Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 00:45:34 No. 17351
>>17350 >What is leftypol's view on this? Markets are SHIT and no market can exist under socialism, if it does, it's capitalism not socialism.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 00:49:23 No. 17352
we need to stop reinventing proudhon (or trying proudhon's ideas in general)
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 00:53:49 No. 17353
>>17350 my view on your post is that you are throwing words around because you don't understand how politics and these things work
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 00:54:27 No. 17354
Zapatistas are based
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 01:02:28 No. 17355
Socialism For All has a playlist on cooperative economics and market socialism that's worth listening to (although the debates are terrible and the commentary on them can be skipped):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rufXA59IiYU&list=PLXUFLW8t2snsQe7oVQawwz1f8skr2_1Iz If there's one video I'd recommend out of that whole list it would be vid related. A number of issues arise in practice, but the biggest lesson is that market systems are not conducive to building solidarity in society at large. Workers in cooperatives are still incentivized to maximize their own profits with all the problems that brings.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 01:11:51 No. 17356
In reality socialist construction in most countries has historically and likely will continue to involve transitory stages wherein multiple forms of production coexist. Marx and Engels themselves said as much. I would see no issue with a transitory stage that mixes state ownership, co-ops, and small private enterprise (essentially the current Cuban model), provided that we do everything we can to continuously phase out the other two. >i just think that the zapatistas have a more ideal model of socialist adjacent ideology than what the soviets did because of the emphasis it has on democracy
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 01:33:08 No. 17359
>>17351 Holy retard batman.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 01:39:43 No. 17360
>>17359 They're completely right
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 02:27:52 No. 17364
>>17363 HILLARYious Clinton
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 03:32:39 No. 17365
>>17350 I agree in so far with the assessment on the Zapatistas, but lets not fool ourselves into thinking that markets will exist under socialism.
At best, it can exist under a DOTP to ensure that resources, excess goods and currency etc can be regulated, allocated and designated where necessary.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 03:50:27 No. 17366
>>17363 Holy fuck, Clinton might've unironically have been more of an accelerationist president than Trump
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 05:42:37 No. 17370
>>17357 >>17358 le youtube man said so, so it must be true
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 05:53:31 No. 17371
Look, if /leftypol/ were to become the People's Central Committee of whatever country tomorrow, I doubt the mighty central planning initiatives will organize themselves magically out of nowhere, even with Richard Dickblast as the newly appointed Minister of the International Economy.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 06:07:24 No. 17372
>>17371 no one denies the market will exist in a transitionary period. the error that market soycalists make is that they view their shit as the end state rather than a stepping stone
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 06:42:58 No. 17373
>>17372 I agree with this criticism, and honestly I think the material conditions are basically already ripe for late-stage communism, but sadly it's not like we can turn a switch.
All I'm suggesting is that instead of repeating "markets icky" then posting 300 replies in the "was the NEP proof that the USSR was state-capitalist?" bait thread and coming up with various sorts of cope, you should have a simpler program in mind: make the commons free for all, reduce labour time as much as possible, and make (scientific) knowledge and means of production widespread and easily available to normies.
Central planning of mass production is absolutely crucial for this program, but there are always little corner cases there and there in realpolitik.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 06:48:43 No. 17374
>>17373 (me)
Also we can envision more decentralized, federal forms of planning production and distribution, even with a cybernetic system giving basic quotas to direct these for different "communes". I don't have anything concrete to suggest right now, but the way to organize a socialist society is not set in stone.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 06:58:56 No. 17375
>>17350 How dare you propose something realistic that could actually work? This is a utopian socialist chan.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 07:03:41 No. 17376
>>17352 So we are just supposed to continue with economic policies that have ended up with socialist countries collapsing and dissolving? Ideological purity < Socialism that works.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 07:12:05 No. 17377
I think the problem is that many here live in denial about Soviet Union and entire eastern bloc collapsing because of failed economic policies.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 07:22:14 No. 17378
>>17372 This is pure strawman. Get better arguments.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 07:42:52 No. 17379
>needs to be tested more
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 07:47:08 No. 17380
>>17357 Second thought has le Lenin beard and le zoomie haircut
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 07:52:23 No. 17381
>>17376 is this bait? lol
>So we are just supposed to continue with economic policies that have ended up with socialist countries collapsing and dissolving? So you mean "market socialism" i.e. the reintroduction of capitalism and coubter-revolution?
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 07:57:36 No. 17383
>>17375 Like I mean it is literally just "my policy is undesirable therefore it is pragmatic" inverted and projected outward. Literally the exact same line given by capitalist roaders restoring capitalism in the USSR and China at the same time neoliberals gaslit the western societies into "austerity" and "belt tightening". Yhis is very politically loaded rhetoric operating under the guise of "detached rationality".
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 08:40:53 No. 17384
The pragmatic approach is to have a socialist market economy and experiment on planned economy on small scale so the entire society wont collapse because naive ideological blindness.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 09:19:19 No. 17385
>>17384 Why do you believe that is "the pragmatic solution"? Market economies have most of the problems planned economies have and plenty more than them, they are also far less efficient and more prone to crises. And importantly they naturally produce welath disparity and are antithetical to building a socialist society and socializing production
Read a book
>>17369 Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 09:19:44 No. 17386
Profits are bad and you should be ashamed for having profits. The goal is to produce an output at a price level that justifies production at that level (covering costs). Having to lower prices below the cost-covering price just to get rid of excess stock is a failure, but so is having to raise prices above the cost-covering price because you have no buffer stock and waiting lines are forming. That's right, if the thing you produce is in high demand you should be punished for that! To be precise, you should only be punished here for not communicating anticipation of higher demand. If you do communicate this but don't get more resources because of other people not believing you, that's not your fault. And the punishment for you, the person, is something entirely different from punishing the "firm". After all, the "firm" has to expand when demand is high.
>>17371 >Make basic necessities such as housing, water, food, and so on, public and free or extremely cheap, no more than the cost of maintenance Result: Labor power will appear as very cheap in the calculations, creating the illusion that it is sensible to replace machines with direct labor when it is not sensible to do so.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 09:19:59 No. 17387
>>17385 >plenty more than them *plenty of their own
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 09:22:39 No. 17388
Ideology is a spook. China is the shining star of socialism, due to their development of productive forces
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 09:28:07 No. 17389
>>17386 >Profits are bad and you should be ashamed for having profits. The goal is to produce an output at a price level that justifies production at that level (covering costs). Yes but also profit is not the same as surplus, which some people confuse. There will be some level of socialized production alloted to investment and actuary/disaster relief etc
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 09:58:47 No. 17390
>>17378 If it is strawman, why not explain why it is?
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 09:59:04 No. 17391
>>17385 We have thousands of years of experience from market economics but roughly 60 years experience of fully planned economy and even that experiment failed horribly. Communist movement cant afford more failures our enemies will use against us.
When the economical base is secured we can let utopians have their small scale social experiments on planned economy.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 10:07:29 No. 17393
>>17391 >and even that experiment failed horribly. literally "it failed" when and because markets were reintroduced
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 10:08:57 No. 17394
>>17393 This is cope and you know it.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 10:13:40 No. 17395
>>17394 No that is what actually happened, read a book.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 10:14:05 No. 17396
>>17394 No I do not. Please use your big boy words to explain how if that is the case
Waiting:
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 11:00:12 No. 17397
>>17395 Pizza hut man tried to salvage the absolute state of Soviet economy but it was too little too late. But if cope makes you feel better then so be it.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 11:53:42 No. 17398
>>17397 there were other people wanting to change things besides liberals^Wmarket socialists
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 13:24:20 No. 17400
>>17394 The Soviet economy was slowing down in the 70s, but remember that this coincided with a global slowdown, as well as the completion of Soviet urbanization and industrialization. Despite this it was still chugging along until Gorbachev's market reforms plunged it into a crisis and made basically every Brezhnev era problem much worse.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 13:45:44 No. 17401
>>17392 Please tell more. How did you do it? Are you mexican?
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 21:26:26 No. 17402
>>17350 It has been tested extensively; American labor unions attempted to make cooperatives to undermine capitalism that way. In any case, they were starved for resources by cooperation between the monopolists and the railroads, resorted to the same abysmal work conditions and cost-cutting in order to remain competitive and were killed by their own workers rebelling against that, or maintained the cushion but fell as a result.
Under market competition, someone has to win. And when they do win, they take the market share of the loser. Repeat until they're no competitors remaining, or the few companies that do remain find it more beneficial to stop competing. A small "Socialism Incorporated" breaking down this system when its already in its late stages is about as likely as your usual urban bodega overthrowing Walmart. No wonder the concept of them is advertised so often by the capitalists themselves.
This book could give you more detail on it.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 21:41:23 No. 17403
>>17397 I bet the residents miss it now
What was called stagnation was a steady 2 percent growth in the economy compared to the usual steady 5 percent growth for socialism
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 21:41:47 No. 17404
>>17350 >market socialism needs to be tested more in my view Been tried, ends up like this.
Marker "socialism" contains in it the core of capitalism. Capitalism is the rule of capital, not the rule of capitalists. It incentivizes in all its being the creation of a new ruling class. Any company competed away and every company that wins is forced by competition to recreate class structures of ownership. Keeping equality of opportunity and egalitarian outcomes goes against the very mechanism used to regulate the economy, thus undoing either your economic system or your social system.
Market "socialism" is capitalism.
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 21:43:15 No. 17405
>>17402 >It has been tested extensively; American labor unions attempted to make cooperatives to undermine capitalism that way. In any case, they were starved for resources by cooperation between the monopolists and the railroads, resorted to the same abysmal work conditions and cost-cutting in order to remain competitive and were killed by their own workers rebelling against that, or maintained the cushion but fell as a result. Burgers do be like that
Look at their positively rabid response to Huawei succeeding
Anonymous 2023-05-19 (Fri) 21:54:38 No. 17406
>>17405 (me)
locally they were effectively chased out of the country probably due to burger sanctions and our vassal status to the burgersharts just after their local stores held elections
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 05:15:22 No. 17407
>>17350 Market "socialism" is just a parasite on the flank of capitalism. Its success can only be when capitalism is producing high profits and not during a crisis of capitalism. A more accurate term is just "welfare capitalism".
Marx's critique of capitalism that the rich are meanies who won't give out welfare. But that the fundamental laws which govern capitalism push for constant growth and when growth is stymied capitalism must fall into crisis and the workers must suffer that the hardest.
Market "socialism", worker's coops, etc can't escape the capitalist "business cycle".
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 05:16:11 No. 17408
>>17407 >Marx's critique of capitalism that the rich are meanies *isn't that the rich are meanies
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 05:32:43 No. 17409
>>17408 Actually lad or lass he did indeed argue exactly that at some point on the reserve army of labour that the welfare and upkeep of that army would fall on the proletariat not the Haute porkies
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 06:15:49 No. 17410
>>17407 >Market "socialism", worker's coops, etc can't escape the capitalist "business cycle" This can be solved by setting up a national sovereign fund to cushion the citizens during the downturn like many countries literally already do. Then during the booming phase money begins to flow in again. Problem solved
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 06:21:14 No. 17411
>>17410 I'm more interested in how the Soviets and the Chinese up till the present avoided the crisis despite having market elements
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 06:29:56 No. 17412
>>17411 China is already a success story in market socialism
>state companies that are divide into two : >a) for profit >b)direct central control >private sectors of the economy are planned and carefully built up >sovereign funds to cushion any type of crisis >huge state investment companies Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 06:30:52 No. 17413
they literally call themselves socialist market economy
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 06:32:43 No. 17414
During the COVID time they already proved their ability to pool resources fast, they built an entire hospital literally in 10-12 days
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 06:43:01 No. 17415
>>17350 >zapatistas are a good model for functioning [anything] delusional
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 10:26:07 No. 17416
>>17414 I want to get a link on this so i can see more of this /gen
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 11:49:26 No. 17417
Is this really about "pragmatism" or just an attempt to articulate socialism positively to the working class? 99% of workers are gonna tell you to fuck off if you confess that your revolutionary new society involves the state owning all industry and party bureaucrats and "cybernetics" controlling everything.
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 12:07:16 No. 17418
>>17402 >resorted to the same abysmal work conditions and cost-cutting in order to remain competitive and were killed by their own workers rebelling against that, or maintained the cushion but fell as a result This understanding of co-ops is common among MLs and leftcoms and Rosa Luxemburg also reasoned like this about them, and I am sure you and Foner and the girl reading this have real-world
anecdotes supporting the viewpoint.
But as far as I know both the working conditions are better in co-ops and their survival rate is better than that of the normal business type. The main reason why they are so few co-ops out there is not a high "death rate", but a low "birth rate".
>>17404 >Capitalism is the rule of capital, not the rule of capitalists. It's both. You are not marxister than others for talking like this. The capitalists act as a self-aware class.
Anonymous 2023-05-20 (Sat) 13:32:09 No. 17419
The Zapatistas have evicted peasants from their communes for not towing the party line as well as being operated through a somewhat vanguard organization, so the notion that there’s much difference in regards to government between them and the Soviets is not much. What sets them apart is just how unsuccessful they are in establishing relevant reach outside Chiapas even with existing for nearly three decades at this point and basically being meek in the face of Mexican police and militias gunning their members down. Even outside of markets being shit and basically reinventing the transitional programme of Trotsky or the worst ideas of Bukharin (ie the guy whose ideas won out in the Warsaw pact in the 1980s and China today with needs of “reform” and avoiding class conflict) in preventing movement towards socialism, which has been beaten to death enough by the variety of posters here who know better, the Zapatistas just don’t do much of anything and are not a model for social change. Now, for some real pointers on how to organize, let’s take these excellent examples
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2021–2023_Eswatini_protests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_South_African_National_Shutdown (this article ignores how the communist NUMSA did a lot of heavy lifting)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Nile_clashes_(2022–2023) Shit like this and the fact that communists in Africa don’t pussy out in calling themselves communists in heavily Islamic or Christian nations should be something adopted here. Then you got protests and strikes in Lebanon or Iran where the want to abolish markets is something seen as a positive because they are on the losing end of capitalism.
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 04:54:48 No. 17420
>>17418 What could be done to change this "birth rate"? Where would the additional capital be sourced from? How did these cooperatives you look to resist these same forces?
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:07:16 No. 17421
>>17418 >and their survival rate is better than that of the normal business type youre gonna have to back that up with some data chief
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:08:30 No. 17422
>>17420 its very difficult to raise capital when investors want equity so
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:08:59 No. 17423
>>17359 take out that flag if youre gonna defend markets rofl
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:09:44 No. 17424
>>17384 every fucker out there believes they are being "pragmatic", i shleep
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:24:02 No. 17425
>>17424 I think we should abolish the commodity form
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:38:53 No. 17426
>>17420 Convert dying businesses to cooperatives to stay afloat. IIRC Argentina had cooperatives born from this process during some economic crisis.
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:56:00 No. 17427
>>17425 unironically a brave opinion
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 05:59:57 No. 17428
>A lot of "communists" just want to make capitalism more rational.
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 07:27:08 No. 17429
>>17425 So brave and valid. But in all seriousness we cant let ultras fuck up yet again with their infantile utopianism. There needs to common sense economical measures that aim to establish socialism in the future when the material conditions have been met. Not to mention the threat of imperialist aggression towards countries building towards this advanced stage of socialism. In my view all these ultras are no better than anarchist in their praxis.
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 07:59:18 No. 17430
>>17391 > thousands of years of experience from market economics Liberalism is like 300 years old, nice Orwellian brainwash attempt
>even that experiment failed horribly I can't believe Edison's workers failed to make a lightbulb, everyone knows that light has failed everytime its been tried
>Communist movement cant afford more failures our enemies will use against us. <Noun. pick-me girl (slang, derogatory) A woman who asserts that she is unlike (and sometimes better than) most other women, in order to gain attention, approval, or validation from men. Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 09:01:36 No. 17431
>>17430 Market economics =/= liberalism
Anonymous 2023-05-21 (Sun) 16:20:07 No. 17433
>>17429 >ultras >common sense economical measures jesus dude you speak like a marketer
Anonymous 2023-05-29 (Mon) 05:49:29 No. 17435
>>17432 This addresses the point of whether these co-ops survive to begin with, but not the measures they have to take to do so.
OG Tankie 2023-05-29 (Mon) 05:55:12 No. 17436
>>17429 What an original thought that I definitely have never seen word for word 500 times on this site alone
Anonymous 2023-05-29 (Mon) 05:59:07 No. 17437
>>17366 That's why they gave it to Trump.
Anonymous 2023-05-29 (Mon) 06:37:16 No. 17438
>>17429 >We should improve society somewhat <yet we must participate in this society, I am very smart. I swear, anyone who uses buzzwords like "ultra" or "tankie" ought to be bitch-slapped.
Anonymous 2023-05-31 (Wed) 01:44:35 No. 17441
>>17371 This is the most petite bourgioise post I've ever read.
Unique IPs: 50