Communist institutions in Capitalism

[RGacky3]

Yeah I'm calling them communist, because imo thats what they are, I'm using Richard Wolffs (marxist) definition.

Cooperative industry, Credit Unions, Cooperative farms, Cooperative retail, Cooperative wind farms and so on, all non-profit, all democratically controlled, all that function inside the larger Capitalist-Market system (Btw markets are not unique to capitalism, whats unique is wage labor and profit).

I think supporting these institutions are just as important as supporting the larger revolutionary movement. Opinions?

[RedRose]

I fully support all community-based ideas and co-ops like that, but I don't quite see how they're as important as the larger revolutionary movement. While they are very important, I don't quite see how my local co-op grocery store is getting us any closer to communism.

But yes, from the perspective of helping people make the best of a worst situation (ie. capitalism) these sorts of things are very important.

[RGacky3]

While they are very important, I don't quite see how my local co-op grocery store is getting us any closer to communism.


In my opinion they ARE communism, and they provide a model that we can fight to make the norm.

I think that the workers in capitalist institutions can look at Cooperatives and say thats what we want in our workplace, and we arn't gonna ask for it, we're gonna take it (Argentina style).

[thefinalmarch]

There was a post someone made a few months back about how small pockets of modes of production can and have existed in societies where the ruling class presides over an entirely different mode of production - most famously how capitalist institutions existed throughout much of feudal society. I don't think "communist" economic institutions - albeit on a small scale compared to corporations, etc. - are an impossibility in capitalist society.

Specifically dealing with your example of credit unions: I don't think such things can ever be called communist no matter how democratically they're run. Finance and financial institutions of all sorts will be an anachronism in communist society of course, as communism in any meaningful sense requires the abolition of money.

All these worker co-operative businesses are interesting no doubt, and I feel communists should definitely look a little closer into what exactly their consequences mean, but they are definitely not a platform for revolution or whatever. They're designed to fit in the economic framework that capitalism provides, and ultimately they don't harm the power of capital.

[RGacky3]

Specifically dealing with your example of credit unions: I don't think such things can ever be called communist no matter how democratically they're run. Finance and financial institutions of all sorts will be an anachronism in communist society of course, as communism in any meaningful sense requires the abolition of money.


I don't know, depends how you define financial institutions, if you define them as institutions to take unused capital and apply them to useful sectors, then every economic system needs those things.

[RedRose]

In my opinion they ARE communism, and they provide a model that we can fight to make the norm.

I think that the workers in capitalist institutions can look at Cooperatives and say thats what we want in our workplace, and we arn't gonna ask for it, we're gonna take it (Argentina style).

I meant that they are not exactly a revolutionary movement, just another way of running a business. They are mutualist, but I wouldn't say communist. They still operate like normal businesses, and yes while they tend to be better for the worker than your standard bourgeois supermarket, they still have a slight profit motive.

By slight profit motive I mean under communism, the business would be run for the benefit of the whole commune (ie. to provide food distribution), but co-ops, while still more communal based than a Wal*Mart or Tescos, they still need to make a profit to survive, so they end up being capitalist by nature, just a democratic capitalism rather than an autocratic CEO.

[RGacky3]

They are mutualist, but I wouldn't say communist. They still operate like normal businesses, and yes while they tend to be better for the worker than your standard bourgeois supermarket, they still have a slight profit motive.


Institutionally they don't, and they don't operate like a normal capitalist buisiness, internally it IS a communist relation to production.

BUt your right its not a revolutionary movement, but it is something that needs to be supported imo and seriously looked at.


By slight profit motive I mean under communism, the business would be run for the benefit of the whole commune (ie. to provide food distribution), but co-ops, while still more communal based than a Wal*Mart or Tescos, they still need to make a profit to survive, so they end up being capitalist by nature, just a democratic capitalism rather than an autocratic CEO.

They don't need to make a profit, they have no shareholders that require a return, what they need to do is meet demand, which sometimes means making cuts to compete with capitalist institutions, and sometimes means using part of the surplus to expand production, but thats not the same as profit.

[Revolution starts with U]

My Credit Union charges me $30 for a $.30 overdraft... they're not that great.

[RGacky3]

No one is saying they're great ...

[aristos]

To a limited extent communist-minded institutions can exist in a capitalist society. On their own they will be very feeble of course and can only exist in forms and niches where they do not endanger the capitalist regime. As part of a wider strategy, with protection by broad layers of the working class through threat of strikes, occupations, as well as by active leftist paramilitary organizations and occasional bribes by individual bourgeois sympathetic to our cause they can take on a more decisive role, and become a strong component of the ultimate overthrow of capitalism.

I'd say two types of such organizations can exist:

1) Those that are run on quasi-communist principles creating a parallel economy. Today we have the open source software community, time banks, couch surfing.
All of them, to a limited extent, replace commercial software manufacturers, commercial service sector and hotels respectively (in this order of impact)
There are also several communist-minded communes all across the world, who are either nearly or fully autonomous and therefore do not help capitalism reproduce. These of course can never replace a true revolution, just like a self-made car in a tinkerer's garage cannot replace the entire automotive industry, but with the stepping up of revolutionary struggle they can play several quite significant auxiliary roles.

2) The other sort are probably only hypothetical at this moment, but can nonetheless be useful in the long run if they emerge. These are actual industrial companies that while not necessarily operated in the way they would be operated under communism are run by people dedicated to the communist cause.
It is often said that due to the nature of surplus-value extraction a true communist company will not be able to compete with ruthless capitalist enterprises. One thing that is not mentioned, however, is one important advantage of a company run by communists dedicated to the cause: they do not need to generate profits.
As such (at least theoretically) they can succesfully compete (and maybe even outcompete) capitalist firms by selling their products at lowest possible prices (production cost = final price), thus strategically being able to put this or that capitalist company out of business ;)

[Thirsty Crow]

Yeah I'm calling them communist, because imo thats what they are, I'm using Richard Wolffs (marxist) definition.

Cooperative industry, Credit Unions, Cooperative farms, Cooperative retail, Cooperative wind farms and so on, all non-profit, all democratically controlled, all that function inside the larger Capitalist-Market system (Btw markets are not unique to capitalism, whats unique is wage labor and profit).

I think supporting these institutions are just as important as supporting the larger revolutionary movement. Opinions?
My opinion is that you do not understand what communism is (as opposed to capitalism) if you consider co-ops (companies which operate on the global market and produce for profit) "communist institutions". Communists shouldn't support capitalsit business entities, no matter what internal organization of distribution and ownership they take on.
Also, while markets in themselves are not a distinguishing facet of capitalism, hystorically speaking, they are its vital "component" and one cannot argue for a communist mode of production without arguing for the abolition of market exchange.

Also, if one can meaningfully talk about "communist institutions" existing and developing within capitalist societies, I think that could only refer to workers' organizations, and even then a more accurate term would be something like incipient communist institutions or soemthing like it, and not business entities (frankly, I have no clue whatsoever where did you get the idea that there are no for profit co-ops; or maybe you want to deflect discussion from this specific form of co-ops?). It is the site of struggle and the first attempts at formation of "political" bodies, however limited in scope (e.g. strike committees), that functions as the site of the first attempts at creating communist institutions.


No one is saying they're great ...
But you're specifically calling them "communist" and insist on their non-profit character, which is ridiculous.

Finally, I'd suggest people have a look at this article posted at libcom: http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together

[RGacky3]

My opinion is that you do not understand what communism is (as opposed to capitalism) if you consider co-ops (companies which operate on the global market and produce for profit) "communist institutions". Communists shouldn't support capitalsit business entities, no matter what internal organization of distribution and ownership they take on.
Also, while markets in themselves are not a distinguishing facet of capitalism, hystorically speaking, they are its vital "component" and one cannot argue for a communist mode of production without arguing for the abolition of market exchange.


What makes a Capitalist mode of production, is that you have one group that works for a wage with no control over their production and another group that controls the production.

What makes a communist institution is that the group that creates the production controls the production.

I'm using RIchard Wolffs definition.

Producing a surplus does'nt make a capitalist institution, all economic institutions do.


(frankly, I have no clue whatsoever where did you get the idea that there are no for profit co-ops; or maybe you want to deflect discussion from this specific form of co-ops?).

Many of them are listed as non profits, and actually don't produce a profit. The production either goes to wages or to expansion or to reproducing production.

Infact the notion of profit only really works when you have seperate owners, or a stock-market corporation.


But you're specifically calling them "communist" and insist on their non-profit character, which is ridiculous.

Finally, I'd suggest people have a look at this article posted at libcom: http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together (http://libcom.org/library/co-operatives-all-together)

I am using RIchard WOlffs Marxist analysis of looking at the economy as institutions rather than the larger system.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE]What makes a communist institution is that the group that creates the production controls the production.

Which is why socialism/communism fails. It makes no sense for the PRODUCER of goods and services to control production since the objective of production is not to satisfy the needs of those workers doing the production.

The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs of people who want those products.


Producing a surplus does'nt make a capitalist institution, all economic institutions do.

If the objective of production to produce profit, then yes.

But since socialists frown on that motive of production, it cannot be said that all institutions do or would.
Certainly a socialist enterprise could produce a surplus. But that would be a happenstance, a particular event which would not be especially gratifying or even beneficial for the enterprise.

[Bud Struggle]

IT just shows you that Communism is a FUNCTION of Capitalsim. One of the many stains of political thought that exist WITHIN Capitalism.

There is nothing else but Capitalism. True for a "moment" there was the Paris Commune and the CNT but they were enveloped in a heartbeat withing Capitalism.

[Astarte]

The biggest role co-ops and worker owned companies can play under the mode of capitalism is to begin to create embryonic prototypes of workers' economic planning control and workers' power.

Kautsky's analogy in his 1902 "The Social Revolution", comparing the birth process to the socialist revolution comes to mind:


The analogy between birth and revolution, however, does not rest alone upon the suddenness of the act. If we look closer we shall find that this sudden transformation at birth is confined wholly to functions. The organs develop slowly, and must reach a certain stage of development before that leap is possible, which suddenly gives them their new functions. If the leap takes place before this stage of development is attained, the result is not the beginning of new functions for the organs, but the cessation of all functions – the death of the new creature. On the other hand, the slow development of organs in the body of the mother can only proceed to a certain point, they cannot begin their new functions without the revolutionary act of birth. This becomes inevitable when the development of the organs has attained a certain height.

We find the same thing in society. Here also the revolutions are the result of slow, gradual development (evolution). Here also it is the social organs that develop slowly. That which may be changed suddenly, at a leap, revolutionarily, is their functions. The railroad has been slowly developed. On the other hand, the railroad can suddenly be transformed from its function as the instrument to the enrichment of a number of capitalists, into a socialist enterprise having as its function the serving of the common good. And as at the birth of the child, all the functions are simultaneously revolutionized – circulation, breathing, digestion – so all the functions of the railroad must be simultaneously revolutionized at one stroke, for they are all most closely bound together. They cannot be gradually and successively socialized, one after the other, as if, for example, we would transform to-day the functions of the engineer and fireman, a few years later the ticket agents, and still later the accountants and book-keepers, and so on. This fact is perfectly clear with a railroad, but the successive socialization of the different functions of a railroad is no less absurd than that of the ministry of a centralized state. Such a ministry constitutes a single organism whose organs must cooperate. The functions of one of these organs cannot be modified without equally modifying all the others. The idea of the gradual conquest of the various departments of a ministry by the Socialists is not less absurd than would be an attempt to divide the act of birth into a number of consecutive monthly acts, in each of which one organ only would be transformed from the condition of a fetus to an independent child, and meanwhile leaving the child itself attached to the navel cord until it had learned to walk and talk.

Since neither a railroad nor a ministry can be changed gradually, but only at a single stroke, embracing all the organs simultaneously, from capitalist to socialist functions, from an organ of the capitalist to an organ of the laboring class, and this transformation is possible only to such social organs as retain a certain degree of development, it may be remarked here that with the maternal organism it is possible to scientifically determine the moment when the degree of maturity is attained, which is not true of society.

On the other hand, birth does not mark the conclusion of the development of the human organism, but rather the beginning of a new epoch in development. The child comes now into new relations in which new organs are created, and those that previously existed are developed further in other directions; teeth grow in the mouth, the eyes learn to see; the hands to grasp, the feet to walk, the mouth to speak, etc. In the same way a social revolution is not the conclusion of social development, but the beginning of a new form of development. A socialist revolution can at a single stroke transfer a factory from capitalist to social property. But it is only gradually, through a course of slow evolution, that one may transform a factory from a place of monotonous, repulsive, forced labor into an attractive spot for the joyful activity of happy human beings. A socialist revolution can at a single stroke transform the great bonanza farms into social property. In that portion of agriculture where the little industry still rules, the organs of social and socialist production must be first created, and that can come only as a result of slow development.

It is thus apparent that the analogy between birth and revolution is rather far reaching. But this naturally proves nothing more than that one has no right to appeal to nature for proof that a social revolution is something unnecessary, unreasonable, and unnatural. We have also, as we have already said, no right to apply conclusions drawn from nature directly to social processes. We can go no further upon the ground of such analogies than to conclude: that as each animal creature must at one time go through a catastrophe in order to reach a higher stage of development (the act of birth or of the breaking of a shell), so society can only be raised to a higher stage of development through a catastrophe.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/kautsky/1902/socrev/pt1-1.htm#s1

[Revolution starts with U]

Which is why socialism/communism fails. It makes no sense for the PRODUCER of goods and services to control production since the objective of production is not to satisfy the needs of those workers doing the production.

The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs of people who want those products.

Wait... I thought, in your theory, that the owner WAS the producer? It's her stuff, his idea, her risk, the workers are just tools that he buys on the open market.
So if not the producer, what is the capitalist?

Somebody has to decide how the company moves forward. Is such a childish notion as "mine" the best way to decide that?


IT just shows you that Communism is a FUNCTION of Capitalsim. One of the many stains of political thought that exist WITHIN Capitalism.

There is nothing else but Capitalism. True for a "moment" there was the Paris Commune and the CNT but they were enveloped in a heartbeat withing Capitalism.

I get what you're saying. But it's really like saying "There is nothing but Kings and Lords. Know your place. You can't change your stars."

[#FF0000]

IT just shows you that Communism is a FUNCTION of Capitalsim.

Nah, only if you're one of these left-of-capital nerds who go on about how baller the USSR was under Stalin or who goes on about how Trotsky would've made everything better or whatever.

[RGacky3]

Which is why socialism/communism fails. It makes no sense for the PRODUCER of goods and services to control production since the objective of production is not to satisfy the needs of those workers doing the production.

The purpose of production is to satisfy the needs of people who want those products.


... And they don't produce it to satisfy the needs to the stockholders or boss either.

That argument makes no sense.

We are talking about production and surplus distribution not distribution of the commodity.


If the objective of production to produce profit, then yes.

But since socialists frown on that motive of production, it cannot be said that all institutions do or would.
Certainly a socialist enterprise could produce a surplus. But that would be a happenstance, a particular event which would not be especially gratifying or even beneficial for the enterprise.

Almost ALL production produces surplus, but surplus is not the same as profit. (I'm using hte marxian definition of surplus and the basic definition of profit).


True for a "moment" there was the Paris Commune and the CNT but they were enveloped in a heartbeat withing Capitalism.

With Guns.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2258651]Wait... I thought, in your theory, that the owner WAS the producer? It's her stuff, his idea, her risk, the workers are just tools that he buys on the open market.

Sure. The comment was about "control." The capitalist can't turn a profit unless the needs of the consumer are met. Their demand is what controls production.


S
omebody has to decide how the company moves forward. Is such a childish notion as "mine" the best way to decide that?

That seems to be a basis of socialist production; the workers in a firm will control production for no other reason, certainly not to turn a profit.

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=RGacky3;2258969]... And they don't produce it to satisfy the needs to the stockholders or boss either.

Probably. But those folks can't be satisfied unless the consumers are... so there you go,


That argument makes no sense.

I fail to see the sense of ANY rational economic system producing goods and services to satisfy the needs of the producers.




Almost ALL production produces surplus,

If so, there is no basis for any technological or economic progress.

[Revolution starts with U]

Sure. The comment was about "control." The capitalist can't turn a profit unless the needs of the consumer are met. Their demand is what controls production.


Why couldn't the same decision be decided democratically within a company? Is there some special characteristic the capitalist has, merely by being the capitalist?


That seems to be a basis of socialist production; the workers in a firm will control production for no other reason, certainly not to turn a profit.
:rolleyes:
1)We're talking about worker cooperatives, quasi-private enterprises. The workers "own" the business.
2)Many are partially publicly traded, meaning they have to cut costs (safety, health, and wages) in order to satisfy the wants of the ruling class. They operate for a profit, as I think RGacky is defining profit.

So they're not "socialist" production. It is like the few capitalist institutions that existed during the 1000+ year reign of feudalism. Nevertheless, they show a viable method of economic development, among many others, within capitalism based on quasi-socialist principles.

[Revolution starts with U]

Probably. But those folks can't be satisfied unless the consumers are... so there you go,
No, they can, for a while, till someone catches on. Why else try to get that pesky government out of your business? On an open market does this process just magically happen faster?



I fail to see the sense of ANY rational economic system producing goods and services to satisfy the needs of the producers.

Forgive me, but you are being obtuse. Goods are not being produced for the sake of the producer (personally) but for the consumer, as in any other company. This has been explained, numerous times. The capitalist or the board currently decides what wants of the consumer he wants to attempt to satisfy. Why could not the business decide this democratically?



If so, there is no basis for any technological or economic progress.

If that were true we would have starved to death long before the development of agriculture.

[Bud Struggle]

Those are Communist institutions in Capitalism. Does any seen any Communism? In the REAL WORLD? Anywhere?

:D :D :D

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2259671]Why couldn't the same decision be decided democratically within a company? Is there some special characteristic the capitalist has, merely by being the capitalist?

It is certainly true that a worker owned company is not uncapitalist on the face of things.
But I suspect you would not limit your definition and description of socialism to worker ownership.



:rolleyes:
1)We're talking about worker cooperatives, quasi-private enterprises. The workers "own" the business.
2)Many are partially publicly traded, meaning they have to cut costs (safety, health, and wages) in order to satisfy the wants of the ruling class. They operate for a profit, as I think RGacky is defining profit.

My comment was in response to yours in justification of capitalism "mine." It was simply an observation that a justification for worker ownership and control is based upon "mine" (particularly when one considers that that is the justification for its decisionmaking)

[Baseball]

[QUOTE=Revolution starts with U;2259684]No, they can, for a while, till someone catches on. Why else try to get that pesky government out of your business? On an open market does this process just magically happen faster?

Probably. I thought socialists praised the economic and progressive nature of capitalism.



Forgive me, but you are being obtuse. Goods are not being produced for the sake of the producer (personally) but for the consumer, as in any other company. This has been explained, numerous times.

Yeah, I have heard the claim. Then the decisions of the workers are under the control of the consumers. Quanity, quality, line structures, labor force levels, ect. are all set in response to what best satisfies the needs of the consumers.
All this is true in capitalism as well.

[Decommissioner]

To a limited extent communist-minded institutions can exist in a capitalist society. On their own they will be very feeble of course and can only exist in forms and niches where they do not endanger the capitalist regime. As part of a wider strategy, with protection by broad layers of the working class through threat of strikes, occupations, as well as by active leftist paramilitary organizations and occasional bribes by individual bourgeois sympathetic to our cause they can take on a more decisive role, and become a strong component of the ultimate overthrow of capitalism.

I'd say two types of such organizations can exist:

1) Those that are run on quasi-communist principles creating a parallel economy. Today we have the open source software community, time banks, couch surfing.
All of them, to a limited extent, replace commercial software manufacturers, commercial service sector and hotels respectively (in this order of impact)
There are also several communist-minded communes all across the world, who are either nearly or fully autonomous and therefore do not help capitalism reproduce. These of course can never replace a true revolution, just like a self-made car in a tinkerer's garage cannot replace the entire automotive industry, but with the stepping up of revolutionary struggle they can play several quite significant auxiliary roles.

2) The other sort are probably only hypothetical at this moment, but can nonetheless be useful in the long run if they emerge. These are actual industrial companies that while not necessarily operated in the way they would be operated under communism are run by people dedicated to the communist cause.
It is often said that due to the nature of surplus-value extraction a true communist company will not be able to compete with ruthless capitalist enterprises. One thing that is not mentioned, however, is one important advantage of a company run by communists dedicated to the cause: they do not need to generate profits.
As such (at least theoretically) they can succesfully compete (and maybe even outcompete) capitalist firms by selling their products at lowest possible prices (production cost = final price), thus strategically being able to put this or that capitalist company out of business ;)

I have been tinkering with the idea of how a more communist oriented business would thrive while having to compete within capitalist industry. You listed one obvious advantage, eliminating the need for profit, but I think there is another one. Since as marxists we know the real source of profit is in the extraction of surplus value, we know that the price of whatever goods a communist business makes will not matter in the long run. The communist business will out compete the capitalist not in the consumer market, but in the labor market. I have seen it myself, legions of people flocked to this other business that cropped up for the same industry (tech support) after they offered 50 openings, better health benefits, hours, wage etc etc. This was another capitalist-oriented operation, obviously...but imagine if you opened a co-op equivalent of say..wal mart? Wal marts employees would leave in droves. If the model is to expand to meet employment demands rather than cut to meet bottom lines, capitalist workplaces would be choked.

Another small scale example is in the past some friends and I owned a small DIY venue. We made no profits off of it, charged same minimum fee, didn't charge room rent, and payed bands. The other similar sized venue across town that was owned by someone who merely charged for room rent went under...even though we were not trying to compete. It was only after we decided to stop running our venue that person decided to come back and open another venue.

I imagine this is how things will happen after a revolution anyways, major industries would be seized by workers councils, these councils would then starve the small businesses of their workers, forcing the small businesses to integrate into the council model.

[Baseball]

I If the model is to expand to meet employment demands rather than cut to meet bottom lines, capitalist workplaces would be choked.

Rev with U insists that the purpose of production in the socialist community is first and foremost to provide goods and services to the consumers of those products.

Yours seems to be to meet the needs of the employees (workers) of those firms producing the goods and services.

I suspect you would find most socialists on your side in this sectarian struggle.

[RGacky3]

Those are Communist institutions in Capitalism. Does any seen any Communism? In the REAL WORLD? Anywhere?

:D :D :D

Those are communist institutions in a market, that is mostly made up of capitalist institutions.

And yeah, they do work.


Probably. But those folks can't be satisfied unless the consumers are... so there you go,


... Ok, but thats true of everything in economics A=A.


I fail to see the sense of ANY rational economic system producing goods and services to satisfy the needs of the producers.


We are talking about the distribution of the surplus, stop playing semantics games.


If so, there is no basis for any technological or economic progress.

Its called MORE surplus.


2)Many are partially publicly traded, meaning they have to cut costs (safety, health, and wages) in order to satisfy the wants of the ruling class. They operate for a profit, as I think RGacky is defining profit.


If they are publically traded then your right, they have (at least in the US) a legal requirement to maximize profit, but I'm not sure about the legality of that situation if they would be defined as a cooperative if they are publically traded, and it depends on the corporate law.

Legally, in most countries, cooperatives are not required to maximise profits, so it just depends if its defined as a cooperative.


So they're not "socialist" production. It is like the few capitalist institutions that existed during the 1000+ year reign of feudalism. Nevertheless, they show a viable method of economic development, among many others, within capitalism based on quasi-socialist principles.

The definition of Capitalist productive according to marx, is the producers get a wage and the capitalist gets the product, the definition of communist production is the producers get the product.

[Baseball]

We are talking about the distribution of the surplus, stop playing semantics games.

How much "surplus" (ie profit) was created by the typewriter folks after PC's became popular? How about by the buggy folks after the efforts by Ford, the Dodge Brothers ect ect?
It is false to say all, or "almost all" economic activity produces "surplus."




If they are publically traded then your right, they have (at least in the US) a legal requirement to maximize profit,

That isn't true. Its been argued that, morally, a business has no other obligation or duty (Friedman) but he never suggested charitable donations, operating other lines at a loss, ect. should be illegal.

[RGacky3]

How much "surplus" (ie profit) was created by the typewriter folks after PC's became popular? How about by the buggy folks after the efforts by Ford, the Dodge Brothers ect ect?
It is false to say all, or "almost all" economic activity produces "surplus."


No, surplus, when we are talking about production DOES NOT equal profit.

the typewriter folks topped creating typewriters after the PC became popular so did buggy folks ... all economic activity, under all economic systems created a surplus.


That isn't true. Its been argued that, morally, a business has no other obligation or duty (Friedman) but he never suggested charitable donations, operating other lines at a loss, ect. should be illegal.

Legally, a corporation is under obligation to maximise shareholder profit, I don't care what Friedman said, or what is illigal or not legal about charitable donations and so on.

However corporate law is that corporations have an obligation to maximise profit for shareholders.

[tir1944]

No, surplus, when we are talking about production DOES NOT equal profit.
So what exactly DOES it equal?

[RGacky3]

Surplus is whatever goes beyond neccessary labor+fixed capital cost (directly involved in production), so for example in a chair factory, you have productive labor wages and machine maintenence (or buying the machine) and raw materials.

After that you have a surplus, some of which goes to accounting, executive pay, security guards, buying MORE machines, advertising, investments or whatever.

After that you have the profit. (I'm using Marxist definition of surplus, and a general definition of profit).

[Revolution starts with U]

It is certainly true that a worker owned company is not uncapitalist on the face of things.
But I suspect you would not limit your definition and description of socialism to worker ownership.

No, not at all. Socialism by definition includes the revolutionary class consciousness of the proletariat. Sure, individuals can practice socialist-ic actions. But socialism cannot reallybe practiced on the micro level. This is why my stance this whole time has been that co-ops are quasi-socialist institutions in a capitalist environment.



My comment was in response to yours in justification of capitalism "mine." It was simply an observation that a justification for worker ownership and control is based upon "mine" (particularly when one considers that that is the justification for its decisionmaking)
Yep. That's why I only consider them "quasi" socialist. The workers are still practicing under a "mine, and by that we mean ours, but as on homogenous bloc."

Rev with U insists that the purpose of production in the socialist community is first and foremost to provide goods and services to the consumers of those products.

Yours seems to be to meet the needs of the employees (workers) of those firms producing the goods and services.

I suspect you would find most socialists on your side in this sectarian struggle.
You are completely misunderstanding me. These are not socialist institutions. The purpose of a co-op is still to provide goods and services for the consumer on the market.

It's like we are all discussing cars, and you are saying "ya but the purpose of a truck is to haul things."

[Revolution starts with U]

Probably. I thought socialists praised the economic and progressive nature of capitalism.

In comparison to feudalism, yes. Just for the sake of itself, no.



Yeah, I have heard the claim. Then the decisions of the workers are under the control of the consumers. Quanity, quality, line structures, labor force levels, ect. are all set in response to what best satisfies the needs of the consumers.
All this is true in capitalism as well.
Hence the use of "quasi" socialist. :thumbup1:

Now this is like 5x I have had to say that. I won't be saying it again. If you continue to pursue this line of questioning, that is fine. But I will probably just ignore or laugh at you until you start accurately representing my position :lol:

[RGacky3]

ALL PRODUCTION is for consumption, all production is for the benefit of the consumers, in ANY system, if you make cookies you make it so that people can eat them, Baseballs argument is apriori bullshit, it does'nt tell you anything.

Producing for the consumers has nothing to do with socialism, capitalism, or anything.

[Bud Struggle]

Take you noses out of your textbooks.

Comminism doesn't and probably never did exist.


Now go home.

[tir1944]

^^

http://kittyfriskies.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/kitten1.jpg

[RGacky3]

Take you noses out of your textbooks.

Comminism doesn't and probably never did exist.


Now go home.


^ A man with absolutely nothing to say, but for some reason still posting.

[thefinalmarch]

Well, I finally found that post I was referring to in my post earlier ITT. So, in case anyone wanted it...

Every society no matter what the mode of production contains little cellules of other modes of production inside it. Every feudal empire has a small merchant caste that practices capitalism on a small, restricted scale. When the Roman empire was working the antique slave mode of production there were still pockets of the asiatic mode of production inside it. So on that premise, we'd look for cellules of limited communism at work today and generalize outward.

The largest scale on which partial communism is practiced right now is American college campuses. I mean the prestigious ones, where living and dining in common is still practiced, not the lower-down schools that nickel and dime you with off campus living and a la carte meal plans. Once you've paid your tuition, all housing and eating is free of charge and practiced in common. The means of production (classrooms, library books, scientific and computer labs) are available for all students and faculty to use, either on a completely unrestricted basis or by a fairly easy process of filing a request. For communism on a society-wide basis, extend this to everybody and remove the once you've paid your tuition part.

So imagine a large university, say a Big Ten school, but with farms and factories on campus and people of all ages. Or imagine New York, but with common dormitories and dining halls, workshops, libraries, labs etc. That might give you an idea.

(Some might object that university students' labor is non-productive. That's based on the false assumption that ideological production is non-material. In fact they're engaged in the extremely lucrative production of prestige, which the capitalist state and corporations are self-evidently willing to pay top dollar for.)

Of course, advanced capitalism resembles an Armenian merchant's shop in the Ottoman empire only vaguely, so an analogy like this gives you only a limited perspective, but it might be a start.

Turns out it wasn't as relevant as I thought. Oh well.

[Judicator]

^ A man with absolutely nothing to say, but for some reason still posting.

You're one to talk given than half of your OPs are just videos/news stories.

[Revolution starts with U]

You're one to talk given than half of your OPs are just videos/news stories.

I think what he meant was that Bud has one very consistent message that he never deviates from:

"America! Fuck Yeah!" :thumbup1:

[RGacky3]

You're one to talk given than half of your OPs are just videos/news stories.

That have something to say and start a discussion on.

Buds posts are either "AMMMEEERIIICCAAA!" Or just "ha ha you suck," never attached to any arguments, the dude has nothing to say and should really just leave or stick to the chatter room.

[Maslo]

This is the way I would support. Let the socialist coops compete in a free market with capitalist companies. IF they are really better, you have nothing to worry about, they will prevail over time. If they are worse, then capitalist mode of production is preferable to socialist mode.