Can markets and socialism coexist? [Archive]

Delenda Carthago

30th July 2013, 11:35

No.No.No.No.

No.No.

No.

If USSR and People's Republics tought us anything on the construction of socialism, is exactly this. IT CANNOT BE COMBINED.

The development of the communist mode of production in its first stage, socialism, is a process through which the distribution of the social product in monetary form becomes abolished. Communist production – even in its immature stage – is directly social production: the division of labour does not take place for exchange, it is not effected through the market, and the products of labour that are individually consumed are not commodities.
The division of labour in the socialized means of production is based on the plan that organizes production and determines its proportions, with the aim of satisfying the expanded social needs, and the distribution of products (use values). In other words, it is a centrally planned division of social labour and directly integrates - not via the market - individual labour, as part of the total social labour. Central Planning distributes the total societal working time, so that the different functions of labour are in correct proportions in order to satisfy different social needs.

Central Planning expresses the conscious mapping of the objective proportions of production and distribution, as well as the effort for the all-round development of the productive forces. It is for this reason that it should not be understood as a techno-economic instrument, but as a communist relation of production and distribution that links workers to the means of production, to socialist bodies. It includes a consciously planned choice of motives and goals for production, and it aims at the extended satisfaction of social needs (basic economic law of the communist mode of production). The guiding laws of Central Planning cannot be identified with the plan existing at any specific moment, which should reflect in a scientific way these objective proportions.

Among the problems of Central Planning is included the complex issue of the determination of ‘social needs’, especially under international conditions, where capitalism shapes a rather warped conception of what social needs really are. Social needs are determined based on the level of development of the productive forces that have been achieved in the given historical period. These needs must be understood in their historical context, changing in relationship to the development of the productive forces. Likewise, the way in which the basic law of communism is realized must develop, with the goal of overcoming the inadequacies and differentiations that exist in the coverage of social needs.

7. A characteristic of the first stage of communist relations is the distribution of one part of the products “according to labour”. A theoretical and political debate has arisen regarding the “measure” of labour. The distribution of part of socialist production “according to labour” (which in terms of form resembles commodity exchange [5]) is a vestige of capitalism. The new mode of production has not managed to discard it yet, because it has not developed all of the necessary human productive power and all the means of production in the necessary dimensions, through the broad use of new technology. Labour productivity does not yet allow a decisively large reduction of labour time, the abolition of heavy and one-sided labour, so that the social need for compulsory labour can be abolished.

The planned distribution of labour power and of the means of production entails the planned distribution of the social product. The distribution of the social product cannot be effected through the market, based on the laws and categories of commodity exchange. According to Marx, the mode of distribution will change when the particular mode of the social productive organism and the corresponding historical level of development of the productive forces change [6] (e.g. these were at a certain level in the USSR in the 1930s, yet at a different level in the USSR in the 1950s and 1960s).

Marxism clearly defines labour time as the measure of the individual participation of the producer to common labour. Consequently, the labour time of the producer is also defined as a measure of the share he deserves from the product that is destined for individual consumption and that is distributed based on labour. [7] Another part (education, health, medicines, heating, etc.) is already distributed based on needs. “Labour time” [8] under socialism is not the “socially necessary labour time” that constitutes the measure of value for the exchange of commodities in commodity production. “Labour time” is the measure of the individual contribution to social labour for the production of the total product. It is noted characteristically in “Capital”: “In socialized production money capital gets out of the picture. Society distributes labour power and the means of production to different branches of production. The producers would, if you so wish, receive paper vouchers with which they can take from the stock of consumption products of the society an amount analogous to the time they worked. These vouchers are not money. They do not circulate.” [9]

Access to that part of the social product that is distributed “according to labour” is determined by the individual labour contribution of each person in the totality of social labour, without distinguishing between complex and simple, manual labour or otherwise. The measure of individual contribution is the labour time, which the plan determines based on the total needs of social production; the material conditions of the production process in which “individual” labour is included; the special needs of social production for the concentration of labour force in certain areas, branches, etc.; special social needs, such as motherhood, individuals with special needs, etc.; the personal stance of each individual vis-a-vis the organization and the execution of the productive process. In other words, labour time must be linked to goals, such as the conservation of materials, the implementation of more productive technologies, a more rational organization of labour, workers’ control of administration-management.

The planned development of the productive forces in the communist mode of production should increasingly free up more time from work, which should then be used to raise the educational-cultural level of working people; to allow for workers’ participation in the carrying out of their duties regarding workers’ power and administration of production, etc. The all-round development of man as the productive force in the building of the new type of society and of communist relations (including the communist attitude towards directly social labour) is a two-way relationship. Depending on the historical phase, either one or the other side will take precedence.

The development of Central Planning and the extension of social ownership in all areas make money gradually superfluous, removing its content as the form of value.

8. The product of individual and cooperative production, the greater part of which is derived from agriculture, is exchanged with the socialist product by means of commodity-money relations. Cooperative production is subordinated to some extent to Central Planning, which determines the part of the production that is allocated to the state and sets the state prices, as well as the maximum prices for that part of production that is allocated through the cooperative market.

The direction by which to resolve the differences between town and country, between industrial and agricultural production, consists of: the merging of the peasant-producers in the joint use of large tracts of land for the production of social product with the use of modern mechanization and other means of scientific-technological progress, provided by the socialist state and belonging to it and for the enhancement of labour productivity; the creation of a strong infrastructure for the preservation of the product from unforeseen weather hazards; the subjection of the directly social labour for the production of agricultural raw materials and their industrial processing to unified socialist organizations. This direction serves to transform the entire agricultural production into a part of the directly social production.

http://inter.kke.gr/News/2009news/18congres-resolution-2nd.html

Ceallach_the_Witch

30th July 2013, 11:38

E: I made this post assuming that by "market" OP was talking about some kind of distribution centre aka a shop or supermarket or something, rather than the market economy in general.

I suppose something similar might exist, but I would hesitate to call it a market (which to me implies the exchrange of currency or goods.) To me, one of the key features of socialism (and one of the features that most attracted me to it in the first place) is that need will essentially have been abolished, that we will have free access to produce and so on. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need and all that. In my eyes, what we concieve of as markets are not compatible with that.

However, I can easily imagine centres of distribution - obviously it's a sensible idea to have stuff you need in one place - or at least in several places close to each other. Obviously I don't know what a socialist "market" would be like, but I imagine that there will be places for people to collect food and goods from.

I do have a few ideas about what it might be like, although obviously these are basically just fancies I like to entertain. I do like to imagine something similar to the covered arcades and markets we have now, where you can still find everything you want (a benefit of the supermarket) but still talk to people passionate and knowledgable about what they have in store. Personable and convenient, i suppose. Then again, there's also the possibility of automated distribution centres and so on.

Prof. Oblivion

30th July 2013, 14:35

Progress to what ends?

I never said the strategy didn't develop wealth in China---it has clearly developed enormous wealth. My point is that productive relations seem to have changed, whereas the original intent was just for organizational relations to change. Cadres have changed as well, which minimizes the importance of the fact that the CPC still controls the country.

There's something else worth noting. Before Deng, China's command economy was growing at a rate of 10% per year---interrupted severely by the Tangshan Earthquake in 1976, which skews pre-Deng averages down and therefore causes people to be misled about the effect of markets in China.

During and after Deng? Same growth rate. 10%.

What? This isn't true at all.

Thirsty Crow

30th July 2013, 14:59

Deng Xiaoping first made this distinction back in the 1980s---well, I don't know if he was the first, but he was the first to apply it on a wide scale. That is, that markets and socialism aren't mutually exclusive because the former is a mode of organization (along with planning) and the latter is a mode of production (along with capitalism).I'd be interested in an elaboration of this distinction between the mode of organization and the mode of production.

Though, to be frank, it seems like nothing more than ideological hot air, mystifying the real social relations.
Which are nothing other than those of wage labour and capital, with its antagonisms, if production takes place on the basis of the commodity, and consequently, market exchange.

And of course that physical centers of distribution are something entirely different from the social distribution of the product of labour through market exchange, characteristic of capitalist relations of production.

Fakeblock

30th July 2013, 15:17

Marxists have always recognised that private property and commodity production is antithetical to the interests of the proletariat. The only way workers can organise production in accordance with their interests is to replace these with communal ownership and production for need.

IMO there is a danger in seeing the market as just a means of distribution, since it's also a means of exploitation in its own right. It is through the market that owners of property feed off the desperation of the propertyless. Wage-labour is a natural consequence of the market.

And wouldn't there have to be institutions to protect the private property of the self-managing workers (assuming this is how workers would organise under "market-socialism") and prevent the impoverishment of failing enterprises?

Zutroy

30th July 2013, 17:55

What? This isn't true at all.
Yes it is.

The real annual growth rates for the People's Republic of China between 1963 (the first year of growth after the "Great Leap Forward") and 1977 (the last year Hua Guofeng was Paramount Leader) are as follows;

1963 ... 10.2%
1964 ... 18.3%
1965 ... 17.0%
1966 ... 10.7%
1967 ... -5.7%
1968 ... -4.1%
1969 ... 16.9%
1970 ... 19.4%
1971 ... 7.0%
1972 ... 3.8%
1973 ... 7.9%
1974 ... 2.3%
1975 ... 8.7%
1976 ... -1.6%
1977 ... 7.6%

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, China Statistical Yearbooks; National Bureau of Statistics plan report; National Bureau of Statistics communiqués.

The annual average for all 14 years rounds out to 8.5%. When 1976 is disregarded (Tangshan Earthquake), the average for 13 years goes up to about 9.3%. When 1967-1968 are disregarded (the economic nadir of the Cultural Revolution), the average for 11 years goes up to 11.8%.

Zutroy

30th July 2013, 18:13

I really don't see how they were applied with sincerity. If they were, then of course your argument is completely valid and I am totally off track here, but what makes you so sure that they were? I think that is our main differing point. I don't believe that the markets were established with the interests of the workers in mind-- can you support that they were in fact socialist at the beginning?

I don't see why markets can't coexist with socialism; in such an economy, they appear to be a good way to at least get a glance at what people are interested in. Sure there are alternatives, each with their own merit. I'm no expert, so I'll leave the rest to those who know what they are talking about.

But if markets do detract from socialism in some way, what way is this? And why does it happen? And can someone suggest alternatives?
Fakeblock's post covers it aptly. Markets inevitably require private property, and that leads to private property relations which will unavoidably corrode socialism. Since discarding old property relations is paramount to constructing socialism, the more important question is whether markets can be used in a way that doesn't corrupt property relations. That, to me, makes more sense than giving market socialism the benefit of the doubt.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th July 2013, 19:33

Yes it is.

The real annual growth rates for the People's Republic of China between 1963 (the first year of growth after the "Great Leap Forward") and 1977 (the last year Hua Guofeng was Paramount Leader) are as follows;

1963 ... 10.2%
1964 ... 18.3%
1965 ... 17.0%
1966 ... 10.7%
1967 ... -5.7%
1968 ... -4.1%
1969 ... 16.9%
1970 ... 19.4%
1971 ... 7.0%
1972 ... 3.8%
1973 ... 7.9%
1974 ... 2.3%
1975 ... 8.7%
1976 ... -1.6%
1977 ... 7.6%

Source: National Bureau of Statistics, China Statistical Yearbooks; National Bureau of Statistics plan report; National Bureau of Statistics communiqués.

The annual average for all 14 years rounds out to 8.5%. When 1976 is disregarded (Tangshan Earthquake), the average for 13 years goes up to about 9.3%. When 1967-1968 are disregarded (the economic nadir of the Cultural Revolution), the average for 11 years goes up to 11.8%.

Sigh. It is meaningless to use GDP growth percentages in this way:

1) What are you comparing it to? What were the growth rates of other developing and developed nations in the period?

2) You can't just 'average' out growth rates, it doesn't work like that. The GDP figure itself is just a headline, but it doesn't just encapsulate a single unit, it encapsulates an entire economy, different measurements, baskets of good, reporting methods etc., which brings us on to the third point;

3) You really need to provide a source for those growth rates, so that we can verify how accurate and reliable they are. Different countries use different growth accounting methods, which can hugely affect the growth rate over the course of a year, i.e. the overall GDP per annum growth rate;

4) You cannot just dis-regard years of negative growth. It is unlikely that an earthquake would knock anything like 1.6 percentage points off an entire economy and, if it did, that would tell us a lot about the underlying infrastructure of the economy, and undermine the high growth figures of other years.

Seriously, i've studied a lot of Economics. You cannot just point to a single unit of measurement as evidence of a healthy economy.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

30th July 2013, 19:37

By the way, for the interests of the thread in general:

A market is generally seen as existing when some, most or all of the following exist:

a) Voluntary exchange;
b) Two way exchange;
c) Anonymity between buyers and sellers;
d) Homogeneity of products (i.e. no brands or 'luxury' lines);
e) Competition on price only;
f) Protection of private property in the law

and so on. All markets facilitate distribution, but not all distribution necessitates the existence of a market. Thus, Socialism does not need markets, even when exchange is made using currency and is between a production centre and a consuming individual. In fact, using the above criteria for a market, i'd argue that where a market exists, it undermines the very existence of Socialism. The two cannot co-exist.

Zutroy

30th July 2013, 19:59

1) The growth rates during and after the Deng era. I'm assuming they're pretty well known, and I'm assuming it's a foregone conclusion that I'm comparing the Chinese command economy to Chinese "market socialism" as this is the entire point of my postingd.

2) You can if conditions were, by and large, the same during the relevant periods. It's not perfect, and it obviously leaves a lot of factors out of consideration, but it gives a decent sense of how the Chinese command economy operated during normal periods.

3) The source is below the statistics in italics. I'm not particularly interested in splitting hairs about the quality of Chinese statistics, as they don't have to be precise to the last jot and tittle to back up the general point I'm making. Since I'm comparing them to current Chinese statistics---which analysts criticize for both undercounting and overcounting Chinese growth---let's assume for argument's sake that the pre-Deng statistics exhibit roughly the same level of inaccuracy as current statistics.

4) I can if they have nothing to do with the conditions I'm comparing. Mao's domestic caprices during the late 1960s have little to do with the basic character of the Chinese command economy, and neither does the Tangshan Earthquake.

It's true that the excessive damage caused may be indicative of a shaky economic foundation, but that doesn't quite factor into the comparison I was making. My point was a comparison between growth rates, not extent of development. The latter is a function if how much time has passed, so the command economy period cannot be fairly compared to the "market socialism" period because the latter has had three more decades to develop.

Further, absolute quality of the growth was never a point of contention, as I was comparing the pre-Deng era to the Deng/post-Deng era, and not what a good economy looks like in general. You can plausibly argue that China's economy has been continuously miserable since the beginning of the Qing Dynasty, and it still wouldn't alter my argument.

cyu

30th July 2013, 20:11

I would thus expect varying experiments with varying combinations of markets and planning would characterize the history of socialism once it was established broadly.

Regardless of who says this, I would expect one (or a combination of the following):

1. They fear the growing popularity of leftist ideas, and are attempting to co-opt it before it "gets out of hand"
2. They fear dogmatic post-revolution rhetoric that attempts to apply some cookie-cutter economic recipe to every situation, ultimately leading to disaster
3. They fear attacks from right-wingers unless the right is given a bone they can chew on, to at least partly pacify them

Anyway, any economy needs some way to decide what needs to be produced and where. Do we need more food in Alaska? How much effort should be put into earthquake resilience in Japan?

I would say the important thing about the economic system is who holds this economic decision-making power. It should be expected that the more this power is concentrated in fewer hands, the more a disaster it is for everyone else. Examples might be when the king or emperor decides to build himself a massive palace or tomb, while very little economic resources are allocated to producing bread for the peasants. Another might be when capitalists use their spending power to build massive mansions, fund the election campaigns of their toadies, and make sure Sotheby's looks posh enough to attract the right clientele, while very little economic resources are allocated to providing health care for the general population.

Sure the market is one way to allocate economic resources. But it can work only in the same way that voting works. You can't expect voting to get you any decent politicians if some voters get 5000 votes, while others only get 1 vote. In the same way, you can't expect a market to get you any decent economic allocation if some spend $1 million, while others can only spend $20.

Sotionov

30th July 2013, 20:55

OT

Socialism = non-existence of exploitation (and oppression). So yes.

Popular Front of Judea

30th July 2013, 21:34

So you level a confiscatory tax on the millionaire and provide a guaranteed basic income to the holder of $20.

Have a little flexibility people. The choice isn't between the fictional "free market" and the Soviet Gosplan -- no matter what libertarians and Stalinists may want you to believe.

Sure the market is one way to allocate economic resources. But it can work only in the same way that voting works. You can't expect voting to get you any decent politicians if some voters get 5000 votes, while others only get 1 vote. In the same way, you can't expect a market to get you any decent economic allocation if some spend $1 million, while others can only spend $20.

Fakeblock

30th July 2013, 21:47

There are of course also various degrees of centralised/decentralised, non-monetary planning not akin to the Gosplan.

It's true that there are multiple distribution systems that can be used in a socialist economy. The market just isn't one of them.

Sotionov

30th July 2013, 22:04

There are of course also various degrees of centralised/decentralised, non-monetary planning not akin to the Gosplan.
No there are not. There are different forms of decentralised planning and various forms and degrees of centralised planning. There cannot be various degrees between centralised and decentralised planning, because there cannot be various degrees between hierarchy and non-hierarchy.

It's true that there are multiple distribution systems that can be used in a socialist economy. The market just isn't one of them. Why?

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

30th July 2013, 22:05

OT

Socialism = non-existence of exploitation (and oppression). So yes.

The continued existence of the market ensures the permeation of economic inequalities.

Ergo, no.

Sotionov

30th July 2013, 22:07

he continued existence of the market ensures the permeation of economic inequalities.
One- that assumption need proving, two- socialism isn't about economic inequalities, but about exploitation ("surplus value" and other forms of unearned income) and oppression.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

30th July 2013, 22:08

One- that assumption need proving, two- socialism isn't about economic inequalities, but about exploitation ("surplus value" and other forms of unearned income) and oppression.

You'd say that, you're fucking mutie scum. I don't give two shits about your Proudhounian interpretation of socialism. Piss off.

Sotionov

30th July 2013, 22:12

You'd say that, you're fucking mutie scum.One, I am communist. Two, mutualists aren't scum.

I don't give two shits about your Proudhounian interpretation of socialism.Being that socialism is lack of exploitation and oppression, translating into working people controlling production and politics- Proudhonism is a form or socialism. Along with market-socialism, Bakuninism and Kropotkinism. Yes, I mentioned market socialism, being that Proudhon wasn't a market socialist, there are major differences between anarcho-individualism and anarcho-mutualism, which you would know it you got a little educated about socialism before insulting around.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

30th July 2013, 22:18

One, I am communist. Two, mutualists aren't scum.

Maybe some aren't. You are. You said unproductive people are "parasites". You can go fuck yourself.

Being that socialism is lack of exploitation and oppression, translating into working people controlling production and politics- Proudhonism is a form or socialism. Along with market-socialism, Bakuninism and Kropotkinism. Yes, I mentioned market socialism, being that Proudhon wasn't a market socialist, there are major differences between anarcho-individualism and anarcho-mutualism, which you would know it you a little about socialism.

Blather, blather, slither slather. The continued existence of markets and currency are contrary to a lack of oppression and exploitation, if it were not for the various hoops through which your bloated corpse jump, you would see the inconsistency. That you do not, is only proof of either will-full blindness or a rotten nature - given the "parasites" comment, the latter is most likely. I repeat: go fuck yourself.

Sotionov

30th July 2013, 22:30

You said unproductive people are "parasites".
I said that people who choose to live off other people's labor- are parasites. Which isn't much connected with the the topic of this thread.

The continued existence of markets and currency are contrary to a lack of oppression and exploitation
No, it is not. If you have any arguments to back this assertion, please share.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you were to stop with the insults.

Polaris

30th July 2013, 22:32

My lack of knowledge on this subject troubled me, so I went ahead and researched a bit. Here's some of what I've learned and concluded so far, if anyone is interested.

What is a socialist market economy? An economy where he means of production are publicly owned, and resource allocation is based on markets. Markets are a system of distributing goods that is based on supply and demand. To express the supply and demand of a good in a market economy, prices are used-- that is, money. Who determines what the price of something would be? A board of people elected to the job (Central Planning Committee) who would either calculate an appropriate price based on supply and demand or through trial-and-error, à la Oskar Lange. Market socialist theory says that the means of production can be owned by the public while products are exchanged through individuals; this means that many of the critiques in Das Kapital still apply, and that private property would certainly still exist (even though there would be laws to protect against this.). I’m not going to go through the entire book for you, but one example of how market socialism contradicts traditional theory:

The simplest form of the circulation of commodities is C-M-C, the transformation of commodities into money, and the change of the money back again into commodities; or selling in order to buy. But alongside of this form we find another specifically different form: M-C-M, the transformation of money into commodities, and the change of commodities back again into money; or buying in order to sell. Money that circulates in the latter manner is thereby transformed into, becomes capital, and is already potentially capital.
Now let us examine the circuit M-C-M a little closer. It consists, like the other, of two antithetical phases. In the first phase, M-C, or the purchase, the money is changed into a commodity. In the second phase, C-M, or the sale, the commodity is changed back again into money. The combination of these two phases constitutes the single movement whereby money is exchanged for a commodity, and the same commodity is again exchanged for money; whereby a commodity is bought in order to be sold, or, neglecting the distinction in form between buying and selling, whereby a commodity is bought with money, and then money is bought with a commodity. The result, in which the phases of the process vanish, is the exchange of money for money, M-M. If I purchase 2,000 lbs. of cotton for £100, and resell the 2,000 lbs. of cotton for £110, I have, in fact, exchanged £100 for £110, money for money.So the use of money in general is inherently contradictory to marxist socialism; individuals can make a profit without actually contributing any labor and accumulate capital. This does't seem to be a problem for market socialists, who really are a very mangled form of socialists indeed; its advocates disregard the LToV in favor of neoclassical economics. The only way you could possibly defend market socialism of being socialist is through *edit*, and also democratically run workplaces.

But a market socialist also might tell you that the above quote isn't applicable because the price of a commodity would always be consistent—yet that disregards the instability that markets unconditionally have. The truth is that as long as money and price are used, markets cannot be compatible with socialism as they allow for accumulation of capital, disregard LToV, and are generally contrary to goals of socialism.

Market socialism was developed in the hopes of resolving the issue of calculating the value of goods and thus what would appropriate distribution of resources in socialism. It is one of many attempts to do this, and not a very good one (if it can even be considered socialist at all), for the reasons stated above and more. Empirically speaking, it hasn't turned out too well; there’s China’s “market socialism,” but more relevant seems to be the SFRY’s; or at least, they claimed to be a market socialist economy. Whether that was accurate, I am not sure.

*Edit*: Oops, reread my post and just realized what Sotionov was probably meant-- or at least, their response made me realize an error in my post. To be fair, I never said that socialism is public ownership anywhere in my post so I have no idea where you got that from. I did say that 'market socialism' supports public ownership of the means of production, which according to various sources is true; as you can see, market socialism is not socialist as far as that condition goes.
Thank you for the correction, even if I am not completely sure the part that I edited was what you were referring to.

Sotionov

30th July 2013, 22:34

You haven't researched enough, being that socialism doesn't equate to public ownership of the means of production, but workers' control of production.

Fakeblock

30th July 2013, 22:36

No there are not. There are different forms of decentralised planning and various forms and degrees of centralised planning. There cannot be various degrees between centralised and decentralised planning, because there cannot be various degrees between hierarchy and non-hierarchy.

Why?

1) I don't really understand this first part tbh. Do you mean that there is only a choice between complete decentralisation and various degrees of centralisation? This might be true, but that doesn't undermine my point that there are several non-market, non-Soviet style ways of organising a socialist economy.

2) You seem to be operating with a different definition of socialism than I am, so perhaps all this is just semantic. Anyway, to me socialist society is classless and stateless. Neither things are compatible with private property and the market is not compatible with any other form of property.

The existence of private property requires a state to uphold the property relations to prevent theft, the armed population attempting to enrich themselves and so on. In addition, in order for private property to exist some people must be without it. Even in the society where profit is divided among employees there are still bound to be someone who doesn't work for profit, e.g. hospital workers or teachers (hopefully).

But I don't really know the details of how you think such a market-socialist society would function, so maybe I'm just talking shit.

Popular Front of Judea

30th July 2013, 22:40

By those criteria where do markets exist in our present day capitalist economy -- outside of the textbooks?

By the way, for the interests of the thread in general:

A market is generally seen as existing when some, most or all of the following exist:

a) Voluntary exchange;
b) Two way exchange;
c) Anonymity between buyers and sellers;
d) Homogeneity of products (i.e. no brands or 'luxury' lines);
e) Competition on price only;
f) Protection of private property in the law

Popular Front of Judea

30th July 2013, 23:01

Wouldn't Lenin's New Economic Policy (NEP) qualify as a form of "market socialism"?

Market socialism was developed in the hopes of resolving the issue of calculating the value of goods and thus what would appropriate distribution of resources in socialism. It is one of many attempts to do this, and not a very good one (if it can even be considered socialist at all), for the reasons stated above and more. Empirically speaking, it hasn't turned out too well; there’s China’s “market socialism,” but more relevant seems to be the SFRY’s; or at least, they claimed to be a market socialist economy. Whether that was accurate, I am not sure.

ckaihatsu

30th July 2013, 23:58

I don't see why markets can't coexist with socialism; in such an economy, they appear to be a good way to at least get a glance at what people are interested in. Sure there are alternatives, each with their own merit. I'm no expert, so I'll leave the rest to those who know what they are talking about.

But if markets do detract from socialism in some way, what way is this?

The point about market economics' one-dollar-equals-one-economic-vote is an apt one.

And why does it happen?

Historical inertia, I would say -- basically capitalism's ongoing, unrelenting hegemony over the world's mode of production, for lack of any successful worldwide revolution to be rid of it, so far.

And can someone suggest alternatives?

Yup.

I've developed a model that speaks to many of the intricacies involved in balancing the inherent interests of labor vs. consumers vs. administration, in a post-capitalist context -- here's the intro:

What's called-for is a system that can match liberated-labor organizing ability, over mass-collectivized assets and resources, to the mass demand from below for collective production. If *liberated-labor* is too empowered it would probably lead to materialistic factionalism -- like a bad syndicalism -- and back into separatist claims of private property.

If *mass demand* is too empowered it would probably lead back to a clever system of exploitation, wherein labor would cease to retain control over the implements of mass production.

And, if the *administration* of it all is too specialized and detached we would have the phenomenon of Stalinism, or bureaucratic elitism and party favoritism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

Access to that part of the social product that is distributed “according to labour” is determined by the individual labour contribution of each person in the totality of social labour, without distinguishing between complex and simple, manual labour or otherwise. The measure of individual contribution is the labour time, which the plan determines based on the total needs of social production; the material conditions of the production process in which “individual” labour is included; the special needs of social production for the concentration of labour force in certain areas, branches, etc.; special social needs, such as motherhood, individuals with special needs, etc.; the personal stance of each individual vis-a-vis the organization and the execution of the productive process. In other words, labour time must be linked to goals, such as the conservation of materials, the implementation of more productive technologies, a more rational organization of labour, workers’ control of administration-management.

I'll use this portion to point out how conventional, orthodox treatments of potential 'economic democracy' *don't* handle the inherent intricacies well at all. Of course I agree with the general *spirit* of its politics and approach, but I'll additionally contend that more attention to the details is needed regarding how labor effort is addressed and measured, etc.

The problematic part is this:

Access to that part of the social product [...] is determined [...] without distinguishing between complex and simple, manual labour or otherwise.

The model I developed takes work *hazard* and *difficulty* into account, for any given labor role -- relevant excerpts are here:

Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived

Propagation

labor [supply] -- Workers with past accumulated labor credits are the funders of new work positions and incoming laborers -- labor credits are handed over at the completion of work hours -- underfunded projects and production runs are debt-based and will be noted as such against the issuing locality

communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://s6.postimage.org/nwiupxn8t/2526684770046342459_Rh_JMHF_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/nwiupxn8t/)

ckaihatsu

31st July 2013, 00:09

No there are not. There are different forms of decentralised planning and various forms and degrees of centralised planning. There cannot be various degrees between centralised and decentralised planning, because there cannot be various degrees between hierarchy and non-hierarchy.

I created a 'hybrid' model of productive organization that includes the potential for centralized planning, worldwide, but which also allows for lesser-scale 'centralization' to take place (at more-local levels), for varying projects / productivities, over varying geographies:

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://s6.postimage.org/ccfl07uy5/Multi_Tiered_System_of_Productive_and_Consumptiv.j pg (http://postimage.org/image/ccfl07uy5/)

Market socialist theory says that the means of production can be owned by the public while products are exchanged through individuals; this means that many of the critiques in Das Kapital still apply, and that private property would certainly still exist (and there would have to be laws to protect it).

There's an inherent contradiction present here:

[T]he means of production can be owned by the public

[P]rivate property would certainly still exist (and there would have to be laws to protect it).

Vladimir Innit Lenin

31st July 2013, 00:12

By those criteria where do markets exist in our present day capitalist economy -- outside of the textbooks?

Well exactly. Markets don't function perfectly, or even imperfectly. I'm quite a firm believer in the idea of the centralisation of capital in many industries - as centralisation and cartellisation increase, so does the functioning of a market decrease.

So I suppose what I should have added to that previous post is that markets aren't static, but historical and dynamic phenomena - but a phase of capitalism.

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

31st July 2013, 03:29

I said that people who choose to live off other people's labor- are parasites. Which isn't much connected with the the topic of this thread.

Oh, it is. Because this is about your economic views. You're a worshipper of labour: a labour fetishist. The defining character of the working class is not a point of worship: this nature is not what makes the working class great: socialism, and, therefore, communism, must destroy and shatter all that labour, understood in its current frame, represents: and your 20-hour work-week structured shit-stain of a "socialist"-commune is only another debauched miscarriage, a new version of the same ancien regime.

No, it is not. If you have any arguments to back this assertion, please share.

Also, I'd appreciate it if you were to stop with the insults.

I do not believe in the inherent power of arguments to convince anyone of anything. Some will agree, because the position will reflect theirs, and others, like you, will not, because your vision is different, and, as far as I'm concerned, repugnant. The insults will stop when you stop worshipping labour for labour's sake, when your terrible market-hell of socialism dies, where your in-equal (and ravishing in it!) currency-commercial capitalist rotten system goes along with it into the nameless abyss.

Sinister Cultural Marxist

31st July 2013, 04:20

Maybe some aren't. You are. You said unproductive people are "parasites". You can go fuck yourself.

Aren't you an amoralist? Why use such moralistic language to describe those with ideological differences? I know its off topic but I find it unusual that you attach seeming moral judgements to your disagreements with others when (as far as I can tell) you disagree with the idea of moral positions ever having a sound justification.

Not that I agree or disagree with your critism of mutualism (I'm no mutualist) ...

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

31st July 2013, 04:31

Aren't you an amoralist? Why use such moralistic language to describe those with ideological differences? I know its off topic but I find it unusual that you attach seeming moral judgements to your disagreements with others when (as far as I can tell) you disagree with the idea of moral positions ever having a sound justification.

Merely a consequence of my writing style, or something. I cannot think of any other way to effectively convey a strong dislike and revulsion.

Sometimes, it's just a question of what sounds good. I try to restrain myself from blurting out incoherent obscenities...

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 06:47

1) I don't really understand this first part tbh. Do you mean that there is only a choice between complete decentralisation and various degrees of centralisation?
Yes, being that when talking about forms of organization of people, centralization/ decentralization are synonymous with hierarchy/ horizontalism, and the two cannot have "degrees" between them.

This might be true, but that doesn't undermine my point that there are several non-market, non-Soviet style ways of organising a socialist economy.I didn't intend to sound like I wanted to undermine that point, I was just pointing out the above-said, of course I agree that there are different forms of both decentralized/ horizontal, and centralized/ hierarchical planning.

The existence of private property requires a state to uphold the property relations to prevent theftThis is not true. Class society requires state, but you can have private property in a classless society, as envisioned by Ricardian socialists and anarcho-individualists.

In addition, in order for private property to exist some people must be without it.Non-sequitur. One could hold a socialist view of property and believe that property can be only a product of labor, and thus consider any form of capitalist exploitation a deviation from the propert defintion of property. That sort of view would logically imply that every instument of production that requires more then one person to operate (e.g. a factory) would need to be the collective property of the the workers operating it, in order for the workers to recieve their full product of labor.

In fact, this is historically how the first theory of socialism- as an economic theory, as oppossed to an ethical-utilitarian theory like with utopians- looked like, as espoused by Ricardian socialists.

Even in the society where profit is divided among employees there are still bound to be someone who doesn't work for profit, e.g. hospital workers or teachers (hopefully).Well, market socialist theory wasn't much elaborated on, and the few thinkers that espoused it didn't really gave answers to such questions, they were mostly concerned with elaborating the theory of alienation of labor and the notion of exploitation. But I assume that their answer would be the same as the mutualist one- that workers would provide such things for themselves in the manner they did in that time (when there was no state welfare)- by forming organizations of mutual aid, like bourse du travail, friendly societies, and other benefit societies.

You're a worshipper of labour: a labour fetishist.
Sure. That's why I'm a libertarian socialist, because exploitation of labor is it's profanation.

this nature is not what makes the working class great: socialism, and, therefore, communism, must destroy and shatter all that labourYour technological utopianism is irrational, detrimental to anti-capitalist consciousness, and in it's application of waiting for trekkie technologie to abolish capitalism is purely reactionary.

I do not believe in the inherent power of arguments to convince anyone of anything. Some will agree, because the position will reflect theirs, and others, like you, will not, because your vision is different, and, as far as I'm concerned, repugnant.So, you have no arguments?

when you stop worshipping labour for labour's sakeUntil we start living in Star Trek universe, labor is a fact of life, and the only way for a person that's able to labor to survive without laboring is by exploitation.

when your terrible market-hell of socialism dies, where your in-equal (and ravishing in it!) currency-commercial capitalist rotten system goes along with it into the nameless abyss.So, you have nothing sensical to say?

cyu

31st July 2013, 10:11

centralization/ decentralization are synonymous with hierarchy/ horizontalism, and the two cannot have "degrees" between them.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subsidiarity_%28Catholicism%29 - which in theory implies that some centralization is at times necessary. Not that I believe it's correct or incorrect, but it implies something less rigid than what you're claiming.

I said that people who choose to live off other people's labor- are parasites.

If someone is too old or handicapped to work, what does he deserve? Does property trump life? From http://www.revleft.com/vb/socialism-voluntary-mandatory-t181390/index2.html

I simply walk up, pick up a dessert, and start eating. If you try to attack me, I shoot you.

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 11:03

If someone is too old or handicapped to work, what does he deserve?Does that person choose to live off other people's labor? I have worded my view precisely.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2013, 11:44

You haven't researched enough, being that socialism doesn't equate to public ownership of the means of production, but workers' control of production.
Perhaps, but that would depend on your choice of the theoretical paradigm through which you examine existing social relations and class antagonism arising from them. And your choice is deeply problematic as you disregard certain important aspects of the aforementioned.

The primary aspect you disregard is that capital and its consequences is not bound to open managerial and hierarchical relations within a workplace, as the example of workers' self-management in capitalism shows (e.g. Mondragon).

In other words, what you advocate, probably unwittingly, is workers' managed capitalism, a form of reformism.

Polaris

31st July 2013, 11:45

There's an inherent contradiction present here:
Market socialist theory says that the means of production can be owned by the public while products are exchanged through individuals; this means that many of the critiques in Das Kapital still apply, and that private property would certainly still exist (and there would have to be laws to protect it)
Yes, definitely. From what I understand, market socialism advocates that although goods can be exchanged through individuals with money, the means of production cannot; there would be laws in place to prevent this. But how can laws possibly fully prevent anyone from acquiring productive property, especially when the community might feel that it was lawfully purchased? My point was that it would be impossible, or at very difficult to prevent this. Perhaps my words weren't clear on that. I’ll go back and change the bold section to ‘even though there would be laws to protect against this.’
Thank you for pointing that out.

To LinksRadikal: Exactly. That is why market socialism cannot be considered socialist; markets cannot coexist with socialism.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2013, 11:49

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 11:55

workers' managed capitalism
There is no such a thing. Actually, there is, but I'm pretty sure you're not talking about Ellerman's "Property and Contract in Economics", but about the ignorant notion that markets are per-se capitalistic.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2013, 11:59

There is no such a thing. Actually, there is, but I'm pretty sure you're not talking about Ellerman's "Property and Contract in Economics", but about the ignorant notion that markets are per-se capitalistic.
Of course there isn't such a thing (well, you can and should argue that workers' co-ops actually are workers' managed capitalist enterprises), but there exists a real possibility that it might develop as one of the last defense lines of capital.

As far as the notion you're attributing to me, I didn't state that. I only maintain that it is impossible to transcend capital and class antagonism if social relations of production (including the distribution of the product of labor) aren't transformed as to ensure the elimination of market exchange.

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 12:05

(well, you can and should argue that workers' co-ops actually are workers' managed capitalist enterprises)
Yes, just like slaveless farms were, because they were surrounded by slave farms, in fact slaveowner farms, even though there were no slaves or slaveowners in them.

As far as the notion you're attributing to me, I didn't state that. I only maintain that it is impossible to transcend capital and class antagonism if social relations of production (including the distribution of the product of labor) aren't transformed as to ensure the elimination of market exchange.
You just said exaclty why I told your positions is- that markets are intrinsically capitalistic.

Thirsty Crow

31st July 2013, 12:29

Yes, just like slaveless farms were, because they were surrounded by slave farms, in fact slaveowner farms, even though there were no slaves or slaveowners in them.The analogy isn't helpful as it doesn't allow you to see the specificity of both the capitalist mode of production in relation to ancient slavery, and of workers' co-ops.

Do workers' co-ops engage in capitalist production - implying competition on the market, the pursuit of profit, the reduction of costs of production, for no other reason than that they are forced to do so due to them being embedded within a broader social-economic context, that of generalized competition through generalized commodity production?

There are other issues than hierarchy and workplace relations.

You just said exaclty why I told your positions is- that markets are intrinsically capitalistic.
No, I didn't. If I wanted to say that, I would use the exact same words you are falsely attributing to me. If I said that, it would necessarily imply a view of modes of production preceding capitalism that I do not hold - that they were essentially mixed modes of production, and that capitalist social relations are in a way eternal. I don't think this is either accurate or useful for radical thought.

But what I do claim is that with the onset of the formation of capitalism, market exchange cannot be abstractly divorced from other aspects of the socio-economic whole and fixed as one of the many possible "modes of organization" or whatnot. This is precisely what you do.

The problem is that this leads you to disregard important aspects of class struggle and class antagonism, and even more importantly, to advocate temporary solutions at best.

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 12:59

Do workers' co-ops engage in capitalist production - implying competition on the market, the pursuit of profit, the reduction of costs of production, for no other reason than that they are forced to do so due to them being embedded within a broader social-economic context, that of generalized competition through generalized commodity production?Capitalist production is defined by wage-labor and indirect exploitation know as rents (interest loans of money, land, or anything else considered property). Pursuit of profit, reduction of costs of production, and eveything else that goes with markets existed in slavery and feudalism, meaning- those stuff are not defining features of socialism. And having in mind what exploitation is (direct exploitation being unfree labor, and indirent exploitation being rents), you can easily have markets and all the things that implied in them (competition, commodity production, reduction of cost, etc) in socialism, because socialism is about lack of exploitation, and not money, competition, etc. If you have markets in socialism, that's what marxists call "simple commodity production". It's not slavery, it's not feudalism, it's not capitalism, it's a market without exploitation, it's market socialism.

But what I do claim is that with the onset of the formation of capitalism, market exchange cannot be abstractly divorced from other aspects of the socio-economic whole and fixed as one of the many possible "modes of organization" or whatnot. Actually, it can, and that's what has defined socialism from it's emergence, it's a framework of a society that is without oppression and exploitation in which people can organize in different forms of economic organization- individualistic, mutualistic, collectivist or communist.

The problem is that this leads you to disregard important aspects of class struggle and class antagonism, and even more importantly, to advocate temporary solutions at best.[/quote]
What are you talking about? I am advocating the abolition of capitalists (along with all other kinds of ruling class) and establishment of a classless society. How is that a temporary solution?

Fakeblock

31st July 2013, 13:31

You rest upon the assumption that socialism is only the lack of exploitation. This definition is not adequate for communists and proves to be quite problematic in practice (since we, by that logic, can claim that independent business owners live in small socialist enclaves).

We can easily make up our own economic systems and call them socialism using our own definitions. What hasn't yet been demonstrated is how this theory has any basis in the interests of the working class or any basis in reality at all. I don't think it has, since the working class aims not only to abolish exploitation by the individual capitalist, but all existing social conditions. Every aspect of capitalist society exist only as a means to uphold the present day productive relations.

Market-socialists advocate overthrowing bourgeois social relations, but keeping bourgeois culture, which is both wholly undesirable and unrealisable. It's not unlike the anarcho-capitalists who wish to overthrow the state while keeping bourgeois social relations, unaware that one cannot be separated from the other.

Why should the proletariat busy itself managing bourgeois society, the society that oppresses it, when it can overthrow it and build its own?

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 14:10

This definition is not adequate for communists and proves to be quite problematic in practice (since we, by that logic, can claim that independent business owners live in small socialist enclaves).Being that they are no in enclaves, no, but I get your point, and see nothing wrong with it. Just like a slaveless farm isn't a slaweowner farm, a firm that doesn't oppress or exploit anyone isn't a capitalist firm, it a socialist one. Of course we all want entire human society to be socialist, that doesn't change because one accepts that a single firm can be socialistic.

We can easily make up our own economic systems and call them socialism using our own definitions.Sure, that is exactly what market abolitionists and state-capitalists do.

Every aspect of capitalist society exist only as a means to uphold the present day productive relations.It is neccessary to know why is exactly capitalism bad and what in it needs to be abolished. Socialist say- let's abolish stratification of society (classes) and all exploitation (unfree labor and rents), but some want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so they say- let's abolish factories and machienery. But we are rational and say, hey, wait a second, it's not the factories per-se that are exploitative, it is the capitalist system that uses them in the process of exploitation. Same with market abolitionism. "But money is part of capitalism, and we should destroy it". Yeah, you know what is an indispensible part of capitalism, too? People. Let's abolish people. Without people, there's no way that capitalism is ever going to form.

Market-socialists advocate overthrowing bourgeois social relations, but keeping bourgeois culture,What's bourgeois culture? Using modern technology? Wearing clothes that have not existed before capitalism? Listening to music that has not existed before capitalism? Even if are to define bourgeouis culture and accept that is impractical or what not, if it is not oppressive or exploitative, to advocate it's abolition would be then itself be oppressive.

Why should the proletariat busy itself managing bourgeois society, the society that oppresses it, when it can overthrow it and build its own?IDK, because no one here is advocating the prolonged existence of bougeouis society, we should overthrow it as soon as we can.

Fakeblock

31st July 2013, 15:05

Being that they are no in enclaves, no, but I get your point, and see nothing wrong with it. Just like a slaveless farm isn't a slaweowner farm, a firm that doesn't oppress or exploit anyone isn't a capitalist firm, it a socialist one. Of course we all want entire human society to be socialist, that doesn't change because one accepts that a single firm can be socialistic.

Sure, that is exactly what market abolitionists and state-capitalists do.

My point being that the word "socialism" is quite useless as a descriptive term, since we all seem to use it for different things. Claiming something is socialism does not make it desirable, rational or realistic (like a society made up entirely of independent producers in competition with each other).

It is neccessary to know why is exactly capitalism bad and what in it needs to be abolished. Socialist say- let's abolish stratification of society (classes) and all exploitation (unfree labor and rents), but some want to throw out the baby with the bathwater, so they say- let's abolish factories and machienery. But we are rational and say, hey, wait a second, it's not the factories per-se that are exploitative, it is the capitalist system that uses them in the process of exploitation. Same with market abolitionism. "But money is part of capitalism, and we should destroy it". Yeah, you know what is an indispensible part of capitalism, too? People. Let's abolish people. Without people, there's no way that capitalism is ever going to form.

True, but when advocating proletarian revolution it's necessary to identify, which institutions, practices and systems function against the interests of the proletariat. The market, being the means by which capitalists in present day society exploit the working class, is one of them. It can't be turned to serve the interests of the proletariat just like the bourgeois state can't. Both arose exclusively as ways of serving the bourgeois class. Even pre-industrial markets served the mercantile bourgeoisie, who were really just an underderveloped form of the industrial bourgeoisie.

What's bourgeois culture? Using modern technology? Wearing clothes that have not existed before capitalism? Listening to music that has not existed before capitalism? Even if are to define bourgeouis culture and accept that is impractical or what not, if it is not oppressive or exploitative, to advocate it's abolition would be then itself be oppressive.

The market, family, work culture, racism, patriarchy, division of labour, bourgeois morality etc. all serve, in present society, to preserve the productive relations. The proletariat, unlike previous ruling classes, can't use these in its own interests, because it seeks to overthrow all present social conditions.

IDK, because no one here is advocating the prolonged existence of bougeouis society, we should overthrow it as soon as we can.

By advocating the overthrow of bourgeois productive relations, but the continued existence of present day work culture you kind of are. This dream, of course, isn't in the interests of the bourgeoisie. Instead it panders to petit-bourgeoisie's fetish for small business, free, non-monopolised markets and abolition of state intervention in private enterprises.

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 15:40

True, but when advocating proletarian revolution it's necessary to identify, which institutions, practices and systems function against the interests of the proletariat. The market, being the means by which capitalists in present day society exploit the working class, is one of them.
You know what's also the means by which capitalists exploit the workers? Production. If were to abolish producing anything, and go to collecting barries there's no way capitalists could exploit the workers.

It can't be turned to serve the interests of the proletariat just like the bourgeois state can't.
I disagree on both. As I already said, markets can exist without oppression and exploitation, so there is nothing in markets that makes them intrinsically against the interest of the workers. On the state, my position is pretty much the same as the one of the SPGB.

Both arose exclusively as ways of serving the bourgeois class.
What? Both markets and states existed before capitalism.

The market, family, work culture, racism, patriarchy, division of labour, bourgeois morality etc. all serve, in present society, to preserve the productive relations.
How bout technology, clothes and music that haven't existed before capitalism, why don't you consider them part of the "bougeois culture" and call for their abolition?

Instead it panders to petit-bourgeoisie's
Not being marxist, I don't accept that there is such a thing. There's working people, and there's the ruling class (in capitalism- capitalists, coordinators, politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals).

Fakeblock

31st July 2013, 16:07

You know what's also the means by which capitalists exploit the workers? Production. If were to abolish producing anything, and go to collecting barries there's no way capitalists could exploit the workers.

Production in the abstract benefits everyone, though. I'm not bourgeois, but I really benefit from the production of food, housing and clothing. Whereas the existence of competition as opposed to association doesn't benefit me at all.

I disagree on both. As I already said, markets can exist without oppression and exploitation, so there is nothing in markets that makes them intrinsically against the interest of the workers.

Perhaps, but if generalised across society they inevitably lead to the reestablishment of wage-labour - capital relations. Expansion of commodity production is how wage-labour arose in the first place. Wage-labour became common because of the generalisation of the market and commodity system, since it's the only (or at least most effiecient) way of extracting surplus value from a commodity.

What? Both markets and states existed before capitalism.

Yes, but the pre-industrial market never existed for the benefit of the aristocracy or slaveholders. It existed for the benefit of the merchants and bankers, who eventually developed into the industrial bourgeoisie.
And yeah, the state has existed before capitalism and the bourgeoisie. I should have said the state as it exists today.

So I'll rephrase: the proletariat can't take control of present day parliamentary bodies, courts, police and army institutions and use them for its own ends, because all arose as means of serving the bourgeoisie. Same with the market.

How bout technology, clothes and music that haven't existed before capitalism, why don't you consider them part of the "bougeois culture" and call for their abolition?

Because they don't serve as means of preserving existing society (except for perhaps bourgeois propagandist media, which should also be opposed). I don't oppose everything coming from bourgeois society. Even the proletarian revolution is a product of bourgeois society. I oppose everything that serves to protect and maintain bourgeois property relations.

Not being marxist, I don't accept that there is such a thing. There's working people, and there's the ruling class (in capitalism- capitalists, coordinators, politicians, bureaucrats, intellectuals).

And it's probably this misunderstanding of the laws of historical development that leads to the sort of utopianism that market-socialism is.

Sotionov

31st July 2013, 16:28

Production in the abstract benefits everyone, though.
Berry gathering would also benefit everyone, everyone could gather berries without being exploited.

Perhaps, but if generalised across society they inevitably lead to the reestablishment of wage-labour - capital relations.
How, by what mechanism?

Wage-labour became common because of the generalisation of the market and commodity system, since it's the only (or at least most effiecient) way of extracting surplus value from a commodity.
I suspect that you're only repeating learned slogans, being that you're not making sense. If there is no wage-labor, there is no "surplus-value".

Yes, but the pre-industrial market never existed for the benefit of the aristocracy or slaveholders. It existed for the benefit of the merchants and bankers, who eventually developed into the industrial bourgeoisie.
Never heard of slave-markets?

the proletariat can't take control of present day parliamentary bodies, courts, police and army institutions and use them for its own ends, because all arose as means of serving the bourgeoisie. Same with the market.
You can rephrase all you want, you haven't offered any arguments for your claims.

Because they don't serve as means of preserving existing society
How not? If we were to abolish all technology that didn't exist before capitalism, you're saying that capitalism would continue without a problem?

(except for perhaps bourgeois propagandist media, which should also be opposed)
So, we should abolish all media? Being that media didn't exist pre-capitalism, and capitalists use it in their advantage.

And it's probably this misunderstanding of the laws of historical development that leads to the sort of utopianism that market-socialism is.
It is this correct views of exploitation and oppression that leads to having a rational view about markets, meaning that they are not in themselves either oppressive nor exploitative, and thus not to be abolished. If the revolution were to happen tomorrow, I'd join a kropotkinist commune right away, but to organize in order to stop people functioning on markets without any oppression and exploitation is itself oppressive and thus not socialist.

Fakeblock

31st July 2013, 18:38

Berry gathering would also benefit everyone, everyone could gather berries without being exploited.

Great, I have nothing against berry gathering. What exactly are you arguing here?

How, by what mechanism?

Wage-labour is nothing more than the sale of labour power through the markets. Being that its the only way of extracting surplus value it makes much more sense for an enterprise to hire labour than to produce independently. How could a market-socialist society stop this development? It has happened before.

If there is no wage-labor, there is no "surplus-value".

Not necessarily. Valorisation can happen through exchange. Marx calls it self-valorisation. However, this is peculiar to merchant capitalism and has been superseded by extraction through wage-labour.

Never heard of slave-markets?

I have. As far as I know, Roman slave trade was mostly conducted by slave merchants (Venalitii). I don't think it's that controversial to say that sellers, in general, benefit more from a sale than the consumer. However, in times before the means of production had developed so that production for need was possible, merchants and markets were the most efficient way of acquiring supplies from long distances. Fortunately this is no longer the case.

The American slave trade was a weird hybrid that both made possible the rise of capitalism and was dependent on it. But again, slaves were primarily brought from Africa by merchants AFAIK. The slave market also expanded quite synchronised with the establishment of the bourgeois economic supremacy, which happened before the bourgeois revolutions.

You can rephrase all you want, you haven't offered any arguments for your claims.

For my claim that markets arose to serve the bourgeoisie or that they can't be used for the benefit of the proletariat?

I think the generalisation of the market and commodity production coinciding with the establishment of bourgeois economic and political power is evidence enough for the first claim.

Markets exist to bring profit to the seller and not to meet the needs of the population. Market-socialism still faces the same problem of how to meet the needs of those who have no money. And they could be anyone from the unemployed and the sick to the doctors and road builders, who, it seems, would have to live off the charity of profiteering enterprises.. The proletariat wishes to abolish its precarious existence. Your "solution" merely lets enterprises fail cooperatively and public servicemen flock to the factories.

I still don't see how markets can be served to meet the needs of the population.

How not? If we were to abolish all technology that didn't exist before capitalism, you're saying that capitalism would continue without a problem?

No, I'm saying that technology can (and does already) serve many other purposes than preserving bourgeois society. But the ways in which we use a lot of existing technology has to be radically altered if they are to serve the interests of the working class.

So, we should abolish all media? Being that media didn't exist pre-capitalism, and capitalists use it in their advantage.

No. Media, afaik, has existed for quite a while and is not exclusively used for propaganda. Some aspects of bourgeois society exist as a means of preserving class rule and some don't. The difference between propagandist media and markets is that markets don't serve to perpetuate political class rule, but to perpetuate the capitalist economy.

If the revolution were to happen tomorrow, I'd join a kropotkinist commune right away, but to organize in order to stop people functioning on markets without any oppression and exploitation is itself oppressive and thus not socialist.

Then perhaps that is the difference between the socialists and the communists. But going by your "lack of exploitation"-definition it isn't anti-socialist either.

ckaihatsu

31st July 2013, 20:44

Yes, definitely. From what I understand, market socialism advocates that although goods can be exchanged through individuals with money, the means of production cannot; there would be laws in place to prevent this. But how can laws possibly fully prevent anyone from acquiring productive property, especially when the community might feel that it was lawfully purchased? My point was that it would be impossible, or at very difficult to prevent this. Perhaps my words weren't clear on that. I’ll go back and change the bold section to ‘even though there would be laws to protect against this.’
Thank you for pointing that out.

To LinksRadikal: Exactly. That is why market socialism cannot be considered socialist; markets cannot coexist with socialism.

Well, my understanding of the tankies' -- (present-day Stalinists / Maoists) -- point of view is described by you here. The implications of this state-bureaucratic collective administration of mass production would be that, yes, there would have to be laws to prevent anyone from acquiring productive property, and that a real-economy market-type economy could be in place (market socialism) for everyone's everyday work, pay, and purchases, etc.

Compared to the world we have now I'd be in favor of this as a progressive development -- it would be akin to the de-privatization of mostly everything, especially productive assets.

On the other hand, though, this is the kind of thing that is roundly satirized and condemned for its dystopian possibilities, as some would say happened in the USSR. Obviously we can do far better, especially with present-day technological capabilities, by just turning over all mass production to the world's collective working class.

Popular Front of Judea

1st August 2013, 03:52

JAC0BIN

1st August 2013, 06:05

Markets are nothing more than a planned economy. Sure, in a IDEAL market the marketplace reflects what people want and production matches demand and blah blah blah its all theoretical bullshit. General equilibrium has never been proven, and markets are proven to be inefficient. How can it be? when the top executives are making 700 times a base employee. Thats inefficient, and thus markets superiority is nothing but modern capitalist propaganda.

But problem with command economies, at least the from the perspective of most Americans, is that you are poor and have nothing. This is due to the Soviet economy, which was poor because of the arms race but thats another story.

Popular Front of Judea

1st August 2013, 07:41

The 700 to 1 income ratio is unjust, not inefficient. The issue lies in the society that the market in embedded in. Other capitalist nations do not have the same income inequality. Yes markets are less efficient than advertised, but it is hard to argue that markets are not responsive to change.

The the Cold War did divert resources from the civilian sector. No argument there. But the fact is that the Soviet planned economy -- the Gosplan --simply did not do well at providing civilian goods. Military goods it did rather well at. After all it was the Russian planned economy that made possible the Russian war machine that defeated Hitler. (If anyone can lay claim to the title it's the Russians.) It also enabled them to punch above their weight in the Cold War. But it didn't do a very good job of delivering shoes to the Russian people.

Markets are nothing more than a planned economy. Sure, in a IDEAL market the marketplace reflects what people want and production matches demand and blah blah blah its all theoretical bullshit. General equilibrium has never been proven, and markets are proven to be inefficient. How can it be? when the top executives are making 700 times a base employee. Thats inefficient, and thus markets superiority is nothing but modern capitalist propaganda.

But problem with command economies, at least the from the perspective of most Americans, is that you are poor and have nothing. This is due to the Soviet economy, which was poor because of the arms race but thats another story.

Sotionov

1st August 2013, 16:14

Great, I have nothing against berry gathering. What exactly are you arguing here?
That production is not exploitative or oppressive, even though it exists in capitalism, and capitalists use it to exploit people.

Wage-labour is nothing more than the sale of labour power through the markets. Being that its the only way of extracting surplus value it makes much more sense for an enterprise to hire labour than to produce independently.
This is not true, being that wage-labor can exist without markets, e.g. in state-capitalism, where the state is the only one employer.
Also, it makes all the sense for an enterprise to remain an workers cooperative and not to start exploiting, being that worker cooperatives are more productive then capitalist firms.

How could a market-socialist society stop this development? It has happened before.
It has not, being that market-socialist society never existed. Ricardian socialists proposed that forming capitalist firms would be banned by a democratic state, whereas anarcho-mutualist propose that people in a settlement, or a few nearby ones, would form a directly democratic municipality/ commune, that would function as a credit union/ mutual bank, that would give interest-free loans, but only to those that sign a contract giving all the money back immediately if they engage in exploitation or oppression.

Not necessarily. Valorisation can happen through exchange.
No. Products do not have intinsic value, and thus no exploitation can happen trough exchange. LTV is a void theoretical concept, it's only connection to reality is it being a part of supply-demand explanation of formation of prices. So, being that only exchange value really exists, no exploitation happens in exchange.

I think the generalisation of the market and commodity production coinciding with the establishment of bourgeois economic and political power is evidence enough for the first claim.
It is not being that markets existed before capitalism.

Markets exist to bring profit to the seller and not to meet the needs of the population.
You're not making sense. If the seller isn't meeting the needs of the population, he isn't going to make any profit.

Market-socialism still faces the same problem of how to meet the needs of those who have no money.
You assume that there will be those who have no money, which is a question that will be made pretty void by the society being classness and everybody owning their own means of production.

And they could be anyone from the unemployed and the sick to the doctors and road builders, who, it seems, would have to live off the charity of profiteering enterprises..
Or the people simply organize sickness, injury, child, and pension insurancies, as is the mututalist proposal, which is the same thing that anarcho-collectivists propose, only mutualists value voluntariness of the institutions a little more.

The proletariat wishes to abolish its precarious existence.
Then let's accept the "social-democratic" welfare capitalism, and live a life without precarity.

No, I'm saying that technology can (and does already) serve many other purposes than preserving bourgeois society.
And markets dont? Are you saying that you get your food and clother someone other then the market?

Then perhaps that is the difference between the socialists and the communists.
I'd say that the difference between us libertarian, and you authoritarian communists. It is my opinion that if not based on voluntary participation, communism that is authoritarian will either turn into another form of class society, or will simply collapse.

But going by your "lack of exploitation"-definition it isn't anti-socialist either.
I'd say it is, being that I see socialism not only as the abolition of exploitation, but also of oppression.

Fakeblock

1st August 2013, 17:32

That production is not exploitative or oppressive, even though it exists in capitalism, and capitalists use it to exploit people.

I agree with this.

This is not true, being that wage-labor can exist without markets, e.g. in state-capitalism, where the state is the only one employer.
Also, it makes all the sense for an enterprise to remain an workers cooperative and not to start exploiting, being that worker cooperatives are more productive then capitalist firms.

This is true, the worker can sell his labour-power to the state as well. Would you say that monopoly capitalism is a form of market capitalism?

It has not, being that market-socialist society never existed. Ricardian socialists proposed that forming capitalist firms would be banned by a democratic state, whereas anarcho-mutualist propose that people in a settlement, or a few nearby ones, would form a directly democratic municipality/ commune, that would function as a credit union/ mutual bank, that would give interest-free loans, but only to those that sign a contract giving all the money back immediately if they engage in exploitation or oppression.

Market-socialism has never existed, but merchant capitalism, based primarily on the exchange of commodities and not on wage-labour, did transform into modern day industrial capitalism. How would mutualists prevent workers' cooperatives from hiring wage-labour?

No. Products do not have intinsic value, and thus no exploitation can happen trough exchange. LTV is a void theoretical concept, it's only connection to reality is it being a part of supply-demand explanation of formation of prices. So, being that only exchange value really exists, no exploitation happens in exchange.

No exploitation is made in exchange, but a surplus is extracted by the seller. That's why an exchange always is in the interests of the seller.

It is not being that markets existed before capitalism.

But their expansion coincided with the rise of the bourgeoisie. The markets have not always played as large a part in society as they do now.

You're not making sense. If the seller isn't meeting the needs of the population, he isn't going to make any profit.

I can make much more money selling mansions to rich Californians than food too malnourished Indians.

You assume that there will be those who have no money, which is a question that will be made pretty void by the society being classness and everybody owning their own means of production.

How would mutualists avoid unemployment? Not all industries are profitable and those that aren't will fail. And don't forget that markets are quite prone to crises. These tend to impoverish quite a few people.

Or the people simply organize sickness, injury, child, and pension insurancies, as is the mututalist proposal, which is the same thing that anarcho-collectivists propose, only mutualists value voluntariness of the institutions a little more.

Insurancies still need funds to function. So either they are paid for by profitable industries or the consumers pay themselves. I think neither of these "solutions" would solve anything.

Then let's accept the "social-democratic" welfare capitalism, and live a life without precarity.

I didn't say precarity was the only thing that should be eliminated, though. Aside from the fact that welfare capitalism does not eliminate precarity (Scandinavia really isn't as great as everyone makes it out to be), these societies still have private property, classes, wage-labour, capital, markets, the bourgeois state etc. But I wouldn't have to pay for health insurance or rely on the charity of the McDonalds Workers' Cooperative, so I'd probably prefer it to market-socialism.

And markets dont? Are you saying that you get your food and clother someone other then the market?

No, but I wish I could. Markets can, to an extent, fulfil the needs of the population, but there are so many more effective and desirable solutions. The only reason markets haven't been replaced by communalised distribution is because the bourgeoisie does whatever it can to prevent it. Technology is often the only (or most effective) way of doing what we do with technology, so replacing it would be nonsensical.

I'd say that the difference between us libertarian, and you authoritarian communists. It is my opinion that if not based on voluntary participation, communism that is authoritarian will either turn into another form of class society, or will simply collapse.

Is the work or starve logic that your market-socialism is based on not a form of involuntary participation? I have the exact same concerns about mutualism that you have about the repression of enemy classes: either it will turn back into class society or collapse - assuming it can be realised in the first place.

Fakeblock

1st August 2013, 17:38

Speaking as an actual member of the proletariat it ultimately comes down to a question to what type of society I would be living in post revolution. I would much rather live in a society that has a plurality of ownership forms -- sole proprietorship, cooperatives of various types and nationalized utilities and industry. The last place I would want to live in is one modelled on Hoxha's Albania. If this desire is indicative of a lack of ideological rigor so be it.

I don't think anyone here has proposed Hoxha's Albania as a replacement for markets. On the contrary, I think Sotinov and I have been quite clear that there are several alternatives to both the market and Soviet-style planning systems.

And proletarian interests aren't subjective. Plenty of proletarians are for expansion of the market and more hierarchy and discipline in the workplace. Most desire neither a market-socialist nor communist society.

Sotionov

1st August 2013, 19:55

I agree with this.
Then it is inconsistent of you to oppose markets, and not production itself.

Would you say that monopoly capitalism is a form of market capitalism?I'd say that such a view is a contradiction in term, being that what we call markets implies competition.

How would mutualists prevent workers' cooperatives from hiring wage-labour?The cooperative that would tunt into a capitalist firm would be shut down, their means of production confiscated (by the directly-democratic commune) because of their theft, and probably given to the ones being exploited.

No exploitation is made in exchange, but a surplus is extracted by the seller.There is nothing extracted. Surplus value can be extracted only in production, if there is a boss that alienates labor of the wokers.

That's why an exchange always is in the interests of the seller.Both producers and merchants are sellers. Being that they would constitute the entirety of the economic subjects in a (market) socialist society, that means that markets and selling would function in the interest of everybody.

But their expansion coincided with the rise of the bourgeoisie. The markets have not always played as large a part in society as they do now.Same can be said for technology.

I can make much more money selling mansions to rich Californians than food too malnourished Indians.Being that any socialist society, including thus the market one, means classlessness, the wealth disparity would be almost non-existent.

How would mutualists avoid unemployment?In any socialist society, including a mutualist one, all unemyployment (of those that can work) would be voluntary, because everyone would be self-employed.

And don't forget that markets are quite prone to crises. Capitalist markets.

Insurancies still need funds to function.This is true of every socialist society, not only market or mutualist one, only "funds" are not expressed in currency, but in goods and services in kind.

I think neither of these "solutions" would solve anything.This solutions are what the workers used before state welfare.

But I wouldn't have to pay for health insurance or rely on the charity of the McDonalds Workers' Cooperative, so I'd probably prefer it to market-socialism.Nice of you to admit that you would prefer a society with classes and exploitation to one without them.

Markets can, to an extent, fulfil the needs of the population, but there are so many more effective and desirable solutions.Says you.

Is the work or starve logic that your market-socialism is based on not a form of involuntary participation?Markets are involuntary because you either work or starve, so let's replace that with involuntary communism, where you either organize as we say or starve.

nominal9

1st August 2013, 21:02

Hello, I'm new... call myself nominal9....
Here's my overall take on political organization on the general level... a combination of Government / Economy.....

Democratic / Socialism........Totalitarian / Capitalism

Democratic / Capitalism.......Totalitarian / Socialism

The "square" positioning is meant to suggest Aristotle's "square" of logical opposition.
The Two-part "poles" are meant to suggest Ockham's "sign" theory of Conceptus / Res...putting it together was my notion (nix plagiarism)....
anyway... as to some broad definitions...
Democracy = one person one vote.
Totalitarianism = one person all the votes.
Socialism = one person one dollar.
Capitalism = one person all the dollars.
So, plug in what corner you think "European Model"... "Fascism" ... "U.S. Model"... and "Communism" would each fit into the above "square"..... and tell me which is all good... all bad... or half and half.....
Which "corner" would your "brand" of anarchism fall into????

ckaihatsu

1st August 2013, 21:34

The 700 to 1 income ratio is unjust, not inefficient.

Wouldn't a 1:1 manager-to-worker ratio be more efficient with material resources (funds) -- ? -- !

The issue lies in the society that the market in embedded in. Other capitalist nations do not have the same income inequality. Yes markets are less efficient than advertised, but it is hard to argue that markets are not responsive to change.

The the Cold War did divert resources from the civilian sector. No argument there. But the fact is that the Soviet planned economy -- the Gosplan --simply did not do well at providing civilian goods. Military goods it did rather well at. After all it was the Russian planned economy that made possible the Russian war machine that defeated Hitler. (If anyone can lay claim to the title it's the Russians.) It also enabled them to punch above their weight in the Cold War.

Yes -- true.

But it didn't do a very good job of delivering shoes to the Russian people.

That's because

The the Cold War did divert resources from the civilian sector.

Fakeblock

1st August 2013, 21:41

Then it is inconsistent of you to oppose markets, and not production itself.

Production benefits me as a consumer, markets (as opposed to communism) benefit only the bourgeoisie. If markets are against my interests I'm not going to support their existence.

I'd say that such a view is a contradiction in term, being that what we call markets implies competition.

Fair enough.

The cooperative that would tunt into a capitalist firm would be shut down, their means of production confiscated (by the directly-democratic commune) because of their theft, and probably given to the ones being exploited.

And if they resist? This seems quite oppressive towards them. Not that I have anything against oppression of the bourgeoisie, but does this not invalidate the second commandment of your socialism: "Don't be oppressive"? And if so, the democratic commune should be abolished asap!

There is nothing extracted. Surplus value can be extracted only in production, if there is a boss that alienates labor of the wokers.

When one sells something for more than it is bought, does one not end up with increased money value, a surplus?

Both producers and merchants are sellers. Being that they would constitute the entirety of the economic subjects in a (market) socialist society, that means that markets and selling would function in the interest of everybody.

But how do you make everyone a producer? And how do you make sure every producer makes enough profit to live on?

Same can be said for technology.

Technology has always played a large role in society. But yeah, the bourgeoisie has definitely advanced the means of production a lot and organised them to suit their interests. The proletariat would do the same.

Markets are quite different, as they are based on the social relations between the buyer and the seller.

Being that any socialist society, including thus the market one, means classlessness, the wealth disparity would be almost non-existent.

But how do you eliminate this wealth disparity? You still haven't said how to prevent the impoverishment of employees at failed businesses. You can't just cram them all into the businesses that seem to work, because a) if those business fails many more are unemployed and b) unless there was suddenly a massive boom in the market you'd be reducing the pay of those already employed and therefore the likelihood of them being able to pay rent, food, insurance, cars, luxuries etc.

In any socialist society, including a mutualist one, all unemyployment (of those that can work) would be voluntary, because everyone would be self-employed.

How do you make profitable work for everyone?

Capitalist markets.

How do mutualist markets avoid crises?

This is true of every socialist society, not only market or mutualist one, only "funds" are not expressed in currency, but in goods and services in kind.

Democratically planned economies based on production and distribution for need would be more capable of acquiring and distributing these funds though, because they produce what is needed not what is profitable.

This solutions are what the workers used before state welfare.

And the working class in countries with state welfare are much richer. Why should workers give up the money they need to feed themselves and their families to charities? It's not even a little bit, it's for entire sections of the population.

Individuals could pay themselves, but that is obviously a problem for those who don't make much money.

Says you.

Not just me. Entire books have been written on why capitalist and market production is flawed. Do you think that markets are more effective in meeting the needs of the people?

Markets are involuntary because you either work or starve, so let's replace that with involuntary communism, where you either organize as we say or starve.

You're the one who has something against coercion not me. But why is the former preferable to the latter?

Communism is, of course, neither of these things, but revolution is something quite coercive and messy. The proletariat has the choice of either being stuck in this oppressive state of affairs or unite, bring down the bourgeoisie and emancipate itself. This obviously involves a bit of coercion and I, for one, am fine with that.

Ismail

1st August 2013, 21:53

I would much rather live in a society that has a plurality of ownership forms -- sole proprietorship, cooperatives of various types and nationalized utilities and industry. The last place I would want to live in is one modelled on Hoxha's Albania. If this desire is indicative of a lack of ideological rigor so be it.States that embraced a "plurality of ownership forms" have included sweatshop capital of the world China, Perestroika-era Soviet Union, austerity-imposing "socialist" Yugoslavia, and 80%-of-agriculture-in-private-hands revisionist Poland, none of which have/had great relations with the working-class and certainly did not demonstrate the superiority of such a "pluralistic" system.

In the Albania of the 80's prices for various goods had either not changed since the 50's or were lowered, there was 0% unemployment, and it had some of the most generous social benefits in the world, including just about the lowest apartment rents, no taxation, and so on. And this was a country hated by pretty much the whole world, capitalist and state-capitalist alike. In fact it was during Alia's efforts at imposing a "plurality of ownership forms" on Albanians in 1989-1990 that the labour code came under attack as giving too much leeway to the "lazy," "shirkers," etc. who "deserved" to be jobless.

Sotionov

1st August 2013, 23:02

Production benefits me as a consumer, markets (as opposed to communism) benefit only the bourgeoisie.
Except if there's no bourgeoisie.

And if they resist?
They will be fought against as any other reactionary.

This seems quite oppressive towards them.
Really? You're going to argue that abolishing exploitation is oppressive in a socialist-to-socialist discussion?

When one sells something for more than it is bought, does one not end up with increased money value, a surplus?
"Surplus value" is a marxist term for direct exploitation, and concernes only production. The only exploitation that can happen in exchange is collection of rent (on land, money, any property), and all socialists (including market and mutualist socialists) are against all exploitation.

And how do you make sure every producer makes enough profit to live on?
He makes sure himself, by producing staff for which there is demand.

Markets are quite different, as they are based on the social relations between the buyer and the seller.
Which is, like production, perfectly suitable to exist between workers.

You still haven't said how to prevent the impoverishment of employees at failed businesses.
If your business goes down, you sell the tools you have, and buy new ones. You ask the community organized "people's bank" to give you a interest-free loan to buy new tools. If you fail a few times, and the community doesn't want to give a loan, and you can't get enough money to get new means of production to start a coop doing something else, meaning that you're a total entrepreneurial wreck, you go and do argiculture (all land is free, being that it cannot be anyone's property) and feed youself selling the surplus food to buy other stuff you need. If you can't manage that, then you opt out of the market and join an intentional community, a Proudhonian agro-industrial federation, Bakuninist collective or a Kropotkinist commune and get all you need there by contributing some work that you can.

How do mutualist markets avoid crises?
By abolishing rents, thereby abolition banking as we know it, which implies abolition of all derivatives, trading of which causes all crises.

Democratically planned economies based on production and distribution for need would be more capable of acquiring and distributing these funds though, because they produce what is needed not what is profitable.
In a classless society, what is profitable on the market is equivalent to what is needed.

And the working class in countries with state welfare are much richer.
Which is connected to capitalist outsorcing, and not connected to this topic in any way.

Why should workers give up the money they need to feed themselves and their families to charities? It's not even a little bit, it's for entire sections of the population.
Communist organization doesn't solve this question. Why should people in a commune work more that what is needed to feed themselves and their families, so that other people, entire sections of the population, could have their needs met too?

Do you think that markets are more effective in meeting the needs of the people?
No. Although there are good arguments by market socialists that markets are more effective then any planning when consument products are concerned. My view is that communes should have something like a price indicator of consumer goods (like the percentage sings that AFAQ mentiones) that would indicate to people how much is left.

You're the one who has something against coercion not me. But why is the former preferable to the latter?
Because if the former you are "coerced" by the fact of life, and in the latter you are coerced by people.

but revolution is something quite coercive
No, it is not. Revolution is self-defense against coercion by which the capitalist system is perserved.

Sotionov

1st August 2013, 23:08

States that embraced a "plurality of ownership forms" have included sweatshop capital of the world China, Perestroika-era Soviet Union, austerity-imposing "socialist" Yugoslavia, and 80%-of-agriculture-in-private-hands revisionist Poland, none of which have/had great relations with the working-class and certainly did not demonstrate the superiority of such a "pluralistic" system.
Which has nothing to do which what he said, being that capitalist firms are not among the plural ownership forms that he mentioned.

His view in actually in line with Kautsky's who was for private, cooperative, municipal or state ownership of means of production based on the size of business, e.g. hand tools of a plumber or any artisan would be private property, a small workshop and firm would be cooperative property, larger workshops and firms and farms would be municipal property, and infrastructure and large factories would be state-property. Even though I'm far closer to Kropotkinst form of economic organization, I can easily support such a view if the cooperatives, municipalities and states were to be organized horizontaly.

Popular Front of Judea

2nd August 2013, 00:43

You forgot to include goulash communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulash_Communism) era Hungary in your list. Any of one those countries would be preferable to living in the fortified labor camp that was Hoxha's Albania.

http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/bunkers-of-albania

States that embraced a "plurality of ownership forms" have included sweatshop capital of the world China, Perestroika-era Soviet Union, austerity-imposing "socialist" Yugoslavia, and 80%-of-agriculture-in-private-hands revisionist Poland, none of which have/had great relations with the working-class and certainly did not demonstrate the superiority of such a "pluralistic" system.

In the Albania of the 80's prices for various goods had either not changed since the 50's or were lowered, there was 0% unemployment, and it had some of the most generous social benefits in the world, including just about the lowest apartment rents, no taxation, and so on. And this was a country hated by pretty much the whole world, capitalist and state-capitalist alike. In fact it was during Alia's efforts at imposing a "plurality of ownership forms" on Albanians in 1989-1990 that the labour code came under attack as giving too much leeway to the "lazy," "shirkers," etc. who "deserved" to be jobless.

Ismail

2nd August 2013, 03:46

His view in actually in line with Kautsky'sAlways nice to know his views are in line with a renegade who called for the overthrow of Soviet Russia and the defense of the German "fatherland" in WWI.

You forgot to include goulash communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulash_Communism) era Hungary in your list.All of the Eastern European states (except Albania, of course) toyed with market reforms as part of their "specific roads to socialism." They all enjoyed the support of the Soviet revisionists to greater or lesser degrees. This includes persons like Imre Nagy and Dubček, who the Soviet revisionists showered with praise until both men began to oppose the interests of Soviet revisionism and social-imperialism in favor of unabashed links with US imperialism.

Any of one those countries would be preferable to living in the fortified labor camp that was Hoxha's Albania.Lord knows I'd love to live in a country that shuts electricity off to pay back IMF loans, as in Romania, or whose anti-Marxist nationalities policy leads to wars and genocides, as in Yugoslavia.

I also like how you point out the Albanian bunkers, this being the same country that defiantly withdrew from the Warsaw Treaty in response to the fascistic Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia, and the same country which had a state of war with neighboring Greece up until 1987, and the same country that fended off armed overthrow by Anglo-American agents in 1949-52. And, of course, it never did enjoy too good of a relationship with Yugoslavia either. And yet despite all this, Albania's military doctrine was based on an armed populace resisting external aggression. Virtually every Albanian trained to use rifles and other weaponry as a normal part of life, with many of them keeping such weapons at home. As one visitor noted, "Husak would not dream of distributing weapons to Czech and Slovak youth. He would not survive many hours if he did. Kadar would not distribute automatics and submachine guns in the villages of Hungary. Brezhnev would not hand out hand grenades to Soviet students." (Albania Defiant, p. 146.)

Apparently this qualifies Albania as being a "fortified labor camp." And yet in the 1976 Constitution it is stated that, "The establishment of foreign military bases and the stationing of foreign troops in the territory of the People's Socialist Republic of Albania is prohibited." The same could not be said for the states under the "protection" of the Warsaw Treaty, which was an aggressive instrument of Soviet social-imperialism, with Soviet troops always ready to step in and "normalize" the situation of any country that did not accept their dictate.

Sotionov

2nd August 2013, 06:58

Always nice to know his views are in line with a renegade who called for the overthrow of Soviet Russia
Any enemy of state-capitalism is a friend of mine.

Ismail

2nd August 2013, 07:13

Any enemy of state-capitalism is a friend of mine.This is incorrect, for it is the state-capitalists who denounce the work of Lenin and Stalin, who cover up imperialism and promote class-collaborationism with the bourgeoisie. As Hoxha pointed out, "In his anti-communist attacks on Stalin, Nikita Khrushchev has surpassed even the imperialists, the most rabid reactionaries and renegades from communism, Kautsky, Trotsky, Tito and Djilas." (Selected Works Vol. III, p. 617.) Unlike Kautsky who defended the bourgeois state which murdered Luxemburg and Liebknecht, and unlike Tito who demagogically appealed to "workers' self-management" to cover up his alliance with US imperialism and nationalist deviationism, Khrushchev presided over the wrecking of the world's first socialist state and thus associated Lenin's name with the invasions of Czechoslovakia and Afghanistan, with the cynical "real and existing socialism" of his successor and one-time lackey Brezhnev, and paved the road for Gorbachev to emerge to carry out that which Khrushchev himself could not.

It was also the Soviet revisionists who carried forward the banner of Kautsky and Bernstein in promoting the supposed "parliamentary road to socialism." Notice, too, how you omit the second part of the quote, his defense of German imperialism, which was closely connected to his denunciation of Soviet Russia as part of his overall opportunism and renegadism.

Sotionov

2nd August 2013, 07:35

This is incorrect, for it is the state-capitalists who denounce the work of Lenin and Stalin,
That's like saying that nazis denounce the work of Hitler, it contradictory in itself. Lenin and Stalin (and Trocky, and Tito, and Mao, and everyone who was for nationalization and hierarchy) were state-capitalists. They want to make themselves and the party bureaucracy the new bourgeoisie, and that's what they did in ther "revolutions".

JAC0BIN

2nd August 2013, 17:14

The 700 to 1 income ratio is unjust, not inefficient. The issue lies in the society that the market in embedded in. Other capitalist nations do not have the same income inequality. Yes markets are less efficient than advertised, but it is hard to argue that markets are not responsive to change.

The the Cold War did divert resources from the civilian sector. No argument there. But the fact is that the Soviet planned economy -- the Gosplan --simply did not do well at providing civilian goods. Military goods it did rather well at. After all it was the Russian planned economy that made possible the Russian war machine that defeated Hitler. (If anyone can lay claim to the title it's the Russians.) It also enabled them to punch above their weight in the Cold War. But it didn't do a very good job of delivering shoes to the Russian people.

Market inefficiency has been well researched and written on, even by accepted prominent economists like Veblen for example, who wrote extensively on the illusions that capitalist institutions fabricate; such as the illusion of efficiency. 700 to 1 pay scales are extremely inefficient, not only unfair. All of that excess pay is money that is gone, because its money that cant be reinvested or used to expand business, or facilities, or output etc. Its money wasted by executives that in corporate form, have ZERO liability in the corporation and are essentially parasites, its true.

Following WW2, one does not hear about shoe shortages in the soviet bloc. Or lack of mattresses to sleep on, no, what you DO hear is about the lack of variety. Which is not a problem either, Given, that in a capitalist society, its a illusion that the market responds to wants. Do people first WANT the new fads, or are the new fads simply whats PUSHED ONTO THE MASSES? I think its the latter, demand in capitalism is manufactured. Just another illusion that the market responds, no, it creates its own demand.

Popular Front of Judea

2nd August 2013, 20:10

So Ismail what accounts for your er fascination with Enver Hoxha? Somehow I doubt you are a 60s era Maoist that adopted Albania after China turned away from Maoism in the late 70s.

In the Albania of the 80's prices for various goods had either not changed since the 50's or were lowered, there was 0% unemployment, and it had some of the most generous social benefits in the world, including just about the lowest apartment rents, no taxation, and so on. And this was a country hated by pretty much the whole world, capitalist and state-capitalist alike. In fact it was during Alia's efforts at imposing a "plurality of ownership forms" on Albanians in 1989-1990 that the labour code came under attack as giving too much leeway to the "lazy," "shirkers," etc. who "deserved" to be jobless.

Paul Cockshott

2nd August 2013, 20:20

My view is that markets and socialism can only coexist for a short time. The market relations create strong pressures for the restoration of capitalism even if initially the form of property is public and cooperative.
The key issue is whether there are subunits of production whose survival depends on covering their costs through sales.
But consumer goods markets with a state monopoly retail network would probably be able to exist for an extended period.

Paul Cockshott

2nd August 2013, 20:27

No. Products do not have intinsic value, and thus no exploitation can happen trough exchange. LTV is a void theoretical concept, it's only connection to reality is it being a part of supply-demand explanation of formation of prices. So, being that only exchange value really exists, no exploitation happens in exchange.
Absolute nonsense. The LTV gives a >95% correlation between labour values and actual prices in capitalist economies.

Popular Front of Judea

2nd August 2013, 20:33

So let's say we nationalize Wal-Mart here in the States. I pick Wal-Mart because of its geographic reach and its impressive just in time inventory system. (I do believe Marx would be impressed). How would that work in a non-market socialist economy?

My view is that markets and socialism can only coexist for a short time. The market relations create strong pressures for the restoration of capitalism even if initially the form of property is public and cooperative.
The key issue is whether there are subunits of production whose survival depends on covering their costs through sales.
But consumer goods markets with a state monopoly retail network would probably be able to exist for an extended period.

Fakeblock

2nd August 2013, 20:45

Except if there's no bourgeoisie.

Of course markets can't benefit a bourgeoisie that doesn't exist. Doesn't mean they benefit everyone else more, though.

Really? You're going to argue that abolishing exploitation is oppressive in a socialist-to-socialist discussion?

I'm not an anarchist, so I don't really have any qualms about using the word. Of course you are oppressing the bourgeoisie when violently coercing them to conform with your mode of organisation.

"Surplus value" is a marxist term for direct exploitation, and concernes only production. The only exploitation that can happen in exchange is collection of rent (on land, money, any property), and all socialists (including market and mutualist socialists) are against all exploitation.

The cotton that was bought for £100 is perhaps resold for £100 + £10 or £110. The exact form of this process is therefore M-C-M', where M' = M + D M = the original sum advanced, plus an increment. This increment or excess over the original value I call “surplus-value.” The value originally advanced, therefore, not only remains intact while in circulation, but adds to itself a surplus-value or expands itself. It is this movement that converts it into capital.
If the transformation of merchants’ money into capital is to be explained otherwise than by the producers being simply cheated, a long series of intermediate steps would be necessary, which, at present, when the simple circulation of commodities forms our only assumption, are entirely wanting.

The merchant cheats the producer, but I'm not sure if you could call this exploitation. Regardless, the value in the merchant's possesion is greater after the exchange has been completed than before.

He makes sure himself, by producing staff for which there is demand.

Demand can change. During famine there's a much higher demand for bread than during times of abundance. Should everyone give up their line of work when demand for their goods/services are small?

Which is, like production, perfectly suitable to exist between workers.

Exchange can happen between workers, I won't argue against this. I was merely trying to highlight the differences between markets and technology. By saying that markets/exchanges are social relations and technology is nothing of the sort. Apples and oranges.

If your business goes down, you sell the tools you have, and buy new ones. You ask the community organized "people's bank" to give you a interest-free loan to buy new tools. etc. etc.

Do you think it's possible for everyone to have a their own enterprises and for all these enterprises to produce things for which there is demand? It seems like independent businesses would form the large majority of enterprises, especially since expanding the workforce would be quite a risk for workers to take.

Furthermore market-socialism having to rely on communes to keep bad businessmen alive is not a very good indicator of the system's ability to fulfill needs.

By abolishing rents, thereby abolition banking as we know it, which implies abolition of all derivatives, trading of which causes all crises.

Quite an assumption.

In a classless society, what is profitable on the market is equivalent to what is needed.

Everyone wouldn't be making the same money even in your market socialist society. Some people are bound to make more than others and the needs of these people carry more weight in a market society.

Which is connected to capitalist outsorcing, and not connected to this topic in any way.

Doesn't matter what it's connected to, workers are better off when relying on stable state welfare than when relying on unstable charity.

Communist organization doesn't solve this question. Why should people in a commune work more that what is needed to feed themselves and their families, so that other people, entire sections of the population, could have their needs met too?

When coordination of production is the responsibility of the whole of society, planning decisions correspond to the needs that need to be met. Sure, some people are bound to be disappointed that they can't get their personalised space shuttles, but whatever. When distribution is conducted according to need, people don't either spend money to feed themselves and their families or to feed other people.

In a market society, on the other hand, people have a quite limited amount of money to spend on other people. Unless forced they are bound to prioritise their own well-being over the well-being of people they might not even know.

No. Although there are good arguments by market socialists that markets are more effective then any planning when consument products are concerned.

Let's hear 'em.

Because if the former you are "coerced" by the fact of life, and in the latter you are coerced by people.

Everyone participating in production is surely not a fact of life. Class society has done enough to prove that.

Anyway, it's not a question of which form of coercion is better, it's a question of which side you take in the class struggle.

No, it is not. Revolution is self-defense against coercion by which the capitalist system is perserved.

If I shoot someone who's punching me (or merely punch back) it's still violence. Coercion isn't any different.

Popular Front of Judea

2nd August 2013, 20:53

If you have size 14 feet with fallen arches a lack of shoe variety is a real not rhetorical issue. I have enough trouble finding affordable shoes in the capitalist market that work for me.

Asceticism when it comes to consumer goods shouldn't be something imposed on the public at large. If one wants to live an austere life that's a personal choice. I lived for a period of time at an "intentional community" that provided basic clothing to all residents. (It was called "Commie Clothes".) Living there was a personal choice. If I didn't want to live the austere life they offered I was free to leave.

Following WW2, one does not hear about shoe shortages in the soviet bloc. Or lack of mattresses to sleep on, no, what you DO hear is about the lack of variety. Which is not a problem either, Given, that in a capitalist society, its a illusion that the market responds to wants. Do people first WANT the new fads, or are the new fads simply whats PUSHED ONTO THE MASSES? I think its the latter, demand in capitalism is manufactured. Just another illusion that the market responds, no, it creates its own demand.

Sotionov

3rd August 2013, 00:49

I'm not an anarchist, so I don't really have any qualms about using the word. Of course you are oppressing the bourgeoisie when violently coercing them to conform with your mode of organisation.
Stopping theft isn't oppression, and exploitation is a type of theft, a systematic one.

Regardless, the value in the merchant's possesion is greater after the exchange has been completed than before.
The merchant buys an item, and sells it for more money. That difference supposedly covers his costs in buying, transporting, storing and selling of the item, and also his earning by which he lives. The merchant cannot in no way "cheat" and charge more then his labor is worth, being that the value of labor ("toil and trouble" as Adam Smith called) can be expressed in exchange-value only subjectively, because it contains in itself multitude of factors that are subjective- such as laborer's health, strength, skill, mood, circumstances of his production, living, etc etc, and (having in mind the axiom that the laborer is the unalienable owner of his labor) an hour of labor doing the same thing can be worth more to one laborer then the other depending on those factors.

Should everyone give up their line of work when demand for their goods/services are small?
Should everyone continue producing stuff for which there is no demand?

By saying that markets/exchanges are social relations and technology is nothing of the sort. Apples and oranges.
You were saying that markets are bad because they expanded with capitalism and capitalists use them to exploit workers, I was just pointing out that the same description could be given to technology and production itself.

It seems like independent businesses would form the large majority of enterprises, especially since expanding the workforce would be quite a risk for workers to take.
I'm talking about a theoretical model of market socialism or mutualism, which like all theoretical models assumes it includes all economy. My personal opinion would be that if market socialism would be formed as a system, the majority of people would shortly form Bakuninist collectives and Kropotkinist communes, because they are more practical, and I would myself choose to participate in a commune. I'm just giving you some opinions that market socialists and mutualists hold.

Some people are bound to make more than others[quote]
If they have a larger market share. But there is nothing stopping other people to start producing that which has high demand, thereby putting the wealth circulation of the economy in an equilibrium.

[quote]Doesn't matter what it's connected to, workers are better off when relying on stable state welfare than when relying on unstable charity.
Workers' mutual aid organizations are not charity.

When distribution is conducted according to need, people don't either spend money to feed themselves and their families or to feed other people.

In a market society, on the other hand, people have a quite limited amount of money to spend on other people.
But they "spend" labor. The communist society doesn't have infinite amount of materials and labor. When money is eliminated, you don't magically solve all problems, a communist society has to carefully monitor supply and demand, too, so that materials and labor don't get misallocated, and we get a bunch of something that we don't need, and less of something that we need.

Let's hear 'em.
Just read Parecon's proposal of year-plans, and there's no way that someone could think that something like that is more practical then a market for consumer goods.

Everyone participating in production is surely not a fact of life. Class society has done enough to prove that.
Why would you bring that up? I assumed that we are both against a class society, was I wrong?

Anyway, it's not a question of which form of coercion is better, it's a question of which side you take in the class struggle.
Coercion means people forcing other people (not) to do something. Production being impossible without labor isn't coercion, it's reality.

If I shoot someone who's punching me (or merely punch back) it's still violence. Coercion isn't any different.
Coercion is by definition aggressive. Violence can be aggressive and protective, so I don't have anything against violence per-se.

Ismail

3rd August 2013, 00:50

So Ismail what accounts for your er fascination with Enver Hoxha? Somehow I doubt you are a 60s era Maoist that adopted Albania after China turned away from Maoism in the late 70s.Because Hoxha upheld Marxism-Leninism against the revisionism of the likes of Khrushchev and Brezhnev, Tito and Castro, Ceaușescu and Kim Il Sung, Mao and Co., the Eurocommunists and "Islamic/Arab Socialists," and so on. Certainly that's admirable and worthy of upholding.

Popular Front of Judea

3rd August 2013, 01:08

Reading about 'Parecon' is the best argument for market allocation of consumer goods I have seen yet.

Just read Parecon's proposal of year-plans, and there's no way that someone could think that something like that is more practical then a market for consumer goods

Fakeblock

4th August 2013, 16:08

Stopping theft isn't oppression, and exploitation is a type of theft, a systematic one.

No it's not. The worker, through his own accord, chooses to sell his labour power. The forces that compel the worker to sell his/her labour power are entirely beyond the control of the capitalists, even though they benefit them. With the logic of the market (that everyone enters into an exchange on equal terms), the capitalist has every right to hire labour.

The merchant buys an item, and sells it for more money. That difference supposedly covers his costs in buying, transporting, storing and selling of the item, and also his earning by which he lives. The merchant cannot in no way "cheat" and charge more then his labor is worth, being that the value of labor ("toil and trouble" as Adam Smith called) can be expressed in exchange-value only subjectively, because it contains in itself multitude of factors that are subjective- such as laborer's health, strength, skill, mood, circumstances of his production, living, etc etc, and (having in mind the axiom that the laborer is the unalienable owner of his labor) an hour of labor doing the same thing can be worth more to one laborer then the other depending on those factors.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you seem to make the mistake in thinking that, according to the law of value, the exchange-value of a commodity is individual. In fact, value is generalised for the whole commodity.

For instance, all apples have the same value. Although there might have gone more labour-time into the harvesting of apple 1, it still has the same value as apple 2. When the apples enter the market, and thereby become commodities, it makes no difference how much labour-time has gone into the individual apples. Value is expressed in average labour-time.

The merchant doesn't cheat the buyer but the producer, from whom he buys the item below its value. Presumably the merchant would use the surplus as capital and not just as living expenses. In fact, he would have to if he wants to continue his "merchandising".

Should everyone continue producing stuff for which there is no demand?

No, obviously not. However, it is quite impractical for someone to give up their line of work and start a new enterprise every time demand for their particular good or service drops.

You were saying that markets are bad because they expanded with capitalism and capitalists use them to exploit workers, I was just pointing out that the same description could be given to technology and production itself.

I'm also saying that markets have always benefited the merchant classes, who developed into the industrial bourgeoisie, which is not true for technology and production.

My personal opinion would be that if market socialism would be formed as a system, the majority of people would shortly form Bakuninist collectives and Kropotkinist communes, because they are more practical, and I would myself choose to participate in a commune.

Great, maybe we're reaching an agreement. Just to be clear, my opinion is that market socialism might work as a transitional period (like nationalisation could) but would, under a dictatorship of the proletariat, have to develop into a system where the means of production are held in common. At this point, making a detailed blueprint seems like a waste of time to me.

If they have a larger market share. But there is nothing stopping other people to start producing that which has high demand, thereby putting the wealth circulation of the economy in an equilibrium.

Maybe the fact that starting a business, getting all the production equipment etc. takes a lot of time and money. I suppose in a mutualist society, the means of production would be free, but that seems rather impractical - especially if everyone are expected to start new businesses when demand in their particular field drops. And those who produce the means of production have to make a living, too.

Workers' mutual aid organizations are not charity.

Maybe I'm being dense, but how would these organisations get funding?

But they "spend" labor. The communist society doesn't have infinite amount of materials and labor. When money is eliminated, you don't magically solve all problems, a communist society has to carefully monitor supply and demand, too, so that materials and labor don't get misallocated, and we get a bunch of something that we don't need, and less of something that we need.

Of course, and this would probably be done through a plan that prioritises basic needs such as food, shelter, hospitals etc.

Just read Parecon's proposal of year-plans, and there's no way that someone could think that something like that is more practical then a market for consumer goods.

Could you by any chance link to the proposal? Is it just restating the basic parecon stuff about labour credits and rotating management positions etc? I don't really care for parecon and find the whole project to be pretty utopian and reformist.

Why would you bring that up? I assumed that we are both against a class society, was I wrong?

Don't worry, you're right. What I'm saying is that we can easily produce enough for the world population to have its basic needs fulfilled and yet we have millions of unemployed, people working useless jobs like sales, banking and advertising and, not least, a sizeable ruling class that contributes nothing to production.

If all these people participate in producing goods that can be used in society, we could probably all relax a little more.

Coercion means people forcing other people (not) to do something.

And you support forcing people to work.

Coercion is by definition aggressive. Violence can be aggressive and protective, so I don't have anything against violence per-se.

If coercion means "forcing people (not) to do something" how is forcing the class enemy to participate in your ideal society - be it communal or market based - not coercion?

Sotionov

4th August 2013, 20:03

No it's not.
Yes it is, being that the laborer is defrauded of the fruits of his labor by signing a contract of sale of something that is unsellable, being that it is inalienable. Being defrauded of what belongs to you is theft.

For instance, all apples have the same value.Apples have no value in themselves. Apples can have value to those that want them. And it is impossible for all apples to have the same value for all people.

Presumably the merchant would use the surplus as capital and not just as living expensesCapital means something used for exploitation (alienation of labor or charging rent on anything). If the merchant were to use his earnings as capital, he would not be tolerated in a socialist society. But a merchant that doesn't do that, and doesn't oppress anyone, is perfectly fit to be a part of the socialist society.

However, it is quite impractical for someone to give up their line of work and start a new enterprise every time demand for their particular good or service drops.The alternative is continuing producing stuff for which there is no demand.

Great, maybe we're reaching an agreement. Just to be clear, my opinion is that market socialism might work as a transitional period (like nationalisation could) but would, under a dictatorship of the proletariat, have to develop into a system where the means of production are held in common.It would seem that we're not coming to an agreement. I see natinoalization as a form of capitalism, I reject the notion of DotP, and I think that only common property that ought to exist is the one that was volutarily pooled together by the workers.

Maybe I'm being dense, but how would these organisations get funding?They are maintained same way as communes- by voluntary participation of the workers.

And you support forcing people to work.Have you been reading my writing at all? I am adamantly against that.

how is forcing the class enemy to participate in your ideal society - be it communal or market based - not coercion?No one would be forced to participate.

cyu

4th August 2013, 20:18

Does that person choose to live off other people's labor? I have worded my view precisely.

So how much do the old and handicapped get, assuming they're not considered parasites? Do they get as much as everyone else? Is there enough equality in your society that "as much" can be determined? If there isn't much equality, how do you determine how much stuff the old and handicapped should get? If there is equality, how does your version of a market work under conditions of economic equality?

Sotionov

4th August 2013, 20:26

Is there enough equality in your society that "as much" can be determined?
From each according to his ability to each according his need, organized voluntarily and horizontally, I'd say there couldn't be more equality in MY society. Stop making assumptions in such an idiotic smirky manner.

Fakeblock

4th August 2013, 21:04

Yes it is being that the laborer is defrauded of the fruits of his labor by signing a contract of sale of something that is unsellable, being that it is inalienable. Being defrauded of what belongs to you is theft.

Why is a workers' labour power unsellable. We have all seen, through practice, that it's very sellable. All capitalist production is based on the sale of labour power (which you seem to agree with), so saying that it's unsellable seems like a highly contradictory statement.

And workers are often completely aware of the terms of the contracts they sign, so why are they being defrauded?

Apples have no value. Apples can have value to those that want them. It is impossible for all apples to have the same value for all people.

Apples, in the abstract, have no value. However, when they have been harvested and put into the market, thereby becoming commodities, they have.

I don't know what you mean by value here. Sentimental value or whatever is indeed quite subjective. Exchange-value, how a commodity relates to other kinds of commodities, is objective reality.

Capital means something used for exploitation (alienation of labor or charging rent on anything).

No it doesn't. You're making up your own definitions.

So you do think that people should producing stuff for which there is no demand.

In a market society when demand for a particular item is too low the business that produces it fails and the owner is, to a degree depending on his/her previous savings, fucked.

In a planned economy, when demand for a particular item is too low the plan is changed to accommodate this change in demand.

Mutualist society has no such choice. It doesn't want people falling into poverty, yet it retains the anarchy of the market. There is a sharp contradiction between the wishes of the community and the reality of the economy. Telling people to change their businesses to adapt to the various shifts in the market is highly impractical. You need the time to plan, you need the money to purchase equipment and, perhaps, when you've finally made all the necessary preparations, the market shifts again.

It would seem that we're not coming to an agreement. I see natinoalization as a form of capitalism, I reject the notion of DotP, and I think that only common property that ought to exist is the one that was volutarily pooled together by the workers.

Shame, I thought we were going somewhere. What I meant was that we seem to both see market economies as more impractical than communal ones.

They are maintained same way as communes- by voluntary participation of the workers.

So charity work...

Have you been reading my writing at all? I am adamantly against that.

But they either work or starve. Not much difference

No one would be forced to participate.

So, for a thought experiment, imagine a group of people don't want to participate. Rather they feel like life was much better back in the Thatcher/Reagan days and they want that back. So they decide to build their own capitalist firm. Your position would be:

The cooperative that would tunt into a capitalist firm would be shut down, their means of production confiscated (by the directly-democratic commune) because of their theft, and probably given to the ones being exploited.

As a side note, why would the enterprises decide against wage-labour when they can make more money and do less work if they hire workers. Ideological zeal?

[If they resist] they will be fought against as any other reactionary.

They have a quite limited amount of options. Either they participate in the market society, the "Bakuninist society" or the "Kropotkinist society" or they starve. If they try to build their own ideal society they will be (violently) stopped from doing so by the community.

Not to mention the current capitalists/pro-capitalists. Would you wait for a 100% consensus before carrying out any changes in society lest you accidentally force someone to participate?

Perhaps theoretically you're opposed to forcing people, but if your ideal society is to be a reality, in practice, you'd have to make a choice between force or surrender.

LovingEmbrace

4th August 2013, 21:07

socialism is the most reactionary ideology in the world. you cannot. have. socialism. and. achieve. Communism. socialism and markets. can co-exist. markets. are. not. capitalistic. or. socialistic. markets are a product of separation.

Paul Cockshott

5th August 2013, 00:05

So let's say we nationalize Wal-Mart here in the States. I pick Wal-Mart because of its geographic reach and its impressive just in time inventory system. (I do believe Marx would be impressed). How would that work in a non-market socialist economy?

Depends what you mean by a non market economy. In a non money economy with labour accounts or event a Bellamy social credit account system, it would work much as it does now. The Bellamy model more or less foresaw a combination of Wallmart and Amazon a back in the late 19th century.

Popular Front of Judea

5th August 2013, 00:16

I have to ask why mimic the market with labor credits and computer modeling ... when the market already exists? Beside an aesthetic distaste for money and trade is there a compelling reason to eliminate it?

Depends what you mean by a non market economy. In a non money economy with labour accounts or event a Bellamy social credit account system, it would work much as it does now. The Bellamy model more or less foresaw a combination of Wallmart and Amazon a back in the late 19th century.

Sotionov

5th August 2013, 00:16

Why is a workers' labour power unsellable.
Because it is untranserable. Only I can control my action, and therefore I cannot tranfer of the responsiblity for my actions on someone else, that includes the ownership over the fruits of my labor.

We have all seen, through practice, that it's very sellable.As I said, it's a fraud. We have seen people being sold in slavery, doesn't meen that people can be property, which they can't. They only be falsely thought to be property.

No it doesn't. You're making up your own definitions.To quote Marx, from Wage labor and Capital:
"Capital consists of raw materials, instruments of labour, and means of subsistence of all kinds, which are employed in producing new raw materials, new instruments, and new means of subsistence. All these components of capital are created by labour, are products of labour, are accumulated labour."

"A Negro is a Negro. Only under certain conditions does he become a slave. A cotton-spinning machine is a machine for spinning cotton. Only under certain conditions does it become capital. Torn away from these conditions, it is as little capital as gold is itself money, or sugar is the price of sugar."

That relation is wage-labor. He says in that same chapter:

"It is only the dominion of past, accumulated, materialized labour over immediate living labour that stamps the accumulated labour with the character of capital."

Or to quote Engels, from Anti-Duhring:

"The idea, however, that capital is simply “produced means of production” is once again the accepted view only in vulgar political economy. Outside of this vulgar economics, which Herr Dühring holds so dear, the “produced means of production” or any sum of values whatever, becomes capital only by yielding profit or interest, i.e., by appropriating the surplus-product of unpaid labour in the form of surplus-value, and, moreover, by appropriating it in these two definite subforms of surplus-value. It is of absolutely no importance that the whole of bourgeois economy is still labouring under the idea that the property of yielding profit or interest is inherent in every sum of values which is utilised under normal conditions in production or exchange. In classical political economy, capital and profit, or capital and interest, are just as inseparable, stand in the same reciprocal relations to each other, as cause and effect, father and son, yesterday and today. The word “capital” in its modern economic meaning is first met with, however, at the time when the thing itself makes its appearance, when movable wealth acquires, to a greater and greater extent, the function of capital, by exploiting the surplus-labour of free labourers"

Proudhon wrote about exploitation boss-profits and interest (rentier-profits), too, in fact before them.

In a market society when demand for a particular item is too low the business that produces it fails and the owner is, to a degree depending on his/her previous savings, fucked.Unless in a society where there are interest-free loans available, and in a socialist society only such loans are.

In a planned economy, when demand for a particular item is too low the plan is changed to accommodate this change in demand.And what happens with the people producing the item that is no longer needed by the society- they are ordered/ forced into a job that produces some other, needed, item?

selling people to change their businesses to adapt to the various shifts in the market is highly impractical. The same supply and demand shifts and the same need for such planning will exist in every society, and thus also in a communist society.

So charity work...Sure, if you want to call workers organizing themselves into a communistically funcioning economy charity, ok, yes, charity it is.

But they either work or starve. Not much differenceThere is a huge difference if you starve because you do not want to work at all (but you are free to work however you want and organize however you want will other people, as long as you don't oppress or exploit anyone), or you starve because you are coerced by some people to obey them or starve (not being free to work on your own, or organize with other people how you want, even you don't oppress or exploit anyone).

As a side note, why would the enterprises decide against wage-labour when they can make more money and do less work if they hire workers. Ideological zeal?Respect for the system and it's principles. Socialism implies that the majority of the people want it and want to continue mantaining it (because it is in it's core a system that functions by participation of the vast majority), and thereby logically- anyone trying to oppress or exploit would be stopped by the community. Knowing that such things are going to be stopped by the community, what will stop enterprises from trying exploitation would be their sanity.

They have a quite limited amount of options. Either they participate in the market society, the "Bakuninist society" or the "Kropotkinist society" or they starve.They are not to oppress and exploit anyone and they can do what they want, yes, it would seem that their options are quite limited.

lest you accidentally force someone to participate?I just said no one would be force to participate, please read what I write if we're going to discuss. But if you want to play the "lets-talk-like-reactionary-idiots" game, sure, yes- they would be "forced to participate" in human civilization, and they will be "deprived of their liberty" to be oppressors and thieves.

Fakeblock

5th August 2013, 18:17

As I said, it's a fraud. We have seen people being sold in slavery, doesn't meen that people can be property, which they can't. They only be falsely thought to be property.

There is no natural property. Property is a social construct. Slaves were property of their owners, because the productive relations in the times of slavery depended on it.

To quote Marx, from Wage labor and Capital:
quotes

I agree with the quotes, but I don't think they support your position that capital is "something used for exploitation". That definition is too broad to be meaningful. If the capitalist, by gunpoint, force people to work for a wage, is the gun then capital?

Unless in a society where there are interest-free loans available, and in a socialist society only such loans are.

Banks can't just loan out money willy-nilly, they have to asses the likelihood of getting their money back. Someone who has no income and whose businesses fail is not a very good candidate for a loan.

And what happens with the people producing the item that is no longer needed by the society- they are ordered/ forced into a job that produces some other, needed, item?

That probably depends on the concrete situation. I couldn't possibly know. My guess would be that there would be a meeting of some sorts with the producers (or the whole community - I don't expect a classless society to have the same kind of work at the same place all the time-division of labour that we have today) and production would be shut down. They could then decide for themselves what to do, but they probably wouldn't be allocated materials for producing something useless.

It would probably happen differently. I don't really think we're in a position now to plan out future modes of production.

Sure, if you want to call workers organizing themselves into a communistically funcioning economy charity, ok, yes, charity it is.

I wouldn't call the above charity in every case, but in this case I would.

Now, I don't know if you are saying that these mutual aid organisations would function outside of the market economy. If they don't they would be based on individual workers, with very limited money reserves, choosing to fund organisations for helping those incapable of working profitable jobs, workers and individual workers, with time better spent working for their living, choosing to set up these organisation. Pretty much charity and not very stable.

If they function outside the market economy they are more an argument against the mutualist society than for it.

There is a huge difference if you starve because you do not want to work at all (but you are free to work however you want and organize however you want will other people, as long as you don't oppress or exploit anyone), or you starve because you are coerced by some people to obey them or starve (not being free to work on your own, or organize with other people how you want, even you don't oppress or exploit anyone).

But I'm talking about the difference between "work or get shot" and "work or starve to death". There isn't much of a difference between the two.

Respect for the system and it's principles. Socialism implies that the majority of the people want it and want to continue mantaining it (because it is in it's core a system that functions by participation of the vast majority), and thereby logically- anyone trying to oppress or exploit would be stopped by the community. Knowing that such things are going to be stopped by the community, what will stop enterprises from trying exploitation would be their sanity.

Businesses won't respect the system and its principles for very long when they find out that they can make more money from just hiring labour.

I just said no one would be force to participate, please read what I write if we're going to discuss.

I read you pretty clearly and I asked "will you wait for a 100% consensus". If not, where do you draw the line if you don't want to force people?

yes- they would be "forced to participate" in human civilization, and they will be "deprived of their liberty" to be oppressors and thieves.

Great, we're in agreement.

Sotionov

5th August 2013, 19:48

There is no natural property.
There is, in the product of one's labor. That's the basis of socialism, that workers's right to property is violated by bosses and usurers, it's what's called exploitation, and that's what we socialists oppose.

If the capitalist, by gunpoint, force people to work for a wage, is the gun then capital?No, it is used for oppression. And in my book socialism is defined by opposition to oppression and exploitation.

But I'm talking about the difference between "work or get shot" and "work or starve to death". There isn't much of a difference between the two.There's a huge difference, if the first case if you do work- you're exploited, if the second case you can work by exerting free labor without any boss and master oppressing or exploiting you. Being that we socialist are against oppression and exploitation that's a great difference.

Businesses won't respect the system and its principles for very long when they find out that they can make more money from just hiring labour.How can they "find out" something that is not true? If they try to hire labor they will suffer big economic consequences by the hand of the socialistic community in the midst of which they live, how is that "making more money"?

I read you pretty clearly and I asked "will you wait for a 100% consensus". If not, where do you draw the line if you don't want to force people?IMO, a large majority of people, like two-thirds, would be neccessary for socialism to work. That said, I guess that even if the half of people are socialist, a large number of people will join them if they start a revolution.

Fakeblock

5th August 2013, 22:27

There is, in the product of one's labor.

What do you base this on? The word of God? The laws of physics? You might think that this is a good kind of property, but there is nothing natural about it.

That's the basis of socialism, that workers's right to property is violated by bosses and usurers

I refer to my previous post:

"socialism" is quite useless as a descriptive term, since we all seem to use it for different things. Claiming something is socialism does not make it desirable, rational or realistic

The fact that even the fascists try to claim the word goes to show that the word socialism is bastardised and meaningless.

But I'm a communist anyway, so what do I care...

There's a huge difference, if the first case if you do work- you're exploited, if the second case you can work by exerting free labor without any boss and master oppressing or exploiting you. Being that we socialist are against oppression and exploitation that's a great difference.

So you say. I still think that although there might be a huge theoretical difference, it's pretty much the same in practice. You still either work or die.

How can they "find out" something that is not true? If they try to hire labor they will suffer big economic consequences by the hand of the socialistic community in the midst of which they live, how is that "making more money"?

This might be true for a generation or two, who have experienced and taken part in the revolution. However, the big fish in the economy will eventually think that its more useful for them to get "employees" without needing to divide the profits more. The small businesses might agree - perhaps they would have a "I started this company, so why should the new man have the same profit share as me" mentality.

In fact, I saw a great (old) post on this very site about the dangers of mutualist enterprises. The argument was that, since taking on new people would be such a risk (hiring new members would mean a decrease in profit shares) it would make sense for companies to hire people as apprentices/on trial periods or something similar. Quite naturally you wouldn't give an apprentice as large a profit share as others. This, I imagine, would seem very sensible for every firm to do.

Of course, this is still a petit-bourgeois relationship, nowhere near the scale of contemporary, "big" capitalism. It's still a capitalist relationship, however.

IMO, a large majority of people, like two-thirds, would be neccessary for socialism to work. That said, I guess that even if the half of people are socialist, a large number of people will join them if they start a revolution.

Sensible enough.

Sotionov

6th August 2013, 08:55

What do you base this on? The word of God? The laws of physics? You might think that this is a good kind of property, but there is nothing natural about it.

Being the only good kind of property is what makes it "natural law".

The fact that even the fascists try to claim the word goes to show that the word socialism is bastardised and meaningless. No, it just means they are using the word in it's incorrect meaning, just like Leninists.

I still think that although there might be a huge theoretical difference, it's pretty much the same in practice.Saying that free labor and exploited labor are the same in practice is very reactionary of you.

However, the big fish in the economy will eventually think that its more useful for them to get "employees" without needing to divide the profits more. The small businesses might agreeThere's absolutely no logic to what you're saying, you're just babbling nonsense, because there is no such thing as a fixed capitalistic human nature, if anything, people in their core are far more motivated by the sense of purpose that doing something considered just and proper gives them, then they are by profit, so the idea that in a society that has come to the realization that exploitation is theft, and that wage-labor is wage-slavery people would just wait for a chance to exploit and be exploited is as ludicrous as suggesting tha people today would just buy slaves or sell themselves into slave, the first chance they get, which is of course idiotic, being that we have as a civilization come to accept the barbarity of slave-labor and serf-labor, and will in socialism have the same view of wage-labor.

Fakeblock

6th August 2013, 14:11

Being the only good kind of property is what makes it "natural law".

Not everything good is natural and not everything natural is good. I don't think the kind of "natural" property you want to implement is good.

No, it just means they are using the word in it's incorrect meaning, just like Leninists.

So where do you get the true meaning of socialism from?

Saying that free labor and exploited labor are the same in practice is very reactionary of you.

Forced labour is not necessarily exploited labour. I don't think your "free" labour is free at all.

There's absolutely no logic to what you're saying, you're just babbling nonsense, because there is no such thing as a fixed capitalistic human nature, if anything, people in their core are far more motivated by the sense of purpose that doing something considered just and proper gives them, then they are by profit, so the idea that in a society that has come to the realization that exploitation is theft, and that wage-labor is wage-slavery people would just wait for a chance to exploit and be exploited is as ludicrous as suggesting tha people today would just buy slaves or sell themselves into slave, the first chance they get, which is of course idiotic, being that we have as a civilization come to accept the barbarity of slave-labor and serf-labor, and will in socialism have the same view of wage-labor.

We have come to accept the "barbarity" of slave- and serf-labour, because there is no longer any material basis for these forms of labour to exist. The feudal and slave-holding classes have been eradicated and new forms of social organisation have replaced theirs.

It's not like everyone woke up one day, saw the barbarity of serfdom and flocked to the job centre, joyous that they would never again be tied to the land.

Mutualism doesn't remove the basis for capitalistic relations. If all aspects of production are designed to make a profit, people will hire workers if they think it's profitable. And it is, that's why people are doing it now.

Sotionov

6th August 2013, 15:08

Not everything good is natural and not everything natural is good.
"Natural law" means law as it should be, as is legitimate, "natural" there meaning "rational" and "correct".

I don't think the kind of "natural" property you want to implement is good.
Because of?

So where do you get the true meaning of socialism from?
From the people who historically defined it and gave it a name- Ricardian socialists, and the fact that anarchists are totally in line with socialistic economy.

Forced labour is not necessarily exploited labour.
Sure, in instances where some sadist forces someone to work, but allows him to have the fruits of his labor. Which happened nowhere and never.

I don't think your "free" labour is free at all.
You don't seem to grasp the meaning of free labor. It's labor without any boss, without being exploited. Please explain what would you consider free labor.

We have come to accept the "barbarity" of slave- and serf-labour, because there is no longer any material basis for these forms of labour to exist.
What does that even mean? Do you know, or are you just repeating senseless mantras posed by the dogmatic ideology you accept. Explain what exactly you mean by material basis, and what it for slaver, what for feudalism, and why those basis neccessitated those economic systems.

We have come to accept the "barbarity" of slave- and serf-labour, because there is no longer any material basis for these forms of labour to exist. The feudal and slave-holding classes have been eradicated and new forms of social organisation have replaced theirs.

It's not like everyone woke up one day, saw the barbarity of serfdom and flocked to the job centre, joyous that they would never again be tied to the land.
There was a raise of consciousness and a partial development of people's "instinct for freedom" and then revolution.

Mutualism doesn't remove the basis for capitalistic relations.
Actually by definition it does, being that there is no wage-labor and not rentiering in mutualism, that means that there are no capitalist relations in it.

If all aspects of production are designed to make a profit, people will hire workers if they think it's profitable.
If thre is wage-labor then by definition such a system is not mutualism (being that mutualism is oppossed to oppression and exploitation, and thus a type of socialism).

And it is, that's why people are doing it now.
It is not, people are doing it now because they live in a system economically ruled by capitalists, politically capitalist-supporting politians, and ideologically ruled by education and media managers that also support capitalism. When enough people gets out of the views that they have under the influence of their social conditions and accepts the wrongness of capitalism, we will abolish it.

Fakeblock

6th August 2013, 17:03

"Natural law" means law as it should be, as is legitimate, "natural" there meaning "rational" and "correct".

I don't see why this law of yours is "legitimate", "rational" or "correct".

Because of?

Because I believe that classes can only be abolished by socialising production.

Sure, in instances where some sadist forces someone to work, but allows him to have the fruits of his labor. Which happened nowhere and never.

So would you be against this? It's not much different than a sadist disallowing you access to food supplies if you don't work, but allows you to have the fruits of your labour.

You don't seem to grasp the meaning of free labor. It's labor without any boss, without being exploited. Please explain what would you consider free labor.

I think labour is free when on the based on voluntary association, not the threat of starvation.

What does that even mean? Do you know, or are you just repeating senseless mantras posed by the dogmatic ideology you accept.

Oh yes, I've been brainwashed by a dogmatic, authoritarian, Stalinist, state-capitalist cult that doesn't want me to think for myself. Please show me the true mutualist path.

Will you stop with the arrogance?

Explain what exactly you mean by material basis, and what it for slaver, what for feudalism, and why those basis neccessitated those economic systems.

Feudal lords arose from the ruins of the Roman empire and used their military powers to tie peasants to the land and make them produce for them. The means of production were primitive and the market was in its infancy. The primary purpose of production was immediate consumption, not sale.

As the market expanded, so did the wealth and power of the profiteering classes. The expansion of the market was caused by a development in the productive forces that allowed small-scale artisans and farmers to produce a surplus that could be sold. States found themselves searching for new ways to make profit, as to be able to compete (trade routes to India, discovery of America, Chinese porcelain etc.).

The bourgeoisie, after a few centuries of development, now had the opportunity to take power for itself. In the process of doing this it completely replaced the small-scale, individual production of the feudal era with the capitalist factory, based on social production and individual exchange. This led to the generalisation of commodity production, the transformation of the "means of production" into capital and the generalisation of wage-labour.

In destroying feudal society, the bourgeoisie had eradicated the feudal classes and changed the very nature of those productive forces that allowed a feudal-serf relation to exist.

There was a raise of consciousness and a partial development of people's "instinct for freedom" and then revolution.

Why did this happen and why, if they had a development in their "instinct for freedom", did these revolutions become corrupted, as I assume you think they were?

Actually by definition it does, being that there is no wage-labor and not rentiering in mutualism, that means that there are no capitalist relations in it.

But the reappearance of these relations would be beneficial to larger enterprises.

It is not, people are doing it now because they live in a system economically ruled by capitalists, politically capitalist-supporting politians, and ideologically ruled by education and media managers that also support capitalism. When enough people gets out of the views that they have under the influence of their social conditions and accepts the wrongness of capitalism, we will abolish it.

Capitalists don't hire workers because they're evil. They do it because it's profitable. The capitalist will hire as many workers as is economically viable, for as low a price as he can, because he knows it will make the company, and thereby him, richer.

Sotionov

6th August 2013, 19:32

Because I believe that classes can only be abolished by socialising production.
Which is simply not true, because an anarcho-individualist and mutualist societies are also by definition classless societies.

It's not much different than a sadist disallowing you access to food supplies if you don't workTo whose food supplies?

I think labour is free when on the based on voluntary association, not the threat of starvation.And how do you plan on removing the threat of starvation?

The expansion of the market was caused by a development in the productive forces that allowed small-scale artisans and farmers to produce a surplus that could be sold.This is false, being that markets have existed being very expanded, the arabs were a merchant nation, Silk Road and all that, you could buy chinese goods and slaves in greece etc.

In destroying feudal society, the bourgeoisie had eradicated the feudal classes and changed the very nature of those productive forces that allowed a feudal-serf relation to exist.[/quote]
In America capitalism emerged from slavery, that alone pretty much makes the marxist theory nonsensical.

But the reappearance of these relations would be beneficial to larger enterprises.It wouldn't being that the counter-incentive of being punished for the exploitation is much greater then the incentive of profits that exploitation mights bring.

Capitalists don't hire workers because they're evil. They do it because it's profitable.No, they do it because they function in the system that forms them. Also, there are a lot of studies that coops are more profitable then capitalist firms, which is logical, being that wage-labor is much more productive then slave-labor, likewise it is to expected for free-labor to be more productive then exploited labor of any kind.

Fakeblock

6th August 2013, 21:13

Which is simply not true, because an anarcho-individualist and mutualist societies are also by definition classless societies.

So you say. Either way they are unrealisable and utopian. They have no class basis.

To whose food supplies?

I assume they would be owned by the food producers in mutualist society.

And how do you plan on removing the threat of starvation?

Starvation is of course quite natural, but if food is in abundance and some people are being forced to work by other people, I don't think you can call them free labourers. If there are not enough basic necessities, I think people will work quite willingly, if they want to survive.

This is false, being that markets have existed being very expanded, the arabs were a merchant nation, Silk Road and all that, you could buy chinese goods and slaves in greece etc.

True, my explanation was quite eurocentric. To be clear I was talking about (Western) Europe during the "dark ages". The Arabic empires were certainly blossoming during this period. Europe, at the time, had, in regards to the development of the productive forces, regressed significantly, as a result of the Roman collapse.

In America capitalism emerged from slavery, that alone pretty much makes the marxist theory nonsensical.

Why? You know the feudalism - capitalism theory is an analysis of European historical development right? America was a quite peculiar case and I don't think you at any time could describe it as having a mode of production based primarily on slavery, like in Greece or Rome.

It wouldn't being that the counter-incentive of being punished for the exploitation is much greater then the incentive of profits that exploitation mights bring.

Respect for the system will not unite people against the new capitalists, because they will have a material incentive to hire wage-labour.

they do it because they function in the system that forms them.

Exactly and in this system wage-labour is profitable.

Also, there are a lot of studies that coops are more profitable then capitalist firms, which is logical, being that wage-labor is much more productive then slave-labor, likewise it is to expected for free-labor to be more productive then exploited labor of any kind.

Could you possible show some sources to back it up? I think some large corporations would disagree.

Tim Cornelis

6th August 2013, 21:46

This is false, being that markets have existed being very expanded, the arabs were a merchant nation, Silk Road and all that, you could buy chinese goods and slaves in greece etc.

In America capitalism emerged from slavery, that alone pretty much makes the marxist theory nonsensical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merchant_capitalism

Merchant capitalism is a term used by economic historians to refer to the earliest phase in the development of capitalism as an economic and social system. Early forms of merchant capitalism were developed in the medieval Islamic world from the 9th century, and in medieval Europe from the 12th century.[1][2][3] In Europe, merchant capitalism became a significant economic force in the 16th century, depending on point of view. The mercantile era drew to a close around 1800, giving way to industrial capitalism. However, merchant capitalism remained entrenched in some parts of the West well into the 19th century, most notably the Southern United States, where the plantation system constrained the development of industrial capitalism (limiting markets for consumer goods) whose political manifestations prevented Northern legislators from passing broad economic packages (e.g. monetary and banking reform, a transcontinental railroad, and incentives for settlement of the American west) to integrate the states' economies and spur the growth of industrial capitalism.[4]
Merchant capitalism is distinguished from the mature variety by the lack of industrialization and commercial finance. Merchant houses were backed by relatively small private financiers acting as intermediaries between simple commodity producers and by exchanging debt with each other. Thus, merchant capitalism preceded the capitalist mode of production as a form of capital accumulation. The transformation of merchant capitalism into industrial capitalism necessitated, according to Karl Marx, a process of primitive accumulation of capital, upon which commercial finance operations could be based and making application of mass wage labor and industrialization possible.

The first bolded part is relevant to your first remark, the second bolded part is relevant to your second remark. If this source is correct, slavery impaired the development of industrial capitalism rather than 'foster' it as you seem to suggest.
I don't see how the development of capitalism in the USA invalidates Marxism.

Fakeblock

6th August 2013, 21:51

Some people seem to think that the slavery-feudalism-capitalism thing is a formula that should apply to the whole world, rather than just an observation of European historical developments. Though, even as an observation model it is too simplistic.

Sotionov

7th August 2013, 13:13

So you say. Either way they are unrealisable and utopian. They have no class basis.
They're classless, of course they have not class basis.

I assume they would be owned by the food producers in mutualist society.
In any socialist society. You think that the food should be owned by someone else them those that produced it?

Starvation is of course quite natural, but if food is in abundance
How is food in abundance? By magic? Or someone makes it?

and some people are being forced to work by other people, I don't think you can call them free labourers.
Of course. Which has nothing to do with socialism, whether market, mutualist, collectivist or communist, in which no one will force anyone into anything.

Why? You know the feudalism - capitalism theory is an analysis of European historical development right?
So basically your "theory" is just describing what happened in history and deluding yourself that that's some kind of a big insight.

Respect for the system will not unite people against the new capitalists, because they will have a material incentive to hire wage-labour.
That incentive would be no bigger in mutualism then in communism.

Could you possible show some sources to back it up? I think some large corporations would disagree.
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ5.html#secj510

Fakeblock

7th August 2013, 16:27

They're classless, of course they have not class basis.

Maybe I should be clearer. There is no class that has interest in this kind of society that is capable of realising it. It is utopian.

In any socialist society. You think that the food should be owned by someone else them those that produced it?

Yes, I think property should be communalised.

How is food in abundance? By magic? Or someone makes it?

Someone makes it.

Of course. Which has nothing to do with socialism, whether market, mutualist, collectivist or communist, in which no one will force anyone into anything.

Well, no one is forcing you to work in capitalist society. Why do you want a revolution?

So basically your "theory" is just describing what happened in history and deluding yourself that that's some kind of a big insight.

So you're agreeing with the "theory"?

That incentive would be no bigger in mutualism then in communism.

More profit and potential for expansion of business in mutualism, no profit in communism.

http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secJ5.html#secj510

The article says, further down, that capitalists can benefit from introducing workers' "control"/organise less vertically. This was really just saying that workers' cooperation and less inequality within an enterprise can boost productivity, because of freedom. Neither are incompatible with capitalist relations. Really, most of what they're saying could apply to small capitalist businesses as well, if the owner works alongside the employees.

This bit from the same faq is pretty interesting:
http://anarchism.pageabode.com/afaq/secI1.html#seci13

Especially this:

While a mutualist system should reduce inequality drastically, it cannot be assumed that inequalities will not increase over time. This is because inequalities in resources leads to inequalities of power on the market and, assuming self-interest, any trade or contract will benefit the powerful more than the powerless, so re-enforcing and potentially increasing the inequalities and power between the parties. Similarly, while an anarchist society would be created with people driven by a sense of solidarity and desire for equality, markets tend to erode those feelings and syndicates or communes which, thanks to the resources they control (such as rare raw materials or simply the size of their investments reducing competitive pressures) have an advantage on the market may be tempted to use their monopoly power vis-à-vis other groups in society to accrue more income for themselves at the expense of less fortunate syndicates and communes. This could degenerate back into capitalism as any inequalities that exist between co-operatives would be increased by competition, forcing weaker co-operatives to fail and so creating a pool of workers with nothing to sell but their labour. The successful co-operatives could then hire those workers and so re-introduce wage labour. So these possibilities could, over time, return a post-capitalist market system to capitalism if the inequalities become so great that the new rich become so alienated from the rest of society they recreate wage-labour and, by necessity, a state to enforce a desire for property in land and the means of production against public opinion.

Sotionov

7th August 2013, 16:50

Maybe I should be clearer. There is no class that has interest in this kind of society
Except for the workers. Which are the majority of every population.

Yes, I think property should be communalised.
So, I make something, and you take it from me and that's ok?

Someone makes it.
Why do they make it? From fear or starvation?

Well, no one is forcing you to work in capitalist society. Why do you want a revolution?
Because capitalism is theft and should be abolished like every theft.

More profit and potential for expansion of business in mutualism, no profit in communism.
How come it's more profitable in mutualism to hire wage-labor, but it's not more profitable in communism to hire wage-labor?

Really, most of what they're saying could apply to small capitalist businesses as well, if the owner works alongside the employees.
Yes, MOST of what we're saying. The part that is not included in that "most" is the part where we say that capitalism, and class society for that matter, should be abolished.

This bit from the same faq is pretty interesting:
Yes, interesting, except this line: "This could degenerate back into capitalism as any inequalities that exist between co-operatives would be increased by competition, forcing weaker co-operatives to fail and so creating a pool of workers with nothing to sell but their labour." is false, being that all land would be free, anyone could work directly on nature- till the land, harvest timber or any other material for which there is demand. It should also be noted that even the people writing the AFAQ had this incorrect opinion, they're still genuine socialist who recongnize that individualist anarchism and mutualism are types of socialism, being that they're classless, oppressionless and exploitationless system, that therefore must be tolerated by any genuine socialist.

Fakeblock

7th August 2013, 19:39

Except for the workers. Which are the majority of every population.

The formation of a society composed entirely of small producers is in no way in the interests of the proletariat. It's a pipe dream that is meant to save the already dying class of petty property holders.

In fact, it is a reactionary ideology, in that it wishes to bring back destroyed property relations. The ideology that there is a true, natural form of property that has been replaced by the property of the bourgeoisie and that we should restore property in its original form. This is both reactionary (in that it wishes to restore old forms of property and as a result, unknowingly, wishes to restore the old society) and utopian (in that specific property relations emerged out of certain conditions that can't be restored at will).

The proletariat, when seizing power, uses its new-found political supremacy to take control of the economy. Naturally the economy falls into the hands of the centre of proletarian political power: the state (be it organised as a commune, soviet, centralised republic, etc.) By abolishing the bourgeoisie, the proletariat abolishes all aspects of bourgeois society, not by choice but by natural consequence. Bourgeois property, family, state etc. will all succumb as a result of the abolition of classes. It's not a matter of wish, because we can't wish new forms of social organisation into existence.

This is a pretty fundamental difference, since it's a matter of a materialist conception of historical development versus an idealist one.

This is a good article written just before "The Poverty of Philosophy".

What is society, irrespective of its form? The product of man's interaction upon man. Is man free to choose this or that form of society? By no means. If you assume a given state of development of man's productive faculties, you will have a corresponding form of commerce and consumption. If you assume given stages of development in production, commerce or consumption, you will have a corresponding form of social constitution, a corresponding organisation, whether of the family, of the estates or of the classes—in a word, a corresponding civil society. If you assume this or that civil society, you will have this or that political system, which is but the official expression of civil society. This is something Mr Proudhon will never understand, for he imagines he's doing something great when he appeals from the state to civil society, i. e. to official society from the official epitome of society.

Needless to say, man is not free to choose his productive forces—upon which his whole history is based—for every productive force is an acquired force, the product of previous activity. Thus the productive forces are the result of man's practical energy, but that energy is in turn circumscribed by the conditions in which man is placed by the productive forces already acquired, by the form of society which exists before him, which he does not create, which is the product of the preceding generation. The simple fact that every succeeding generation finds productive forces acquired by the preceding generation and which serve it as the raw material of further production, engenders a relatedness in the history of man, engenders a history of mankind, which is all the more a history of mankind as man's productive forces, and hence his social relations, have expanded. From this it can only be concluded that the social history of man is never anything else than the history of his individual development, whether he is conscious of this or not. His material relations form the basis of all his relations. These material relations are but the necessary forms in which his material and individual activity is realised.

Mr Proudhon confuses ideas and things. Man never renounces what he has gained, but this does not mean that he never renounces the form of society in which he has acquired certain productive forces. On the contrary. If he is not to be deprived of the results obtained or to forfeit the fruits of civilisation, man is compelled to change all his traditional social forms as soon as the mode of commerce ceases to correspond to the productive forces acquired. Here I use the word commerce in its widest sense—as we would say Verkehr in German. For instance, privilege, the institution of guilds and corporations, the regulatory system of the Middle Ages, were the only social relations that corresponded to the acquired productive forces and to the pre-existing social conditions from which those institutions had emerged. Protected by the corporative and regulatory system, capital had accumulated, maritime trade had expanded, colonies had been founded—and man would have lost the very fruits of all this had he wished to preserve the forms under whose protection those fruits had ripened. And, indeed, two thunderclaps occurred, the revolutions of 1640 and of 1688. In England, all the earlier economic forms, the social relations corresponding to them, and the political system which was the official expression of the old civil society, were destroyed. Thus, the economic forms in which man produces, consumes and exchanges are transitory and historical. With the acquisition of new productive faculties man changes his mode of production and with the mode of production he changes all the economic relations which were but the necessary relations of that particular mode of production.

Mr Proudhon surpasses himself in causing to grow inside his own brain competition, monopoly, taxes or police, balance of trade, credit and property in the order I have given here. Nearly all the credit institutions had been developed in England by the beginning of the eighteenth century, before the invention of machinery. State credit was simply another method of increasing taxes and meeting the new requirements created by the rise to power of the bourgeois class. Finally, property constitutes the last category in Mr Proudhon's system. In the really existing world, on the other hand, the division of labour and all Mr Proudhon's other categories are social relations which together go to make up what is now known as property; outside these relations bourgeois property is nothing but a metaphysical or juridical illusion. The property of another epoch, feudal property, developed in a wholly different set of social relations. In establishing property as an independent relation, Mr Proudhon is guilty of more than a methodological error: he clearly proves his failure to grasp the bond linking all forms of bourgeois production, or to understand the historical and transitory nature of the forms of production in any one epoch. Failing to see our historical institutions as historical products and to understand either their origin or their development, Mr Proudhon can only subject them to a dogmatic critique.

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1846/letters/46_12_28.htm

Now you'll probably say that I'm just quoting Marx and don't understand him and I'm being dogmatic etc. but whatever.

Even if you don't agree with Proudhon this applies to everyone who seeks to separate society (including the distributive process) from productive relations.

So, I make something, and you take it from me and that's ok?

There is no universal answer for this. If you produce only enough to sustain yourself there is no reason for anyone to take your product, as it has no effect on society at large. If you produce a surplus, however, that product will be used to sustain others who don't produce your particular good. In return, you have access to the surplus of everyone else's product.

This isn't a moral question. This is just a consequence of working-class political rule. By eradicating class differences the proletariat destroys antagonisms between producers and thereby within itself. The abolition of class antagonisms means the unification of the whole population, which can only happen by putting ownership in the hands of all of society.

Why do they make it? From fear or starvation?

What do you mean? People labour so they can live well. In mutualist society people are forced to work in a manner that allows them to profit, even if they have laboured enough for everyone to have their needs met. That often means unnecessarily long days, lower safety at the workplace etc. All things that reduce the producer's quality of life.

Because capitalism is theft and should be abolished like every theft.

Capitalism isn't theft. The bourgeoisie, being the ruling class, defines property and it defines theft. Who are you to decide which kind of property is true and natural?

How come it's more profitable in mutualism to hire wage-labor, but it's not more profitable in communism to hire wage-labor?

Communist society has abolished the market system and therefore the system of profit.

Yes, MOST of what we're saying. The part that is not included in that "most" is the part where we say that capitalism, and class society for that matter, should be abolished.

But this is a question of efficiency. In addition to presenting their claims as self-evident, they also claim that profit is best realised under conditions which, for the most part, are quite compatible with capitalism. The only thing that isn't is the part about wage-labour, which they say restricts freedom and therefore productivity and profit, but they offer no evidence for this.

As a side note, I don't see turning everyone into small producers in a market system as the abolition of class. I see it as the generalisation of a class of small producers.

Yes, interesting, except this line: "This could degenerate back into capitalism as any inequalities that exist between co-operatives would be increased by competition, forcing weaker co-operatives to fail and so creating a pool of workers with nothing to sell but their labour." is false, being that all land would be free, anyone could work directly on nature- till the land, harvest timber or any other material for which there is demand.

I see. But why does land fall outside the sphere of property and the market? If people work the land should they not be allowed to own it and sell it? If this is the case it is just a matter of taking as much land as you can work on for yourself and proving the AFAQ right. If it isn't free land violates true property, is theft and should therefore be abolished, leading to scenario 1.

It should also be noted that even the people writing the AFAQ had this incorrect opinion, they're still genuine socialist who recongnize that individualist anarchism and mutualism are types of socialism, being that they're classless, oppressionless and exploitationless system, that therefore must be tolerated by any genuine socialist.

Well, then we commies aren't true socialists I guess. It doesn't really matter, since it's a meaningless label.

Sotionov

7th August 2013, 20:52

The formation of a society composed entirely of small producers is in no way in the interests of the proletariat.
Anarcho-individualism and mutualism are ideas formed in the time of and for industrial societies.

In fact, it is a reactionary ideology, in that it wishes to bring back destroyed property relations.Reactionary is something that want's to oppress and exploit. Being that anarcho-individualism and mutualism, like anarcho-collectivism and communism, have at their core opposition to oppression and exploitation, they cannot by definition be reactionary. On the other hand, anyone wanting to prohibit organization of anarcho-individualist or mutualist systems to the people is being oppressive and is therefore reactionary.

The proletariat, when seizing power, uses its new-found political supremacy to take control of the economyThat would be just another class society, being that the proletariat is just one sub-group of the working people.

By abolishing the bourgeoisie, the proletariat abolishes all aspects of bourgeois society, not by choice but by natural consequence.This is just plain nonsense. People are not robots, and workers (or just the proletariat) can abolish or not abolish what they want.

If you produce a surplus, however, that product will be used to sustain others who don't produce your particular good. So, if I make more then I need to survive, it's okay for you take it from me. How is that different then any class society with their forms of exploitation?

In return, you have access to the surplus of everyone else's product.And what if I don't want that, I want my stuff, that I made.

This is just a consequence of working-class political rule. By eradicating class differences the proletariat destroys antagonisms between producers and thereby within itself. The abolition of class antagonisms means the unification of the whole population, which can only happen by putting ownership in the hands of all of society.This makes absolutely no sense, being that classes can also be abolished by establishing anarcho-individualism or mutualism.

What do you mean? People labour so they can live well.Does living well includes not starving?

Communist society has abolished the market system and therefore the system of profit.You haven't answered my question. Anyone in the communist system could say to themselves: hey, why am I working, and everything I make is taken from me, why don't I hire me some workers, I wont do anything and I can accumulate luxuries.

As a side note, I don't see turning everyone into small producers in a market system as the abolition of class.One, no one is advocating "turning everyone into small producers in a market system". Two, even if that were the case, such a system is classless if there is oppression and exploitation.

But why does land fall outside the sphere of property and the market?Because it is not a product of labor.

If people work the land should they not be allowed to own it and sell it?No.

Well, then we commies aren't true socialists I guess. It doesn't really matter, since it's a meaningless label. Sure, if you like to be a reactionary support of class society, of oppression and exploitation, that's your choice.

Fakeblock

8th August 2013, 02:10

Anarcho-individualism and mutualism are ideas formed in the time of and for industrial societies.

Mutualism as a reaction to the gradual extinction of small producers. Anarcho-communism is quite revolutionary in ideology and I, honestly, don't know enough about anarcho-individualism to make a judgement.

Reactionary is something that want's to oppress and exploit. Being that anarcho-individualism and mutualism, like anarcho-collectivism and communism, have at their core opposition to oppression and exploitation, they cannot by definition be reactionary. On the other hand, anyone wanting to prohibit organization of anarcho-individualist or mutualist systems to the people is being oppressive and is therefore reactionary.

No, a reactionary is some who reacts against progress and wants to return to a previous state of things. Communists and anarchist communists are for the oppression of the bourgeois class (even when some say they're against oppression in general). The anti-oppression stuff that some anarchists talk about is just rhetorical and often holds no weight in practice, where they would be more than willing to suppress those who organise against the revolution - which is for the better.

When the petit-bourgeoisie and peasantry set up their own societies, they objectively hurt the revolutionary cause and should be suppressed. Makhno's Ukraine was an example of this.

That would be just another class society, being that the proletariat is just one sub-group of the working people.

At first it would still be class society. As the remnants of the bourgeoisie and their lackeys have been properly suppressed, the proletariat becomes more and more able to structure society in a way that is beneficial to them. This ultimately means abolition of private property and its replacement by society-wide planning. This is what the abolition of classes is.

Class is only a property relation. The existence of property means the existence of class.

This is just plain nonsense. People are not robots, and workers (or just the proletariat) can abolish or not abolish what they want.

The whole of society is connected to bourgeois property and property relations. Everything functions for the preservation of this society. As the abolition of the bourgeoisie means the conquest of the means of production by the proletariat organised as ruling class, all other aspects of society will be transformed into means of preserving proletarian class rule. As property is done away with and class is gradually abolished, all political, economic and social norms will function for the good of society.

The suppression of the bourgeoisie as a political force cannot be separated from the suppression of the bourgeoisie as an economic force, which can only happen through collective conquest of the means of production by the proletariat.

It is true that the proletariat, organised as a state, chooses to abolish bourgeois property, but it doesn't do it because of a grand plan for economic justice, but because it is in its immediate interest to do so. The proletariat can, only to a small extent, predict it's interests in the present time. It's concrete revolutionary tasks will be revealed as a result of continued class struggle. This is why ideology develops in times of higher tension between classes, but remains static when tensions are low.

So, if I make more then I need to survive, it's okay for you take it from me. How is that different then any class society with their forms of exploitation?

Am I society? It's not a question of morals. Production is social and involves the whole of society, not just individual producers. If an individual producer decides to defy the democratic plan and produce only for himself, while others need food, he will be forced, by the community, to give up his surplus product.

I doubt he will, though, as it doesn't make economic sense for him.

And what if I don't want that, I want my stuff, that I made.

If you can live on only one product that you produce yourself, I don't think it will make much of a difference tbh. Even if you want to be self-sustaining I think people would be able to live with it. Why would you do that, though, when you can have access to the goods of all society for the small price of your surplus product for the good of society (which includes yourself).

This makes absolutely no sense, being that classes can also be abolished by establishing anarcho-individualism or mutualism.

As we define classes differently, it makes a whole lot of sense to me and none to you. That's life.

Does living well includes not starving?

I believe it does.

You haven't answered my question. Anyone in the communist system could say to themselves: hey, why am I working, and everything I make is taken from me, why don't I hire me some workers, I wont do anything and I can accumulate luxuries.

Do you understand the concept of communal ownership? Even though, society allows others to access your product you're as welcome as others to consume it.

Furthermore one can't break away from one's era. With the destruction of the root cause of bourgeois relations (private property) the population has no interest in returning to a previous state of affairs. There is no class present to facilitate such a reaction.

This is not the case in mutualist society, where the root cause of class relations remain. In this society accumulation of wealth is vital and people will do anything for profit, including hiring labour power.

That said, why would anyone choose to work for a wage, when they are not economically pressed and, like you, have equal access to the goods of society? If they want to anyway, let them. In this case, it really is their choice.

One, no one is advocating "turning everyone into small producers in a market system". Two, even if that were the case, such a system is classless if there is oppression and exploitation.

1) Then what are you proposing? It certainly seems that way when you're talking about everyone having their own businesses and working in cosy little cooperatives, sharing the profits amongst themselves etc.

Do you think a workers' cooperative like you're proposing would be able to function on an large, international scale? I personally don't think doing completely away with hierarchy in large scale production is viable.

2) I don't agree with your definition of class and I'm not entirely sure where you came up with it. However, it has become quite clear that the only things you oppose are oppression and exploitation.

Because it is not a product of labor.

Land has to go through quite an extensive labour process for it to have any use for farming etc.

No.

Why not? They have worked so hard for it to be fit for agriculture, livestock and the like. Why should they, as opposed to everyone else, not be able to profit from the product of their labour? It's quite a contradictory position, which completely disregards the interests of the producer.

Sotionov

8th August 2013, 21:00

Mutualism as a reaction to the gradual extinction of small producers.
This just shows your plain ignorance on the subject. Neither anarcho-individualism nor mutualism uphold small production as something better that big-scale industrial production.

No, a reactionary is some who reacts against progress and wants to return to a previous state of things.
So, if you're for a new type of a class society, you're not a reactionary? That totaly makes the term poitless to be used in leftist discourse.

Communists and anarchist communists are for the oppression of the bourgeois class
Actually, not they are not, they are for abolition of the boureois class, along with all other classes.

The anti-oppression stuff that some anarchists talk about is just rhetorical and often holds no weight in practice, where they would be more than willing to suppress those who organise against the revolution - which is for the better.
You're babbling nonsense. Anarchist advocate suppretion against those fighting the revolution precisely because they are oppressive, they want to preserve the system of oppression that the revolution will dismantle. To call fight against oppression oppression is totally idiotic, it's like equating subtraction and addition, why would anyone sane say that is beyond me.

When the petit-bourgeoisie and peasantry set up their own societies, they objectively hurt the revolutionary cause and should be suppressed.
This is pure reactionism, you're for oppression of workers, even though they don't oppress or exploit anyone, you're just an enemy of the workers who is for another class society.

This ultimately means abolition of private property and its replacement by society-wide planning. This is what the abolition of classes is.
No, it is not. Even if talk only about economic classes, it's still not. Only workers control over the production and abolition of all rents abolishes economic classes.

Production is social and involves the whole of society,
No, it is not, and that is obvious to everyone that has eyes. If go into the woods with a hatchet and chop up some wood for my fireplace, it's my product, and no "society's" and if the "society" or anyone desides to take that wood from me that's nothing other then theft.

If an individual producer decides to defy the democratic plan and produce only for himself, while others need food, he will be forced, by the community, to give up his surplus product.
If I make anything, someone else takes it all away except for what I need to survive. That's plain serfhood.

Why would you do that, though, when you can have access to the goods of all society for the small price of your surplus product for the good of society (which includes yourself).
Because I don't want to be a slave, to have no other option except working for someone else or starve.

I believe it does.
So, being that in your society people work in order not to starve, just like in any society except in star treck, where food is 3d printed by self-sustaining machines, your conteptous comments about market socialism making people work in order to starve turn out to be pure ignorant inconsistency and hypocrisy.

This is not the case in mutualist society, where the root cause of class relations remain.
You repeating this idiotic line isn't going to make it true. Being that in anarcho-individualism and mutualism every worker owns his own means of production and there are no rents- there is no exploitation and no classes.

It certainly seems that way when you're talking about everyone having their own businesses and working in cosy little cooperatives, sharing the profits amongst themselves etc.
It seems you are not only ignorant about socialist theory, but also of reality. Workers' cooperative are not all artisan workshops and firms with a few people in them, here are many factories that are workers' cooperatives.

I don't agree with your definition of class and I'm not entirely sure where you came up with it.
Which just means that you have no meaningful view of class. I came up with it by accepting libertarian socialist view that oppression and exploitation are illegitimate, and therefore any society that in any of it's spheres (politics, economy, ideology and community) has a stratification between the oppressors and oppressed [and in economy exploiters and the exploited] is a class society.

However, it has become quite clear that the only things you oppose are oppression and exploitation.
Like any other genuine socialist.

Land has to go through quite an extensive labour process for it to have any use for farming etc.
When the farming stops, there is no product of labor on the land, which has returned to it's unused state of nature, therefore there is no legitimate property there.

Why should they, as opposed to everyone else, not be able to profit from the product of their labour?
They are to be able to profit from any product of their labor as long as they they don't turn it into capital by exploiting anyone (because that's denying someone other the full product of their labor) or use it to oppress someone.

Fakeblock

8th August 2013, 23:25

This just shows your plain ignorance on the subject. Neither anarcho-individualism nor mutualism uphold small production as something better that big-scale industrial production.

That's not the point. You wish to replace currently existing property relations with already abolished, which is impossible, because these property relations arose under specific conditions that can't be replicated.

So, if you're for a new type of a class society, you're not a reactionary? That totaly makes the term poitless to be used in leftist discourse.

If class society is just a matter of oppressor and oppressed all class societies must be the same. You can't just invent new societies, they need to have a basis (a class capable and with vested interest in creating it). If not you're just arguing either for the continued existence of present society or a return to an old one.

Anyway, words don't only have agitational value. Some of us don't need to use words like "reactionary", "oppressive", "theft" or "class" as emotional and moralist rhetoric.

You're babbling nonsense. Anarchist advocate suppretion against those fighting the revolution precisely because they are oppressive, they want to preserve the system of oppression that the revolution will dismantle. To call fight against oppression oppression is totally idiotic, it's like equating subtraction and addition, why would anyone sane say that is beyond me.

The proletariat doesn't fight against oppression, it fights for its own political supremacy.

This is pure reactionism, you're for oppression of workers, even though they don't oppress or exploit anyone, you're just an enemy of the workers who is for another class society.

Calling my ideology reactionism is not a point. Your ideological definition of class, on the other hand, makes you support reactionary forms of property. I'm for the dictatorship of the proletariat over all other classes. I am an enemy of the bourgeoisie, the petit-bourgeoisie, the peasantry etc. Whether or not you call any of those classes workers is irrelevant.

No, it is not. Even if talk only about economic classes, it's still not. Only workers control over the production and abolition of all rents abolishes economic classes.

Why? Society-wide planning means control of the whole population over production. Your "classless" society doesn't put the present-day working class in control of production, rather it puts a class of independent proprietors in control of their own means of production.

No, it is not, and that is obvious to everyone that has eyes. If go into the woods with a hatchet and chop up some wood for my fireplace, it's my product, and no "society's" and if the "society" or anyone desides to take that wood from me that's nothing other then theft.

I don't really care about your moralist definitions. If that is theft then society will be a thief and gladly so.

If I make anything, someone else takes it all away except for what I need to survive. That's plain serfhood.

Because I don't want to be a slave, to have no other option except working for someone else or starve.

Did you know that negative sounding words also have actual meaning?

Anyway, apparently you've been too busy coming up with words that sound bad to actually read anything I've written. You're the only one who has advocated starvation for those who don't work, so I guess that's irony.

So, being that in your society people work in order not to starve, just like in any society except in star treck, where food is 3d printed by self-sustaining machines, your conteptous comments about market socialism making people work in order to starve turn out to be pure ignorant inconsistency and hypocrisy.

What are you on about? Do you not see the difference between someone giving you the choice of either working or starving (even when there has been produced an abundance of food) and choosing to produce food because you don't have any? Come on.

You repeating this idiotic line isn't going to make it true. Being that in anarcho-individualism and mutualism every worker owns his own means of production and there are no rents- there is no exploitation and no classes.

And you repeating that idiotic line doesn't make it true. Your definition of class is useless and completely out of touch with actual historical developments.

It seems you are not only ignorant about socialist theory, but also of reality. Workers' cooperative are not all artisan workshops and firms with a few people in them, here are many factories that are workers' cooperatives.

But the property form you are advocating is the one that arose with small producers. How many people are in a work-place doesn't matter, the property relations do.

But I'm still not convinced that it's possible to create an multinational enterprise with no full-time management. Worker-owned businesses like Mondragon have management and even hire workers in South America. Someone should have told them that it isn't profitable.

Which just means that you have no meaningful view of class. I came up with it by accepting libertarian socialist view that oppression and exploitation are illegitimate, and therefore any society that in any of it's spheres (politics, economy, ideology and community) has a stratification between the oppressors and oppressed [and in economy exploiters and the exploited] is a class society.

Well, that's great. Saying that I have a meaningless view of class, because I don't agree with you is pretty stupid tbh. Please explain to me how your view, which completely ignores radical changes in societal structure throughout history by saying they're all the same, is more insightful than mine.

When the farming stops, there is no product of labor on the land, which has returned to it's unused state of nature, therefore there is no legitimate property there.

So you just ignore the work the landholder has done to make this land ready for agriculture and take it away from him. That sounds like reactionism, theft, oppression, serfdom, slavery etc! You're just creating another class society!

They are to be able to profit from any product of their labor as long as they they don't turn it into capital by exploiting anyone (because that's denying someone other the full product of their labor) or use it to oppress someone.

But they can't sell land they have worked on. So if society takes away land I have worked on to make it useful without giving me something in return that's somehow okay? Pure reactionism.

Sotionov

9th August 2013, 07:33

That's not the point. You wish to replace currently existing property relations with already abolished, which is impossible, because these property relations arose under specific conditions that can't be replicated.
First of all there is nothing impossible introducning old property relations, serfhood or slavery. Second of all, AnInd and mutualism advocate the abolition of all exploitatory property, and establishment of socialistic property, also called possessions.

The proletariat doesn't fight against oppression, it fights for its own political supremacy.
Then you are right, it fights for oppression, itself oppressing the rest of the workers, who are not proletariat.

I'm for the dictatorship of the proletariat over all other classes.
Nice to see you accept that you are for a class society.

I am an enemy of the bourgeoisie, the petit-bourgeoisie, the peasantry etc.
Which is no different and no better then capitalism or any other class society, only the proletariat becomes the new ruling exploiting class.

Your "classless" society doesn't put the present-day working class in control of production, rather it puts a class of independent proprietors in control of their own means of production.
Classless society puts the means of production under the control of those that operate it, whether they were peasants, artisans, workers in a cooperative or wage-slaves in the former class society, they were all workers, and in the classless society they are all free workers.

I don't really care about your moralist definitions.
Call it moralist or whatever you want, but those are sane defintions. You said that the products belong to society because the labor is social, and it obviously isn't, and it's insane to say that it is. If I make something, I made, not you, not anyone else.

Did you know that negative sounding words also have actual meaning?

Anyway, apparently you've been too busy coming up with words that sound bad to actually read anything I've written.
This is your response to me pointing out that you advocate serfhood? Nice to see you don't anything to say about how your ideal society isn't based on serfhood, thereby implicitly admitting that it is.

Do you not see the difference between someone giving you the choice of either working or starving (even when there has been produced an abundance of food) and choosing to produce food because you don't have any?
People in market socialism also produce (or buy) food if they don't have any. And considering someone else food yours isn't "having food" it's theft just like the one that capitalists live off.

And you repeating that idiotic line doesn't make it true.
Don't be an idiot, even Marx agrees with that notion of exploitation. If a worker owns his means of production and he doesn't pay any rent, he's not exploited. Being that in AnInd and mutualism every workers is exactly like that, that means that those systems are exploitationless, and thus (economically) classless.

Your definition of class is useless and completely out of touch with actual historical developments.
Actually, it is the only definition of class that is meaningfull, whereas your definition of class is good for nothing else then advocating a new unjust class society.

Please explain to me how your view, which completely ignores radical changes in societal structure throughout history by saying they're all the same, is more insightful than mine.
By advocating a society of free people, where no one has a master over him, and no one is exploited by someone trying to live off his labor. Neither of this traits are present in your ideal society, which just means that your view of class and society isn't any better then any other capitalist ideology.

So you just ignore the work the landholder has done to make this land ready for agriculture and take it away from him.
There's nothing to take away from, being that the land is not the product of his labor.

But they can't sell land they have worked on
Of course, the land isn't the product of their labor.

So if society takes away land I have worked on
If you workED on it, then then no one is taking anything. Being that land isn't a product of labor, there can only be possession over it, that is- right to exclusive use during that use.

Tim Cornelis

9th August 2013, 10:27

Land is not a product of labour, but means of production are. So logically it should be private property, according to you.

Sotionov

9th August 2013, 10:41

Tim Cornelis

9th August 2013, 11:35

I said that the only legitimate property is that in the products of labor (whether indivudal or collective). How from that you can deduce that land (which is not a product of labor) can be legitimate property, I don't know.

In other words, if I build means of production they are the product of my labour and hence my private property. I can hire wage-labourers, and them expropriating it would be stealing the fruits of my labour.

Sotionov

9th August 2013, 11:59

I can hire wage-labourers, and them expropriating it would be stealing the fruits of my labour.
Are you suggesting that this is my view? If you are, you obviously haven't read anything I wrote.

Tim Cornelis

9th August 2013, 12:31

Are you suggesting that this is my view? If you are, you obviously haven't read anything I wrote.

You're diverting from the issue. I didn't say you believed that, but in accordance with the labour theory of property you should believe that. I'm merely pushing your premises to their logical conclusions.

And if I'm wrong, can you point out which one is wrong:

1) You have the right to the fruits of your labour
2) Means of production are the fruits of your labour
3) Therefore I can own means of production privately
4) Therefore I can hire wage-labourers

Sotionov

9th August 2013, 12:45

I'm merely pushing your premises to their logical conclusions.If I make a weapon and it is, as a product of my labor- my property, is it a logical conclusion that I am in my right to murder with it? Is it a logical conclusion that because something is a product of my labor and thus my property, I am in my right to use it to rob you? It has been accordingly pointed out by the first socialists- Ricardians, that being that exploitation (emloying wage-labor or collecting rent), because it is a product of not labor, but of fraud- is a violation of people's right to property, no one has the right to use his property to exploit. It is from that Proudhon and all of libertarian socialism got their idea of exploitation, and that thus capitalism should be abolished.

Tim Cornelis

9th August 2013, 12:47

If I make a weapon and it is, as a product of my labor- my property, is it logical conclusion that I am in my right to murder with it? Is it a logical conclusion that because something is a product of my labor and thus my property, I am in my right to use to rob you? It has been accordingly pointed out by the first socialists- Ricardians, that being that exploitation (emloying wage-labor or collecting rent), because it is a product of not labor, but of fraud- is a violation of people's right to property, no one should have the right to use his property to exploit. It is from that Proudhon and all of libertarian socialist got their idea of exploitation, and that thus capitalism should be abolished.

How does it violate their right to property? They didn't make the means of production. The false equivalency in this analogy is of course the voluntary aspect, murder is not agreed upon.

Sotionov

9th August 2013, 12:50

Fakeblock

9th August 2013, 13:21

First of all there is nothing impossible introducning old property relations, serfhood or slavery.

A mode of production based on serfdom or slavery just isn't possible in this day and age. Would the capitalist use his vast military power to tie the worker to the factory? Sure, some slaves still exist, but no one serves the purpose of providing their owner with primary means of subsistence (food, housing, etc.) Capitalism has replaced all distributive systems not based on free exchange. The means of production have developed too much for serfdom and slavery to be practical for anyone.

Nice to see you accept that you are for a class society.

Well, as I've said numerous times the dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily leads to the abolition of classes.

Which is no different and no better then capitalism or any other class society, only the proletariat becomes the new ruling exploiting class.

The proletariat exploits no one. The class is far too big to live off the labour of another class. The proletariat as a ruling class is also completely different from the bourgeoisie as a ruling class, since the dictatorship of the proletariat is rule of society by the majority in the interests of the majority. Whether it is better or not is subjective.

Classless society puts the means of production under the control of those that operate it, whether they were peasants, artisans, workers in a cooperative or wage-slaves in the former class society, they were all workers, and in the classless society they are all free workers.

Again, your definition of class as exploiter and oppressor and exploiter and oppressed is too broad to be meaningful. How are independent proprietors exploited by capitalists in this society btw?

Call it moralist or whatever you want, but those are sane defintions. You said that the products belong to society because the labor is social, and it obviously isn't, and it's insane to say that it is. If I make something, I made, not you, not anyone else.

This line of thinking doesn't apply to modern day working conditions, where a product often goes through numerous production processes before being complete. In that case, no one person can claim that they have made the product.

Labour also serves a social purpose, in that it produces goods and services that can satisfy the needs of the whole population. You offer no justification for why people should be allowed to do anything they want with a product just because they made it.

This is your response to me pointing out that you advocate serfhood? Nice to see you don't anything to say about how your ideal society isn't based on serfhood, thereby implicitly admitting that it is.

Well, since you're challenging my intellectual honesty, I guess I'll have to address it.

If I make anything, someone else takes it all away except for what I need to survive. That's plain serfhood.

First of all, a serf is tied to the land, so you wouldn't be a serf. Second of all, did you not read the part where I said you have just as much access to your product and the product of everyone else as the rest of society. You just don't get to hoard it. And why should you when you have access to the goods of society.

Because I don't want to be a slave, to have no other option except working for someone else or starve.

A slave is property of another person. No one is advocating that, and you are the only one advocating working or starving.

People in market socialism also produce (or buy) food if they don't have any. And considering someone else food yours isn't "having food" it's theft just like the one that capitalists live off.

You didn't answer the question though.

Don't be an idiot, even Marx agrees with that notion of exploitation. If a worker owns his means of production and he doesn't pay any rent, he's not exploited. Being that in AnInd and mutualism every workers is exactly like that, that means that those systems are exploitationless, and thus (economically) classless.

Your notion of exploitation is fine with me. I have a problem with your definition of class and classlessness.

Actually, it is the only definition of class that is meaningfull, whereas your definition of class is good for nothing else then advocating a new unjust class society.

So how does it explain the revolutionary changes in society set in action by the slave-holders, feudal classes, bourgeoisie, military classes etc.? Why do you think that wage-labour is more free than slavery or serfdom? They're all exploiting classes and therefore all the same.

By advocating a society of free people, where no one has a master over him, and no one is exploited by someone trying to live off his labor. Neither of this traits are present in your ideal society, which just means that your view of class and society isn't any better then any other capitalist ideology.

Neither is yours. The only thing wrong with capitalist ideology is that it is capitalist, it wishes to preserve a regressive mode of production.

There's nothing to take away from, being that the land is not the product of his labor.

But if you worked hard to make the land useful, removed forests, terraced it etc. why shouldn't you be able to benefit from that, when everyone else profits from the products of their labour?

Tim Cornelis

9th August 2013, 13:22

You didn't make the weapon I made, but that doesn't mean that you don't have the right not to be murdered by it. Likewise you not making some means of production that I made doesn't mean that I have the right to defraud you of the fruits of your labor by employing you as a wage-laborer or by renting it to you.

What do you mean by "defraud", surely the would-be employee agrees to use my rightfully owned means of production? If it's legitimately my private property, then surely I have the right to engage in voluntary exchange with it.

Fakeblock

9th August 2013, 13:24

You didn't make the weapon I made, but that doesn't mean that you don't have the right not to be murdered by it. Likewise you not making some means of production that I made doesn't mean that I have the right to defraud you of the fruits of your labor by employing you as a wage-laborer or by renting it to you.

But the labourer agrees to be "defrauded". As Tim Cornelis said, murder is involuntary, whereas the wage-labourer agrees to use the capitalist's means of production to produce goods for him.

Edit: Tim Cornelis already answered, so ignore this.

Sotionov

9th August 2013, 13:50

A mode of production based on serfdom or slavery just isn't possible in this day and age. Would the capitalist use his vast military power to tie the worker to the factory? The means of production have developed too much for serfdom and slavery to be practical for anyone.
You don't seem to undestand the word impossible, and confuse it with improbable. I repeat, there is no impossibility in reinstitution of abolished forms of property, if someone wants to do it, he can do, there is no law of physics preventing him.

Well, as I've said numerous times the dictatorship of the proletariat necessarily leads to the abolition of classes.How?

Again, your definition of class as exploiter and oppressor and exploiter and oppressed is too broad to be meaningful.View of classes as the power stratification of society on the groups of rulers and the ruled is the only one that is meaningful.

This line of thinking doesn't apply to modern day working conditions, where a product often goes through numerous production processes before being complete.It still doesn't go trough all of production capacities of society, so someone rational could say that it belongs to the society.

You offer no justification for why people should be allowed to do anything they want with a product just because they made it.That's like asking for justification for why people shoudl be allowed to live. "Why shouldn't we kill you?" It is the murderer that needs to justify his attempt on my life, and it is thief that needs to justify the attempt of something that I made, not the other way around.

First of all, a serf is tied to the land, so you wouldn't be a serfAha, so you would turn only peasants into serfs.

nd of all, did you not read the part where I said you have just as much access to your product and the product of everyone else as the rest of society.As Engels says in the , "The serf has an assured existence", so you haven't show how your society is different from feudalism, except in that it's a new from, a state-feudalism, just like state-capitalism was a new form of capitalism.

So how does it explain the revolutionary changes in society set in action by the slave-holders, feudal classes, bourgeoisie, military classes etc.? Why do you think that wage-labour is more free than slavery or serfdom? They're all exploiting classes and therefore all the same.Exactly, all ruling classes are the same, just like the ruling class of your imposed communism would the oppressor and the exploiter of those who want not to participate in that system.

What do you mean by "defraud", surely the would-be employee agrees to use my rightfully owned means of production? If it's legitimately my private property, then surely I have the right to engage in voluntary exchange with it.
No, you don't, being that a bunch of voluntary exchanges are illegitimate, they're called fraud.

Tim Cornelis

9th August 2013, 17:35

No, you don't, being that a bunch of voluntary exchanges are illegitimate, they're called fraud.

We're running in circles. You keep saying it's fraud, I ask why this voluntary interaction based on legitimate property ownership is fraud, and you reply, it's illegitimate because it's fraud... Circular reasoning in short.

Fakeblock

9th August 2013, 17:47

You don't seem to undestand the word impossible, and confuse it with improbable. I repeat, there is no impossibility in reinstitution of abolished forms of property, if someone wants to do it, he can do, there is no law of physics preventing him.

The development of a mode of production based on old forms of property, assuming the means of production are at the present or higher stage of development, is, indeed, impossible.

There is nothing stopping someone from trying to establish a feudal-serf relation with someone, but no one has the power to extend this to encompass the whole society. The feudal mode of production arose out of the collapse of the more developed forms of property in the Roman empire. War lords tying peasants to the land en masse could perhaps happen again, if a catastrophe destroys the already developed means of production, but that is so unlikely at the present time that you might as well say impossible.

How?

Engels, as quoted by Lenin in "The State and Revolution', explains it better than I could.

The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state. Society thus far, operating amid class antagonisms, needed the state, that is, an organization of the particular exploiting class, for the maintenance of its external conditions of production, and, therefore, especially, for the purpose of forcibly keeping the exploited class in the conditions of oppression determined by the given mode of production (slavery, serfdom or bondage, wage-labor). The state was the official representative of society as a whole, its concentration in a visible corporation. But it was this only insofar as it was the state of that class which itself represented, for its own time, society as a whole: in ancient times, the state of slave-owning citizens; in the Middle Ages, of the feudal nobility; in our own time, of the bourgeoisie. When at last it becomes the real representative of the whole of society, it renders itself unnecessary. As soon as there is no longer any social class to be held in subjection, as soon as class rule, and the individual struggle for existence based upon the present anarchy in production, with the collisions and excesses arising from this struggle, are removed, nothing more remains to be held in subjection — nothing necessitating a special coercive force, a state. The first act by which the state really comes forward as the representative of the whole of society — the taking possession of the means of production in the name of society — is also its last independent act as a state. State interference in social relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and then dies down of itself. The government of persons is replaced by the administration of things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not 'abolished'. It withers away. This gives the measure of the value of the phrase 'a free people's state', both as to its justifiable use for a long time from an agitational point of view, and as to its ultimate scientific insufficiency; and also of the so-called anarchists' demand that the state be abolished overnight.

View of classes as the power stratification of society on the groups of rulers and the ruled is the only one that is meaningful.

Why?

It still doesn't go trough all of production capacities of society, so someone rational could say that it belongs to the society.

"Production is social and involves all of society" is what I said. Even if everyone produced their own things by themselves, society would still need the things being produced. Therefore it is perfectly rational to argue that society should have control over production, as to satisfy the needs of the population.

That's like asking for justification for why people shoudl be allowed to live. "Why shouldn't we kill you?" It is the murderer that needs to justify his attempt on my life, and it is thief that needs to justify the attempt of something that I made, not the other way around.

By saying that the thief should justify the theft, you're assuming that the producer is the rightful owner of the product, which was the assumption I was questioning in the first place. What justifies this assumption?

Aha, so you would turn only peasants into serfs.

What? You're the one who mentioned serfs in the first place.

As Engels says in the , "The serf has an assured existence", so you haven't show how your society is different from feudalism, except in that it's a new from, a state-feudalism, just like state-capitalism was a new form of capitalism.

Sorry, but the burden of proof is on you. Show me how "my" society is so similar to feudalism.

Exactly, all ruling classes are the same, just like the ruling class of your imposed communism would the oppressor and the exploiter of those who want not to participate in that system.

Yes, the proletariat would oppress other classes. See my last post for the reason why it wouldn't exploit.

Sotionov

10th August 2013, 08:54

We're running in circles. You keep saying it's fraud, I ask why this voluntary interaction based on legitimate property ownership is fraud, and you reply, it's illegitimate because it's fraud... Circular reasoning in short.
You just added this. If you have asked this, I would have replied that such transactions are not based on legitimate property.

The development of a mode of production based on old forms of property, assuming the means of production are at the present or higher stage of development, is, indeed, impossible.
No, it is not.

The proletariat seizes from state power and turns the means of production into state property to begin with. But thereby it abolishes itself as the proletariat, abolishes all class distinctions and class antagonisms, and abolishes also the state as state.This is nonsensical that it presumes that the proletariat is a single class and that the only other class is it's counterpart- the bourgeoisie, which are both false. It is also false that if the state continues to exist, but is used to expropriate the current capitalists, it is abolished.

Even if everyone produced their own things by themselves, society would still need the things being produced.So? A bling person might need you eyes, does that mean that it's ok for him take one eye from you, or the society to take it from and transplant it to the blind person?

By saying that the thief should justify the theft, you're assuming that the producer is the rightful owner of the product, which was the assumption I was questioning in the first placeJust like the murded questions the assumption that people are not to be murdered. What justifies the assumption that people are not to be murdered?

Yes, the proletariat would oppress other classes. See my last post for the reason why it wouldn't exploit. It would not only exploit, but would turn everyone who doesn't want to participate in that imposed communism into serfs.

Fakeblock

10th August 2013, 17:07

No, it is not.

Well, I'm convinced! Why don't you engage with my argument as to why I think feudalism can't be reconstructed?

This is nonsensical that it presumes that the proletariat is a single class and that the only other class is it's counterpart- the bourgeoisie, which are both false. It is also false that if the state continues to exist, but is used to expropriate the current capitalists, it is abolished.

It doesn't presume that. Engels found out relatively early that the primary antagonism in capitalist society is between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. It is even more so today, than in Engels' time.

What you're saying about the state is also untrue. Engels is saying that when class antagonisms have been abolished the state withers away, since it is rendered redundant. While capitalists are being expropriated the state will, indeed, continue to exist. Once all of production has been placed in the hands of the proletariat, the other classes will cease to exist. The bourgeoisie, no longer living off the labour of the proletariat, will become part of the general population. The independent proprietors and the petit-bourgeoisie will cease to own their means of production, which will be placed in the hands of the proletariat. So they will suffer the same fate.

With all means of production in the hands of the general population, private property will be non-existent. There will, as a result, be no classes - the population, society, will all be united around a common interest: the well-being of the whole population. The state will cease to function as an expression of the rule of the proletariat over other classes and thereby lose its function as a state. That's the gist of it.

And the proletariat is a single class, it has nothing in common with the other classes. The petit-bourgeoisie is not exploited, on the contrary it is an exploiter. The peasantry barely exists in the western world and is continuously being replaced by the proletariat where it does exist, even though it is exploited in some cases. Independent proprietors who don't hire labour aren't exploited, since they own property and receive all profit for themselves. I don't have to mention the bourgeoisie. Which classes are left?

The independent proprietors and the petit-bourgeoisie just want to be able to gain profit without the state and the bourgeoisie interfering with their business. That's what leads to free-market utopian thinking like "anarcho-capitalism" and mutualism. It has nothing to do with the proletariat and its emancipation.

So? A bling person might need you eyes, does that mean that it's ok for him take one eye from you, or the society to take it from and transplant it to the blind person?

The eye is part of your body and you need it to function properly, so it's a different situation. Anyway, I have consistently argued for production according to need. Your eye has nothing to do with production. If the blind man is blind, so be it. Afaik there are other ways of curing blindness than taking someone's eyes.

Just like the murded questions the assumption that people are not to be murdered. What justifies the assumption that people are not to be murdered?

Why don't you answer my question instead of evading it?

It would not only exploit, but would turn everyone who doesn't want to participate in that imposed communism into serfs.

I have explained why the proletariat wouldn't exploit anyone. I don't want to write it again, so please go back a couple of posts.

And again show me how "my" society is so similar to feudalism. What does the emancipated working class have in common with serfs?

Debating you is kinda tiring tbh, since you seem to either not be able to read everything I write, or you just don't feel comfortable with the arguments I'm raising. Either way, you're still ignoring my responses to your arguments and carrying on like I've said nothing. If I'm expressing myself badly, please tell me. Otherwise I'll assume, no matter how pompous it might be, that you just don't know how to tackle my arguments.

Sotionov

10th August 2013, 20:28

The independent proprietors and the petit-bourgeoisie will cease to own their means of production, which will be placed in the hands of the proletariat.So basically, they will be become the new wage-workers, or even worse- serfs of the former proletariat, now the rulers over the people on which they have imposed their communism.

And the proletariat is a single class, it has nothing in common with the other classes. The petit-bourgeoisie is not exploited, on the contrary it is an exploiter.Proletariat is not a single class. Managers/ coordinator, even though they are proletariat, are a part of the ruling class, and should be abolished toghether with the capitalists. Peasants and artisants, if they don't employ any wage-labor (or rent anything to anyone) don't exploit anyone.

The eye is part of your body and you need it to function properly, so it's a different situation.One- a person can perfectly be a productive member of society with only eye.
Two- the need for an eye that a blind person has is far greater than the need for the second eye that a person with two eyes has. Being that your main idea is that if someone needs anything, he should get it, your view logically implies involuntary eye redistribution. Also kidneys, one can do perfectly fine with one kidney, whereas one with not a one healthy kidney is going to die. Likewise all other organs people can spare, they should all be involuntarily redistributed.

If the blind man is blind, so be it. Afaik there are other ways of curing blindness than taking someone's eyes.There are also ways for fulfilling people's needs other then confiscation.

Why don't you answer my question instead of evading it?Why don't you? Is it ok to go around murdering and raping? Or is it assumed that it isn't ok?

I have explained why the proletariat wouldn't exploit anyone.You have explained that in your ideal society anyony would have to give all they make to the communal stock, if they don't want to, their products will be confiscated. That is no different then serfhood.

Fakeblock

10th August 2013, 23:14

So basically, they will be become the new wage-workers, or even worse- serfs of the former proletariat, now the rulers over the people on which they have imposed their communism.

Nope, I never said that. As I've explained before, the proletariat is too large a class to live off the labour of others. Assuming they don't take action against the revolution, they would probably be integrated into the population.

Proletariat is not a single class. Managers/ coordinator, even though they are proletariat, are a part of the ruling class, and should be abolished toghether with the capitalists. Peasants and artisants, if they don't employ any wage-labor (or rent anything to anyone) don't exploit anyone.

So they are part of both an exploited and a ruling class?

I don't really understand your blind hatred towards management. It is highly likely that post-capitalist society would still need management to organise production. Even if elected, they're still management.

Managers under capitalism, as opposed to police, serve no part in protecting the capitalist mode of production, rather they serve as a way for the capitalist to maximise his profits. Even though they get more pay and are put in an authority position, they still have interest in the aboliton of the wage system. That said, I understand the negative sentiment towards people who have authority in the capitalist enterprise, but it is emotional.

One- a person can perfectly be a productive member of society with only eye.
Two- the need for an eye that a blind person has is far greater than the need for the second eye that a person with two eyes has. Being that your main idea is that if someone needs anything, he should get it, your view logically implies involuntary eye redistribution. Also kidneys, one can do perfectly fine with one kidney, whereas one with not a one healthy kidney is going to die. Likewise all other organs people can spare, they should all be involuntarily redistributed.

Well, you ignored the part of my post saying that I only advocate production and not organ distribution according to need. You also seem to think that I have a thing for involuntary distribution. I think the involuntary part can be avoided in general post-revolution. However, during the revolution, where classes still exist, some people will be forced to accept the new order. You even acknowledged this when saying that you want a two-thirds majority to support any revolt. Still leaves out a third (a pretty large part of the human population).

There are also ways for fulfilling people's needs other then confiscation.

Yep, that's why I don't advocate it as a rule. In fact, I think that it will be unnecessary in classless society. That said, communism is based on voluntary association. If someone doesn't want to produce for society they'd probably be more than welcome to be self-sustaining. But why would you do that when you're having your needs fulfilled anyway?

Why don't you? Is it ok to go around murdering and raping? Or is it assumed that it isn't ok?

So the labour theory of property has no basis other than your morals, is what you're saying. But morality is subjective and dependent entirely on class. Your "natural" property is based on petit-bourgeois moralism. A class trying to resist its absorption into the proletariat will, of course, try to justify its existence and reject the legitimacy of wage-labour with all sorts of wacky, moral theories.

You have explained that in your ideal society anyony would have to give all they make to the communal stock, if they don't want to, their products will be confiscated. That is no different then serfhood.

How is it similar to serfhood? In feudalism the serf is tied to the land, forced to work, gives up his product to the lord, not the community he is part of himself and has no decision-making power.

As mentioned above, I don't think a classless society would have any problem with confiscation. You're assuming that the logic of property is universal and timeless. It isn't, in fact it's a relatively new concept. You've probably heard of forager societies, primitive communism and all that. In these societies common property is norm. Are they illegitimate, since they aren't based on your ideal, "natural" property forms?

cyu

11th August 2013, 04:03

From each according to his ability to each according his need...

It seems to me you would either have to abandon this claim or abandon market economics... either that, or formulate "the market" in some other way.

While you may be able to argue that a "socialist market" is getting "from each according to his ability", how do market results mesh with "to each according to his need"?

How does what is produced end up in the hands of the handicapped, infirm, or elderly? Surely they have needs. How does the market register them?

What if a producer says, "I have every right to what I produce and the handicapped, infirm, and elderly are just living off my exploited labor. You can't force me to give them anything." Can your society still provide "to each according to his need"? If so, how?

that workers's right to property is violated by bosses and usurers, it's what's called exploitation, and that's what we socialists oppose.

What a producer does is an action. While he can claim he "owns" that act (whatever that means) and while I would support him not being forced to act in a certain way unless he wanted to, I would say he has no valid claim over any of the raw materials that went into any material goods he is either using or transforming.

In other words, he has no "natural right" to the molecules in the tools he's using, in the metal he's shaping or soil he is growing on. I would say he has no natural right to anything beyond his body - while it's true he can make agreements with the people around him about what to do with the objects around him, he has no immutable rights to any of those objects, except by the agreements he has made with others.

You "produce" a bushel of wheat, and claim exclusive right to control what happens to that wheat. What right do you have to claim ownership of the soil, water, air, and sun that went into that wheat? Did you deprive someone else of the usage of that soil and water, while you made use of it?

If I "steal" a hammer from my neighbor and give it to you, do you now have full rights to that hammer and what you produce from that hammer? If I conquer land and kill anybody else who tries to use it, then you get that land from me through whatever means, whether "legal" or through revolution, what gives you the right to control everything coming from that land? If you extract oil from that land and sell it to my cousin, what gives my cousin full rights to any oil he acquires?

Sotionov

11th August 2013, 07:29

As I've explained before, the proletariat is too large a class to live off the labour of others. Assuming they don't take action against the revolution, they would probably be integrated into the population.
That is- they will be imposed with communism.

It is highly likely that post-capitalist society would still need management to organise production. Even if elected, they're still management.Then you're "post-capitalist" society is nothing other then another class society.

Well, you ignored the part of my post saying that I only advocate production and not organ distribution according to need.Why? Why would you be so adamant to uphold people's needs for products so as to advocate confiscation of everything, but are willing to ignore people needs for organs?

I think the involuntary part can be avoided in general post-revolution.You have troughout the consversation advocated exactly the oppossite. If I make more then I need, I will not be allowed to barter, let alone trade with it, being that you are going to take that all from me, because "the society needs it".

That said, communism is based on voluntary association.What the f? I have been saying this all along and you have been upholding the opposite possition.

If someone doesn't want to produce for society they'd probably be more than welcome to be self-sustaining.Ah, so that's "voluntary"? "If you do want to give us all that you make and don't need, then you're are not allowed to make anything you don't need." I don't get how can anyone not see that this is a relation of master and serf. You wouldn't take anything from such person not because of respect for it's liberty and labor, but only because there is nothing to take.

So the labour theory of property has no basis other than your morals, is what you're saying.So, bodily inegrity theory has no basis other then your morals, is that what you're saying? But morality is subjective and depends entierly on class.

How is it similar to serfhood? In feudalism the serf is tied to the land, forced to work, gives up his product to the lord, not the community he is part of himself and has no decision-making power.Just like capitalism mustn't be private, but can be state-capitalism where a huge group of people is collectively in the role of the capitalist, likewise feudalism doesn't have to be rural and tied to a private lord, but can encompass all economy and be imposed by a group of people. Which is exactly what you're advocating, people not wanting to participate in your communism being treated like serfs.

It seems to me you would either have to abandon this claim or abandon market economics...
I don't have to abandon either, being that I don't positively advocate market socialism. I advocate forming voluntary communist communities, but I know that markets per se (if there is no hierarchy or exploitation there, like there isn't in anarcho-individualism and mutualism) are not something that should be abolished. If someone doesn't want to participate with me in the communist organization, but want's to function on anarcho-individualist, mutualist or anarcho-collectivist grounds, I'm not going to stop him and force him to participate in communism, and not only that, but as someone opposed to oppression, I will defend his right to do so, and for that matter- to do whatever he wants, if he's not oppressing or exploiting anyone.

What a producer does is an action. While he can claim he "owns" that act (whatever that means) and while I would support him not being forced to act in a certain way unless he wanted to, I would say he has no valid claim over any of the raw materials that went into any material goods he is either using or transforming.But he has, by virtue of mixing his action with them.

If one does not accept that workers have a right to the product of their labor, why would one oppose capitalism?

On the basis of just anti-hierarchy? That would mean that capitalism is ok if the boss let's the workers manage the production but still take their products. On the basis that people's needs are not fulfilled? That would mean that capitalism is ok if the bosses give from their exploited property enought to the people to satisfy their need. These two can be combined and still don't mean the abolition of capitalism. Moreover, they can even be fulfilled in feudalism or slavery. Therefore, the unescapable idea of an anti-capitalist is that workers ought to own what they produce, otherwise one's not against capitalism (or any class society), but against some features existing in capitalism, like hierarchy, poverty, etc (or he's against capitalism based not on opinion, but purely prejudgmental prefence).

You "produce" a bushel of wheat, and claim exclusive right to control what happens to that wheat. What right do you have to claim ownership of the soil, water, air, and sun that went into that wheat?None. But the soil, wated, air and sun did not produce that wheat. Just like capital, nature cannot without labor make products (use-values), only labor produces. That is why labor is the rightful owner of it's products, not capital, not nature.

If I "steal" a hammer from my neighbor and give it to you, do you now have full rights to that hammer and what you produce from that hammer?I would have the right to everything I produced by the hammer. Even if you were to steal materials from your neighbor and give it to me, and I were to, without the knowledge of the theft, to make something using up the material, I would have the right to the product of my labor, it's just that you are liable to compensate the neighbor for expropriating his legitimate property.

Afaik, no socialist, even the communists, don't deny property. E.g. personal property. If someone makes a necklase and gives it to you as a gift, and you at one time leave it at the table in the house you live in. In a communist society, would I have to right to go in and take it? Or anything from the house you're using?

The problem is that socialist in general haven't thought about why some property is ok and some not, they only have vague views on the subject, based on likewise vague preferences and biases. Who here has read anything from the originators of socialism- Ricardians, the the espousers of their thought- left-libertarians? Scarcely anyone read Proudhon and Marx, and even they are elusive on the principle of property that is behind the idea that capitalism is exploitative.

what gives you the right to control everything coming from that land?Land cannot be property, being that it is a theorical concept, not a product of labor. Territory and natural resources can only be "occupied-and-used" to use the anarcho-individualist term.

Fakeblock

11th August 2013, 13:58

That is- they will be imposed with communism.

I guess so and I don't care. Revolutions have to force some people. So yeah, either they will give up what they own voluntarily or they will resist and have it taken from them.

Then you're "post-capitalist" society is nothing other then another class society.

So is every hierarchical/power relation a class relation? What about teachers and students, parents and children, man and woman (in contemporary society, not universally of course)?

Why? Why would you be so adamant to uphold people's needs for products so as to advocate confiscation of everything, but are willing to ignore people needs for organs?

Perhaps you're right. Maybe people would have their organs redistributed. I'm not one to question the moral legitimacy of this.

You have troughout the consversation advocated exactly the oppossite. If I make more then I need, I will not be allowed to barter, let alone trade with it, being that you are going to take that all from me, because "the society needs it".

No I haven't. I'm questioning whether your desire to barter would even exist in a society with communal property. As I said before, you're assuming that the market is some natural, timeless thing that people will always want to participate in. History points to the contrary.

What the f? I have been saying this all along and you have been upholding the opposite possition.

After a revolution, when the state and all classes have been abolished, people will probably have the choice whether they want to or don't want to be a part of society. If they don't they will probably be free to make it on their own.

This is of course guess work, it might not be so. Even if it weren't the case, I wouldn't be opposed to it.

Ah, so that's "voluntary"? "If you do want to give us all that you make and don't need, then you're are not allowed to make anything you don't need." I don't get how can anyone not see that this is a relation of master and serf. You wouldn't take anything from such person not because of respect for it's liberty and labor, but only because there is nothing to take.

I actually phrased that badly, else I'd be taking the same position as you. What I meant to say was, if you find a society to be illegitimate and don't want to participate, you'd probably be more than welcome to be self-sustaining.

So, bodily inegrity theory has no basis other then your morals, is that what you're saying? But morality is subjective and depends entierly on class.

Well rape, forced/illegal abortion, sexual harassment, on top of traumatising and inflicting pain on people, has the negative of reinforcing misogynist culture.

But yeah, I agree with you (or your sarcasm). The body is not inviolable by natural law or something. Present day society constructs these moral theories. What is good and bad for a communist is anything that advances the communist cause - the political rule of the proletariat.

So, you're agreeing with me that your labour theory of property is nothing but moralist garbage?

Just like capitalism mustn't be private, but can be state-capitalism where a huge group of people is collectively in the role of the capitalist, likewise feudalism doesn't have to be rural and tied to a private lord, but can encompass all economy and be imposed by a group of people. Which is exactly what you're advocating, people not wanting to participate in your communism being treated like serfs.

Except they have decision-making power, they have access to everything they've produced as much as the evil collective and so on. You haven't explained how they are similar to serfs. Your only point is that they don't own what they've made.

Sotionov

11th August 2013, 14:39

So yeah, either they will give up what they own voluntarily or they will resist and have it taken from them.
Basically those people would become the new oppressed and exploited class.

So is every hierarchical/power relation a class relation?If institutionalized in society- yes.

What about teachers and students, parents and children, man and woman (in contemporary society, not universally of course)?Yes. No. Yes.

Maybe people would have their organs redistributed.I don't see how is that emancipation of people if everyone is basically a slave of the society, which can in any time take their organs.

What I meant to say was, if you find a society to be illegitimate and don't want to participate, you'd probably be more than welcome to be self-sustaining.Those are the only options? Accepting communism or being self-sustaining? That system, where all the suprlus product you make is taken from you is plain serfhood.

So, you're agreeing with me that your labour theory of property is nothing but moralist garbage?Yes, as much as the notion that raping and murdering people is bad. Labor theory of property is the basis of society free of oppression and exploitation, without it you end up with advocating another class society, as obvious from the new form of feudalism that you advocate.

Except they have decision-making powerIf they're not allowed to remain in possession of the products of their labor and do what they want with them (if not oppressing or exploiting anyone) like look at them, burn them, give them as gift, barter or sell them to anyone they want, then they don't have decision-making power, they are virtually enslaved by those who manage the system of imposed communism.

Fakeblock

11th August 2013, 15:11

Basically those people would become the new oppressed and exploited class.

They wouldn't be exploited, because the proletariat is too large a class to live off the labour of others. And they wouldn't be a class, because they would be integrated into the general population. This is really going around in circles.

If institutionalized in society- yes.

Yes. No. Yes.

Why not parents and children? So you're saying that being a man is being an oppressor class and being a woman is an oppressed class. At the same time one can be a bourgeois, woman and a politician. So one is, at the same time, part of two oppressor classes and an oppressed one. You must admit that this sort of categorisation is useless.

I don't see how is that emancipation of people if everyone is basically a slave of the society, which can in any time take their organs.

I can't really imagine a future where organs are redistributed tbh and I don't see why people would do it. Anyway, how can everyone be a slave to society, when everyone is society? As part of society you get to decide the rules of society.

Those are the only options? Accepting communism or being self-sustaining? That system, where all the suprlus product you make is taken from you is plain serfhood.

I guess you could choose to set up your own market socialist society. But only if you ignore how society works. Property relations aren't timeless, the class basis for mutualist society would not exist in communist society. No one would want to set up a market socialist society, just like no one wants to recreate the Greek slave system today.

And stop saying it's serfhood, please. I have explained numerous times why it isn't. How you can see a system where you share your produce with the community, while having equal access to that produce and everyone else's produce, as the same as a feudal relation is beyond me. Were the foragers serfs?

Yes, as much as the notion that raping and murdering people is bad. Labor theory of property is the basis of society free of oppression and exploitation, without it you end up with advocating another class society, as obvious from the new form of feudalism that you advocate.

You've yet to explain how it is similar to feudalism. I assume you can't. Anyway, are all communal societies oppressive and exploitative then? You said you would join a commune if there was a revolution, but if communes are based on unnatural, illegitimate property, why would you?

If they're not allowed to remain in possession of the products of their labor and do what they want with them (if not oppressing or exploiting anyone) like look at them, burn them, give them as gift, barter or sell them to anyone they want, then they don't have decision-making power, they are virtually enslaved by those who manage the system of imposed communism.

Why are you against exploiting and oppressing with the products of your own labour? How do you draw the line? If they decide the plan for production and distribution of products then they do have decision-making power. I don't see how that can be argued against.

Sotionov

11th August 2013, 15:53

They wouldn't be exploited, because the proletariat is too large a class to live off the labour of others.
It doesn't have to live off the labor of other, it's enought to extract surplus-value from them and that's exploitation. If a capitalist were to labor in a factory together with his employees, would that mean that there is no exploitation there? Of cource not.

Why not parents and children? Because they don't have capacity, they need adults to take care of them, which can sometimes mean exercising hierarchy, like constraining them from running in front of the car, and in general raising them.

So you're saying that being a man is being an oppressor class and being a woman is an oppressed class. At the same time one can be a bourgeois, woman and a politician. So one is, at the same time, part of two oppressor classes and an oppressed one. You must admit that this sort of categorisation is useless.Except for identifying the oppression that is to abolished.

I can't really imagine a future where organs are redistributed tbh and I don't see why people would do it.For someone else other then the person himself to be considered the owner of his body (and it's parts) is slavery. For someone else other then that person himself to be considered the owner of all the surplus products he makes is serfhood.

Anyway, how can everyone be a slave to society, when everyone is society? As part of society you get to decide the rules of society.If a group of ten people votes to rape one person in that group, and gets 9 votes in favour of it, how is that one person raped if he was the part of the group that made the decision?

I guess you could choose to set up your own market socialist society.Being that you have accepted my position, I guess this discussion is over, ey?

just like no one wants to recreate the Greek slave system today.Don't know about toga-wearing slave society, but there are people who want to legalize slavery- Rushdoony and Nozick being the most famous people advocating it.

I have explained numerous times why it isn't.No you haven't. You seem to have no sence about what essential features are oppossed to incidental ones (which seems to be pretty common among marxists), what is the genus proximum and what the differentia specifica of the term that is talked about. It's like we talk about a cat and you're saying- it's not a cat because it's not black. Or, to make a little closer analogy- that's not bow and arrow because it's not more then a thousand of years old. That's when bow and arrow were used, and that which is made today is therefore not bow and arrows. It's not even made out of wood!

You keep saying that it's not serfhood because it's not agricultural and there's no individual feudalist. It's same like saying that it's not capitalism if there's no private capitalist, market and money, but capitalism can exist without all of that- in pure state-capitalism. Just like that, feudalism can exist without agriculture and individual feudalist, like in your imposed 'communism' which has the same defining economic feature of feudalism- all surplus product that you make is confiscated, only it's a new form of feudalism, a state-feudalism, or mob-feudalism, instead of the lord-of-the-manor-fedualism.

Anyway, are all communal societies oppressive and exploitative then? You said you would join a commune if there was a revolution, but if communes are based on unnatural, illegitimate property, why would you?Obviously, voluntary communes are not oppressive and exploitive. One can choose not to join a commune, but join a anarcho-collectivist community, or a mutualist one, оr function on an anarcho-individualist market.

Why are you against exploiting and oppressing with the products of your own labour? How do you draw the line?The line the exploitation and oppression. I'm not against "exploiting and oppressing with the products of your own labour" I'm against all exploitation and oppression.

If they decide the plan for production and distribution of products then they do have decision-making power. I don't see how that can be argued against.Easily, if you are my serf and I give you the decision-making power to organize your work any way you like, as long as you do it and give me the most of what you make, that's still serfhood, your "decision-making power" is an illusion.

nizan

11th August 2013, 15:59

Markets presented as socialism can co-exist with markets presented as markets.

Fakeblock

11th August 2013, 16:47

It doesn't have to live off the labor of other, it's enought to extract surplus-value from them and that's exploitation. If a capitalist were to labor in a factory together with his employees, would that mean that there is no exploitation there? Of cource not.

Yeah, of course not. But the proletariat would not extract surplus value from the petit-bourgeoisie and the bourgeoisie. You only do this if you need to make a profit.

Because they don't have capacity, they need adults to take care of them, which can sometimes mean exercising hierarchy, like constraining them from running in front of the car, and in general raising them.

So their oppression is legitimate, because it's necesary? But necessary is a quite subjective term. Some people might think that treating your children as below you is unnecessary or that management over production is necessary or that politicians are necessary. Your class society would thereby reveal itself to be completely subjective and useless for any kind of societal analysis.

Except for identifying the oppression that is to abolished.

Why use the word class, which has been consistently used to describe economic categories by everyone from liberals to marxists to fascists?

For someone else other then the person himself to be considered the owner of his body (and it's parts) is slavery. For someone else other then that person himself to be considered the owner of all the surplus products he makes is serfhood.

So wage-labour and serfhood are the same? The slave is both a slave and a serf? The foragers were serfs?

If a group of ten people votes to rape one person in that group, and gets 9 votes in favour of it, how is that one person raped if he was the part of the group that made the decision?

Good point. My guess is that you're having a problem with what you perceive to be the tyranny of the majority over the minority. However, this can be avoided by different kinds of democratic processes.

Being that you have accepted my position, I guess this discussion is over, ey?

Ah, I wish it was so. I don't really care if someone wants to "create" a mutualist society, I just don't think it's possible.

Don't know about toga-wearing slave society, but there are people who want to legalize slavery- Rushdoony and Nozick being the most famous people advocating it.

Yes, but this is qualitatively different from creating a society based on slavery. If you want a slave you need to either have someone stupid enough to volunteer or you need the power to take one, but what motive is there when you have all your needs met, anyway?

No you haven't. You seem to have no sence about what essential features are oppossed to incidental ones (which seems to be pretty common among marxists), what is the genus proximum and what the differentia specifica of the term that is talked about. It's like we talk about a cat and you're saying- it's not a cat because it's not black. Or, to make a little closer analogy- that's not bow and arrow because it's not more then a thousand of years old. That's when bow and arrow were used, and that which is made today is therefore not bow and arrows. It's not even made out of wood!

What are the essential features of feudalism then? Bows and arrows are timeless, modes of production aren't. They aren't universal categories, but historical. They arose out of specific conditions that can't be replicated and are therefore highly unlikely to ever arise again in the same form.

You keep saying that it's not serfhood because it's not agricultural and there's no individual feudalist. It's same like saying that it's not capitalism if there's no private capitalist, market and money, but capitalism can exist without all of that- in pure state-capitalism. Just like that, feudalism can exist without agriculture and individual feudalist, like in your imposed 'communism' which has the same defining economic feature of feudalism- all surplus product that you make is confiscated, only it's a new form of feudalism, a state-feudalism, or mob-feudalism, instead of the lord-of-the-manor-fedualism.

But you've ignored the part about you having as much access to the product being "confiscated" as everyone else. Allowing what you produce to be enjoyed by people who need it is not a feudal relation in any sense of the word.

And no capitalism can't exist without money. In addition, capitalism can only exist with a certain development of the productive forces and of the relations of production. Capitalism, as we know it today, is inconceivable without developed industry and feudalism is inconceivable with developed industry.

If something is so different from serfdom (no ownership over land, no bondage, no exploiting class, equal access to all surplus product) I don't see how you can classify it as serfdom. What is the most basic definition of serfdom?

Obviously, voluntary communes are not oppressive and exploitive. One can choose not to join a commune, but join a anarcho-collectivist community, or a mutualist one.

But even if voluntary they are based on illegitimate property. You say wage-labour is illegitimate even if voluntary. Why are communes different?

The line the exploitation and oppression. I'm not against "exploiting and oppressing with the products of your own labour" I'm against all exploitation and oppression.

Why?

Easily, if you are my serf and I give you the decision-making power to organize your work any way you like, as long as you do it and give me the most of what you make, that's still serfhood, your "decision-making power" is an illusion.

But you're not giving most of what you make away, you're letting others use it. There is no natural law saying that you have exclusive right to a product, because you produced it.

Sotionov

11th August 2013, 22:39

Why use the word class, which has been consistently used to describe economic categories by everyone from liberals to marxists to fascists?
"Socialism" is used also used by all of them to name state-capitalism, and "democracy" to name elective oligarchies, doesn't make any of it true.

My guess is that you're having a problem with what you perceive to be the tyranny of the majority over the minority. However, this can be avoided by different kinds of democratic processes.This can be avoided only if the participation is voluntary and there is respect for everyone's right not to participate, but instead opt out and do whatever he want's with himself and the products of his labor (if he doesn't oppress or exploit).

I don't really care if someone wants to "create" a mutualist society, I just don't think it's possible.You know that workers' cooperatives exists? In anarcho-individualism and mutualism all firms would be like that.

What are the essential features of feudalism then? Bows and arrows are timeless, modes of production aren't. They aren't universal categories, but historical.Why are then bows and arrows not historical?

They arose out of specific conditions that can't be replicated and are therefore highly unlikely to ever arise again in the same form.Can't or unlikely? Those are two very different things.

But you've ignored the part about you having as much access to the product being "confiscated" as everyone else. So, if a feudalist were to fulfill the needs of his serf by goods he has confiscated from them, that would stop being feudalism, even thought their relation remains unchanged? Allowing what you produce to be enjoyed by people who need it is not a feudal relation in any sense of the word.[/quote]
Except in the core meaning of the word- you being forced to participate by confiscation of all surplus products.

And no capitalism can't exist without money.Yes, it can. State-capitalism can operate capitalism without private capitalists, markets or money, where the state officials would be the employers, all others employees, the economy planned, and all wages payed out in natura (rations). There you have it- no private capitalist, no markets, no money, but still capitalism. This means that you these features of capitalism are not it's defining, essential features, but incidental. Likewise with feudalism.

Why?Because individual autonomy, or the right of being in control of one's life (not being aggressed against, not having a superior) is an undeniable principle (anyone denying it commits a performative contradiction, as explained by Habermas), and being in control of the fruit of one's labor is the only theory of property that corresponds to reality.

There is no natural law saying that you have exclusive right to a product, because you produced it.And there is one saying that you can take from other what you want even though they produced it, not you? That's what all class societies are based on, and your acceptance of is exactly why you also advocate a class society.

Fakeblock

11th August 2013, 23:34

"Socialism" is used also used by all of them to name state-capitalism, and "democracy" to name elective oligarchies, doesn't make any of it true.

Who are you to define what class means? Words mean certain things to allow us to communicate effectively. If we go around changing the definitions of words all the time, they have no meaning and therefore hinder communication.

This can be avoided only if the participation is voluntary and there is respect for everyone's right not to participate, but instead opt out and do whatever he want's with himself and the products of his labor (if he doesn't oppress or exploit).

I don't see why oppression and exploitation are ruled out. It still seems like pretty arbitrary place to draw the line. However, you have made it clear that the labour theory of property is true, only if one accepts your moral framework.

You know that workers' cooperatives exists? In anarcho-individualism and mutualism all firms would be like that.

They only exist as they do, because they're in the context of capitalist society. They have to produce commodities and sell them on the market. There is no reason why they would continue doing that when it's not socially necessary. Do you think markets exist by chance or because they're "effective" (whatever that means in this context)?

Why are then bows and arrows not historical?

Because the words describe objects, not intangible economic relations that only existed at a specific point in time.

Can't or unlikely? Those are two very different things.

Okay, highly unlikely. It would be a (bad) miracle if they did.

So, if a feudalist were to fulfill the needs of his serf by goods he has confiscated from them, that would stop being feudalism, even thought their relation remains unchanged?

It wouldn't be a feudal relation if the peasant had as much access to the product as the lord, no. On top of that, he can go wherever he wants, so there is no bondage.

Really, what you are talking about is just a slave. Of course, I'm not advocating anything similar.

Except in the core meaning of the word- you being forced to participate by confiscation of all surplus products.

This could apply to slaves as well.

Sorry, but you can't just invent meanings of terms. The lord-serf relation was a relation in which a lord has, through his military power, bound the peasant to the land and takes part of the peasants product in exchange for protection etc.

Yes, it can. State-capitalism can operate capitalism without private capitalists, markets or money, where the state officials would be the employers, all others employees, the economy planned, and all wages payed out in natura (rations). There you have it- no private capitalist, no markets, no money, but still capitalism. This means that you these features of capitalism are not it's defining, essential features, but incidental. Likewise with feudalism.

I don't know which meaning of capitalism you're using now. If there is no commodity production there is no value. If there is no value, there is no surplus value, ergo no wage-labour. If there is no wage-labour there is no capitalism. If the worker only receives rations, it follows that there is no commodity production and no way for the capitalist/state to make a profit, since they can't sell their products to anyone.

Edit: Forgot to mention: the state might exchange its products for a part of the workers' rations, but this would be a way too complicated affair to be possible. It would require that the state calculates the exact value of all commodities in relation to every commodity that they're selling. One slight miscalculation would make the whole system collapse. This is why money is used at all. So even though this system might theoretically still be capitalism, there is no possibility of it being realised.

Btw state-feudalism means nothing. The lords and his vassals with their armies (even if composed of peasants) are the feudal state. In feudalism, the state and the lords are one, there is no dividing line. Unlike in free-market capitalism, the lord's rule over the peasant is expressed directly through his private military power. Later on, with the rise of the capitalist, this became gradually replaced by the nation state.

Because individual autonomy, or the right of being in control of one's life (not being aggressed against, not having a superior) is an undeniable principle (anyone denying it commits a performative contradiction, as explained by Habermas), and being in control of the fruit of one's labor is the only theory of property that is compatible with it.

Sorry, I'm not well-versed in this philosophising. Would you mind explaining how you're committing a perfomative contradiction?

And there is one saying that you can take from other what you want even though they produced it, not you?

No, because there are no natural laws dictating how social interactions should ideally take place. At least not as far as I know. If you can find evidence for one that supports your theory of property, I'll gladly renounce my marxism and join you in your mutualist crusade.

Sotionov

13th August 2013, 08:42

However, you have made it clear that the labour theory of property is true, only if one accepts your moral framework.
Framework of reality? Theory that something belongs not to the one who made it but to the society is nonsensical. The "justification" that all labor is social labor is simply not true- if I make something, I made it, not the society. To say that society made something which obviously I made it to deny reality.

Because the words describe objects, not intangible economic relations that only existed at a specific point in time.If anything exists at a specific point in time- it's tangible objects, intangible relations can exist wherever and whenever.

It wouldn't be a feudal relation if the peasant had as much access to the product as the lord, no. On top of that, he can go wherever he wants, so there is no bondage.How can he? In your state-feudalist/ mob-feudalist society, his feudalist is everywhere.

This could apply to slaves as well.But there is no (at least I hope there isn't) ownership over the bodies of the dissenters in your society, only over their surplus-product. And ownership of someone's body versus owership of his surplus product is the difference between slavery and feudalism.

I don't know which meaning of capitalism you're using now. If there is no commodity production there is no value.There are use-values, products. The proletariat makes products as ordered by the state rulers, the state rulers take those products as their property (being that everything is nationalized) and give a part of them to the workers as wages. There you have it- capitalism without private capitalist, markets or money.

You really have to start differentiating between essential (defining) and incidental features of things. It's like you would say that some person is not a human because he doesn't have two legs. Having two legs isn't a defining feature of human, which is obvious from the existence of people without one or both legs. Even if there were no people without one or two legs it would be possible to imagine a situation where a person would be like that- e.g. losing his leg in an exident etc; and one then asks oneself does missing one leg makes one non-human. Of course not. Just like one asks oneself if missing a private capitalist, markets and money makes an economic system non-capitalist? As I just pointed out, not necessarily, being that capitalism can exist without all that.

This is a part of rational thinking, please make time and effort to tacke this. Don't jump to conclusions, think trough what you're saying, it's obvious that some of your views include fallacies (mistakes in thinking) like this.

Would you mind explaining how you're committing a perfomative contradiction?By denying the principle of autonomy, you're affirming it with your actions, being that any discussion means you respect every participant's autonomy, it you're not (but e.g. attack him) then that's not a discussion. (also, attacking someone doesn't prove it legitimate, you can only prove that trough discussion, ergo- violation of people's autonomy is necessarily illegitimate, it's an ethical axiom, it's a "natural law".

If you can find evidence for one that supports your theory of property, The evidence is called rationality. Accepting reality, as I explained in this message.

I'll gladly renounce my marxism and join you in your mutualist crusade.All anarchists accept this view of class and economy, not just mutualists.

Jimmie Higgins

13th August 2013, 10:16

There are use-values, products. The proletariat makes products as ordered by the state rulers, the state rulers take those products as their property (being that everything is nationalized) and give a part of them to the workers as wages. There you have it- capitalism without private capitalist, markets or money.

You really have to start differentiating between essential (defining) and incidental features of things.USSR state-capitalism extracted surplus from workers but to use to what ends? To build up industry to create a military - but for what purpose? Competition on a world market, though organized in a different way.

Your arguments for market planning rather than democratic planning I think rest on an assumption that nationalization is necissarily done above the working class (by an alien class which is unaccountable - as in the USSR or nationalised industries in the UK or whatnot), not through working class agency: democratic bodies of workers and worker's councils to facilitate worker's power and organization of the economy.

I think the second assumption which is incorrect is that workers in modern production could possibly have the true value of their labor. For one thing, because even capitalist production is a collective effort, the induvidual labor can't really be seperated from the whole process. On top of that how interconnected different industries are means that even outside of a single production effort, there are economic links. Also the sheer productive capasities that exist now allow each worker to produce more than they can consume themselves. What market value is created by home-upkeep or whatnot... it creates a value in recreating labor, but how do you measure that?

Furthermore, if workers organize themselves on a market basis, are they competing? Wouldn't it cause shortages or surpluses if production in X area is doing the same production as some workers in a different region, but their efforts are uncoordinated?

I think these concepts of an economy of autonomous producers who interact on a market and control the value of the specific things they produced is unworkable in modern societies. I think these ideas mostly developed at a time when most capitalist production was done in small autonomous shops; artisans threatened by increased prolitarization and small capitalists threatened by industrialization could come to an overlapping support for trying to hault those capitalist economic developments. Today this sort of system is not possible, because of how our labor efforts are currently intergrated with eachother, the way that productive efforts are international efforts, I think means that worker's control of the local workplace leads naturally to coordinated collective (i.e. democratically planned) production by workers. To wish to have a society of autonomous producers on a market where every producer is a small self-owner is a wish for history to go in reverse.

Sotionov

13th August 2013, 11:32

USSR state-capitalism extracted surplus from workers but to use to what ends? To build up industry to create a military - but for what purpose? Competition on a world market, though organized in a different way.There is nothing impossible in a following situation: a pure state-capitalism existing in a world of state-capitalist countries, and they don't compete but coordinate. It would still be capitalism.

Your arguments for market planning rather than democratic planning I think rest on an assumption that nationalization is necissarily done above the working classOne, market isn't planning. Two, I'm not supporing markets, I'm just saying that there's nothing capitalist (or non-socialist) in them per se. Three, no, I am aware that nationalization can be done democratically, as, AFAIK, is advocated by left-communists.

I think the second assumption which is incorrect is that workers in modern production could possibly have the true value of their labor.I am not making that assuption because I think that value is a pointless notion.

On top of that how interconnected different industries are means that even outside of a single production effort, there are economic links.But these links exist from a long time ago. No one was ever self-sufficient. The luberjack from thousand years ago probably didn't make his axe, it was made by some artisan, and the artisan most probably didn't make the metal part, it was made by the blacksmith, and the blacksmith most probably didn't mine the metal, it was done by the miner, and the miner didn't make his tool for mining, etc, etc. Does that mean that the timber that the lumberjack produces is produced by "social labor"? No, he chopps it himself. Does that mean that the axe that the artisan produces is produced by "social labor"? No, it is produced by the artisan, etc. It is the same today, only more complicated, and with an addition that most of the means of production of today are collective, but that just means that the collective of the workers in a workplace replaces the lumberjack, artisan, etc. If a wokrers of a factory make shirts, does them using materials and electricity they didn't produce means that the shirts are the product of "social labor"? No, they are the product of their labor, not of "society". The links between workplaces (whether with one or more workers in them) can be links of trade, or links of cooperative planning, and there is nothing wrong with either.

Wouldn't it cause shortages or surpluses if production in X area is doing the same production as some workers in a different region, but their efforts are uncoordinated?Precisely why I am for workers' cooperatives forming (in cooperation with directly-democratic institutions of the whole population in which the workers of those coops live) federations that will coordinate production (with the demand being articulated by the mentioned popular institutions), I just insist that such organization must be voluntary, not imposed.

Fakeblock

13th August 2013, 13:46

Framework of reality? Theory that something belongs not to the one who made it but to the society is nonsensical. The "justification" that all labor is social labor is simply not true- if I make something, I made it, not the society. To say that society made something which obviously I made it to deny reality.

But someone made and transported the raw materials. Someone made the buildings and machinery. Someone invented the technology. Without all these things you wouldn't be able to make your product. Why shouldn't they have a share of the ownership?

Anyway, it's not a question of who made it. You're assuming that if you make something you have an exclusive right to it and some people might agree with you. But, like all moral theories, it will never be objectively true. You saying that it is a "framework of reality" means nothing and proves nothing.

If anything exists at a specific point in time- it's tangible objects, intangible relations can exist wherever and whenever.

But bows and arrows still exist today. Feudal relations don't. If they did they would probably also be called feudal relations.

But there is no (at least I hope there isn't) ownership over the bodies of the dissenters in your society, only over their surplus-product. And ownership of someone's body versus owership of his surplus product is the difference between slavery and feudalism.

But it is not feudalism if the "serf" has as much access to the product he has produced as the "lord".

I'll ask again: were the foragers serfs?

There are use-values, products. The proletariat makes products as ordered by the state rulers, the state rulers take those products as their property (being that everything is nationalized) and give a part of them to the workers as wages. There you have it- capitalism without private capitalist, markets or money.

You really have to start differentiating between essential (defining) and incidental features of things. It's like you would say that some person is not a human because he doesn't have two legs. Having two legs isn't a defining feature of human, which is obvious from the existence of people without one or both legs. Even if there were no people without one or two legs it would be possible to imagine a situation where a person would be like that- e.g. losing his leg in an exident etc; and one then asks oneself does missing one leg makes one non-human. Of course not. Just like one asks oneself if missing a private capitalist, markets and money makes an economic system non-capitalist? As I just pointed out, not necessarily, being that capitalism can exist without all that.

This is a part of rational thinking, please make time and effort to tacke this. Don't jump to conclusions, think trough what you're saying, it's obvious that some of your views include fallacies (mistakes in thinking) like this.

Jesus Christ...You get to be condescending when you're actually right.

The most fundamental part of capitalism is commodity production. A seller earns a profit by selling his commodities on the market. The exchange-value of a commodity is in which quantities it can be exchanged with another product. The commodity is bought because it has a use-value, but the seller only sells for its exchange value.

Now, money is the commodity in which all other commodities express their value. Everything can be bought with money. In a society with our level of productive development, returning to a barter economy would be completely nonviable. So, nowadays, as long as there is exchange, there must be money.

The seller is not a capitalist unless he sells his commodities in order to gain a surplus (M-C-M' - capital). This can happen through unequal exchange or through a commodity which, when consumed, creates more value than it costs. This commodity is labour power. The now-capitalist buys the workers' labour power in return for a wage. Your wage is the value of your labour power, which is the "cost required for the maintenance of the labourer as a labourer, and for his education and training as a labourer".

So without commodities we have no exchange, capital or wages. So a situation in which the worker chooses to work for the state and gets to keep a part of his product is not a wage-capital relation, not even a buyer-seller relation. Therefore it's not a capitalist relation.

Let us take any worker; for example, a weaver. The capitalist supplies him with the loom and yarn. The weaver applies himself to work, and the yarn is turned into cloth. The capitalist takes possession of the cloth and sells it for 20 shillings, for example. Now are the wages of the weaver a share of the cloth, of the 20 shillings, of the product of the work? By no means. Long before the cloth is sold, perhaps long before it is fully woven, the weaver has received his wages. The capitalist, then, does not pay his wages out of the money which he will obtain from the cloth, but out of money already on hand. Just as little as loom and yarn are the product of the weaver to whom they are supplied by the employer, just so little are the commodities which he receives in exchange for his commodity – labour-power – his product. It is possible that the employer found no purchasers at all for the cloth. It is possible that he did not get even the amount of the wages by its sale. It is possible that he sells it very profitably in proportion to the weaver's wages. But all that does not concern the weaver. With a part of his existing wealth, of his capital, the capitalist buys the labour-power of the weaver in exactly the same manner as, with another part of his wealth, he has bought the raw material – the yarn – and the instrument of labour – the loom. After he has made these purchases, and among them belongs the labour-power necessary to the production of the cloth he produces only with raw materials and instruments of labour belonging to him. For our good weaver, too, is one of the instruments of labour, and being in this respect on a par with the loom, he has no more share in the product (the cloth), or in the price of the product, than the loom itself has.

Wages, therefore, are not a share of the worker in the commodities produced by himself. Wages are that part of already existing commodities with which the capitalist buys a certain amount of productive labour-power.

It seems like you're digging way too deep in your attempt to find the "essential features" of capitalist production. Soon you'll say that there is capitalist production as long as there are human beings. But you have to think rationally. Don't jump to conclusions, think trough what you're saying, it's obvious that some of your views include fallacies (mistakes in thinking) like this...

By denying the principle of autonomy, you're affirming it with your actions, being that any discussion means you respect every participant's autonomy, it you're not (but e.g. attack him) then that's not a discussion. (also, attacking someone doesn't prove it legitimate, you can only prove that trough discussion, ergo- violation of people's autonomy is necessarily illegitimate, it's an ethical axiom, it's a "natural law".

So by having a discussion with you I'm re-affirming that you have an exclusive, natural right to what you produce?

Even if I'm having a discussion with you right now and therefore respect your autonomy at the moment, I don't necessarily accept that it's an undeniable right. If I attack you I have violated your personal autonomy and thereby shown that it is a perfectly deniable principle. I don't have to prove that it's legitimate. In fact, I don't need to give a shit if it's legitimate, I can just do it.

All this philosophising is useless. I don't have to care whether communism is ethical or not, because it's not ethical philosophy.

The evidence is called rationality. Accepting reality, as I explained in this message.

Nope that's neither an argument nor evidence... You're going to have to try harder than that.

All anarchists accept this view of class and economy, not just mutualists.

That's just not true. A lot of anarchists accept Marxian class theory and Marxian political economy.

Sotionov

13th August 2013, 15:08

But someone made and transported the raw materials. Someone made the buildings and machinery. Someone invented the technology. Without all these things you wouldn't be able to make your product. Why shouldn't they have a share of the ownership?
That those that didn't make something should share in it's ownership- that's a straightforward argument for capitalism. Are you even an anti-capitalist? Because all the arguments that you have against anarchism imply support for all sorts of class societies- slavery, feudalism and capitalism.

Anyway, it's not a question of who made it. You're assuming that if you make something you have an exclusive right to it and some people might agree with you. But, like all moral theories, it will never be objectively true.Your alternative to "who made it" in the idea of "who needs it" fails miserably, as it's result is a new form of slavery, as in the involuntary organ redistribution.

But bows and arrows still exist today. Feudal relations don't.Well, the best description of North Korean system is feudalism.

But it is not feudalism if the "serf" has as much access to the product he has produced as the "lord".This is not the case in your society, being that the dissenter on whom "communism" is imposed doesn't have the access to the product he has produced.

The most fundamental part of capitalism is commodity production.No, it is not. Capitalism can exist without markets, i.e. without commodity production- as in a centrally planned state-capitalism.

So by having a discussion with you I'm re-affirming that you have an exclusive, natural right to what you produce?I wasn't taking about produce at all, I was answering to your question of why is oppression wrong. You're not even following what I'm talking about.

Nope that's neither an argument nor evidence...As I explained, if I make something, I made it, not society.

I don't have to prove that it's legitimate. In fact, I don't need to give a shit if it's legitimate, I can just do it.Sure, you can go around raping and don't care if rape is legitimate or not. If you don't care why go into discussions with people saying that rape is bad?

A lot of anarchists accept Marxian class theory and Marxian political economy.Making them not anarchists. One cannot remain against oppression if he accepts marxian class and economic theory.

Fakeblock

13th August 2013, 17:18

That those that didn't make something should share in it's ownership- that's a straightforward argument for capitalism. Are you even an anti-capitalist? Because all the arguments that you have against anarchism imply support for all sorts of class societies- slavery, feudalism and capitalism.

I'm a communist. I don't care which form of property is the most "moral", property benefits classes. Therefore I reject the labour theory of property, bourgeois, feudal and all other kinds of private property.

The point I was making before was just to show that you can find moral justification for many different kinds of property, not just your ideal form. This doesn't matter, any class will find moral justification for what is, in reality, just advancing its own interests, at the expense of the interests of other classes.

Well, the best description of North Korean system is feudalism.

Come on. Nothing feudal about North Korea.

This is not the case in your society, being that the dissenter on whom "communism" is imposed doesn't have the access to the product he has produced.

Have I argued that? Not having exclusive right =/= not having access.

No, it is not. Capitalism can exist without markets, i.e. without commodity production- as in a centrally planned state-capitalism.

How? If there is no commodity production there are neither wages, capital nor profit. What exactly does capitalism mean to you?

I wasn't taking about produce at all, I was answering to your question of why is oppression wrong. You're not even following what I'm talking about.

I see. But personal autonomy is not an undeniable right or principle or whatever. It is quite easy to deny someone personal autonomy, it happens all the time.

As I explained, if I make something, I made it, not society.

Making is not necessarily the same as owning.

Sure, you can go around raping and don't care if rape is legitimate or not. If you don't care why go into discussions with people saying that rape is bad?

I don't usually go into these sorts of discussions, least of all with actual rapists. Aside from causing emotional and physical damage to the victim, rape reinforces patriarchy and the oppression of women. Support of patriarchy is entirely inconsistent with communist politics as it is inconsistent with proletarian emancipation.

That said, rape isn't objectively wrong and I'm not going to argue with rapists that it is. However, what is bad for a communist is what preserves bourgeois society and what is good is what advances proletarian interests. Rape and the culture that produces it falls, of course, in the former category.

Making them not anarchists. One cannot remain against oppression if he accepts marxian class and economic theory.

Why not?

Sotionov

14th August 2013, 14:27

The point I was making before was just to show that you can find moral justification for many different kinds of property
You have failed.

If there is no commodity production there are neither wages, capital nor profit.
Wages can be moneyless, in natura, like rations. If all capitalists would to join in one corporation, without any trade with anyone outside the corporation, they use central planning (like any corporation) for intra-corporation flow of materials, labor power and products, they pay the proletariat wages in products. There's no private capitalist, but one collective group that is the capitalist, there's no market, and there's no money, yet it's perfectly capitalist.

But personal autonomy is not an undeniable right or principle or whatever. It is quite easy to deny someone personal autonomy, it happens all the time.
If I attack you, I didn't prove that attacking is justified. In oder to justify any act I have to do it by discussion. Discussion implies autonomy. Therefore, nothing that violated autonomy is justified.

Making is not necessarily the same as owning.
Why?

I don't usually go into these sorts of discussions, least of all with actual rapists.
You're the one here saying that you don't care if there's anything wrong with rape. I the one saying that there is.

Aside from causing emotional and physical damage to the victim,
Why is causing emotional and physical damage wrong? You cannot escape giving an answer that is 'moralizing'.

rape reinforces patriarchy and the oppression of women.
Suddenly you're against oppression?

That said, rape isn't objectively wrong
Nice. So far, you've had nothing wrong with forced organ redistribution, you've advocated a system that is based on serfhoo, and you don't think rape is wrong. I don't see how can you delude yourself thinking you're any kind of leftist or revolutionary.

Why not?
Because marxist has nothing against managers, politicians and bureaucrats, and anarchist oppose them all as a part of the ruling class.

Fakeblock

14th August 2013, 15:48

Wages can be moneyless, in natura, like rations. If all capitalists would to join in one corporation, without any trade with anyone outside the corporation, they use central planning (like any corporation) for intra-corporation flow of materials, labor power and products, they pay the proletariat wages in products. There's no private capitalist, but one collective group that is the capitalist, there's no market, and there's no money, yet it's perfectly capitalist.

No it's not, since there is no profit and therefore no capital. How you can separate production for profit from capitalism is beyond me.

If I attack you, I didn't prove that attacking is justified. In oder to justify any act I have to do it by discussion. Discussion implies autonomy. Therefore, nothing that violated autonomy is justified.

There is no logical connection between "Discussion implies autonomy" and "nothing that violated autonomy is justified" even if you but a "therefore" in between. I violate your autonomy, I discuss it with you and justify it and voila! I have still violated your autonomy (temporarily), but I have justified my actions.

For example, a child is about to jump out in front of a car. A parent restrains the child, thereby violating its autonomy. The parent says "I had to do it or you would hurt yourself badly". The child sees the parent's point and agrees.

Why?

I'm not really sure what you want me to say here. There are many other property forms, where the producer doesn't necessarily own the product (like capitalism). Do you want me to give an elaborate explanation of how this came about?

You're the one here saying that you don't care if there's anything wrong with rape. I the one saying that there is.

I wasn't referring to you.

Why is causing emotional and physical damage wrong? You cannot escape giving an answer that is 'moralizing'.

But it isn't necessarily and in no case is it objectively wrong. It's all a matter of both personal and class morality. Rape and rape culture objectively (even if against individual bourgeois) hurts the working class and therefore I find it wrong.

I don't find causing emotional and physical damage to the class enemy to be wrong, because the proletariat can benefit from it.

Suddenly you're against oppression?

Did you read my post? I said that oppression of women is anti-working class and should therefore be opposed. I'm not against oppression in general.

Nice. So far, you've had nothing wrong with forced organ redistribution, you've advocated a system that is based on serfhoo, and you don't think rape is wrong. I don't see how can you delude yourself thinking you're any kind of leftist or revolutionary.

There is no objective morality. You might do all kinds of philosophical brain gymnastics to show that ethics that justify your particular political position is objective, but it isn't.

Because marxist has nothing against managers, politicians and bureaucrats, and anarchist oppose them all as a part of the ruling class.

Anarchists who agree with Marxian class analysis have a lot against managers, politicians and bureaucrats. Even if they don't call them ruling class, I think they still see them as a class enemy.

I don't think we're getting anywhere with this discussion. There is obviously some quite fundamental differences in our paradigms that are unlikely to change and we probably won't compromise at any point. Continuing on like this is a waste of time tbh.

Sotionov

14th August 2013, 16:26

No it's not, since there is no profit and therefore no capital.
Workers make products, capitalist take it as their property, and give a portion to the workers as wages. The rest of the products is profit of the capitalists.

I violate your autonomy, I discuss it with you and justify it and voila! You cannot justify it, being that autonomy is the norm of discussion. It's impossible to justify violation of autonomy, because in order to justify anything, you must enter a discussion, and by entering a discussion you're accepting autonomy, therefore, if one tries to deny autonomy he commits a contradiction, because in order to deny it, he must accept it.

There are many other property forms, where the producer doesn't necessarily own the product (like capitalism). That's what you advocate.

Rape and rape culture objectively (even if against individual bourgeois) hurts the working class and therefore I find it wrong.

I don't find causing emotional and physical damage to the class enemy to be wrong, because the proletariat can benefit from it.So, you're ok with raping those that you don't consider a part of your group. Wow.

I said that oppression of women is anti-working class and should therefore be opposed.You're just making things up as you go, you don't have a single consistent view.

There is no objective morality.Yes, there is. Oppression and exploitation are wrong.

Tim Cornelis

14th August 2013, 16:44

You cannot justify it, being that autonomy is the norm of discussion. It's impossible to justify violation of autonomy, because in order to justify anything, you must enter a discussion, and by entering a discussion you're accepting autonomy, therefore, if one tries to deny autonomy he commits a contradiction, because in order to deny it, he must accept it.

It does not follow that since you permit autonomy in this one instance it is a universal norm. Firstly because he cannot do other than permit it, he lacks to tools to prevent you from expressing your opinion, secondly, autonomy in discussion is different than autonomy in the multitude of social relationships.

Yes, there is. Oppression and exploitation are wrong.

How is that objective? It's purely subjective to say it is. You think it's wrong, others don't. Why is your view objective? It's not fact, it's opinion. All value judgments are subjective, good, nice, bad, tasty, all subjective.

Fakeblock

14th August 2013, 16:54

Workers make products, capitalist take it as their property, and give a portion to the workers as wages. The rest of the products is profit of the capitalists.

That's not profit. Profit only comes through sale. And it's not a wage, since wages are not part of the product produced. The capitalist pays the worker with his capital, something he has acquired previously for spending on production costs. Without this capital, which is acquired and spent on production for the purpose of valorisation, there is no capitalism.

You cannot justify it, being that autonomy is the norm of discussion. It's impossible to justify violation of autonomy, because in order to justify anything, you must enter a discussion, and by entering a discussion you're accepting autonomy, therefore, if one tries to deny autonomy he commits a contradiction, because in order to deny it, he must accept it.

Tim Cornelis has handled this pretty accurately.

That's what you advocate.

So, you're ok with raping those that you don't consider a part of your group. Wow.

You're just making things up as you go, you don't have a single consistent view.

Yes, there is. Oppression and exploitation are wrong.

And not a single argument was made. I'm just going to give it up, because this is a waste of time.

Sotionov

14th August 2013, 17:07

It does not follow that since you permit autonomy in this one instance it is a universal norm.
It is only in that "one instance" that anything can be justified, it is only in discussion that we can prove to people that capitalism is bad, socialism good, or every other topic that is to evaluated.

All value judgments are subjective
A priori norms of discussions are value-free.

That's not profit. Profit only comes through sale.
If that is true, then capitalism can exist without profit in that meaning, as I have given examples.

And not a single argument was made.
Exactly, you haven't given a single argument for the mantras that you've been mindlessly throwing around.

Tim Cornelis

14th August 2013, 18:01

It is only in that "one instance" that anything can be justified, it is only in discussion that we can prove to people that capitalism is bad, socialism good, or every other topic that is to evaluated.

But, correct me if I'm wrong, you invoked the supposed axiom that permitting free discussion necessarily means you have to accept self-ownership or individual sovereignty (autonomy), but permitting free discussion means that autonomy is a universal norm only inasmuch as buying a slave proves slavery is a universal norm. An act (is) + non-sequitur = ought to be.

A priori norms of discussions are value-free.

I don't follow.

Exactly, you haven't given a single argument for the mantras that you've been mindlessly throwing around.

How is something objectively good or bad then?

Sotionov

14th August 2013, 18:22

I'm not saying that because something happens in the discussion, it is universal norm just because it happens. I'm saying that there are certain norms implied in certain things, that one accepts without any value judgement, but by definition. The line of reasoning goes like this:

- Something can be justified only by discourse.
- Discourse implies certain norms, i.e. by entering it, one accepts certain norms, like respect for autonomy.
- To deny something one accepts is a contradiction.
∴ Any attempt to justify violation of autonomy is contradictory per se, i.e. violation of autonomy is injustifiable- making principle of autonomy effectively a moral axiom.

cyu

18th August 2013, 05:51

as someone opposed to oppression, I will defend his right to do so, and for that matter- to do whatever he wants, if he's not oppressing or exploiting anyone.

I would say that the concept of property itself is oppressive. Perhaps not always as dire as murder, but oppressive nonetheless. If someone chooses not to "participate in communist society" - what happens? Do you claim he has the right to take over some piece of land, then shoot anybody else that wants to use that piece of land? I would call that oppression.

If one does not accept that workers have a right to the product of their labor, why would one oppose capitalism?

I oppose capitalism because capitalists use it as an excuse for continuing poverty. Simple as that. If poverty didn't exist, I probably would've never looked into communism at all in the first place.

If you cause poverty by claiming you have the "right" to control something you "produced", then I will encourage people to fight you.

I would have the right to the product of my labor, it's just that you are liable to compensate the neighbor for expropriating his legitimate property.

You claim it's legitimate, but if you attack poor people who need it to survive, then I will help take you out.

Afaik, no socialist, even the communists, don't deny property. E.g. personal property. If someone makes a necklase and gives it to you as a gift, and you at one time leave it at the table in the house you live in. In a communist society, would I have to right to go in and take it? Or anything from the house you're using?

I consider myself both a communist and an anarchist. And don't go quoting any past anarchists at me - attempt at the Appeal-to-Authority argument are hardly going to work on anarchists.

I would say if someone needs something to survive, and he is attacked when trying to get it, then I will help put down the attacker.

Sotionov

18th August 2013, 19:37

I would say that the concept of property itself is oppressive. Perhaps not always as dire as murder, but oppressive nonetheless. If someone chooses not to "participate in communist society" - what happens? Do you claim he has the right to take over some piece of land, then shoot anybody else that wants to use that piece of land? I would call that oppression.
I will disregard the obvious detail that such an act is oppression in itself due to it's unproportionally of response, which could be basically called cruel or sadistic, like you would to slap me on the face, and I empty a rifle clip in you as a response.

Depends on what you mean by "take over", is he using the land or not. Property as understood in socialism (ricardian socialism, anarcho-individualism) implies the illigitimacy of property over land, being that land isn't a product of labor, therefore land can be only a possession under the principle of occupancy-and-use.

I oppose capitalism because capitalists use it as an excuse for continuing poverty. Simple as that. If poverty didn't exist, I probably would've never looked into communism at all in the first place.That means you're not an anti-capitalist, but anti-poverty. I, on the other hand, am an anti-capitalist (as a part of being anti-hierarchy and anti-exploitation) and I would oppose capitalism even if there were no poverty in it.

If you cause poverty by claiming you have the "right" to control something you "produced", then I will encourage people to fight you.

You claim it's legitimate, but if you attack poor people who need it to survive, then I will help take you out.

I would say if someone needs something to survive, and he is attacked when trying to get it, then I will help put down the attacker. Stating that you would do something isn't an argument for anything, including the legitimacy of that which you would do, nor for the reasons you would do it for.

RedMaterialist

18th August 2013, 21:07

Profit only comes through sale.

Profit is realized in the sale of a product. This is why the capitalist thinks he/she is responsible for the profit. The origin of profit is in the production process when the worker creates surplus value which the capitalist does not pay for. This surplus value is realized as profit.

Stalinist Speaker

23rd August 2013, 22:35

Sperm-Doll Setsuna

23rd August 2013, 22:45

Yes it can. Thats a very good description of belarus, (more) workers rights then western countries but it also allows privatization. every one have a right to work but the people with bad employment/education will get jobs with lower salary then people with better jobs.

I'm not sure if you are a troll or what, but I approved this post because it was so bloody hilarious. (Someone recently brought up this whole Belarus thing earlier somewhere, and here we are, someone who upholds Belarus as a great workers paradise! You can't make this shit up!

cyu

25th August 2013, 00:34

Stating that you would do something isn't an argument for anything, including the legitimacy of that which you would do, nor for the reasons you would do it for.

True, but I'm pretty certain that if I started encouraging violence against those who are preventing the survival of the poor, more self-described anti-capitalists would side with me than any crypto-capitalism being promoted by "former" Randroids.

robbo203

25th August 2013, 13:19

Richard Wolff apparently does.

If production were transformed from a capitalist to a socialist form - and exploitation were thereby eliminated from society the way slavery and serfdom were earlier - that would leave open the question of how society would distribute resources among productive enterprises and likewise how society would distribute the outputs of those enterprises. This could be done by markets, state planning, planning by other social institutions, and so on in an endless array of combinations. Markets have co-existed with every other kind of organization of production (e,g, slavery, feudalism etc.) and the same is true of planning. I would thus expect varying experiments with varying combinations of markets and planning would characterize the history of socialism once it was established broadly.

What is “market socialism”? Can markets and socialism coexist? (http://rdwolff.com/content/what-%E2%80%9Cmarket-socialism%E2%80%9D-can-markets-and-socialism-coexist)

Socialism (aka communism in traditional Marxian usage) is completely incompatable wth the existence of markets and for which reason the Communist Manifesto spoke of the "communistic aboilition of buying and selling". Socialism or communism is based on the social or common ownership of the means of production and, as such, precludes economic exchange of any kind. Why? Because exchange implies the mutual exclusivity of property rights held by the buyer and seller respectively in any market transaction. If I exchange my orange for your apple (or a given sum of money) what I am doing is relinquishing ownership of my orange on condition that I assume ownership of your apple. And vice versa.

In socialism since everyone owns the means of production, the products of industry cannot logically be exchanged. Marx makes this crystal clear in the Critique of the Gotha Programme: "Within the co-operative society based on common ownership of the means of production, the producers do not exchange their products" Marx advocated a form of rationing in the guize of labour vouchers for what he called the lower phase of communism and free distribution according to the the principle "from each according to ability to each according to need" for what he called the higher stage of communism when the means of production had been developed to the point of making abundance possible. Rationing , however, which would apply only in the lower stage of communism is not to be confused with economic exchange; labour vouchers are not money since they do not circulate . As Marx said labour vouchers are no more money than is a ticket to a concert

The famous Clause 4 (now defunct) of the so called Labour Party in Britain calling for the common ownership of the means of "production distributuon and exchange" is a completely nonsensical contradiction in terms . It is an oxymoron to talk of common onwerrhip of the means of exchange since exchange logically implies separate owners engaged in exchange.

Wherever economic exchange or exchange-related phenomena exist such as wages, money, commodities, profit - and they clearly existed in the state capitalist regime of the Soviet Union, for example - then this is a sure-fire sign of the absence of social ownership and hence socialism