Market Socialism (merged post discussion) [Archive]

Baseball

18th May 2012, 21:47

Where do you get this bullshit? (Market) socialism means getting the full product of one's labour, that means the disappereance of parasites in what ever guise they might appear- feudalist, capitalist or bureaucrat, and direct ownership and menagment of everything by the working people. So there's no capital accumulation or exploitation. And aslo, there's nothing wrong with mild wealth ineqality- the one that works more should receive more.

A "market" and "socialism" is an oxymoron. Nothing has changed from capitalism, since, after all, a market still needs to function as a market with all the various bugaboos and alleged evils other socialists are constantly spooked about. Those bugaboos are what makes a market, a market.

PhoenixAsh

18th May 2012, 22:41

Market socialism still depends on competition and profit. These are anti-thetical to socialism.

DinodudeEpic

19th May 2012, 00:12

Market socialism still depends on competition and profit. These are anti-thetical to socialism.

Why is it antithetical?

No explanation, just plain assertions.

Socialism: Workers owning the means of production
Market: An economy based on competition and trade with some sort of commodity

The two are not contradictory. Unless you consider socialism to be a lack of markets, in which you pretty much can include self-sustaining pioneers and tribes. (That includes war-like tribes that have a hierarchical structure.)

And, you fall back into the arguments of the capitalist, note that Baseball is supporting your arguments.

Still as of yet, the whole lot of you had just simply said "Markets are contradictory to socialism."

Without anything to back up your claims, you are all just preaching bullshit.

(Even though, you can easily criticize Fabian on the rest of his platform, without wasting hours of your lives on semantics.)

Of course, this is all just

Tim Cornelis

19th May 2012, 00:34

Where do you get this bullshit? (Market) socialism means getting the full product of one's labour, that means the disappereance of parasites in what ever guise they might appear- feudalist, capitalist or bureaucrat, and direct ownership and menagment of everything by the working people. So there's no capital accumulation or exploitation. And aslo, there's nothing wrong with mild wealth ineqality- the one that works more should receive more.

Receiving the full product of one's labour is impossible since labour is a collective process, hence it is impossible to measure the individual contribution of each labourer.

Secondly, I don't think you can quantify inequality under market socialism as "mild". In 2008, Nintendo made 1.28 million dollars for every employee, therefore if Nintendo was a cooperative every employee would be a millionaire. In contrast, employees of a coffee cooperative in Chiapas would still be dirt poor.

A market system intrinsically operates on the basis of profits over people.

DinodudeEpic

19th May 2012, 00:58

Secondly, I don't think you can quantify inequality under market socialism as "mild". In 2008, Nintendo made 1.28 million dollars for every employee, therefore if Nintendo was a cooperative every employee would be a millionaire. In contrast, employees of a coffee cooperative in Chiapas would still be dirt poor.

Well, you forgot the disastrous effects of capitalist exploitation in Mexico, which Communism is NOT going to heal anytime soon. In fact, the coffee cooperatives would have prospered if there was market socialism, since they are now free from foreign corporate control. Giving them much more space to actually economically develop their country. (Even if a western cooperative buys up the Chiapas cooperatives, the workers would end up having equal power to the western workers due to an economic bill of rights.)

Now, the point is not equality of outcome. But, rather equality of opportunity. Every worker should have an opportunity to develop to his/her fullest potential. (That could also be a justification for welfare, but welfare is completely separate from socialism. You can have a welfare system in capitalism, but you can also have one in socialism. Although, I would prefer a welfare system that has the least government involvement as possible.)

wsg1991

19th May 2012, 01:45

Receiving the full product of one's labour is impossible since labour is a collective process, hence it is impossible to measure the individual contribution of each labourer.

no it's not impossible either by quantity produced , which is used even in capitalist system our days , or working hours

danyboy27

19th May 2012, 02:23

the restriction of Fabian is quite interesting event and can give us an idea on how much some moderators here are for Free speech . an btw i am don't expect a worker with no education to be payed the same as a 8 years university + internship doctor , it's fucking stupid . Inequality of income WILL REMAIN

I would argues the opposite, a worker who does manual labor he dosnt really like should get more, especially if you consider that the doctor does a verry prestigious task that he love.

But anyway, who really need capital accumulation of a commodity called money when you get everything you need with help and cooperation?

I personally couldnt care less about money if in exchange from my contribution to society i would get food, shelter, public services and alchool.
Would you?

wsg1991

19th May 2012, 02:44

I would argues the opposite, a worker who does manual labor he dosnt really like should get more, especially if you consider that the doctor does a verry prestigious task that he love.

But anyway, who really need capital accumulation of a commodity called money when you get everything you need with help and cooperation?

I personally couldnt care less about money if in exchange from my contribution to society i would get food, shelter, public services and alchool.
Would you?

YOU MISS THE POINT the doctor \ engineer \ economist has high qualification level ( ex cardiologist 13 years after high school )that had reached through out many years of studying and reading books that can even damage your mental abilities ( example immunology book , can give you depression ) . so tell me why would i bust my ass losing my precious youth ( like i am currently doing ) if i am going to get the same and there is no improvement in quality of life ??

Bronco

19th May 2012, 02:50

DinodudeEpic

19th May 2012, 03:36

To clear things up, I do not support wsg1991's suggestion that people should have different incomes based on occupation. Also, I find him/her to be a very poor user in terms of post quality. (You should learn how to debate and post better before jumping in into a thread. Just so you don't embarrass yourself. Just some friendly advice.)

To be honest, I do not support income inequality, but I prefer to let equality be the result of liberty. Let it be the initiative of the people, and only prevent capitalism from rearing up.

Anyways, the main problem with Communism is that it doesn't really define how a commune would get goods that it doesn't have in it's area. Markets solve this with trade, but Communism provides no way for trade to occur. And, the age of self-sustaining communities is over. We need and want electronics, chemicals, precious metals, and other materials required for a functioning economy. Which, one town could never possibly make. And, bartering is still an example of a market. It is just more efficient to have money, or at least some sort of labor voucher, be a part of the market.

Also, exact income equality is impossible to achieve without state force. (And, it is just part of the capitalist stereotype of socialism.) And, abolishing markets is also impossible without using state force. Unless, you have a religion that advocates for communism. (Actually, that is pretty much just Theocratic Communism.)

wsg1991

19th May 2012, 03:58

''if there is some somethingthere's nothing wrong with mild wealth ineqality- the one that works more should receive more '' Fabian comments i knew i was out of subject , i gave a complete out of subject example it . So if there is something i should improve is taking time before answering , since it's not a direct debate where you got only few seconds .
the proper example is
* worker A working for 10 hours a day , love his work , and has nothing to do anyway
*worker B working 7 hours a day , let's say he is just busy and not ambitious

Why would worker A and B get the same ?

or we can use another criteria productivity
worker A is very productive , 130 %
worker B , barely reach the 100%
this is a problem , can someone answer it ?

fabian

19th May 2012, 12:45

First of all I want tosay that I object to this topic being moved.

Besides pointing that market socialism is socialism (even it weren't- which it is- it would be still more socialism then state capitalism) by doind that I also want to show that I've been restricted falsely and unjustly, besause neither is market socialism reactionary, nor am I.

A "market" and "socialism" is an oxymoron.
Market socialism is a pleonasm. Property can be privatized, where you get market capitalism (which can be chicagian, keynesian, austrian or welfare), nationalized, where you get state capitalism (which can be run by collectivist beurocracy like in USSR, self-menagment as in SFRY, or national syndicates as in fascism), communized (/collectivized- owned by the collective), where you get communism, or socialized (/individualized- by individuals as oppossed by the collective), where you get (market) socialism.

Receiving the full product of one's labour is impossible since labour is a collective process, hence it is impossible to measure the individual contribution of each labourer.
Ever heard of hours? Or produced products. If I do 8 hours and do my thing of the factory production line 200 times, and someone does 4 hours and does his part 100 times, I want my damn earnings to be double his.

Why is it antithetical?

No explanation, just plain assertions.

Socialism: Workers owning the means of production
Market: An economy based on competition and trade with some sort of commodity

The two are not contradictory
Exactly.

Tim Cornelis

19th May 2012, 13:04

Well, you forgot the disastrous effects of capitalist exploitation in Mexico, which Communism is NOT going to heal anytime soon. In fact, the coffee cooperatives would have prospered if there was market socialism, since they are now free from foreign corporate control. Giving them much more space to actually economically develop their country. (Even if a western cooperative buys up the Chiapas cooperatives, the workers would end up having equal power to the western workers due to an economic bill of rights.)

Now, the point is not equality of outcome. But, rather equality of opportunity. Every worker should have an opportunity to develop to his/her fullest potential. (That could also be a justification for welfare, but welfare is completely separate from socialism. You can have a welfare system in capitalism, but you can also have one in socialism. Although, I would prefer a welfare system that has the least government involvement as possible.)

You are partially right. A cooperative economy would reduce income inequality between what is now Mexico and Japan. However, I don't understand why communism would be unable to fix this "any time soon". If you mean that communism is not going to come about any time soon, you are right, but the same goes for market socialism. Communism would eliminate the profit-motive in production, and instead distribute according to needs. This would eliminate poverty.

The problem of profits over people will persist in any market economy.

no it's not impossible either by quantity produced , which is used even in capitalist system our days , or working hours

The quantity produced is the product of collective labour, you cannot separate the contribution of each worker from the total product. Working hours are also arbitrary given that one person contributes next to nothing in one hour, and the other works extensively.

These schemes may work, and they may be necessary--we don't know--but ultimately they are undesirable. As Kropotkin said:

No distinction can be drawn between the work of each man. Measuring the work by its results leads us to absurdity; dividing and measuring them by hours spent on the work also leads us to absurdity. One thing remains: put the needs above the works, and first of all recognize the right to live, and later on, to the comforts of life, for all those who take their share in production.

Blake's Baby

19th May 2012, 13:05

... Property can be privatized, where you get market capitalism (which can be chicagian, keynesian, austrian or welfare), nationalized, where you get state capitalism (which can be run by collectivist beurocracy like in USSR, self-menagment as in SFRY, or national syndicates as in fascism), communized (/collectivized- owned by the collective), where you get communism, or socialized (/individualized- by individuals as oppossed by the collective), where you get (market) socialism.

Ever heard of hours? Or produced products. If I do 8 hours and do my thing of the factory production line 200 times, and someone does 4 hours and does his part 100 times, I want my damn earnings to be double his.

...

Individualised is the opposite of socialised, not the same thing.

'Individualisation' is the distribution of property to individuals.

'Socialisation' is the abolition of property.

Socialism will not see property invested in some external body, or in some massive egalitarian homesteader/smallholding redistribution, but the destruction of property as a concept. Human society produces, human society will dispose, there is no 'this much of the social production is mine, that much is yours'.

In your example; you work for 8 hours and someone else works for 4. So you think you're due twice as much of what comes out.

Did we need that extra four hours work from you? Let's assume we did, but we might not have done; you could have just wasted four hours and a bunch of resources for all your example tells us (in which case you'd still get 'extra' even though you're a drain on society's resources by your logic).

Why is the other person only working 4 hours? What other social benefits are being derived from that person not working wherever your production centre is? Perhaps they only worked four hours because they spent 6 hours working at the local hospital. Or cleaning some sewers, or working at the power plant so that your machine could be kept running for 8 hours, or building new machines so that other people can produce even more of whatever it is that you produce or maybe s/he was driving the buses that bring workers to your plant or the lorries that bring the raw materials that you might be wasting. How would you measure these contributions to your (or your factory's or your commune's or to the whole of humanity's) social production?

Why were you working for 8 hours anyway? Did you not want some time off?

If you were working because you like it, then good, your reward is doing more work you like.

If you were working even though you don't like it, you're a chump and there's no reason someone else should be prevented from accessing social goods because you're an idiot who doesn't know when to take a break.

fabian

19th May 2012, 13:27

Individualised is the opposite of socialised, not the same thing.
Individualized in the opposite of collectivized, and is synonimous with socialized, whereas collectivization is synonimous with communism. In the Russian revolution the people fighting for socialization of property were the Esers, and were true to their Socialist name, whereas some other guys fought for nacionalization, that is- state capitalism, and there you have the difference- socialists are for socialization of property, that is- market socialism (with or without state, there are different opinions, Esers favoured the state, Proudhon was for a stateless society), false socialists are for nationalization, that is- state capitalism.

'Socialisation' is the abolition of property.
Socialization is the abolition of illegitimate (/capitalist) property, of all parasitism.

there is no 'this much of the social production is mine, that much is yours
In communism. But in socialism if I (ME) toil the ground - all the products of MY work is MINE, and no one else's.

Did we need that extra four hours work from you?
Who "we"? The factory would be owned and managed by the wokers in the factory, not by anyone else, there's no "you" from the outside telling the workers what to do, cause there would be no bosses like capitalists or bureaucrats, because there woudn't be such guys in SOCIALISM.

All the babbling about conditions, consequences and your abjections and machinations is irrelevant- the only relevant here for me and my colleague on the job is - did I do twice more work? If I did, I'm entitled to twice the earnings, and that's the end of story.

The quantity produced is the product of collective labour, you cannot separate the contribution of each worker from the total product. Working hours are also arbitrary given that one person contributes next to nothing in one hour, and the other works extensively.
That's total bullshit. Have you ever worked? I remember working on a gas station in a shift with a guy who liked to slack. Smoking a pack in a 12 hour shift, no matter how many cars are on the station and need to be serviced, he goes next to the station to sit and light a smoke, and I would sometimes end up do almost twise his work. After four or five such shifts and telling him a couple of times not to slack, to smoke when there are no costumers, or we make an arangement of brakes we take, none of which he listened, I went up to him and said that if he doesn't start getting serious and working his part he should expect me taking a third off his salary, even if I need to beat it off him, because that's my money, not his. Don't get me wrong, I'm an anti-capitalist, and when working for one I never do more then needed, and never do things fast, but if said I'm gonna do a job, I'm gonna do a job and do the minimum required from me to finish it and get my money, and if I slack that means other workers need to work more so we can finish the job we're doing together, so it's wrong from the workers' solidarity side, too. If you've ever worked with a slacker (which would mean firstly that you yourself are not a slacker) -you bustin your balls to do a job and earn some money, and someone chilling his balls and thus making you do more work, you'd understand very good how someone's work is perfectly measurable.

Blake's Baby

19th May 2012, 13:56

Individualized in the opposite of collectivized, and is synonimous with socialized, whereas collectivization is synonimous with communism...

Your strange use of words to mean their exact opposites is not appreciated.

Obviously, you can use words however you like, you can call the sun 'lunch' is you wish, but don't expect anyone else to eat with you.

...
Who "we"? The factory would be owned and managed by the wokers in the factory, not by anyone else, there's no "you" from the outside telling the workers what to do, cause there would be no bosses like capitalists or bureaucrats, because there woudn't be such guys in SOCIALISM...

hahahaha!

You think society, or your factory, or whover, should pay you, whether what you're producing has any utility at all?

Do you want us to pay you for taking a shit too? Look! Fabian's done a poop! Isn't he clever, here's your reward little boy!

...All the babbling about conditions, consequences and your abjections and machinations is irrelevant- the only relevant here for me and my colleague on the job is - did I do twice more work? If I did, I'm entitled to twice the earnings, and that's the end of story.
...

Is your work necessary? If it's not I'm not paying for it. You did it on your own time not mine. We didn't ask you to do it, you've got a martyr-complex that you can indulge on your own without dragging the rest of us into it.

So no, I think if you work 4 hours extra because you want to that's no-one's business but yours.

fabian

19th May 2012, 14:09

Obviously, you can use words however you like, you can call the sun 'lunch' is you wish, but don't expect anyone else to eat with you.
I have perfectly explained the reasons why the words can be used that way.

You think society, or your factory, or whover, should pay you, whether what you're producing has any utility at all?
If there were no utility, it wouldn't be produced. If there's no demand, there wouldn't be supply. Basic market :cool:

If it's not I'm not paying for it.
In (market) socialism, there's no capitalist or bureaucrat paying me for work. I do work in a factory, factory sells the products, and the part of money made that way is mine by the merit of my work in the factory. If I worked twice more then you my cut will be twice larger then yours because that's justice, and that's socialism- to each according to his contribution.

Per Levy

19th May 2012, 14:21

The factory would be owned and managed by the wokers in the factory, not by anyone else, there's no "you" from the outside telling the workers what to do

If there were no utility, it wouldn't be produced. If there's no demand, there wouldn't be supply. Basic market :cool:

so if the market is telling you what to produce and what not to produce how do you own or manage the factory all by yourself then? also if the market dictating what you do how is that not a outside thing telling workers what to do?

If I worked twice more then you my cut will be twice larger then yours because that's justice, and that's socialism

ah ja, and what if the other workers in the factory tell you not to work a double shift? what if they dont like that you in that way take away work and pay for other workers?

fabian

19th May 2012, 14:50

so if the market is telling you what to produce and what not to produce how do you own or manage the factory all by yourself then
Because market is not a person or an organisation, market is just a sum of peoples needs for products and services and people offering those products and services.

and what if the other workers in the factory tell you not to work a double shift?
Then I won't do it. Oh God, what if, what if. What if a grandmother were to have wheels, would it be a tram? Stop with pointless questions. The point is- if I worked twice more then you- how much should we earn? The same, or should I earn twice more then you? Take a hint: "..according to contribution".

Baseball

19th May 2012, 16:02

And this is why the term "market socialism" is an oxymoron:

In (market) socialism, there's no capitalist or bureaucrat paying me for work.

False. To be true to its "socialism" component, the people paying you will be the majority of the workers, based upon whatever criteria won the most recent election. And most likely, it will indeed be a bureaucrat paying that salary since it is unlikely (and "unsocialist") to expect the workers after their shift (however long and short) to spend hours figuring out payroll.

I do work in a factory, factory sells the products, and the part of money made that way is mine by the merit of my work in the factory.

True and false: such an approach to production means that production is geared to producing for profit and not for need. So it confirms its "market" component, while violating its "socialist" one.

If I worked twice more then you my cut will be twice larger then yours because that's justice, and that's socialism- to each according to his contribution.

False: This violates both "market" and "socialism." Just because you worked twice as much as your comrade does not mean that you were twice as productive. You could very well be a lousy worker who needs more time to complete a task. Or you could have been producing items which are not really of value.

PhoenixAsh

19th May 2012, 17:29

Why is it antithetical?

No explanation, just plain assertions.

Socialism: Workers owning the means of production
Market: An economy based on competition and trade with some sort of commodity

I don't feel like getting into a detiled discussion.

You definition of socialism is narrow and therefore not applicable.

Explain to me where profits come from. How cometition is reached in market socialism and what this means for companies and corporations that get competed out of bussiness.

Then you have your answer.

seventeethdecember2016

19th May 2012, 17:51

DinodudeEpic

19th May 2012, 18:23

I don't think anyone here would take Capitalism over Mixed, but, generally speaking, people on this forum are more progressive than what you've been suggesting. The complete Dictatorship of the Proletariat, where they complete own the Means of Production, and where they won't be exploited or alienated, in any way, is what TRUE Socialism is. Many of your ideas actually offend members, including me.
I don't want to live in a Socially stagnant Liberal/Keynesian economy where I will be treated like a slave with benefits.

Have you ever heard the quote, "the worst slave owners were those who were nice to their slaves?"

I'll admit, your system takes away the exploitation of labor to a great extent, but the exploitation of money still exists.

I do not advocate a mixed economy. In fact, I advocate a laissez-faire free market, it is just that there are no 'slave owners'.

And, I advocate for the workers to own the means of production. Completely and democratically.

The "profits" come from the products the workers of a cooperative make and sell. They would then share out of said "profits" equally.

Finally, I'm wondering how would anarcho-communism would actually prevent an ambitious commune from out-competing and conquering all the other communes because they want extra resources/nationalist pride/luxury goods. Sometimes, maybe conquest is necessary since trade wouldn't exist without a market, and thus communes would be forced to war with one another to get the resources to produce whatever goods they need.

And, I guess the workers would have find jobs in other worker cooperatives or found their own worker cooperative. I mean, it is impossible to have a problem-free system.

Now, I do not advocate a perfect system, but rather I advocate for the best possible system.

As for my definition of socialism, I actually think that it is really broad. It can include anarchists, Trotskyists, some Marxist-Leninists, more radical strains of democratic socialism, and me.

You can say that there are two types of socialism. Communism and mutualism.

And, your definitions are actually really specific.

seventeethdecember2016

19th May 2012, 18:41

I do not advocate a mixed economy. In fact, I advocate a laissez-faire free market, it is just that there are no 'slave owners'.
http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2465/3952608150_e2061c44b8_z.jpg?zz=1

And, I advocate for the workers to own the means of production. Completely and democratically.
Very good, so I assume you believe in the Vanguard?

Finally, I'm wondering how would anarcho-communism would actually prevent an ambitious commune from out-competing and conquering all the other communes because they want extra resources/nationalist pride/luxury goods. Sometimes, maybe conquest is necessary since trade wouldn't exist without a market, and thus communes would be forced to war with one another to get the resources to produce whatever goods they need.
I'm not an Anarchist, but perhaps I could bring some light to this. I take a Materialistic approach to this, so I'll say that the stage of Communism, that you refer to, is very far away. We are not idealists, so we aren't going to devise dogma for future generation to adhere to. By then, it'll be their burden, and not ours, so the mature thing to do is to allow them to determine how to handle their own problems. Your assertions are degenerate, and are based on speculation. Frankly, they make little sense, as they contradict Communistic doctrines. I don't actually think you've read anything about Communism or Anarchism, so I suggest you get on to reading about that. I also suggest reading on Anarcho-Syndicalism.

You can say that there are two types of socialism. Communism and mutualism.

And, your definitions are actually really specific.
There are actually two types of Socialism. Lower Socialism(what is today considered Socialism) and Higher Socialism(Communism.)

Anarcho-Brocialist

19th May 2012, 19:07

Finally, I'm wondering how would anarcho-communism would actually prevent an ambitious commune from out-competing and conquering all the other communes because they want extra resources/nationalist pride/luxury goods. Sometimes, maybe conquest is necessary since trade wouldn't exist without a market, and thus communes would be forced to war with one another to get the resources to produce whatever goods they need.

Well, society at large after revolution is driven by a single lot (common goal), to labor for the necessities of society. There is no nationalism, and the goods allocated to a commune meets the needs; not an abundance of war-like materials. I see it is highly unlikely too, since conquest is driven by capital (The production of Capitalism is to revolve around capital, and it has to expand evermore to regenerate capital to continue production) . If you look at greed, it is only made apparent when there is a shortage of goods, causing individuals to hoard in fear of poverty. The needs of all communes will be met, and there is no need to conquer others, since the fear of poverty doesn't exist. And production is based around need, and not capital.

Your Market, on the other hand, will lead to separation, causing man and women to group into different lots. Which will lead to conflict for capital, resources, etc,.

fabian

19th May 2012, 19:24

And most likely, it will indeed be a bureaucrat paying that salary since it is unlikely (and "unsocialist") to expect the workers after their shift (however long and short) to spend hours figuring out payroll.
That's state capitalism. I'm talking about market socialism, not parecon, workers in the factory don't have to have a special meeting about every detail, they just democratically argee on who'll be the manager, and hourly salary will be democratically agreed for every work position (including the manager) based on that how much of the business' earnings they agree to go on wages, and how much into improving their business or into expanding their cooperative by admiting new people.

such an approach to production means that production is geared to producing for profit and not for need.
You can't sell enything if no one needs it. That's market- some people need something, and they make it themselves or buy it from other people that make it for sale. If I make something no one needs, I'm not going to sell any of that, and I'm either gonna starve to death if I keep selling that, or I'll start making something people will buy. (same with providing services).

Explain to me where profits come from.
I work in a hammer making & selling shop, and I'm the only employee, with a boss. I work a day and make 10 hammers. The shop sells that 10 hammers for $10 a piece. When I recieve my daily wage of $100- that's getting the full product of my labor. If the boss takes any of that, that exploitation, and making economic profits.

With nationalization the same thing happens, only the state is the boss, and that's why it's called state CAPITALISM, because it's explotative, that is- the worker doesn't receive the full product of his labor, that's why capitalism is bad in the first place.

The same happens in communism, too, only it's the society at large being the boss, which is the better option because the products and services produced and provided by the workers are for the society, but still, even decentralized planning means having a boss (even if it's society at large), but it's the best to have no boss, and that's possible in (market) socialism.

How cometition is reached in market socialism
The same way you and me can start making bricks from the soil and selling them on different street cornered. We're both self-employed, makind and selling something, and no one is being exploited. That's (market) socialism.

and what this means for companies and corporations that get competed out of bussiness.
Everyone buys your bricks and not mine, and I go out of business. Tough luck, I go on to making tile, or doing whatever.

There are actually two types of Socialism. Lower Socialism(what is today considered Socialism)
Sorry to dissapoint you, but that's state capitalism.

The complete Dictatorship of the Proletariat, where they complete own the Means of Production, and where they won't be exploited or alienated, in any way, is what TRUE Socialism is. Many of your ideas actually offend members, including me.
Oh, I'm so sorry you state capitalist ass is offended, I'm a revolutionary leftist, and a socialist who opposses all capitalism (including your, yes- false "socialist", state one), and I'm not at all offended for being restricted because of my "reactionary" views.

danyboy27

19th May 2012, 20:49

YOU MISS THE POINT the doctor \ engineer \ economist has high qualification level ( ex cardiologist 13 years after high school )that had reached through out many years of studying and reading books that can even damage your mental abilities ( example immunology book , can give you depression ) . so tell me why would i bust my ass losing my precious youth ( like i am currently doing ) if i am going to get the same and there is no improvement in quality of life ??

Well, beccause becoming a doctor is what you want to do. You want to do it for prestige, self-fufillement, giving a meaning to your labor etc etc.

People who work in the mines or at other debilitating task also give up their youth, i fail to see how being a doctor make you more important than the guy harvesting your food or mining that precious metal that will be used to make your tools.

One of the defining features of capitalism is its attempt to calculate and compare things that cannot and should not be compared.

if you would be able to travel back in england hundred of years ago and ask a free peasant if the guy working at the forge was more important than that other dude harvesting the wheat, he would have laughed at you.

The best reward from working in society should not be more money, but instead further opportunities to realize ourselves trought our action and being able to enjoy life.

I dont want a doctor to be paid a truckload of money, i want him to love his job and be well rested. Anybody who goes to medecine for the paycheck dosnt deserve to be a doctor.

Baseball

19th May 2012, 21:54

[QUOTE=fabian;2449245]That's state capitalism. I'm talking about market socialism, not parecon, workers in the factory don't have to have a special meeting about every detail, they just democratically argee on who'll be the manager, and hourly salary will be democratically agreed for every work position (including the manager) based on that how much of the business' earnings they agree to go on wages, and how much into improving their business or into expanding their cooperative by admiting new people.

Yes. The workers "elect" their managers. The question then becomes as to the effectiveness of the manager when their position is based upon the good-will of the workers.

You can't sell enything if no one needs it. That's market- some people need something, and they make it themselves or buy it from other people that make it for sale. If I make something no one needs, I'm not going to sell any of that, and I'm either gonna starve to death if I keep selling that, or I'll start making something people will buy. (same with providing services).

Quite true-- production for profit is in fact production for need.
Obviously, most socialists would not agree.

So how does your "market socialism" community effectively, and justly, distribute goods and services without such distribution being based upon who can pay more for that good and service? I mean, if people who need widgets cannot afford them because of your need to earn money off the sale...

Trap Queen Voxxy

19th May 2012, 21:58

Why is it antithetical?

No explanation, just plain assertions.

No, from what I can tell you are being given explanations however you and Fabian (theoretically) want to have your cake and eat it too. You want to believe and assert that market 'Socialism' is devoid of the pitfalls inherent in markets and capitalism while still retaining both (in effect). The point is, so long as markets exists workers truly don't own the product of their labor as alienation is still occurring because it's intrinsic to the capitalist mode of production. It's what Marx called estranged labor.

I also think it's odd that economic inequality (and thus politico-social inequality) to you both it's seemingly is fine and we are to assume from posts in this thread that "oh, if it's moderate inequality, that's fine." This (I assume) to everyone here is absolutely unacceptable and as Hindsight 20/20 pointed out antithetical to Socialism proper regardless of what "tendency," you advocate.

The only thing I would say (and I know this will piss some people off) is I do find it odd that market Socialists are restricted but those who support and favor historical state-capitalist states/nations/whatever are accepted. If I have accidentally conflated some of your points with Fabians or did so outright then I apologize.

fabian

19th May 2012, 22:10

Yes. The workers "elect" their managers.
Yep. That's called direct (/true) democracy. That's the point of the leftist struggle, the people to organize "from the bottom".

The question then becomes as to the effectiveness of the manager when their position is based upon the good-will of the workers.
The good-will of the workers would depend from their well being, which is directly affected by the work the manager's doing. If he's doing good work, the other workers are gonna let him keep his job or even agree to increace his wage, such things happen in cooperatives sometimes.

So how does your "market socialism" community effectively, and justly, distribute goods and services without such distribution being based upon who can pay more for that good and service?
The goods and services would be distributed justly and effectively even though based upon on purchasing power, because that wouldn't be capitalism, but socialism, and everyone would have similar wages, no cooperative would give someone some huge wage if a cooperative exists where the worker on that position is paid less, and the only way that a cooperative could earn abnormaly more then another is if it was abnormaly larger, which means the earning getting split on more people, so basically, everyone would have similar wages for similar jobs, and the least paid job would not be paid a lot less then the most paid job (at least not as much as in capitalism, because that wouldn't be decided by some capitalist), and with everyone having a similar wage, you'd have an effective and just distribution, along with no one's product of labor being robbed of him (no one being exploited), and everyone having the freedom to spend their earnings on what they want. Wow, that's so reactionary.

Baseball

19th May 2012, 22:13

[QUOTE=DinodudeEpic;2449215]I do not advocate a mixed economy. In fact, I advocate a laissez-faire free market, it is just that there are no 'slave owners'.

The "slave-owners" would of course be the workers who won the elections and who are setting the policy by which all workers of that firm would have to follow.

And, I advocate for the workers to own the means of production. Completely and democratically.

There is nothing uncapitalist about this.

The "profits" come from the products the workers of a cooperative make and sell. They would then share out of said "profits" equally.

Its curious that a socialist would just airily talk about "profits" as if it was the simplest thing in the world to accrue...

Finally, I'm wondering how would anarcho-communism would actually prevent an ambitious commune from out-competing and conquering all the other communes because they want extra resources/nationalist pride/luxury goods. Sometimes, maybe conquest is necessary since trade wouldn't exist without a market, and thus communes would be forced to war with one another to get the resources to produce whatever goods they need.

trade would be next to impossible without a market- this is true.

And, I guess the workers would have find jobs in other worker cooperatives or found their own worker cooperative. I mean, it is impossible to have a problem-free system.

How would ownership function in a market socialist community? I mean, there would seem to be a problem with the concept of "finding jobs in other worker cooperatives" as it would seem that the co-ops cannot hire labor. Yet ownership cannot be terminated or commenced with the ease of such employment- if the term ownership is to mean anything.

Baseball

19th May 2012, 22:21

The good-will of the workers would depend from their well being, which is directly affected by the work the manager's doing. If he's doing good work, the other workers are gonna let him keep his job or even agree to increace his wage, such things happen in cooperatives sometimes.

Perhaps-- but the job of a manager isn't always easy to see.

The goods and services would be distributed justly and effectively even though based upon on purchasing power, because that wouldn't be capitalism, but socialism, and everyone would have similar wages, no cooperative would give someone some huge wage if a cooperative exists where the worker on that position is paid less, and the only way that a cooperative could earn abnormaly more then another is if it was abnormaly larger, which means the earning getting split on more people, so basically, everyone would have similar wages for similar jobs, and the least paid job would not be paid a lot less then the most paid job (at least not as much as in capitalism, because that wouldn't be decided by some capitalist), and with everyone having a similar wage, you'd have an effective and just distribution, along with no one's product of labor being robbed of him (no one being exploited), and everyone having the freedom to spend their earnings on what they want. Wow, that's so reactionary.

Its also a run-on sentence... And the "market" in "market socialism" falls apart...

You need to sort of explain how goods and services would be distributed "justly and effectively (and define "justly and effectively)" as you have been busy explaining that the co-ops will succeed or sink based upon sales, which is presumably based upon people's ability to pay for that good and service.

fabian

19th May 2012, 22:24

The "slave-owners" would of course be the workers who won the elections and who are setting the policy by which all workers of that firm would have to follow.
Go read about what democracy, don't equate democracy with this capitalistic tumor of system.

Being a manager would be a job, and the workers would all agree who should do that job, if they don't his doing any work or not doing it rights, they kick him out the cooperative very VERY easily and agree on a new guy to take that job.

There is nothing uncapitalist about this.
You definetely don't understand some concepts.

Democracy- direct control of the collective of the one's that are democaticaly put in the menagerial (before called "ruling") positions. They wouldn't be "ruling" positions any more because they wouldn't rule, but wpuld do their job, and would have no despotic control over the ones "bellow" them.

Capitalism- economic despotism, where employees are semi-slaves who have to accept the boss' terms and orders or leave, ever though they're the majority and do all the work, and the capitalist is the boss who has the power and control.

Basically, capitalism is the oppossite of democracy, and socialism could also be called total (which means in economy, too) democracy.

Baseball

19th May 2012, 22:32

Being a manager would be a job, and the workers would all agree who should do that job, if they don't his doing any work or not doing it rights, they kick him out the cooperative very VERY easily and agree on a new guy to take that job.

I agree-- being a manager is a job, just like laying brick is a job. But just because someone can lay brick, doesn't mean that person understands the job of manager.

Democracy- direct control of the collective of the one's that are democaticaly put in the menagerial (before called "ruling") positions. They wouldn't be "ruling" positions any more because they wouldn't rule, but wpuld do their job, and would have no despotic control over the ones "bellow" them.

The job of a manager is to get work done through others. That is how that manager is being judged. Which means a job of the manager is (sometimes anyways) tell people what they can and cannot do. And those workers have to obey, and there has to be mechanisms to enforce that "despotic control." Otherwise the manager cannot be fairly judged as to the effectiveness, or otherwise, of his job performance.

Capitalism- economic despotism, where employees are semi-slaves who have to accept the boss' terms

I guess I don't see why a worker, who loses in a democratic vote in the socialist community, is in ANY different situation... he has to follow orders or leave.

fabian

19th May 2012, 22:58

I agree-- being a manager is a job, just like laying brick is a job. But just because someone can lay brick, doesn't mean that person understands the job of manager.
And vice versa. If I'm a good manager I'm not gonna apply for the position of a brick layer- and vice versa.

tell people what they can and cannot do. And those workers have to obey
Workers' cooperatives (workers' direct ownership and managment of business) exist. And discriptions of their organisation. Look it up.

To take an example of an institution where no alternative "from the bottom" organisation exists today- army. But, luckily for this discussion, such a thing did exist.

"The structure of the RIAU was not that of a traditional army. Instead, the RIAU was a democratic militia based on soldier committees and general assemblies. Officers in the ordinary sense were abolished; instead, all commanders were elected and recallable.

Regular mass assemblies were held to discuss policy. The army was based on self-discipline, and all of the army’s disciplinary rules were approved by soldier assemblies."

And voila- instead of hierarchy and and despotism you have freedom and democracy. Same thing would be applied everywhere in socialism, in the state (if it exists, that's for the people to decide), in the firms and factories.

I guess I don't see why a worker, who loses in a democratic vote in the socialist community, is in ANY different situation... he has to follow orders or leave.
I really hope you're just trolling, and that you do see the difference between despotism and a direct democracy.

Baseball

19th May 2012, 23:52

And vice versa. If I'm a good manager I'm not gonna apply for the position of a brick layer- and vice versa.

Perhaps. A good manager of bricklayers can get more accomplished than an individual skilled bricklayer.
Bu this digressess...

Workers' cooperatives (workers' direct ownership and managment of business) exist. And discriptions of their organisation.

Yep..Within the confines of a capitalist community.
So they are invalid descriptions if the objective is worker co-ops in a socialist community.

I really hope you're just trolling, and that you do see the difference between despotism and a direct democracy.

I asked how the position of the worker (and I guess we can add the soldier) who is on the losing side of an issue is in any different a situation in the socialist community than in the capitalist one. Unless of course you wish to argue that worker or soldier is free to disregard the edicts of the victors in a socialist community.

But this whole direction digresses.

PhoenixAsh

20th May 2012, 01:09

if you have competition and therefore competition based on wage you still have capitalism.

You can call it any which way you like, put a nice sounding label on it vut as long as there is competition there will be competition based on wage and income.

Wethere this has been "democratically" established (dictated by market needs based on competition btw) or pressed on you by some owner/CEO...it is still capitalism.

Competition driven coops still produce with the main goal of making profit. This means that they will seek to maximize profit and act accordingly. This is no more and no less a situation as exists under capitalism. Profits are still being made at the expense of others which means exploitation. Aside from that competition comes with the chance of falling behind and going bankrupt.

So the result is inequality, authority, hierarchy, profit maximalisation, dependent on consumption and therefore vulnerable to economic crisis.

Ergo: market socialism is capitalism.

fabian

20th May 2012, 10:36

if you have competition and therefore competition based on wage you still have capitalism.
No you don't. There's no capitalism without the capitalist.

Wethere this has been "democratically" established (dictated by market needs based on competition btw) or pressed on you by some owner/CEO...it is still capitalism.
So if in an army where you have direct democracy and direct control of commanders by those in their unit, that's not democracy because there are commanders, and that's still despotism and hierarchy?

Competition driven coops still produce with the main goal of making profit.
Profit in the proudhonian/ marxian sense- getting money by exploitation would not exist, only earnings would exist- the products of labor.

Profits are still being made at the expense of others which means exploitation.
At expence of who?

Aside from that competition comes with the chance of falling behind and going bankrupt.
So? People should go bankrupt if they deserve it. If people were unable to go fall behind or go bankrupt they would do risky business moves without any fear.

So the result is inequality, authority, hierarchy, profit maximalisation, dependent on consumption and therefore vulnerable to economic crisis
Result is justice, freedom, democracy, and quality, availability and free choice of products and services. Economic crisis is a monetary problem, not a market one. Gold standard, labor vauchers, or free banking would all fix the economic crisis problem.

Revolution starts with U

20th May 2012, 12:22

Yes. The workers "elect" their managers. The question then becomes as to the effectiveness of the manager when their position is based upon the good-will of the workers.

So I imagine you support despotism. That's the only conclusion this can come to.

Quite true-- production for profit is in fact production for need.
Obviously, most socialists would not agree.

Need is not a category functional within a propertied market. Markets are swayed by economic demand, which requires desire and purchasing power. Poverty in a property system is fought by gifts or taxes and so lies outside the "market."

So how does your "market socialism" community effectively, and justly, distribute goods and services without such distribution being based upon who can pay more for that good and service? I mean, if people who need widgets cannot afford them because of your need to earn money off the sale...

Because people will be all like nice and friendly, and you know... world peace and all that :drool:

(The funniest part is that I actually do think market socialism (propertarian democracy) would be far more equitable and productive than standard capitalism. To claim it as socialism is an absurdity tho, where workers as a class are still marginalized by the relations to production and law.
But if you don't think "hey we're Colobrayn, a cooperative mercenary force that really hates Jews" is going to happen in propertarian democracy, you've lost your mind.)

I agree-- being a manager is a job, just like laying brick is a job. But just because someone can lay brick, doesn't mean that person understands the job of manager.

1. Managers can exist in a property-less system, tho they would likely be more akin to coordinators.
2. Workers can't manage themselves so we need owners because...?

What's your thoughts on autonomy in general Baseball, my good chap? :lol:

Baseball

20th May 2012, 14:14

So I imagine you support despotism. That's the only conclusion this can come to.

I have asked is how is a worker, who is on the losing side of an issue, in a socialist community, in any different a situation?

Need is not a category functional within a propertied market. Markets are swayed by economic demand, which requires desire and purchasing power.

"need----desire" "To-MA-to---to-MAH-to"

2. Workers can't manage themselves so we need owners because...?

A continued, circular argument. To say workers can manage themselves still requires an explanation as to how they do it in a way which is consistent with the goals of socialism.

Baseball

20th May 2012, 14:19

No you don't. There's no capitalism without the capitalist.

In "market socialism" the "capitalist" are 50%+1 of the workers who have agreed to set the firm on a particular course of action.

So? People should go bankrupt if they deserve it. If people were unable to go fall behind or go bankrupt they would do risky business moves without any fear.

That's fine (although non-risky moves can just as easily propel somebody into bankruptcy). But then the issue becomes that that firm has an interest in taking steps to avoid bankruptcy. And then to wonder how effective that can be within the strictures of the "socialist" aspects of market socialism.

wsg1991

20th May 2012, 14:43

you system still require the state to function and Taxes to function as no real free market can survive with regulations , people unable to work ( Kids \ retired workers ) will require the state to look after them . and you can't give education or health police or military to private hands . another question rise , High profit resources such as Oil can't be given to private hands , as the state can manage to use it better . So the state will remain , but i don't believe in the possibility of stateless society anyway

fabian

20th May 2012, 15:37

In "market socialism" the "capitalist" are 50%+1 of the workers who have agreed to set the firm on a particular course of action.
And what do you propose as an alternative to democratic organization?

Revolution starts with U

20th May 2012, 20:24

I have asked is how is a worker, who is on the losing side of an issue, in a socialist community, in any different a situation?

How is a landless laborer, who is on the losing side of an issue in a democracy, better off then when he was in a feudal system?

"need----desire" "To-MA-to---to-MAH-to"

No, you're just wrong, and every economist knows it. "Need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power." ~Henry Hazlitt

It means you have to have a need/want (both have equal input) which really pays second fiddle to having enough money.
Again, poverty (ie, need) in a market system is handled entirely outside the scope of the market.

A continued, circular argument. To say workers can manage themselves still requires an explanation as to how they do it in a way which is consistent with the goals of socialism.
It doesn't matter if workers can or cannot manage themselves at this point. The question is: what about workers not being able to manage themselves requires ownership?

Baseball

21st May 2012, 00:44

And what do you propose as an alternative to democratic organization?

The claim is being made that "market socialism" does certain things and eliminates certain things. I am saying it doesn't.
You haven't solved "problem" which market socialism claims to solve.

Baseball

21st May 2012, 00:51

How is a landless laborer, who is on the losing side of an issue in a democracy, better off then when he was in a feudal system?

I am not the one making the claim.

No, you're just wrong, and every economist knows it. "Need is not effective economic demand. Effective economic demand requires both need and corresponding purchasing power." ~Henry Hazlitt

OK- need=desire.

It doesn't matter if workers can or cannot manage themselves at this point. The question is: what about workers not being able to manage themselves requires ownership?

The argument isn't that the workers cannot manage the firm. The argument is that the workers cannot manage that firm, operating within the strictures and requirements of a socialist community.

Halleluhwah

21st May 2012, 01:07

First of all, I'm not sure how it's useful to look for capitalism solely in "chicagian, keynesian, austrian or welfare" ideologies. Capitalism exists objectively as a set of social relations, and a material analysis reveals that wage-labor, generalized commodity production, and presumably (based on what I've been able to understand of your posts) an unaltered division of labor would exist in your proposed society.

Additionally, your utopia requires the permanent existence of a state to maintain individualized property. Competition would make any sort of class consciousness impossible, and the culture would remain along bourgeois lines, including the self-interest, alienation, commodity fetishism, etc. that comes with bourgeois society. And really, how long would it take for a new capitalist class to develop and wage a counter-revolution?

PhoenixAsh

21st May 2012, 01:25

No you don't. There's no capitalism without the capitalist.

Except that the capitalists are now the coops themselves competing for the biggest market share :-/

So if in an army where you have direct democracy and direct control of commanders by those in their unit, that's not democracy because there are commanders, and that's still despotism and hierarchy?

Your market is still dictated by profit. Which means there is exploitation in order to make profit. Which means there is competition based on wages....which means that coop or not, democracy or not....decisions are dictated by economical gain and monetary necessity

Profit in the proudhonian/ marxian sense- getting money by exploitation would not exist, only earnings would exist- the products of labor.

Eh...no...

Because of the way your system works..

At expence of who?

workers

So? People should go bankrupt if they deserve it. If people were unable to go fall behind or go bankrupt they would do risky business moves without any fear.

exactly and your syste perpetuates the competition based on income.

Result is justice, freedom, democracy, and quality, availability and free choice of products and services. Economic crisis is a monetary problem, not a market one. Gold standard, labor vauchers, or free banking would all fix the economic crisis problem.

No result is exactly the same what we have now.

Revolution starts with U

21st May 2012, 02:07

I am not the one making the claim.

Do you or do you not support democracy as a political tool/structure.

OK- need=desire.

Neither of which fulfills effective economic demand, which is the point (and we can stop the semantics now).

The argument isn't that the workers cannot manage the firm. The argument is that the workers cannot manage that firm, operating within the strictures and requirements of a socialist community.
What argument is that?

pastradamus

21st May 2012, 02:22

A Fabian is not a Socialist. End of.

Die Neue Zeit

21st May 2012, 03:39

A Fabian is not a Socialist. End of.

Comrade, I think that says it all. Real market socialism (a la Lange, obviously not a la Deng) as an end goal is very questionable at best, but it's the poster's Fabian politics that should be the focus.

fabian

21st May 2012, 10:37

Except that the capitalists are now the coops themselves competing for the biggest market share :-/
So? If you and I both make bricks and sell it in our village, that capitalism?

Your market is still dictated by profit.
It's not. Because there would be no exploatation.

workers
Which ones? How concretely? Exploatation of the workers happens when someone takes surplus value, that is- when workers don't get the full product of their labor. That doesn't happen in (market) socialism- there would be no parasitism, only earning by labor.

"In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour."

Nothing of the sorts would happen in (market) socialism, as it does in all capitalism- including state capitalism, but just the opposite- workers would directly own and manage the means of production and work for themselves, that is- they would receive the full product of their labor.

PhoenixAsh

21st May 2012, 10:47

So? If you and I both make bricks and sell it in our village, that capitalism?

Yes.

It's not. Because there would be no exploatation.

How is profit being made then?

Which ones? How concretely? Exploatation of the workers happens when someone takes surplus value, that is- when workers don't get the full product of their labor. That doesn't happen in (market) socialism- there would be no parasitism, only earning by labor.

If you have to compete and still make profit then obviously they will not be getting the full product of their labour.

Define parasitism.

"In Marxian economics, exploitation refers to the subjection of producers (the proletariat) to work for passive owners (bourgeoisie) for less compensation than is equivalent to the actual amount of work done. The proletarian is forced to sell his or her labour power, rather than a set quantity of labour, in order to receive a wage in order to survive, while the capitalist exploits the work performed by the proletarian by accumulating the surplus value of their labour."

Nothing of the sorts would happen in (market) socialism, as it does in all capitalism- including state capitalism, but just the opposite- workers would directly own and manage the means of production and work for themselves, that is- they would receive the full product of their labor.

No they won't since they would have to sell it on the market and therefore compete on pricing. The system is the same.

fabian

21st May 2012, 10:56

Yes.
Who is exploited and how?

How is profit being made then?
In the marxian sense- there is no profit, because there is no one taking any suprlus value.

If you have to compete and still make profit then obviously they will not be getting the full product of their labour.
Who takes any part of the product of their labor?

Define parasitism.
I work in a hammer making & selling shop, and I'm the only employee, with a boss. I work a day and make 10 hammers. The shop sells that 10 hammers for $10 a piece. When I recieve my daily wage of $100- that's getting the full product of my labor. If the boss takes any of that, and gives me any less, he's making economic profit and exploiting me. That's a type of parasitism. The others are renting and taking interest.

No they won't since they would have to sell it on the market and therefore compete on pricing.
So? That's market, not capitalism.

No they won't since they would have to sell it on the market and therefore compete on pricing.
A classless system where only workers exist and receive the full product of their labor is the same as a system where capitalists exploit the workers- because both systems have markets? How, I love your "logic".

PhoenixAsh

21st May 2012, 11:30

Who is exploited and how?

In the marxian sense- there is no profit, because there is no one taking any suprlus value.

Who takes any part of the product of their labor?

I work in a hammer making & selling shop, and I'm the only employee, with a boss. I work a day and make 10 hammers. The shop sells that 10 hammers for $10 a piece. When I recieve my daily wage of $100- that's getting the full product of my labor. If the boss takes any of that, and gives me any less, he's making economic profit and exploiting me. That's a type of parasitism. The others are renting and taking interest.

So? That's market, not capitalism.

A classless system where only workers exist and receive the full product of their labor is the same as a system where capitalists exploit the workers- because both systems have markets? How, I love your "logic".

Look....as long as a system revolves around competition and profit there is going to be no such thing as getting the full benefit of your labour nor is there going to be a system which is non exploitive.

Profit negates that....because:

1). profit has to come from somewhere. Meaning that somebody pays more for a product than it is worth.

2). since workers need to compete with another in this market of yours...this means that they need to compete on all levels including price...which influences wages. Since this influences wages that means somebody somewhere is NOT getting the full benefit of their labour.

3). Your market system pits workers against workers. This competition creates an unequal situation in which some workers are better off than other workers. They get more income and therefore have more financial power. Which means they have more of a stake in the accumluation of wealth and therefore a new elite is being created within the working class....since the basis of your entire system is monetary

fabian

21st May 2012, 11:57

profit has to come from somewhere. Meaning that somebody pays more for a product than it is worth.
Product is worth as much as someone is ready to pay for it.

I see now what's going here.

(Market) socialism is not based on the labor theory of value, but labor theory of property (which is in contrast with the capitalist "private property").

That theory can be coupled with subjective theory of value, and work with any currency and prices on a market, resulting in market socialism, or it can be coupled with labor theory of value, resulting in another type of market socialism called arket socialism with use of labor vauchers as currency.

But the most important thing here is that exploitation is someone parasitizing on the work of others, accepting the Subjective theory of value is not exploatation.

You may see competition itself unfair, and to an extent it is- when existing in capitalist system, but I'm a market (not arket) socialist, because I believe that is market socialism, where a firm could not buy another firm, coops could only merge, there would be a largde decentralisation of market (because of the impracticality of distant coops merging), and market would not be so large-scare that coops would compete with all other coops everywhere in society resulting in a massive drop in prices and thus in wages, but because of that decetralisation of competition I see the market in market socialism only as mechanism of producing and incentive for quality, and giving people the freedom to choose between products, e.g. people wanting buy different kinds of juice, or some people don't wanting to buy any juice, and instead wanting to use the product of their labor to buy art, whereas there would be people who wouldn't want to buy art at all, etc, etc.

In the example- you and me are from the same village- we both make and sell brick in that village, that is a rudimentary market, but there's no exploatation, because there is no slaveowner/ feudalist/ capitalist/ bureaucrat taking anything from us, but there are positive sides from our competition- we have an incentive to make better bricks so people would buy from us, and people have the freedom to choose from whom they bricks. Whereas in an alternative command economy they wouldn't have even the freedom to choose if they want bricks, because they wound't have the freedom to decide to with them whatever they want to.

l'Enfermé

21st May 2012, 21:43

lol at the stupid crap being posted by OP, but perhaps he does raise a good point? Market Socialism/Mutualism is just another form of the utopianism which we call Anarchism. It's pretty bizarre that Proudhon, the "father of anarchism" would be restricted here in RevLeft(the RevLeft whose administration is dominated by Anarchists), while Stalinists("marxist-leninist")who basically worship Stalin, the guy who nearly exterminated entire generations of Socialist revolutionaries, don't get restricted. It's nonsensical...

PhoenixAsh

21st May 2012, 22:17

Proudhon was not a revolutionary favoring conciliary policies and evolutionary tactics/transitional reform over revolution. He was also a sexist.

Azraella

21st May 2012, 22:23

I'll also note that most anarchists do not like Proudhon.

Revolution starts with U

21st May 2012, 22:27

Was Stalin really a revolutionary tho?

1. Revolution does not necessarily mean just the political struggle, as much as it means the complete fundamental change in society.

2. Anybody can talk a good game. Yet even most of what Stalin said was not revolutionary.

3. Basically halted the process of Revolution, full stop. And as said above engaged in the mass slaughter of actual revolutionaries.

4. Alliances, formal and informal, with bourgeoisie.

Baseball

22nd May 2012, 00:51

Do you or do you not support democracy as a political tool/structure.

Sure.

What argument is that?

I guess denying the assertion socialists do not need to describe and define socialism.

DinodudeEpic

22nd May 2012, 01:01

Firstly, please note that I do not support workers electing their managers. Instead, there should be mass assemblies for smaller cooperatives and we should have federalism for the larger cooperatives.

The principle of direct democracy must be kept or else we would just make a new class of managers.

Now, just because we're socialists does not mean that we're communists. I mean, socialism is a broad term, as opposed to communism. As long as there is worker control and ownership, it's socialism. Maybe you don't agree with market socialism, but it is still socialism.

Of course, I consider Fabian's view to be somewhat confused. (The electing managers part is just asking for trouble. I mean, John Stuart Mill supported a similar arrangement where workers would elect their representatives. He's still a capitalist, albeit a nicer form of capitalism.)

Also, I disagree that market socialism is not based on the labor theory of value. (It actually is, for the most part. With the labor theory of property mixed into it.)

Finally, there is no way for richer workers to express their supposed financial power over other workers. They can't hire other workers, they can't fire other workers, and they pretty much can't make all of society's goods. Also, there is no way that workers can be fired, and there is no incentive to have lesser workers due to the lack of wages.

Now, the reason behind my support for market socialism is not that it's perfect. But, it is because it is the best system that we can currently implement. I find communism to be impossible to implement now, because trade is necessary to get all the resources needed to sustain a standard of living. Also, we would basically be fundamentally limited in what we can have, and it requires an extensive amount of regulation to actually implement. Finally, we do not live in a post-scarcity society, and some people want different things from others, so sharing the same things to ensure equality is an farcical idea.

Of course, fabian is actually right in that the market is the only way we can have the freedom of choice in 'choosing' our stuff.

Finally, there would not be wages in at least my particular version of market socialism. Instead, the cooperative's members would have to share all "profits" equally, with all incentive coming from both the market and awards.

About Proudhon, remember that Bakunin was involved with the Pan-Slavic movement and was an anti-Semite. He also supported Russian colonialism. (He also looked down upon the Japanese, even when they were considered to be the best of Asia by even the more racist Europeans.)

Of course, Stalin had implemented anti-abortion policies and was homophobic.

Baseball

22nd May 2012, 01:04

You may see competition itself unfair, and to an extent it is- when existing in capitalist system, but I'm a market (not arket) socialist, because I believe that is market socialism, where a firm could not buy another firm,

Why is it "unfair" for one firm to buy another? Maybe the former does a better job of producing its product than the latter. Wouldn't labor and the community benefit from a more efficient production?

coops could only merge, there would be a largde decentralisation of market (because of the impracticality of distant coops merging),

Why would it be more impractical than large conglomerates of today?

In the example- you and me are from the same village- we both make and sell brick in that village, that is a rudimentary market, but there's no exploatation, because there is no slaveowner/ feudalist/ capitalist/ bureaucrat taking anything from us, but there are positive sides from our competition- we have an incentive to make better bricks so people would buy from us, and people have the freedom to choose from whom they bricks.

Sure- except that perhaps the brickmaker can find people who do better job than he selling the brick to the next village- maybe there is a rich farmer who wants to be even richer and suggests that he invest some of his resources in improving the brickmaker modes of production. Maybe that brickworker can bring on people who wish how to learn-for a wage- how to make such high quality brick.
Who knows? Bottom line is, that the "market" in "market socialism" will have to be seriously proscribed in order for the "socialist" aspect to exist. And in order to have a "market" some of the "socialist" aspects would have to be proscribed. As some of the socialists have already stated.

There is nothing uncapitalist, after all, about workers owning the means of production.

fabian

22nd May 2012, 10:52

Why is it "unfair" for one firm to buy another?
It wount' be unfair, it would be impossible, because there would be no bosses, being that that's SOCIALISM. You could buy a building, but not a business, because all businesses would be owned by the workers in those businesses. So coops could only merge, not buy each other.

Why would it be more impractical than large conglomerates of today?
Because there are no bosses. The workers themselves democraticaly run businesses and it would be impractical for a coop with groups of workers in different distant cities to manage itself, to organize meetings, or to harmonize decisions, because it's not a state, it's a firm, and it would be a waste of time and recources.

suggests that he invest some of his resources in improving the brickmaker modes of production.
Investments would be abolished, being that that's socialism. Profits (employing someone and taking surplus value), rent, interest, investments, none of that would exist. Why? Because that's SOCIALISM.

And in order to have a "market" some of the "socialist" aspects would have to be proscribed.
Concreatly- which aspects?

There is nothing uncapitalist, after all, about workers owning the means of production.
The idiocies I'll read here.

Of course, I consider Fabian's view to be somewhat confused. (The electing managers part is just asking for trouble.
What's confusing about that? Manager is a job position that most firms need, just as all amry units need officers. Both can arranged democratically, so that those on that positions would be elected, recallable, and cotroled by the rest, insted of vice versa. What would you suggest as an alternative?

Also, I disagree that market socialism is not based on the labor theory of value.
It can perfectly be coupled with subjetive theory of value, that is- the labor theory of value is optional. Whereas the labor theory of property is not, the other two theories are private (capitalist), and collective (communist), so labor theory of property is central to socialism, labor theory of value is not.

Baseball

22nd May 2012, 14:35

It wount' be unfair, it would be impossible, because there would be no bosses, being that that's SOCIALISM.

Of course there would be "bosses" in a socialist community. Those bosses would be the ones who won the democratic vote- their decisions and choices on how to proceed would take precedence over those dissenting. Those dissenting would have to go do what the were told- or leave.

This theory that there are no "bosses" in a socialist system is absolutely ridiculous.

Because there are no bosses. The workers themselves democraticaly run businesses and it would be impractical for a coop with groups of workers in different distant cities to manage itself, to organize meetings, or to harmonize decisions, because it's not a state, it's a firm, and it would be a waste of time and recources.

That would be true. But it doesn't answer whether it would be more productive and efficient as compared to capitalism or a situation where you could own firms that lay at a distance.

Investments would be abolished, being that that's socialism. Profits (employing someone and taking surplus value), rent, interest, investments, none of that would exist. Why? Because that's SOCIALISM.

If going "bankrupt" is a legitimate and possible outcome for a firm in a market socialism (and you have said it is, and furthermore that it would remain an undesirable outcome), then clearly an objective of the firm would be to AVOID bankruptcy. Measurements are needed for it to judge where it stands. Profits are such a measurement. get rid of profits, and the socialist system still needs to replace it with something else.

Concreatly- which aspects?

Worker ownership and control for one- the workers wold not be able to control their firm in a market. they would have to bend to its demands.

The idiocies I'll read here.

Not really. capitalism is based upon private ownership of the means of production. there is no social content attached to it. the workers of themselves can own the firm themselves and still need to function in a capitalist community.

What's confusing about that? Manager is a job position that most firms need, just as all amry units need officers. Both can arranged democratically, so that those on that positions would be elected, recallable, and cotroled by the rest, insted of vice versa. What would you suggest as an alternative?

Would you also determine the labor of bricklayers and doctors by democratic vote as well? "All in favor of Fabian being a physician say "Aye." Being a manager is a job no less than being a physician or bricklayer is a job.

fabian

22nd May 2012, 15:55

Those bosses would be the ones who won the democratic vote
I ask- what do you suggest as an alternative to democratic organization?

But it doesn't answer whether it would be more productive and efficient as compared to capitalism
Of course people working for themselves would be more productive than when working for someone else. Productivity rose in Spain in worker run communities even thou they were organised in a communist-like manner (workers getting their earnings in coupons whos number didn't depend on the work but on the number of family members of a worker), so the productivity could only be bigger in socialism where people's earning would depend on the work done.

get rid of profits, and the socialist system still needs to replace it with something else.
There would be currency, and people would make earning by getting payed by their customers (other workers) for their products or services. But profits in the Proudhonian/ Marxian sense- taking suprlus value- would not exist, because surplus value would not exist.

they would have to bend to its demands.
Supply would depend on the demand. No shit Sherlock, that's the point.

Btw, do you even realie what you basically said?! "Existence of a market would mean that socialism would need to abandon some of it's aspects". I ask you which apects, and you basically say "the non-existence of markets".

Existence of a market is not a negation of socialism. Whereas a command economy is.

Not really. capitalism is based upon private ownership of the means of production. there is no social content attached to it. the workers of themselves can own the firm themselves and still need to function in a capitalist community.
In (market) socialism toilers would not have capitalist "private property" of their land, firms, and factories. (Market) socialism is based on the denial of the capitalist view of property and on the Labour theory of property- so land, firm and factories could only be owned by those who work (in) them. That has nothing to do with capitalist concepts of "private property".

danyboy27

22nd May 2012, 17:20

It wount' be unfair, it would be impossible, because there would be no bosses, being that that's SOCIALISM. You could buy a building, but not a business, because all businesses would be owned by the workers in those businesses. So coops could only merge, not buy each other.
.
I dont see how in a market socialism society like the one you are talking about wouldnt allow workers to sell their mean of production to another coop for a fair share of profit for each members.

Investments would be abolished, being that that's socialism. Profits (employing someone and taking surplus value), rent, interest, investments, none of that would exist. Why? Because that's SOCIALISM.
.
and in a world where some worker got much much more money than other how do you manage that? In theory i could just use my surplus money, buy a warehouse full of brick, create a temporary scarcity and then sell it to a much much higher price.

fabian

23rd May 2012, 12:37

I dont see how in a market socialism society like the one you are talking about wouldnt allow workers to sell their mean of production to another coop for a fair share of profit for each members.
Are you an idiot? Profits would be abolished, because that would be SOCIALISM. Market would exist only for products and artisan services, making profits would be impossible/ illegal/ abolished/ prohibited/ fought against, you could only make earnings by labor.

and in a world where some worker got much much more money than other how do you manage that?
The only way they could is if they would work much much more. And in that case- they sould get much much more money.

In theory i could just use my surplus money, buy a warehouse full of brick, create a temporary scarcity and then sell it to a much much higher price.
Or you would buy a warehouse full of bricks, and create a scarcity, and groups of people would take interest-free loans from a people's mutual bank and start brick producing coops, and because that would be a post-revolution society with high worker consciousness no one would buy from such predatory pricks, or people would agree on laws against hoarding and predatory business running.

danyboy27

23rd May 2012, 15:17

fabian

23rd May 2012, 15:44

Why would they do that when they could also slow down the production and also sell the brick at a higher price?
The people who need the bricks would do that what I said. Because the people needing brick would be workers, too, so they wouldn't find it difficult to make their own bricks and thus not buy from predatory pricks. And being that the entire society would be workers, it wouldn't be neither be difficult to, as I said, agree on laws prohibiting predatory business. In a classless society there couldn't be predatory business, because the rest of society would prevent it to mentain the system where everybody is equal.

danyboy27

23rd May 2012, 19:33

The people who need the bricks would do that what I said. Because the people needing brick would be workers, too, so they wouldn't find it difficult to make their own bricks and thus not buy from predatory pricks. And being that the entire society would be workers, it wouldn't be neither be difficult to, as I said, agree on laws prohibiting predatory business. In a classless society there couldn't be predatory business, because the rest of society would prevent it to mentain the system where everybody is equal.

There we go, back to the dogmatic idea that the market will fix it.

There is only one slight problem with that; some good are really complicated to produce and require decade, years of expertise, ressources, times, dedication.

By the time the folks who want to make their own brick got the know-how and start to manufacture a reasonable product the other folks will have screwed the worker countless of time over and over already and could use their wealth to start making dumping (litteraly sell stuff under the price of value) to bankrupt the other factory or aquire control over the nearest quary by offering to their worker more money for the limestone to make sure nobody else get the ressource.

Baseball

23rd May 2012, 20:46

I ask- what do you suggest as an alternative to democratic organization?

You are the one claiming there are no "bosses." Now that you seem to retreat from that opinion, we can move forward.

Of course people working for themselves would be more productive than when working for someone else. Productivity rose in Spain in worker run communities even thou they were organised in a communist-like manner (workers getting their earnings in coupons whos number didn't depend on the work but on the number of family members of a worker), so the productivity could only be bigger in socialism where people's earning would depend on the work done.

Oh... piecework. That was ended in capitalism long time ago. Why resurrect it?

There would be currency, and people would make earning by getting payed by their customers (other workers) for their products or services. But profits in the Proudhonian/ Marxian sense- taking suprlus value- would not exist, because surplus value would not exist.

And neither would currency- it was be worthless.

Supply would depend on the demand. No shit Sherlock, that's the point.

Yes. And other socialists have objected to this as they have rightly concluded that this means that the workers will not be in control of the firm.

I
n (market) socialism toilers would not have capitalist "private property" of their land, firms, and factories. (Market) socialism is based on the denial of the capitalist view of property and on the Labour theory of property- so land, firm and factories could only be owned by those who work (in) them. That has nothing to do with capitalist concepts of "private property".

If the property is OWNED by just the people who work there, then there is NO difference being created from a capitalist system. Those workers, as owners, can dispose of the property as they so choose. And other workers have no real reasonable way of stopping them, if the term "ownership" is to mean anything in a market socialist community.

Baseball

23rd May 2012, 20:54

Or you would buy a warehouse full of bricks, and create a scarcity, and groups of people would take interest-free loans from a people's mutual bank and start brick producing coops, and because that would be a post-revolution society with high worker consciousness no one would buy from such predatory pricks, or people would agree on laws against hoarding and predatory business running.

Perhaps the reason for that situation is that there is a glut of bricks on the socialist market; that co-op has determined it makes no sense to sell those bricks (perhaps because in doing so they would face bankruptcy). Now we have a situation where other workers might go to get a loan, which sounds like an automatic thing in your socialist market. But would not that bank also wish to avoid bankruptcy and perhaps not make the loan?

Granted these are nit-picky type things, but hey at least you are willing to attempt to describe how a market socialism might function, which is a lot more than other socialists hereabouts are willing to do.

BTW- you need to supply proof that "worker consciousness" would be higher in a market socialist community.

Baseball

23rd May 2012, 20:58

Baseball

23rd May 2012, 21:01

fabian

24th May 2012, 10:35

There we go, back to the dogmatic idea that the market will fix it.
People would fix it, not the market. Market is not glorified, it is (like IMO the state) a necessary evil. Necessary for what? For people to get the full product of their labor (not to be exploited) and for it to be acknowledged that products of one's labor are one's personal possessions (and that accordingly one has the freedom to use them as they want). These two conditions constitute legitimate possessions acording to the labor theory of property. They are not upheld neither in capitalism (directly contradicting the first one), nor in communism (contradicting the second one and thus possibly the first one).

By the time the folks who want to make their own brick got the know-how and start to manufacture a reasonable product the other folks will have screwed ....
Simple solution- predatory business would be banned by law, and the one trying that would be prevented by police/ people's army.

(litteraly sell stuff under the price of value)
Price is the value. Something is worth as much as someone is willing to give for it.

You are the one claiming there are no "bosses." Now that you seem to retreat from that opinion, we can move forward.
Retreat to what? You haven't offered any alternative to democratic organization. The only two alternatives I know are hierachical organization and no organizaition. I'm still for the democratic one.

Oh... piecework. That was ended in capitalism long time ago. Why resurrect it?
Why not. If a firm wants to resurect it, they should. They would democraticaly decide.

And other socialists have objected to this as they have rightly concluded that this means that the workers will not be in control of the firm.
In the same sense they wouldn't be in control of their firm because gravity exists or the need to breathe, and are all slaves to oxigen.

People make products or provide services. Why? Because someone needs those products and those services. It's simple as that.

Only a small percentage of people are so versatile to be totally self-sufficient so products and services need to be diffused among people. Market is just a mechanism for that- for a population to fullful the needs and wants of it's own members. And it's the only one that allows people to get the full product of their labor and dispose of it freely.

If the property is OWNED by just the people who work there, then there is NO difference being created from a capitalist system.
If you do not see the difference, the problem then is with your obvious lack of intelectual power, or the use of thereof.

Those workers, as owners, can dispose of the property as they so choose.
They couldn't employ anyone, rent, loan with interest, or invest, because all those actions are in contradiction with the labor theory of property. I'd say that constitutes a pretty big difference from a capitalist system.

Blake's Baby

24th May 2012, 12:18

How do you get 'the full value of your labour' in a market?

If my labour is worth $10 it's worth $10. What is the market for? A market is a competitive environment. My labour is worth $10 and so is the next guy's, we've both made pots but he doesn't want to sit around the market all day so he sells his pots for $9 so he can clear off faster. So in 'the market' my $10 of labour are now only worth $9 (mode price for the pots sold), or at best $9.50 (mean of prices of all pots divided by number of producers). Do I shoot him to stop him stealing my property (as in, making my labour worth less, as in, taking away my right of 'property through labour')? Or do I get the state to enforce him sitting iun the market until his pots are sold at a price comparable to mine?

Or, as you seem to be implying, do I let him decrease the value of my labour? How does this sit with my 'right of property through labour'? How is it conducive to increasing the ability of the working class to improve its conditions? What you're talking about is competitive devaluations amongst a worldwide class of petites-bourgeoises.

fabian

24th May 2012, 12:31

f my labour is worth $10 it's worth $10.
It's worth as much as someone pays for it. Price is value, whether in currency, or in barter.

Blake's Baby

24th May 2012, 13:51

Right. So labour is a commodity.

Just want to be clear on that.

It's the replicability of labour that sets its price.

So strong and/or nimble people should be richer than slow people, I take it? They can produce more in the same time, so they can sell more product of their labour. That's how it works, isn't it?

fabian

24th May 2012, 14:06

Right. So labour is a commodity.

Just want to be clear on that.
Are you an idiot? How many times I've said that labor would not be marketable. Theye would be no employment. Products and services are commodity, not labor, exploatation would be abolished, because that's SOCIALISM.

So strong and/or nimble people should be richer than slow people, I take it?
If doing the same job, yes. Slow people may be mentally quick and should do some intellectual job. Or if they're unable to work, they are to relly of the help of the society.

Revolution starts with U

24th May 2012, 14:51

"Labor is worth what people will pay for it, meaning what you can sell your labor for, but labor is not a commodity."

Most blatant example of cognitive dissonance I've seen in quite a while.

As I said, propertarian democracy would probably be a fairly decent system. There's one giant, glaring problem tho. This really isn't in the natural interest of any given class, except maybe a small subset of the petit bourgeois, or maybe the lumpen proles.

We (socialists) try to convince people of socialism to speed up the process. Propertarian democrats litterally HAVE to convince the entire population just to have anyone interested.

PhoenixAsh

24th May 2012, 15:31

Are you an idiot? How many times I've said that labor would not be marketable. Theye would be no employment. Products and services are commodity, not labor, exploatation would be abolished, because that's SOCIALISM.

If doing the same job, yes. Slow people may be mentally quick and should do some intellectual job. Or if they're unable to work, they are to relly of the help of the society.

Exploitation can not be abolished as long as there is a notion of profit and competition. Hence market socialism based, like you argued, on the subjective value theory is capitalist and above all exploitative in nature....for the very fact that profit directly trnslates to exploitation...somewhere somebody gets fucked.

Not to mention the fact that....like I argued....this creates a situation of disparity of income and wealth distribution (wether in a system relying on finance or barter) depending on the industry a worker works in. This, like I argued, creates elitism amongst workers where some workers are better off than other workers and can accumulate more material/financial gains. Which automatically means a disparity in income distribution and a disparity in what goods and services workers can afford. Therefore the system itself counteracts the principles of socialism and automatically recreates a socio-economic hierarchical class system.

fabian

24th May 2012, 15:42

Exploitation can not be abolished as long as there is a notion of profit and competition.
I have pointet out multiple times that is not true. Exploatation is taking someone's "surplus value", and that would not exist.

this creates a situation of disparity of income and wealth distribution (wether in a system relying on finance or barter) depending on the industry a worker works in.
Disparity would depend on the work done. That's pure socialism.

This, like I argued, creates elitism amongst workers where some workers are better off than other workers and can accumulate more material/financial gains.
Anyone could accumulate his earnings, it's called saving.

Which automatically means a disparity in income distribution.
Because there is a disparity in work. I work twice as much then you, I earn twice as much then you. "According to one's contribution".

Revolution starts with U

24th May 2012, 18:24

^ look at this guy thinking coal miners will get paid the same per hour worked as bankers in a monied system :rolleyes:

Revolution starts with U

24th May 2012, 18:26

Why is propertarian democracy reactionary, you ask in the unfair restriction thread.

Because workers 'own" the means of production, meaning they control it as individuals or groups of individuals, not as a class.

It is anti working class, and not really democratic as such.

fabian

24th May 2012, 19:32

"This message is hidden because Revolution starts with U is on your ignore list." http://fk.ikimg.com/images/smilies/th_coffee.gif

Azraella

24th May 2012, 19:49

"This message is hidden because Revolution starts with U is on your ignore list." http://fk.ikimg.com/images/smilies/th_coffee.gif

Very mature way to deal with arguments you don't like.

fabian

24th May 2012, 19:54

Very mature way to deal with arguments you don't like.
There has to be some argments in the first place, in order for me not to like them.

Revolution starts with U

24th May 2012, 21:34

You guys remember how when Kirk would say stupid shit to Spok, Spok would be like "idiot stupid troll, you're ignored!" :lol:

Fabian your arguments don't make cognitive sense. That's why everybody keeps asking you the same question... because your arguments are horribly bad.

Azraella

24th May 2012, 21:45

There has to be some argments in the first place, in order for me not to like them.

And it's this shit right here is why people think you're a dick or idiot. People have been arguing with you for roughly 12-13 pages about market socialism and it's validity as a system for the last week or so, and for every argument they have against market socialism you respond with a vague non-argument and hidden insult directed at another user. I've stopped arguing with you because I see it as fruitless and as a waste of time and I'd consider myself friendly towards a transitional market socialism as a step between capitalism and communism. Your inability to discuss these things is pretty much why even though I'd consider myself friendly towards your economic system at least for a period of time is why I have not backed you up in this argument.

But dude, go on and keep on pissing off people that might agree with you to an extent. It makes me happy.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 01:29

It's worth as much as someone pays for it. Price is value, whether in currency, or in barter.

So why forbid this concept when it comes time for taking out a loan?

Baseball

25th May 2012, 01:37

Retreat to what? You haven't offered any alternative to democratic organization. The only two alternatives I know are hierachical organization and no organizaition. I'm still for the democratic one.

Hey- fine by me. Just as long as you recognize that there are bosses in the democratic system.

Why not. If a firm wants to resurect it, they should. They would democraticaly decide.

So why not democratically decide to hire labor?

People make products or provide services. Why? Because someone needs those products and those services. It's simple as that.

Yep. Absolutely.
So why are you in favor of making this more difficult than need be?

Only a small percentage of people are so versatile to be totally self-sufficient so products and services need to be diffused among people. Market is just a mechanism for that- for a population to fullful the needs and wants of it's own members. And it's the only one that allows people to get the full product of their labor and dispose of it freely.

"Dispose of it freely"? You are the one sending out the army when people are choosing (democratically) to do just that.

If you do not see the difference, the problem then is with your obvious lack of intelectual power, or the use of thereof.

OK. Define "ownership."

They couldn't employ anyone, rent, loan with interest, or invest, because all those actions are in contradiction with the labor theory of property. I'd say that constitutes a pretty big difference from a capitalist system.

OK. Define "ownership."

Prometeo liberado

25th May 2012, 01:41

Wow, Baseball and fabian in a lock down battle. You cant script this stuff people, you-just-cant! I dare you.

Sorry hindsight20/20 I know I'm off topic but couldn't help myself. How could I?

Baseball

25th May 2012, 01:41

Because there is a disparity in work. I work twice as much then you, I earn twice as much then you. "According to one's contribution".

Why? perhaps 4 hours of labor of one person is more valuable than 8 hours of somebody else's.
And how would you measure that contribution? A capitalist would say "profit", the market socialist....? Nobody seems to know.

fabian

25th May 2012, 08:34

So why forbid this concept when it comes time for taking out a loan?
It's not forbidden. If society arranges itself so there is no singe mutual bank, but multiple coop ones, they can charge what they want, but always a fixed charge, never interest, because interest is renting, which is illegitimage.

Hey- fine by me. Just as long as you recognize that there are bosses in the democratic system.
There aren't. There's majority. In a hierarchical organization you have a boss. In no organization you can be subdued by someone and he's your boss. Democracy differs in that you control the "boss", not the other way around.

So why not democratically decide to hire labor?
I repeat for the tenth time- employment is exploatation and theft, and would be abolished. Why are you such idiots, why? Why can't you turn your brains on, you not only make me repeat myselft, but make me do so tens of times.

So why are you in favor of making this more difficult than need be?
What is the alternative? Same like with democracy, you just blabber and fail to say anything constructive.

"Dispose of it freely"? You are the one sending out the army when people are choosing (democratically) to do just that.
"As long as they don't harm anyone in their live, liberty and property" is presupposed. Turn your brain on, I am not going to write such basic stuff every time I mention something that presupposes them.

OK. Define "ownership."
An individual owns himself, and thus, his own labor. Therefore the product of his labor is his legitimate property. Any unearned income is illegitimate.

perhaps 4 hours of labor of one person is more valuable than 8 hours of somebody else's.
Your question implies that there is disparity in work, and that some workers should earn more then others.

And how would you measure that contribution?
Earning of the workers would come from the splitting of the earnings of the coop. The amount of how much everyone gets would be democratically agreed on by the workers themselves.

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2012, 15:08

I have pointet out multiple times that is not true. Exploatation is taking someone's "surplus value", and that would not exist.

And I have poingted out to you numerous times that that is not true because the system of market socialism relies on profit and competition.

Now...proift is the difference between the exchange price and the cost of bringing it to a market....or, in an economic simplified sense, the amount needed for somebody who runs the bussiness to make it worth his/her while. Where in your mind do you think the disparity comes from?

Competition is the struggle for resources. In this case economic ones....and therefore this creates social strife. Something which is at odds with socialist principles. Because in a competition based system hierarchical classes will be created.

Disparity would depend on the work done. That's pure socialism.

No...because in socialism the work done would not matter.

Anyone could accumulate his earnings, it's called saving.

Are you purposefully misunderstanding the point I made or do you have probl;ems understanding that of person A makes 10K per month and person B has to struggle by on 1k a month we have income disparity? Do you understand the concept of hierarchical structures within society?

Because there is a disparity in work. I work twice as much then you, I earn twice as much then you. "According to one's contribution".

according to ones ability.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 15:09

[QUOTE=fabian;2452892]It's not forbidden. If society arranges itself so there is no singe mutual bank, but multiple coop ones, they can charge what they want, but always a fixed charge, never interest, because interest is renting, which is illegitimage.

You never explained the difference between a fixed charge and interest, but so be it. And why isn't borrowing money from a bank "renting"? I mean, ythe recipient is using money that belongs to somebody else.
And why should a bank be subjected to the strictures of a "fixed charge" for providing its service, when other co-ops that might provide services to the bank, are not similiarly restricted?

There aren't. There's majority. In a hierarchical organization you have a boss. In no organization you can be subdued by someone and he's your boss. Democracy differs in that you control the "boss", not the other way around.

The "majority" is the boss. Are the people who lost the election free to disregard what the majority decided regarding the future operations of that firm? I doubt it.

I repeat for the tenth time- employment is exploatation and theft, and would be abolished. Why are you such idiots, why? Why can't you turn your brains on, you not only make me repeat myselft, but make me do so tens of times.

And I asked why the workers could not democratically decide to resurrect it.

What is the alternative? Same like with democracy, you just blabber and fail to say anything constructive.

A market- minus the socialism.

An individual owns himself, and thus, his own labor. Therefore the product of his labor is his legitimate property. Any unearned income is illegitimate.

OK. So he doesn't in fact "own" an equal share of the firm. He simply owns the value of his labor to that firm.

Your question implies that there is disparity in work, and that some workers should earn more then others.

Well, you have been busy saying that the "socialist market" rewards valuable items, and penalizes less valuable items. Why shouldn't more valuable workers be treated more valuably than less valuable workers?

Earning of the workers would come from the splitting of the earnings of the coop. The amount of how much everyone gets would be democratically agreed on by the workers themselves.

But this runs counter to the claim also made the workers are entitled to the value of their labor. Its automatic. What's democracy got to do with it?

Baseball

25th May 2012, 15:14

No...because in socialism the work done would not matter.

Sorry-- but do you really mean to say that in a socialist system, it doesn't really matter what the value is to the community of completed work?

fabian

25th May 2012, 16:20

And I have poingted out to you numerous times that that is not true because the system of market socialism relies on profit and competition.

Now...proift is the difference between the exchange price and the cost of bringing it to a market....or, in an economic simplified sense, the amount needed for somebody who runs the bussiness to make it worth his/her while. Where in your mind do you think the disparity comes from?
"Schools of classical economics and Marxian economics defined profit as the return to the employer of capital stock (such as machinery, factories, land, ploughs) in any productive pursuit involving labor." That kind of profits would not exist, because employer-employee relationship would not exist.

Competition is the struggle for resources. In this case economic ones....and therefore this creates social strife. Something which is at odds with socialist principles.
Competition is not at odds with socialism, it a part of it- "To each according to his contribution". Competition is not a bad thing in itself, especially not in socialism where it is confined to amount of labor thus giving rise productivity.

in socialism the work done would not matter.
"To each according to his contribution".

person A makes 10K per month and person B has to struggle by on 1k a month we have income disparity?
That could only happen in socialism if the person making 10K would be allowed to make that much by the one making 1K, because wages would be decided democraticaly. Also, existence of market would make it impossible for a firm to have people earning 10K, and another firm having people earning 2K, because there would be the mentioned competition.

Do you understand the concept of hierarchical structures within society?
There would be none in socialism.

You never explained the difference between a fixed charge and interest, but so be it.
I have. The charge is always fixed because it is a fixed service, as oppossed to interest that is a rent of money and thus either rises, or is fixed only during the fixed rate period of the loan.

And why isn't borrowing money from a bank "renting"? I mean, ythe recipient is using money that belongs to somebody else.
I doesn't belong to somebody else. Loan is basically a purchase with a delayed payment, whereas in rent it is different.

And why should a bank be subjected to the strictures of a "fixed charge" for providing its service
It is not a fixed price, it is a fixed charge, meanin, they can put whatever price they want to, as long as it doesn't rise ever.

The "majority" is the boss.
Boss is someone that is above you. In democracy everyone is equal.

And I asked why the workers could not democratically decide to resurrect it.
Because that would be a socialist system. Only mentally underdeveloped would abolish something and then want it back. Ask one more question that is this much idiotic, and I am not reading or responding to your messages any more.

A market- minus the socialism.
Exploitative. Market should only exist for the products of labor.

So he doesn't in fact "own" an equal share of the firm. He simply owns the value of his labor to that firm.
Yes.

Why shouldn't more valuable workers be treated more valuably than less valuable workers?
I'm saying all along they should.

But this runs counter to the claim also made the workers are entitled to the value of their labor. Its automatic. What's democracy got to do with it?
Distrubive justice in this case is of a democratic nature. Someone has to decide how much will each worker get. They decide themselves.

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2012, 16:23

Sorry-- but do you really mean to say that in a socialist system, it doesn't really matter what the value is to the community of completed work?

Yes.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 16:29

Yes.

Then what's the point of production? Isn't it to produce goods and service which people want, which they value?

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2012, 16:38

"Schools of classical economics and Marxian economics defined profit as the return to the employer of capital stock (such as machinery, factories, land, ploughs) in any productive pursuit involving labor." That kind of profits would not exist, because employer-employee relationship would not exist.

Then you are not talking about market socialism. Market socialism is the production of goods for profit on a market.

Competition is not at odds with socialism, it a part of it- "To each according to his contribution". Competition is not a bad thing in itself, especially not in socialism where it is confined to amount of labor thus giving rise productivity.

You are following the definition of socialism as a prestage to communism...something which I do not ascribe to at all. I ascribe to each according to his or her ability and to each according to his or her need as the only socialist phrase. And yes...this means I do not see a difference between socialism and communism and find the two terms interchangeable as originally meant. Ergo I do NOT ascribe to Leninist definition of the term.

Second you are also explaining the phrase wrong...since the phrase is meant to indicate that people are rewarded based on the amount of labour they put in their work. NOT on the basis of profitable marketing skills as you are arguing and as market socialism is prone to be about....and especially not on subjective value theories.

That could only happen in socialism if the person making 10K would be allowed to make that much by the one making 1K, because wages would be decided democraticaly. Also, existence of market would make it impossible for a firm to have people earning 10K, and another firm having people earning 2K, because there would be the mentioned competition.

No...wages would not be decided democratically according to the fact that there is profit...and as you described the owership of the workers of the company. So they can decide democratically, based on their profit margins, that they will be making 10k. Something which market socialism would be perfectly fine with.

So you are contradicting in your own argumentation. Either the workers own the company or the community owns the company. Which one is it?

There would be none in socialism.

No indeed. And that is why market socialism isn't socialism.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 17:20

I doesn't belong to somebody else. Loan is basically a purchase with a delayed payment, whereas in rent it is different.

It belongs to the bank. Whih is why you have to give it back-plus the fees.
But okay, banks can give out and charge for loans.

Boss is someone that is above you. In democracy everyone is equal.

"Boss" is somebody who tells what to, and what not to do. But ok.

Because that would be a socialist system. Only mentally underdeveloped would abolish something and then want it back.

Or maybe they realized they made a mistake and seek rectification.

Exploitative. Market should only exist for the products of labor.

You are explaining hereabouts that people who produce more should receive more. You are also explaining that compensation is based upon a democratic vote. You are also saying people can freely leave one firm for the other.

Well, ummm... why can't a worker simply refuse to labor unless he receives compensation for what HE believes to be the value of his work to the firm, as opposed to what the majority of the workers deems? Why can't he go out to seek a firm who might be willing to compensate him along those lines? Why can't the firm seek what it judges to be valuable workers at ANOTHER firm and seek to bring him or her aboard at an agreed upon level?

If the market forbids actions along these lines, isn't it constraining itself? How can it effectively allocate labor in such a way to benefit and strengthen the firm within a socialist market? Come to think about it, how is even enforceable?

fabian

25th May 2012, 18:00

Then you are not talking about market socialism. Market socialism is the production of goods for profit on a market.
Market socialism is workers making products and offering services to other workers for money. The workers being the one and only 'part' of the society part = socialism; the buying and selling part = market.

You are following the definition of socialism as a prestage to communism
Actually it is a definition of socialism put first by mutualists, and the frasing itself is by Lasselle, and neither mutualists nor Lesselle are/were for communism.

NOT on the basis of profitable marketing skills as you are arguing and as market socialism is prone to be about.
Marketing would be reduced so much it wouldn't be recognisable, because of the decentralisation of the market, and because almost all advertising would be banned as based on rent. Market would be pretty much reduced to "street markets".

No...wages would not be decided democratically according to the fact that there is profit
Coop sells it's products. It gets money from that sale. Workers split that earnings among earch other according to a democratic agreement.

Either the workers own the company or the community owns the company.
The first one is more correct, because they don't take orders from the community or that the community takes the products and gives them wage, they self-manage, and get the product of their labor.

I hope you see the difference between someone ordering me to do something as oppossed to saying "I need something" and them me doing that to provide a supply in order to meet that demand; and the difference between someone buying my product as oppossed to someone taking my product. The first- market socialist options are not opressive, whereas the second- collectivist ones (whether state capitalist or communist) are not so voluntary.

And that is why market socialism isn't socialism.
Market socialism is the only possible type of socialism (together with it's subtype arket socialism). A command economy is not socialism, because toilers are exploited, making it capitalism. Collectivist economy (syndicalism, communism) is not socialist because toilers don't have any control over their (products of) labor.

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2012, 18:39

Market socialism is workers making products and offering services to other workers for money. The workers being the one and only 'part' of the society part = socialism; the buying and selling part = market.

That is not what market socialism is.

Actually it is a definition of socialism put first by mutualists, and the frasing itself is by Lasselle, and neither mutualists nor Lesselle are/were for communism.

Market socialism =/ mutualism

At least not to your definition of subjective value. Mutualism depends on the labour theory of value.

Lassalle was a member of the communist league....though I agree with you that he was a snake in the grass and a class traitor. Why ever you want to espouse his theories is beyond me.

The phrase was made to be the core definition of socialism (like you are doing) by Lenin. I do not care who coined it first. You do however interpret the phrase wrong,

Marketing would be reduced so much it wouldn't be recognisable, because of the decentralisation of the market, and because almost all advertising would be banned as based on rent. Market would be pretty much reduced to "street markets".

I do not care how much you want to reduce markets physically....you seem to be unable to understand that the size of the shop doesn't matter and limiting physical markets in size and thereby area of influence merely creates more shops since all markets need to reach and service the same number of people.

And banning marketing? Interesting notion....so how do these shop owners seel their wares on all those numerous markets you wish to create?

Coop sells it's products. It gets money from that sale. Workers split that earnings among earch other according to a democratic agreement.

Yes. And therefore it is EXACTLY as I explained to you.

The first one is more correct, because they don't take orders from the community or that the community takes the products and gives them wage, they self-manage, and get the product of their labor.

Not when they sell for profit.

I hope you see the difference between someone ordering me to do something as oppossed to saying "I need something" and them me doing that to provide a supply in order to meet that demand; and the difference between someone buying my product as oppossed to someone taking my product. The first- market socialist options are not opressive, whereas the second- collectivist ones (whether state capitalist or communist) are not so voluntary.

I see the difference....but I also see you fail to understand market socialism and therefore this equation is pretty damned useless.

Market socialism is the only possible type of socialism (together with it's subtype arket socialism). A command economy is not socialism, because toilers are exploited, making it capitalism. Collectivist economy (syndicalism, communism) is not socialist because toilers don't have any control over their (products of) labor.

Markets socialism isn't socialism...because it is based on profit...and therefore income inequality.

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2012, 18:40

Then what's the point of production? Isn't it to produce goods and service which people want, which they value?

And what exactly is your point here?

fabian

25th May 2012, 18:46

It belongs to the bank.
I told you it doesn't.

Whih is why you have to give it back-plus the fees.
He doesn't have to give it back. He can spend it, or burn it. He doesn't give the money back to the bank, he pays the bank for the loan.

why can't a worker simply refuse to labor unless he receives compensation for what HE believes to be the value of his work to the firm
"Boss" is somebody who tells what to, and what not to do. Majority doesn't tell you what to do, it tells the group what to do, because it is the majority of that group. If you don't like the group, don't be a part of it. It's like you never heard of consenus, or even there is no consensus, seem like the difference between hierarchy/ despotism, and horizontalism/ democacy escape you, or you're just trolling.

Or maybe they realized they made a mistake and seek rectification.
I'm serious, one more idiotic point out of you, and you can go and make them to someone else.

why can't a worker simply refuse to labor unless he receives compensation for what HE believes to be the value of his work to the firm
Because that would make him a boss. He can go and be self-employed, and charge whatever he wants for his labor.

Why can't he go out to seek a firm who might be willing to compensate him along those lines?
Who says he can't? He's free do seach for a firm of his liking.

Why can't the firm seek what it judges to be valuable workers at ANOTHER firm
It can, but it cannot employ them, but only offer them to join their coop.

and seek to bring him or her aboard at an agreed upon level?

market forbids actions along these lines, isn't it constraining itself?
Market is not something magical with a will of its own. It is simply the sum of people selling and buying something. In socialism it is the sum of people buying and selling only their products and services.

Come to think about it, how is even enforceable?
Laws and people with guns. Same as everything.

fabian

25th May 2012, 18:59

That is not what market socialism is.
And what is market socialism then? And please be contrete as to the differences between market socialism and the system I'm talking about.

Mutualism depends on the labour theory of value.
Arket socialism is a subtype of market socialism.

Why ever you want to espouse his theories is beyond me.
Because I'm a socialist and not a communist, and I think he was right about some things. As for him being a "class traitor", I also don't accept Marxian definition of class.

so how do these shop owners seel their wares on all those numerous markets you wish to create?
The same way the people who do not use advertisment in capitalism sell their products. Also, I wouldn't create any markets, people would create what they need.

Markets socialism isn't socialism...because it is based on profit
Profits in the classical / marxian sense do not exist in market socialism, making it socialism.

and therefore income inequality.
If I work more, I should earn more.

Revolution starts with U

25th May 2012, 19:14

So basically, production for production's sake, because he's an idealist. Whereas as scientifically minded people would value production based on need/demand... because, you know, why are we producing things if not for people to use.

It just always is going to go back to idealism. Production for production, we need a mental revolution, more reason would create a utopia, ban anything unhealthy, etc, etc, etc. Fabian is what happens when idealism runs amok in your brain.

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2012, 19:20

And what is market socialism then? And please be contrete as to the differences between market socialism and the system I'm talking about.

Market socialism is the selling of goods for profit in a market system.

Arket socialism is a subtype of market socialism.

No idea what you are trying to say here

Because I'm a socialist and not a communist, and I think he was right about some things. As for him being a "class traitor", I also don't accept Marxian definition of class.

Lassalle was a social democrat and cooperated with the system and even aided the system.

The same way the people who do not use advertisment in capitalism sell their products. Also, I wouldn't create any markets, people would create what they need.

Interesting. So how would people know where to buy a certain specific product...like...you know....lets say the digital camera with 90x optical zoom and no flash instead of the one with 89x optical zoom with detacheable lenses?

And how would people know that the market next door actually gets the products cheaper because their specific coop democratically decided the costs of the same product they are producing are actually less than the on in your market democrtically decided you should pay for it?

Profits in the classical / marxian sense do not exist in market socialism, making it socialism.

Profit still exists and in the end profit=overvalue.

If I work more, I should earn more.

Why?

fabian

25th May 2012, 19:35

Market socialism is the selling of goods for profit in a market system.
Profits in classical/ marxist sense would not exist, bacause that's socialism. If by profits you mean earning of money by buying and selling, then that's the same what I said.

No idea what you are trying to say here
Mutualism = arket socialism. It is a subtype of market socialism.

assalle was a social democrat and cooperated with the system and even aided the system.
"He was right about some things" means he wasn't right about all.

So how would people know where to buy a certain specific product...like...you know....lets say the digital camera with 90x optical zoom and no flash instead of the one with 89x optical zoom with detacheable lenses?
Maybe they would check a shop selling cameras and similar goods? If the shops in their vicinity don't have the 90x optical zoom, then they check some farther shops. Or just buy the 89x optical zoom one.

And how would people know that the market next door actually gets the products cheaper because their specific coop democratically decided the costs of the same product they are producing are actually less than the on in your market democrtically decided you should pay for it?
Don't blabber.

Profit still exists
Profits in the classical / marxian sense do not exist in market socialism because the employer-employee relationship doesn't exist.

Why?
Because.

PhoenixAsh

25th May 2012, 20:08

Profits in classical/ marxist sense would not exist, bacause that's socialism. If by profits you mean earning of money by buying and selling, then that's the same what I said.

Buying and selling does not equate profit. Profit is overvalue or the difference of producing a product and market sell price.

I do not much care however Marx defined the word. Profit is made and taht means somebody is being exploited. That you argue the workers in a given coop are not exploited based on their work since they democratically value their own work and establish the price of their product (basically having a carte blanche in this and a monopoly on the market since you wish to abolish marketing and therefore eleminiate customer information)....does not mean that there is no exploitation.

Mutualism = arket socialism. It is a subtype of market socialism.

lol

"He was right about some things" means he wasn't right about all.

Nor does it mean he was right about his economic system. But the fact that he later stepped away from any and all forms of revolutionaryb thought in lieu of universal manhood suffrage says enough for me.

Maybe they would check a shop selling cameras and similar goods? If the shops in their vicinity don't have the 90x optical zoom, then they check some farther shops. Or just buy the 89x optical zoom one.

So where do they check? And how far do they have to travel to equate prices? To me it seems you do not understand what marketing actually is.

Don't blabber.

Funny...I was thinking the same exact thing about everythng you are saying here.

Profits in the classical / marxian sense do not exist in market socialism because the employer-employee relationship doesn't exist.

But overvalue does still exist. And I am not talking about the Marxian sense of the term. You introduced that little assumption. I am talking about the exploitation of the customer...ie. other workerss through the pricing system.

Because.[/QUOTE]

Baseball

25th May 2012, 21:08

"Boss" is somebody who tells what to, and what not to do. Majority doesn't tell you what to do, it tells the group what to do, because it is the majority of that group. If you don't like the group, don't be a part of it. It's like you never heard of consenus, or even there is no consensus, seem like the difference between hierarchy/ despotism, and horizontalism/ democacy escape you, or you're just trolling.

OK. Your conception of democracy means that people more or less agree with each other more or less the entire time. That's nice, but it is also completely unrealistic, as well as an inaccurate characterization. But the main point here is that if you don't agree with the opinion of the majority, then you can leave.

Because that would make him a boss. He can go and be self-employed, and charge whatever he wants for his labor.

Wow! A worker in a market socialist community has to work under the conditions as dictated by the majority- or leave. No strikes allowed (but that is in fact consistent with democracy since a "strike" in a socialist community is an assault upon democracy. But I digress). I see e-x-p-o-i-t-a-t-i-on on the horizon here.

Who says he can't? He's free do seach for a firm of his liking.

You said he can't- mo market for labor- only for products and services.

It can, but it cannot employ them, but only offer them to join their coop.

How so? because at that point a market for labor is created- which is forbidden by law as I recall.

and seek to bring him or her aboard at an agreed upon level?

Yes. At a compensation level the worker is requesting.

Laws and people with guns. Same as everything.

Except that you claiming can freely leave their co-op for another co-op in a pursuit for money. At this point a market for labor exists. Except its forbidden by law.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 21:10

And what exactly is your point here?

Sorry- it's a bit of a tangent, off topic, not germane

fabian

25th May 2012, 21:19

Buying and selling does not equate profit. Profit is overvalue or the difference of producing a product and market sell price.
Which would mean that there exists a natural price for something. Which it doesn't. Labor doesn't have a natural value to it, it's worth as much as someone is willing to get it. Same with products.

Okay, someone could say that prices could be agreed upon democratically by the whole society (just like the workers in the coop democratically agree on the prices they sell by and the splitting of the earnings), but that is nowhere near possible. Hierarchical planned economy is not feasible, let alone a horizontalist planned one, it's "economic calculation problem" with the 20 times more administative work to sort out all the voting. It would be like having a referendum every few days.

Profit is made and taht means somebody is being exploited.
Your taking one definition of profits and applying it to something that concerns a totally different definition of that term.
If there's no suprlus value (employer- employee relation) there's no exploatation, and thus no profits in classical / marxian sense. Market socialism fulfills that.
Profits as defined by you is contradictory with both reality (marginal utility) and with advocation of a communist system (defending both the labor theory of value and the notion that remuneration should be abolished because value of labor and thus products cannot be measured is the epitome of contadicting oneself)

To me it seems you do not understand what marketing actually is.
Four Ps, four Cs, I had marketing class in colledge. The majority of things from the third P/C would not be impossible because of the outlawing of rent.

But overvalue does still exist.
There exists no overvalue because there is no natural value. Payed price is the value.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 21:26

Which would mean that there exists a natural price for something. Which it doesn't. Labor doesn't have a natural value to it, it's worth as much as someone is willing to get it. Same with products.

Ok. NOW there is a market for labor.

fabian

25th May 2012, 21:39

But the main point here is that if you don't agree with the opinion of the majority, then you can leave.
I you don't like a group don't join in the first place.

No strikes allowed
Strikers are workers in capitalists firm who ofter take the firm and form a coop. Against who are they gonna strike then, against a system they formed themselves? If you can't agree with someone, don't cooperate with him, it's simple.

It's ironic you're attacking me for my support of free association, when in a democratical collectivist system (communism) a person in the minority doesn't have the freedom to leave and do what they want, even thou it wouldn't harm or exploit anyone.

You said he can't- mo market for labor- only for products and services.
Nobody could employ him, but he could always join a coop (if that coop wants him), or start a coop with someone, or work on his own.

How so? because at that point a market for labor is created
Me and you working togheter = neither of us selling their labor. When you join a coop, you're not an employee of the coop, but a member. It's called free assossiation- equal people cooperating without anyone being exploited.

At a compensation level the worker is requesting.
There could be no such thing. Income could only be from labor. This compensation would be like buying someone, or employing him, or bribeing him, all of which is illegitimate (unearned income) and would be banned in (market) socialism.

Except that you claiming can freely leave their co-op for another co-op in a pursuit for money
Yes. And laws would uphold that freedom. Take notice, that they could change coops in a pursuit for money (or anything else), but not for money.

At this point a market for labor exists.
It doesn't. Laborers constitute the market, but labor is not marketed.

Except its forbidden by law.
Yes.

Ok. NOW there is a market for labor.
Now there is, since we live in capitalism, in (market) socialism there wouldn't be. I was just saying that labor and products do not have an exact (nor aproximate) natural value.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 21:48

Strikers are workers in capitalists firm who ofter take the firm and form a coop. Against who are they gonna strike then, against a system they formed themselves?

Yep. Its the justification the Communists gave for banning strikes.

It's ironic you're attacking me for my support of free association, when in a democratical collectivist system (communism) a person in the minority doesn't have the freedom to leave and do what they want, even thou it's not harming or exploiting anyone.

I am not "attacking" you for supporting free association, I am questioning whether it is, and can be, as free as you claim it to.

There could be no such thing. Income could only be from labor. This compensation would be like buying someone, or employing him, or bribeing him, all of which is illegitimate (unearned income) and would be banned in (market) socialism.

Yeah- I understand it would be banned. Which means the co-op cannot go out and seek labor who may be better workers. And workers cannot go out and seek another co-op for better income- they would have to use euphenisms and lot of semantics to actually do this- since such behavior by the worker is illegal.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 21:52

Now there is, since we live in capitalism, in (market) socialism there wouldn't be. I was just saying that labor and products do not have an exact (nor aproximate) natural value.

Missed this one-- Yes there is no "natural" value for labor or products in a capitalist system. But there such a value for labor in a "market socialist" community.

fabian

25th May 2012, 22:07

Yep. Its the justification the Communists gave for banning strikes.
A false one, because they were not democratically, but hierarchically organized.

Market socialism would not need to ban striking because in a democratical society where one can leave a coop if in disagreement with other workers in it and easily start a new coop or work on his own, striking would become pointless.

I am not "attacking" you for supporting free association, I am questioning whether it is, and can be, as free as you claim it to.
Why shouldn't it be?

Which means the co-op cannot go out and seek labor who may be better workers.
They could seek and invite, buy not pay and buy.

And workers cannot go out and seek another co-op for better income- they would have to use euphenisms and lot of semantics to actually do this
I don't see why. I've never worked in a coop, but year ago I've worked in a shop where the two owners worked alongside us and earn almost the same as we did, just a little more, a really chilled atmosphere, I remember, when I learned about coops, that shoped popped up in my mind as a way people in a coop should behave.. Even though it wasn't a coop, and the guys were owners, I remember they were always down to earth and talked to everyone as equals- a guy told them that he'll work a few more weeks, he thinks he found a better job, and they were like- cool, that's for letting us know in advance so we can find someone else, and if that doesn't work out, ring us up if there's an opening, you can always come back.

So when people are cool with each other, I don't see what would be the problem with someone leaving, no matter why they want to, and if they're not cool with each other, they'll naturally split up and cooperate with someone they agree with.

That's the point of free association, and that would be upheld by the law, not illegal.

But there such a value for labor in a "market socialist" community.
There's no natural value anywhere. Payed price is the value.

Baseball

25th May 2012, 22:29

[QUOTE=fabian;2453237]A false one, because they were not democratically, but hierarchically organized.

Market socialism would not need to ban striking because in a democratical society where one can leave a coop if in disagreement with other workers in it and easily start a new coop or work on his own, striking would become pointless.

It might be easy to start a co-op, but it won't be easy to make it thrive. Such considerations would be made prior to.

They could seek and invite, buy not pay and buy.

Which means they are perpetually stuck.

I don't see why. I've never worked in a coop, but year ago I've worked in a shop where the two owners worked alongside us and earn almost the same as we did, just a little more, a really chilled atmosphere, I remember, when I learned about coops, that shoped popped up in my mind as a way people in a coop should behave.. Even though it wasn't a coop, and the guys were owners, I remember they were always down to earth and talked to everyone as equals- a guy told them that he'll work a few more weeks, he thinks he found a better job, and they were like- cool, that's for letting us know in advance so we can find someone else, and if that doesn't work out, ring us up if there's an opening, you can always come back.

Yeah- that guy left that job because he found something better elsewhere. Doesn't sound like a work environment issue- sounds like a money issue; pay. And that's fine and dandy in a capitalist market. He is leaving because his value as a worker is greater elsewhere.

But in our socialist market- not so fine and dandy. He is marketing himself- he is a good worker- he is going where his work has greater value. Which as you have said, is not legal. People with guns will supposedly enforce that law.

Now of course he would leave, and it would be called something else. And there is nothing much the market socialist community can do about it. But it would be a labor market, and an infringement not just on the freedom of people, but also the coherent operation of the system as a whole.

fabian

25th May 2012, 22:50

Which means they are perpetually stuck.
People would never want to leave a coop except if they're payed for it? I don't think so.

It might be easy to start a co-op, but it won't be easy to make it thrive.
It would, because it would be a society of equals, and everyone could take a starting loan.

And that's fine and dandy in a capitalist market. He is leaving because his value as a worker is greater elsewhere.
And in a socialist market he would leave if he thought that the other coop makes more money.

But in our socialist market- not so fine and dandy. He is marketing himself- he is a good worker- he is going where his work has greater value
Nocoops s, he goes where he thinks the ells more products for more money per worker. He's not marketing himself, he seeks a coops where he thinks he would earn more.

Anyways, most people would not change coops for monetary reasons. Due to the competition/ market of equals (which would make prices near uniformed) and all businesses being cooperatives (they can make more money by having more people, but more people means splitting the money on more parts) people doing similar amount of work (for example two both people doing a blue collar job for 40h a week) would receive similar incomes (making wealth inequality minimal and just), so most people would change jobs because of the type of the job, location of job position, working conditions and enviorment, people in the coop, being bored with doing that job, or whatever, but money would not be the primary reason.

And there is nothing much the market socialist community can do about it
Nor it should. Everyone should be free to associate or not. But bribery would be faught against, as it would be banned toghether with employing someone and all other unearned incomes.

Baseball

26th May 2012, 01:21

People would never want to leave a coop except if they're payed for it? I don't think so.

its a two way street- the co-op needing more labor (or maybe less labor- how is that handled, btw?), and the worker needing... whatever he or she needs.

It would, because it would be a society of equals, and everyone could take a starting loan.

I guess we are back to square one, or square two...
Why would the banking co-op automatically give people loans? The flower co-op isn't going to automatically give the bank flowers.

And in a socialist market he would leave if he thought that the other coop makes more money.

And perhaps his labor can contribute to that. And perhaps that co-op knows this.
Its called a market. And labor is right in the middle of it. Except you banned it. Leaving employment in one co-op for another is simply not the pain free easy exercise you imagine it to be.

Nocoops s, he goes where he thinks the ells more products for more money per worker. He's not marketing himself, he seeks a coops where he thinks he would earn more.

He is selling his labor in exchange for higher revenue. The co-op is taking him because they think his labor would generate more revenue for themselves. Deny it all you want, but its called a market, a labor market.

Anyways, most people would not change coops for monetary reasons. Due to the competition/ market of equals (which would make prices near uniformed) and all businesses being cooperatives (they can make more money by having more people, but more people means splitting the money on more parts) people doing similar amount of work (for example two both people doing a blue collar job for 40h a week) would receive similar incomes (making wealth inequality minimal and just), so most people would change jobs because of the type of the job, location of job position, working conditions and enviorment, people in the coop, being bored with doing that job, or whatever, but money would not be the primary reason.

Those would be some of the stated reasons, yes, because to leave a co-op for personal financial reasons would be illegal, as it would for the co-op hiring a worker for financial reasons (and they would have tougher justifications.

DinodudeEpic

26th May 2012, 03:50

Now, I do not agree with Fabian's market system at all.

Firstly, workers should be able to leave and join as they will.

The point of market socialism is not to be utopia, but rather it is to be better then the previous system that is capitalism. (While it's still implementable.) Communism can easily become market socialism or capitalism, as Communism either allows for communes to just adopt a market within their commune (Workers control.), or it needs a central entity to set rules against money and markets.

Really, market socialism is really just pragmatic socialism. I would love for there to be a communist system, but it is apparent that it is unenforceable with a massive and powerful state. Of course, you can always just campaign for communism in market socialism.

Now, I do support an economic bill of rights that limits cooperatives from oppressing their workers collectively and bans government/corporate ownership of economic entities

About my self-label of being a 'revolutionary liberal', I meant that as in I'm a radical liberal who supports market socialist economic policies and direct democracy to be implemented through a revolution by the workers. The term was used in a different context from the usual 'Jacobin' context.

Also, I have not heard how communes in communism cannot just lock workers outside of said commune from accessing their food. (After all, you don't want central planning.)

Finally, how in the world are we going to accurately know 'need and demand'. One person's need is a X-Box 360 complete with a HDTV, while another person's need is basic food and shelter. If we account for both of their "needs", there would be inequality. Not to mention the sudden lack of resources to supply the world's population due to the lack of trade to distribute said resources.

Our market system is flawed, but this is the best that we can achieve. It's better to just leap 2 feet and succeed than to try to leap 20 feet but then crash down to the ground.

Basically, I'm saying that we should honestly not be idealist and actually look at the current situation. Then, we make a system that works in this situation. We live in a society that relies on trade (Like it or not), thus we need trade in our revolutionary system to make sure that we don't fail in implementing it.

Of course, Fabian's saying that we don't need unions is also terrible. Unions are meant to be voices of workers in any system. We should instead make sure that their democratic in structure instead of bureaucratic. (Not through the state's will of course.)

Please note, I do not support wage labor.

Baseball

26th May 2012, 17:24

Finally, how in the world are we going to accurately know 'need and demand'. One person's need is a X-Box 360 complete with a HDTV, while another person's need is basic food and shelter. If we account for both of their "needs", there would be inequality. Not to mention the sudden lack of resources to supply the world's population due to the lack of trade to distribute said resources.

I do not understand this. Are you suggesting that market socialist community cannot both provide one person with a house and another person a flat screen TV. Or are you suggesting an attempt to provide both to two different people will result in inequality, thus (presumably) should not be attempted?

Of course, Fabian's saying that we don't need unions is also terrible. Unions are meant to be voices of workers in any system.

From a purely socialist angle, unions are superfluous and serve no real function, unlike in capitalism. Since the workers own the means of production, or at perhaps just the value of their output already, there is not much for the unions to do, except perhaps organize the company Christmas party and bowlng leagues. Fabian view of the role of the unions is honest.

DinodudeEpic

19th June 2012, 17:22

I do not understand this. Are you suggesting that market socialist community cannot both provide one person with a house and another person a flat screen TV. Or are you suggesting an attempt to provide both to two different people will result in inequality, thus (presumably) should not be attempted?

From a purely socialist angle, unions are superfluous and serve no real function, unlike in capitalism. Since the workers own the means of production, or at perhaps just the value of their output already, there is not much for the unions to do, except perhaps organize the company Christmas party and bowlng leagues. Fabian view of the role of the unions is honest.

I was talking about Communism's lack of definition of 'need'. And, I'm saying that we should allow for an amount of inequality as long as it doesn't end up hurting the workers. Basically, wealth is not really a problem. It is the fact that people are using wealth to rule over others that is the problem.

Unions could serve to protect a minority of workers from having a 'Tyranny of the Majority'. Along with a constitution of course. Even then, why not let the workers form unions? They have the right to have free associations to express their ideas.