/leftypol/ - Leftist Politically Incorrect

>>2355518
>By that logic, trve socialism has never existed

Correct.
I'm still waiting for any so-called "socialist" to abolish markets, commodity production, and wage labour.

>>2358870
Guess banning one of the central caracteristics of capitalism which is private ownership of the means of production isn't relevant right ?.

>>2358888
What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say that?
Do you think nationalisation is the entirety of what socialism entails? Do you think state capitalism isn't a thing that happens?

>>2358895
>What the hell are you talking about? Did I ever say that?
no you just ignored this little point of the analysis of capital from marx, ignoring the Gosplan was a tackle in the path of dissolution of markets, the existance of private property and appropriation of socially produced wealth into private hands are deleted for not being connivent with your desired conclusion.
>Do you think nationalisation is the entirety of what socialism entails?
meaningless as nationalisations on capitalist countries won't be integrated into the state aparatus and production on national levels like they did in Socialist, or whatever you want to call them, states.
>Do you think state capitalism isn't a thing that happens?
an complete meme and an empty comparasion, any capitalist nation with massive state backed propriety like Iraq and Saudi Arabia in no way breaks from private property, there is no dirigents and most of them have Public-Private coop plus stock markets no different than a capitalist system, many interacting with their local richmans interests as state capitalist nations still act as private property defenders and are just as quick as doing waves of legal privatisations to appease the ruling class, none of this in anyway comparable to Actual governments that called themselves socialist.

>>2358914
>state capitalism
>a complete meme
is that why Lenin spoke about it so much?

>>2355512
>aren't socialism
they are quite good close to socialism. The USSR had that, by a lot, besides the state owned companies.
>Given this isn't turning 100% of for profit businesses in a country into worker coops a good intermediate goal since it starves the bourgeoisie of their profits which they use to rule with politics?
yes, and no. one of the problem of cooperatives is that they can be easily turned into capitalist means of production without oversight. if the cooperative owners decide that any new worker incorporated is not going to be part of the cooperative ownership, the cooperative starts to do the same as a capitalist entity, then no. if they stay true to keeping any new worker as a part of the cooperative ownership, then yes. to avoid an entrapment the cooperatives must give a period of an intensive ideological training, and be tested to each new acquired worker, avoiding with this, that you have fifth columns voting to abandon the cooperative principle.
in practicality, cooperatives aren't too effective if the states isn't proactively working with them, i.ex. forcing the dissolution of each cooperative when any of them strand away of the principles of cooperatives.
there you go.

>>2358999
>in practicality, cooperatives aren't too effective if the states isn't proactively working with them, i.ex. forcing the dissolution of each cooperative when any of them strand away of the principles of cooperatives.
Well states already proactively support and endorse capitalistic businesses so that's not an inherent weakness of coops

>>2358010
Marx never said socialism is a lesser form of communism. Literally never.

They're no good on their own and will break up without a larger movement backing them up so to speak, as has happened with coops around the world. And they won't bring down capitalism. But if they are associated with say a party they provide funding, resources that support strike kitchens etc. and also attract members. So they are useful still.

>>2359369
Coops are more reliable statistically than a private business. So I don’t know what you are talking about with regards that they “break up”. You’re right that they’re not as active as they should be in politics.

>>2359356
Wrong https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1844/manuscripts/comm.htm

>>2357786
>whats the difference? any member of society can own a share in our biggest corporations.
publicly owned = the public owns it
publicly traded = anyone can buy a share

>>2359389
You don’t think I’ve read this particular manuscript a million times? Nowhere is Marx here saying that socialism is a lesser form of communism. He is talking about communism existing in transitional states. Communism, not communism and socialism as distinct modes of production or transition. Marx and Engels eventually started using socialism to describe themselves simply because socialism was more convenient and more popular to describe as part of the working class movement. Communism and socialism only became distinct political movements in the 20th century during the rise of social democracies.

>>2355512
When will you faggots learn that socialism is when labor vouchers. Nothing to do with ownership of property.

>>2359405
Thank you Doc Cock

>>2359405
good luck getting everyone fired up to fight and die for labor vouchers

>>2359405
i prefer rationing coupons

>>2359420
Me too if its me raioning your shiity coupons.

>>2358876
Not an argument. Cry harder, tankie

I do not think that in a mode of production where the law of value prevails, a cooperative structure can outcompete the firm.

>>2359403
You are wrong. You must read it again from the eye of materialist, not the pseud. Crude Communism is distinct from Communism. Crude Communism is socialism.

>>2359405
thats fine but if a unionized capitalist corp is better than a non union one then isnt a coop a step up from that

>>2355992
For one that they are producing for profit to begin with, with the logic of the market, complete with anarchy of production that comes with it, a trillion brands of the same product, waste for the sake of consumer choice and profit, and the necessity of this system to be outcompeted internationally and nationally, if you seek to fairly (according to your internal abitration) compensate each worker, you will have no chance to compete against the alien and inhuman force that is capital. Your question is still quite valid, to paraphrase you
>If this is not 'From each according to their ability [..]' then what is ?
It is not because it seeks "the best conditions" under which to fullfil the antithesis of it, as I mentioned above, it will never allow the producer to fish, herd, sew, etc without being a fisherman etc etc, it is a perpetuity of the same system, same way of life, etc. Your earnest question and goal as a communist should not be "how can we get workers the best wage", but "how can we transcend and overcome production for profit (and thus necessarily for wages) alltogether?
>>2356420
I believe this to be a valid sentiment and position to hold too, however there are many things that go against capitalism that in turn are not quite conducive to build up something new, for example refusing to sell your labour power at all, logically does go against capitalism. "The people" as a generality does not make sense; the working class as a subset of "The people" may share with "The people" an interest to overcome capitalism, but may do so for entirely different reasons. This will seem like pedantry but I feel like it is an important distinction nonetheless. Then why is it that you want workers to be enslaved to capital at better conditions still?
>>2358055
The issue is that it is not fair, seeing that production as a wholly-social aggregate being a cooperative process that transcends enterprise, factory floor, transport, etc for the members of one sector to pocket surplus themselves, all surplus should go towards the social whole so productive capability can be increased, work time reduced, etc. "Democratizing" implies the need for Democracy, which is generally understood as a means to abitrate opposing interest (often within a class, yes); but you see: what opposing interests does in this case the individual gold miner and society at large have ? It is precisely what I laid out above, he has an interest to pocket surplus, for legitimate reasons, as does society have to want to pocket and reinvest it, this interest is individually contradictive but socially already a resolved one in this scenario, and does because of that not require abitration.
>>2358524
Also entirely a valid question and sentiment, and I assure you that a rational planned circular economy with its surplus going towards the betterment of the present productive forces will almost always lead to a better quality of life almost immediately, as only that can actually historically approach the overcoming of the law of value to begin with, albeit the elimination of waste and productive anarchy will come with loss of luxuries like on-demand food delivery for instance, this is the crux of the "treatler" meme.
>>2358527
Yes, it inherently can not, it is a different form of capitalism, even if preferable to the workers under it.
>>2358870
I feel like you are just parroting what your friends on twitter are telling you. Spouting things that may be true is still nonsense spouting and ultimately schizophrenic.
>>2358888
To be the devils advocate, doing so only hinders the efficient flow of commodity production and puts a wrench in the machinery that operates under the same logic as a western firm would, a competition it necessarily will also lose eventually.

>>2359471
Worker owned cooperatives on a national scale would completely replace porkies especiqlly with nationalized financial system. This is a threat to their power so of course they will be against it and use fascism as last response tactic.

>>2359442
>crude communism
Fucking kek

>>2359399
>the "public" (government) owns it.
so state capitalism, right.

>>2359379
As I understand they got eaten inside out in their respective countries when communist movements were breaking down?

>>2361961
If I remember correctly Yugoslavian coops were never really free to do business without state control. I t was some weird frankenstein mix of planned economy with worker ownership but actually not really worker ownership

>>2358004
>Imagine some hypothetical scenario that has never happened organically in the real world
Yeah ok, but why would I do that?

>>2358004
>spacex
NTA but bad example since spacex is basically privatised NASA

>>2362107
>>2362182
because people are saying coops wouldnt fix anything but they would. Make the profits go to workers instead of capitalist. Or at least petit bourgeois instead of big bourgeois for freelancers

>>2355512
Unless your building a alliance of several workers owned co-ops then it's useless.
Best it can do is basically become a eco friendly alternative to main stream shops but then it's just petite burgeoise and if you make it explicity socialist/communist/marxist then it would end up as Stirner's milk shop.
So the answer is no

>>2359487
Credit unions combined with worker cooperatives are a powerful combination. Unfortunately there is no politician aside from Richard Wolff who ran on this idea. The biggest problem is the lack of politicization of worker coops and credit unions and the reason kind of makes sense if you understand the historical fighters for coops and people’s banks like Proudhon, who didn’t want to rock the boat of their political system and decided to not participate and their hopes was that cooperatives would just magically take over the whole nation. Marx knew how stupid this shit was, the only way to change shit is to participate in the political system to put pressure and politicize the very act of cooperatives and credit unions are strictly a working class political policies aiming for nationalization, not nationalization in the legal sense but making cooperatives necessary for any business entering the economic world. A law for example that is used that requires any business looking to get a low interest loan only allowing cooperatives to get low or zero interest loans and private businesses being forced to pay premiums. Imagine for example a person looking to start a private business and the only way they can get a loan is by paying a 20 percent premium on interest, no and sometimes higher. In opposition would be cooperatives getting 1 or 2 or 3 percent interest on loans in their new business. This preferential treatment would have a massive politicizing effect on cooperatives and credit unions making them the political alternative to private business and private banks.

>>2362494
> who didn’t want to rock the boat of their political system
Damn libs been betraying the revolution since the begining… now i see why Trotsky was right about Machkno

>>2355512
I sort of see worker co-operatives as a means of defending against HR/the managerial strata which emerges from finance capital, unemployment and labor arbitrage/the buying and selling of labor. In some ways I think worker co-operatives are better than trade unions which only really defend against productive capital and not the banks.

>>2362804
Anyhow I think there ought to be a better way of defending against the managerial strata and getting shitcanned than worker co-operatives. IMO labor unions don't really address the development of a managerial strata or the reserve pool of labor. I think there ought to be an organized way to fight against labor arbitrage directly. Not talking about labor monopsony (borders/colonies mostly IMO) which is usually what comes up when people talk about labor arbitrage.

>>2362804
good point

>>2355512
Worker coops are a net good and anyone who doesn't think so has their head up their ass

>>2373069
What’s the matter, bud? Afraid of something that works for the workers?

>>2373071
Go back to your CSAM party thread

There are other kinds of cooperatives than worker cooperatives. What about community cooperatives? What about consumer cooperatives? What about some hybrid of all of these? What would a hybrid cooperative's structure of operation be?

>>2425162
I am skeptical of consumer coops because it doesn't matter to workers that much if they have one boss or many little bosses. Though I will say they are more socially concious than regular firms because they have no choice but to care about their costumers more than usual firms and also sometimes worker cooperatives are not a feasible solution for example then many people need electricity or water the natural solution is a consumer cooperative
Hybrid coops with 50% of control in worker hands and 50% in consumer control are based tho

Marx was critically positive about worker's coops as they are just an expression of worker's self-organization. They are not something to be actively derided just like how you don't shit on a worker for joining a union even though trade unions are ultimately incorporated forms of class collaboration between union leadership and the capitalist. It won't build communism by itself, but historic forms of worker's organization are naturally a part of the development of the proletariat just like how the guilds served the bourgeois.

<The co-operative factories run by workers themselves are, within the old form, the first examples of the emergence of a new form, even though they naturally reproduce in all cases, in their present organization, all the defects of the existing system, and must reproduce them. But the opposition between capital and labour is abolished there, even if at first only in the form that the workers in association become their own capitalists, i.e., they use the means of production to valorise their labour.

The idea it would "compete" with capitalists is false since capitalists hold so much more capital, which is why the petit-bourgeois are characterized by their rate of falling into the proletariat. It also doesn't attempt to destroy capitalism, as the workers just become their own capitalists and they're still subjected to market pressures which eventually will force them to act as a "traditional" capitalist boss inside the workplace if they want to stay afloat. The value is that despite this, it is an expression of a new form of worker's control, and that is the goal is to get the proletariat organized against the common enemy of the bourgeois. Internet debate, which is always retarded and extreme, has conditioned people to instinctually react against it without actually putting any thought into it (ultroids who don't read their own theory).

To extend an olive branch, most hate against coops seems to be focused on the example of a " shop local, anarchist coffee shop." There is a strong argument that this is just democratization of the ownership of capital, rather than being a "worker's coop" since a coffee shop would generally have the owner working it themselves, i.e. petit-bourgeois. Here, you basically see the modernized version of their fetishization for feudalism and peasantry. The focus of intense hatred on it though is a waste of breath because despite its form, it's still just petit-bourgeois which is destined to fall apart and the owners becoming proletarianized, so there's no point trying to moralize it.

>>2355598
Cooperatives would make it easier to organise and engage in syndicalism or unionism because the workers have greater autonomy and control that's why it isn't widespread methinks

>>2357718
Why do they fail every time then?

What if the state forced some of the big monopolist’s enterprises to convert to worker co ops?

>>2362453
>Make the profits go to workers instead of capitalist
why not take control over the profits and the expenses?
>>2425176
>it doesn't matter to workers that much if they have one boss or many little bosses
Riiiight, tell that to Silicon Valley vampires who went full fascist because their slaves asked to work from home or to condemn Zionist genocide or whatever
>>2425177
>they are just an expression of worker's self-organization
We need economic democracy

>>2425342
They don't. Coops gave higher survival rate than regular firms