to and set the price and whether to sell. Could something similar to that be done with means of production, destroy any privilege of those who already work at the plant even if only they can decide who can join and at which conditions and whether to sell the machinery?

For setting the LVT, the land a person "owns" is treated as if nothing was on it. It is set based on something outside of that person, so it doesn't have a demotivational effect. If a tax were levied on tools and machines based on their demand, how would that work? Again, this would turn ownership into renting and it could work against hogging the stuff, but this stuff is something that is produced by humans. So in a market economy the expectation of such a hogging tax would reduce the willingness to pay a high price for these needed things and hence reduce the incentive to move production of tools and machinery towards those that are scarce. So it looks like the production and distribution of this stuff has to be handled in a very different way, no?

[AnonymousOne]

Now, is it so bad that a so called "outside group", that is, the rest of the society, the consumers, direct, by their participation in the formation of a common plan for production, production which is executed by a specific group of workers (who also happen to be consumers and who also happen to participate in formation of the common plan!), in the sense of producing at least a specific quantitative sets of products expected to be appropriated for use? Of course, concrete management of issues of immediate prodction is a matter of the self-management of the labouring people.

I see no reason why a common plan wouldn't be possible, obviously consumer cooperatives would work with the worker associations to ensure that needs would be met. Not to mention the role that neighborhood associations could play in helping create such a society.

Society would be based on an integrated system, with producer, consumer, housing, building, educational and service cooperatives, including credit unions. Production can't happen in a vacuum, someone or some people need to ask for it. That's my vision



Actually, this definition leaves out one important factor: the elimination of capital (and no, common ownership of the means of production is a slogan much too vague for me to be able to discern this important dimension in establishing what constitutes a mode of production which transcends capitalism).

You bring up a good point, and something that I had not thought about. Hypothetically, these labor associations could end up functioning like gigantic corporations with multiple stockholders.

I'll need to read some more and spend some time thinking about this, because if you are right I don't think market socialism goes far enough to truly destroy class relations and the capitalist mode of production.

[robbo203]

It's misleading to conclude that "quid pro quo" will be in any meaningful way abandoned, since free access assumes mutual reciprocity above and beyond relations of exchange based in commodity production and money.
And how the hell would you see a large scale example of a "gift economy" nowadays when the rule of capital is unchallenged? There can be no successful example of a "gift economy" within capitalism as a world system. .

I guess the internet itself would count as a good example of generalised reciprocity - a gift economy - though examples abound in the anthropological literature like the traditional hospitality of Bedouin towards strangers, a sound cultural adaptation in a harsh desert environment The point about a gift economy is that reciprocity is essentially a moral transaction rather than an economic transaction. In that respect it is the opposite of commodity exchanges. The former is about cementing solidaristic relationships and is altruistically inclined, the latter is atomising and egoistically inclined.

Strangely enough, the argument that people are incapable of moral identification on a larger scale than a group is contradicted by examples such as natonalism. Perversely, individuals will even be prepared to sacrifice their lives for the sake of this abstraction called the nation. If they can do such a thing in capitalism think of what is possible in a society that will truly function in our own interests

[Weezer]

I'm not going to read the whole thread, but here's how I feel about market socialism:

I don't think market socialism would be permanent. To me, market socialism would occur under a dictatorship of the proletariat, before the socialist epoch occurs.

Market socialism would help societies where the market is inherent in culture, like the United States(the whole American Dream concept), transition into socialism.

Markets will eventually be superseded by a planned economy.

[AnonymousOne]

To own something is the right to restrict access to it. This right is used for legal blackmail, since the owners of the means of production can sabotage the production process by withholding what they own. If in the society you want it is solely those who already work at a plant who determine who can join, they can exploit the newcomers.

Is there another form of society that wouldn't do that? Do associations accept everyone, despite bad behavior? Is a worker that is lazy and doesn't contribute deserve to own the means of production with other workers? A worker, for example may be a white supremacist, should he be allowed to participate in common associations?

What is the alternative? Forced association is no form of association at all.

I don't think we will need to worry about blackmail in the new society, especially as we go through the revolutionary process of establishing worker associations, consumer cooperatives, neighborhood assemblies, and network in a horizontal manner to fight hierarchy while retaining organization.

Human beings are social animals, we want to belong and to have others with us in solidarity. We seek society, and society seeks us. There are countless numbers of groups, within society that exist to meet up. Now imagine a society, where such action was truly encouraged openly. I don't think it would be often that you would see newcomers being forced out.

Newcomers, the moment they join have an equal voice within the workplace association. They labor there, and claim ownership just as all other workers can.

I fail to see what is oppressive about this method, neither party is forced, and it's impossible for any kind of "hiring" to exist. For example, there can't be differences in pay as it's what is put in of the individual that counts. What they produce is what they get, if they input 4 hours they get out 4 hours.



With land, it is possible via land value tax to effectively turn all owners into people who rent and it makes withholding very costly, and because this tax is regularly adjusted based on demand it also counters bubbles. This destroys the privilege of the land owners, even if they retain the freedom do decide whom to rent to and set the price and whether to sell. Could something similar to that be done with means of production, destroy any privilege of those who already work at the plant even if only they can decide who can join and at which conditions and whether to sell the machinery?

Land value tax? I'm sorry, but what agent would be the cause of that tax? The only case would be landoccupiers (I'll explain the distinction) banding together for common interest, and recieving common benefit. But that would be a voluntary choice made on their part. No other outside agency could impose a tax, so I question how renting could be created.

There are also not land owners as I've repeated multiple times, there are land occupiers. The most they can do is claim the land as a possession for use or consumption. They could not rent, they could not sell. The land, is not property, it can not be transferred or rented or sold in anyway.



You in fact advocate a modification (however "radical" or "egalitarian") to essential capitalist relations of production, and not the complete overhaul of these relations, and the formation of a new mode of production.

No. I advocate a revolutionary new mode of production. Common ownership of the means of production, the organization of society through voluntary associations, a change in our definition of property, the end to land as a commodity, and the end of wage labor.

[robbo203]

No. I advocate a revolutionary new mode of production. Common ownership of the means of production, the organization of society through voluntary associations, a change in our definition of property, the end to land as a commodity, and the end of wage labor.


I am not quite sure I understand your position. Looking back through the thread, you seem to advocate a market i.e. commodity production as in

It's not just "some" worker's control. It's ALL worker's control. It's like Anarcho-Syndicalism, but with a market and an awesome analysis of property.


Yet you advocate "common ownership of the means of production".

These two things are incompatible. The market - any kind of market - is a system of economic exchange. What exchange denotes really is an exchange in entitlement or ownership rights but if everyone owned the means of production then how would this be possible?

You seems to have in mind small scale autonomous productive activity and the means of production associated with this (see my blog entry on Andre Gorz). Your argument seems to be that that these can be effectively treated as private possessions like consumption goods. We dont expect people in a communist society to share their toothbrushes so why cannot this also be the case with small workshops or garden allotments (as opposed to say a big factory). In other words individuals would exercise usufract rights over these things

That is not an unreasonable argument at all. However you cannot infer from this the need for, or indeed the possibility of, a market. What is possible certianly is a system of balanced reciprocity of gift giving to supplement the system of generalised reciprocity - a gift economy proper - that would be the maintstay of a communist economy. But balanced reciprocity is not the same thing as a market. We are not talking about some festishised objectified system of exchange ratios. If I give you a bunch of carrots from my allotment, you feel compelled to open up that bottle of cider you made and share a drink with me. I was not trying to "sell" you the bunch of carrots. Nor was it a case of you wanting to buy the carrots. Its just the civilised thing to do - to reciprocate. It is moral transaction rather than an economic transaction.

This is the difference between communist reciprocity and capitalist commodity exchange. In any case, in a communist society since goods would no longer be priced but freely distributed or made available without the need for payment, how can priced goods (which would be the case in a market) "compete" so to speak against free goods? Which would you rather have - a good that you had to pay for or a good that you did not have to pay for? The answer is obvious and this is why in a communist society the possibility of some form of economic exchange - a market - re-emerging would quite simply not happen

[Kotze]

Do associations accept everyone, despite bad behavior? Is a worker that is lazy and doesn't contribute deserve to own the means of production with other workers?I agree that to prevent slacking, something more than an appeal to morals is needed. Working longer and under less agreeable conditions should be rewarded with higher remuneration. But if those who already work at a place are the sole deciders who else can work there you give them a privilege and invite exploitation. I don't deny that equal voice and equal pay for equal work could exist as a legal concept under such a system, I don't think it would be reflected in reality though.
I fail to see what is oppressive about this method, neither party is forcedYou could say something similar to that about capitalism. ComradePonov, who self-identifies as a market socialist, said in the recent thread on market socialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/market-socialism-t159134/index.html?t=159134) that there would be unemployment under market socialism. Doesn't that mean that some people would be more desperate than others, so how would those freely made agreements look like?
Land value tax?My remarks about the effects of land value taxation are not about adding that to whatever you propose, but about the effects if that is added to society as it is, a neat solution which I contrast with what would happen if a similar tax were introduced for possessing means of production in a society where those are produced in a market-oriented way. The point of that exercise is to show problems that exist, without any neat solution I know of, when there's a market for the means of production.