[Keynes]

Capital, is what aids the process of inequality in a society, in terms of opportunities and lifestyle. Property is a tool used to protect the interest of the Bourgeois class and Capital. People did at one time exist without having "personal property", it was not until capitalism, which we started to see private property for the commons.

I thought this was the socialist forum?
Why are you talking about some communistic utopia?

I reject the LVT,to me it is flawed,I follow the view that labour is what creates value,but although all value is measured in labour all labour is not homogenous and cannot simply be measured in time.

Here's an article on the dialectic evolution of exploitation theories,it shows while the LVT is dialectically superior to all capitalist theories,it is inferior to later socialist ones.
http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/demdialectic.htm

The only way to decide on value is democratically through co-ops where the profits are shared.

By replacing it with a labour token system, which one cannot gain surplus or horde capital.

One would not gain much at all.
And you accused me of utopian thinking.

Someone hasn't read Towards a new Socialism

Some one hasn't read a history book.

Socialism means the workers own the means of production,they did not in the Soviet union therefore it was not socialist,State capitalism is my favourite name for it,mainly because it annoys capitalists,it was a peculiar hybrid of capitalism with elements of force.



We know co-ops work,from all the empirical data I've seen they are as efficient or even more so than capitalist companies,all we need is the socialist investment system and we have a worthy model that would probably work.

[Eauz]

First, Sans Salvador, if you are "not a fan of market socialism", I've got to question why you attempt to defend it.

Secondly, Socialism, as a political movement did not arise because consumers were dissatisfied with the way the market was organised. It arose, because capitalism is an exploitative system whose victims sought redress. Capitalism allows the wealthy to exploit the labour of the poor. Socialism, was the response to exploitation of wage labourers by capitalists. Marx even wrote that exploitation arise from the very logic of commodity production. Please, in your defence of Market socialism, don't EVER forget this point.

the forms of manifestation of capital such as fragmentation and competition, technical progress and accumulation of capital, and value (contrary to certain arguments that value arises from commodity production per se, one of Marx's discussions of value in fact makes this error) and commodity production.

Obviously, such forms of capital may exist, without generating value, but it is the whole fact that a market, which operates, just as under capitalism, which would generate profit. The whole point of Market socialism, is to ensure that a profit is created, thus rendering the whole eliminating the "exploitation" of workers argument null. The existance of a group of members in society, creating profits for a nationalised company, might in turn, cause a turn towards state capitalism. Class society would undoubtedly return. I'm not sure how one will regulate the amount of profit a company makes without destroying the classless society.

On the other hand, the inefficiency of markets is not simply a result of class domination. Additionally, even without the imperative of accumulation people are not going to become angels so there would be other problems with markets.

No doubt, but the goal of socialism, didn't come around, due to consumers being upset with the way the market runs. Inefficiency will exists no doubt, but to suggest that some how by covering up capitalism with a "soft socialist blanket", is going to do much, outside of making people feel "good inside", then you are in a dream world of your own... I don't see why incentive to be efficient would not exist as its own reward. Having a socialised workplace, where incentive on efficiency, outside of the capitalist framework, can encourage workers in the company, to have a good work ethic. Any companies slacking, will eventually lose their workers.

I thought this was the socialist forum?
Why are you talking about some communistic utopia?

I have no clue where you pulled this junk out from, in relation to the quote. Yes, this is the socialist forum. However, you misunderstood what I said, and obviously didn't pay attention when you read the quote. I said "People did at one time", meaning, Feudalism, where the common person, existed without actually owning private property, only personal property. Please, if you are going to debate, actually understand what is written.

all labour is not homogenous and cannot simply be measured in time.

No doubt, and I don't know any socialists suggesting that. It would definetly depend on the calculation of skilled labour multiplier.

The only way to decide on value is democratically through co-ops where the profits are shared.

I agree that worker councils should definetly exist, to ensure that workers are being properly valued. However, co-ops, in a capitalist system have some of the toughest times staying true to their ideology. Co-ops usually can't stay "socialist" for long enough, without turning into a capitalist firm, with a leader at the top, making the decisions. The culture of capitalism still exists, even if you put the moral image of a "Co-op" in its place. The problem is, production is already social, while ownership remains private

Nevertheless, the capitalist system can't be conquered from within, it's neither economically nor politically possible. There's no return to small-scale production. This is proven by capitalism itself: ever since it became the dominant system, the percentage of capitalists of the population has been steadily decreasing. The same has been happening to the petty-bourgeoisie. So if ever lesser number of people can become capitalists, why should anyone assume that co-operatives could conquer the position of the remaining well-established class of finance bourgeoisie?

As Kautsky during his Marxist period in the late 19th century said:

"It is simplest if it's assumed that each capitalist enterprise is turned into a co-operative one. In the same way, the workers are its owners. Nothing else is changed. Commodity production continues, each individual enterprise is independent in relation to others and produces for sale in the markets.

One would not gain much at all.
And you accused me of utopian thinking.

Please explain what you mean by "not gain much at all"? In reality, a socialist society, has already ensured such things as Medical/health services, employment, shelter (possibly pay a rent fee), education. In a capitalist society, much of this is paid out of the paycheque you receive, with much of these out of the way, one doesn't have to say so much up, or the reason to save is reduced by quite a bit. One can use their tokens for other services and needs.

Socialism means the workers own the means of production,they did not in the Soviet union therefore it was not socialist,State capitalism is my favourite name for it,mainly because it annoys capitalists,it was a peculiar hybrid of capitalism with elements of force.

As I said earlier...

Socialism, as a political movement did not arise because consumers were dissatisfied with the way the market was organised. It arose, because capitalism is an exploitative system whose victims sought redress. Capitalism allows the wealthy to exploit the labour of the poor. Socialism, was the response to exploitation of wage labourers by capitalists. Marx even wrote that exploitation arise from the very logic of commodity production.

I agree though, that workers should definetly have more democratic rights an decisions in the process. Aside from that point, I agree with everything else, in relation to State Capitalism. I suggest you read "Towards a new Socialism".

[Keynes]

That book is not available online,just the synopsis.

Where is the exploitation in market socialism,you have talked about it,but can you actually tell me what it is?

[Eauz]

Where is the exploitation in market socialism,you have talked about it,but can you actually tell me what it is?

One can't have the rule of the market in the distribution of goods without ultimately having a market in means of production and labor power, i.e. capitalist exploitation.

That book is not available online,just the synopsis.

I guess you didn't look to hard at the page. It's in PDF form...

[Keynes]

One can't have the rule of the market in the distribution of goods without ultimately having a market in means of production and labor power, i.e. capitalist exploitation.

Do you have evidence for that?
Did you actually read the article I gave?

[Sans Salvador]

First, Sans Salvador, if you are "not a fan of market socialism", I've got to question why you attempt to defend it.

Because I am interested in being correct. If an erroneous argument supports some general conclusion of mine, I will call it out.

Secondly, Socialism, as a political movement did not arise because consumers were dissatisfied with the way the market was organised. It arose, because capitalism is an exploitative system whose victims sought redress. Capitalism allows the wealthy to exploit the labour of the poor.

What does this have to do with my argument? Yes, socialism arose from the struggles of the laborers, and the question is whether or not market socialism can end the exploitation of labor. You disagree with this completely, I disagree partially but for different reasons.

Obviously, such forms of capital may exist, without generating value, but it is the whole fact that a market, which operates, just as under capitalism, which would generate profit.

Why would a market generate profit? How do you define profit? I find the idea of profit meaningless if there isn't some class appropriating it. Remember, in Marx exploitation is defined in terms of surplus product, profit being merely one of its historical manifestations. The concept of a surplus product is of course meaningless if there isn't a class appropriating it from the producers unless you define surplus product with reference to physical subsistence which is silly and terribly un-Marxist.

No doubt, but the goal of socialism, didn't come around, due to consumers being upset with the way the market runs.

Of course, but once we have decided upon the goal of socialism, shouldn't the desires of consumers (who would be workers too) influence our decision of which type of socialism is to be preferred?

Anyway, I think you misunderstood me. I think the inefficiency of markets, in terms of pollution, advertising etc... is a strike against market socialism and for democratically planned socialism.

I don't think market socialism is "covering up capitalism with a 'soft socialist blanket'" I would say that market socialism is consistent with the total abolition of capital. However, I am concerned that market socialism may sow the seeds of its own abolition and capitalist restoration. A look at existing worker co-ops is very suggestive of this.

. Having a socialised workplace, where incentive on efficiency, outside of the capitalist framework, can encourage workers in the company, to have a good work ethic.

I don't think that working hard is desirable. Anyway, a look at the history of work shows that capitalism has made work much more degrading and less enjoyable. Under socialism, one of the best incentives to work would be that work doesn't suck.
[/quote]

[Eauz]

Because I am interested in being correct. If an erroneous argument supports some general conclusion of mine, I will call it out.

Hey, that's not the good Comrade spirit. Either you accept Marxism or you are a traitor...

I find the idea of profit meaningless if there isn't some class appropriating it.

As I said earlier, profit may exist, but as long as a market exists, other markets, in terms of means of production, labour power, etc will arise. It is through these means that market socialism could end up returning to capitalism, and aid in the continuation of exploitation.

Of course, but once we have decided upon the goal of socialism, shouldn't the desires of consumers (who would be workers too) influence our decision of which type of socialism is to be preferred?

Completly agree, but at the same time, one must watch that any restoration or possible existance of the restoration of capitalism does not return. If so, it would be disastrous to the interest of the workers, to acheived such a goal. A centralized system planning system, would work wonders, for stability, and ensuring that certain products are available, in regard to what the workers desire. The only issue here, would be to make a few ajustments to the existing plan.

A look at existing worker co-ops is very suggestive of this.

I'm glad we agree on a few things. For example, co-ops existed in large numbers, during the Argentine economic collapse. Their goals were based around collective power, some which paid workers equal wages, others which didn't, but with a short amount of time, we saw the collapse of these existing co-ops, due mainly for the fact that they couldn't compete under the competition of the capitalist system. Now, if we turn this into Market socialism, are you seriously eliminating the aggravating issue of capitalist exploitation, when you still end up producing based completely on commodity production? You'll turn a nice profit, ensuring you employees are paid well, but it would also end up running fellow workers out of employment, pushing them into the unemployment lines.

I don't think that working hard is desirable. Anyway, a look at the history of work shows that capitalism has made work much more degrading and less enjoyable. Under socialism, one of the best incentives to work would be that work doesn't suck.

You've misunderstood. There is a difference between working your body to extreme levels, and actually having a good work ethic, understanding how to perform such tasks in a responsible manner. In addition, providing more democracy in the workplace, and more reponsibility amongst the workers, creates such ethic. I do not suggest that forcing your workers to work 12 hour days, as this would not enforce anything but hatred against their company. Under socialism, the best incentive is having employment, which you are involved with, not just another joe-Schmo. One can have one of the worst jobs in the world, yet if you have more involvement in your job, it doesn't seem so bad.

On a side note, although, capitalism is everywhere in Japan, people are not embarassed to work as a full time employee (counter-staff), as they have much more responsiblities, aside from flipping burgers. Many of them end up aiding in the counting and deposits at the end of the evening, hiring, paper work, ordering products, etc. In addition, they are paid the same wage, as those who start off in Office jobs. I don't use this example to suggest this as socialism, but as an example that even the work that sucks, can have its perks, if provided the correct environment. Moreover, I'm not sure how you would eliminate such terrible jobs, if many of them are either necessary (e.g. sewage cleaners), or demanded by the public (McD's, fastfood).

Anyways comrade, I don't debate with you in anger or hatred, I see no reason why market socialism would acheive much, outside of a short period, before the return to Capitalism. This is something which would not be in the workers interst. Reading through what you said, I agree with much, but not regarding market socialism.

[HoniSoit]

at the same time, one must watch that any restoration or possible existance of the restoration of capitalism does not return.

Without reading all the posts, I do have a question for Eauz regarding this comment. The idea that there is possiblity of restoration of capitalism seems to suggest:

The capitalist systems is more desireable than the current version of socialist system since any restoration persumbly will not take place unless it gathers wide support from the public which signals a historical current. To use an analogy, there will hardly be any possibility of restoration to feudalism once a society moves into the stage of industrial capitalism as its natural superamacy (relative to feudalism) would have moblised the public mind to prevent any such restoration. In other words, if the condition is mature for socialism, there will not be any issue of the fear for restoration; if there is such a fear, it naturally means the condition is not ready. Is this correct?

[Keynes]

The capitalist systems is more desireable than the current version of socialist system since any restoration persumbly will not take place unless it gathers wide support from the public which signals a historical current. To use an analogy, there will hardly be any possibility of restoration to feudalism once a society moves into the stage of industrial capitalism as its natural superamacy (relative to feudalism) would have moblised the public mind to prevent any such restoration. In other words, if the condition is mature for socialism, there will not be any issue of the fear for restoration; if there is such a fear, it naturally means the condition is not ready. Is this correct?

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that it takes the public will for a system to be introduced,capitalism didn't need that the first time around why would it now?

[HoniSoit]

You seem to be under the mistaken assumption that it takes the public will for a system to be introduced,capitalism didn't need that the first time around why would it now?

No, I didn't mean it needs the public will for a system to be introduced, but once it's introduced it has to have the general public will to maintain it.

[Eauz]

The capitalist systems is more desireable than the current version of socialist system since any restoration persumbly will not take place unless it gathers wide support from the public which signals a historical current.

We don't subscribe to the "public", as the public is not all of industrial working class. The working class, specifically the industrial class, which has more control over the capitalist system, compared to the service sector, are the ones who will bring about any change in society. The revolution has nothing to do with the public opinion. The Bourgeois class will do anything to ensure the current structure of society is in place, to benefit themselves.

To use an analogy, there will hardly be any possibility of restoration to feudalism once a society moves into the stage of industrial capitalism as its natural superamacy (relative to feudalism) would have moblised the public mind to prevent any such restoration.

What you ignore, and Keynes has pointed to this issue is history itself. You seem to ignore that conflicts existed between the change from Feudalism to Capitalist society. You seem to ignore that capitalism is not a "natural" system, or was instantly accepted by the population, it took time and mass bloodshed to create a population in favour of capitalism.

No, I didn't mean it needs the public will for a system to be introduced, but once it's introduced it has to have the general public will to maintain it.

It definetly has to have the interest of workers in mind, which would make up in a socialist society, majority.

[HoniSoit]

Thanks for the response, Eauz (add me in your MSN!).

We don't subscribe to the "public", as the public is not all of industrial working class. The working class, specifically the industrial class, which has more control over the capitalist system, compared to the service sector, are the ones who will bring about any change in society. The revolution has nothing to do with the public opinion. The Bourgeois class will do anything to ensure the current structure of society is in place, to benefit themselves.

When I made my comment, I persumed that in a socialist/coummnist (or a particular version of it) society there will not be 'class' anymore - therefore the public is the working class (which includes all kinds of workers).

What you ignore, and Keynes has pointed to this issue is history itself. You seem to ignore that conflicts existed between the change from Feudalism to Capitalist society. You seem to ignore that capitalism is not a "natural" system, or was instantly accepted by the population, it took time and mass bloodshed to create a population in favour of capitalism.

I didn't ignore the conflicts and bloodshed in asserting capitalist mode of production in a society, so much as viewing the transition to socialism as different from previous transitions in terms of not having (as previous stages of history did) a ruling class to enforce their ideology. I presumed, rather, that although there is a good chance of mass bloodsheding during the transition to socialism - once the transition is achieved, there should be no need to watch out for restoration (unless you assert there will be permenant threat - and thus permenant transition and fear - which is more like the Soviet Union and China experience - which speak rather for immature condition than anything else).

[Eauz]

(add me in your MSN!)

I can't, I'm on another persons computer, and I already crashed the HD, I don't want to cause any more issues. PM is fine in PoFo... And in addition, I see no reason why we should have Cyber Sex through MSN, when I have no interest in both Cyber Sex and Homosexual relations.

When I made my comment, I persumed that in a socialist/coummnist (or a particular version of it) society there will not be 'class' anymore - therefore the public is the working class (which includes all kinds of workers).

When you made that comment, it seemed like you were suggesting that we wait until socialism is the "popular trend" in society. Any coming of socialism, will be brought about through the start of the industrial working class, and supported by workers who have a revolutionary spirit, and seek to eliminate the capitalist and Bourgeois society for good.

I didn't ignore the conflicts and bloodshed in asserting capitalist mode of production in a society, so much as viewing the transition to socialism as different from previous transitions in terms of not having (as previous stages of history did) a ruling class to enforce their ideology.

If society is to progress, it needs to face its conflicting parts. Just as we saw minute to macro scale conflicts during the movement from Feudalism to Capitalism. Without this, the old system continues to exist, leaving the door open for restoration.

once the transition is achieved, there should be no need to watch out for restoration

No doubt, but what I was arguing in terms of restoration, was about having a market system in place, which would end up creating markets not only for commodities, but for means of production and labour-power (i.e. Capitalist exploitation)

[Potemkin]

One can't have the rule of the market in the distribution of goods without ultimately having a market in means of production and labor power, i.e. capitalist exploitation.

Do you have evidence for that?

You are artificially separating production and distribution into autonomous categories, and assuming that you can change on without changing the other. This seems to be the fundamental error of Revisionist and reformist socialists. They think they can 'perfect' capitalism by keeping capitalist relations of production while grafting 'socialist' relations of distribution onto it.

This is Marx on the relation between production and distribution:

In the shallowest conception, distribution appears as the distribution of products, and hence as further removed from and quasi-independent of production. But before distribution can be the distribution of products, it is: (1) the distribution of the instruments of production, and (2), which is a further specification of the same relation, the distribution of the members of the society among the different kinds of production. (Subsumption of the individuals under specific relations of production.) The distribution of products is evidently only a result of this distribution, which is comprised within the process of production itself and determines the structure of production. To examine production while disregarding this internal distribution within it is obviously an empty abstraction; while conversely, the distribution of products follows by itself from this distribution which forms an original moment of production. Ricardo, whose concern was to grasp the specific social structure of modern production, and who is the economist of production par excellence, declares for precisely that reason that not production but distribution is the proper study of modern economics. [18] This again shows the ineptitude of those economists who portray production as an eternal truth while banishing history to the realm of distribution.

Karl Marx's Outline of the Critique of Political Economy (Grundrisse)

[TaylorS]

I don't see how having markets conflicts with socialism. Socialism is fudimentally about workers controling the means of production collectively, how goods and services are distributed is a totally seperate issue.

[Eauz]

I don't see how having markets conflicts with socialism. Socialism is fudimentally about workers controling the means of production collectively, how goods and services are distributed is a totally seperate issue.

Then I'd say, go to page one of this thread, and start reading. Have fun.

[Wellsy]

An issue I see is a conceptualizing reproduction purely material/technical and ahistorical, emphasizing production based on what is common across time and missing the social features spexifictk capitalist production. What this produces is an emphasis on distribution independent of production which informs distribution and in doing so cutoff Marx’s explanation of exploitation not just based in control like a manager of production, but in appropriating surplus value above labour power.

... the political economist... when considering the capitalist mode of production... treats [1] the work of control made necessary by the co-operative character of the labourprocess as identical with [2] the different work of control necessitated by the capitalist character of that process and the antagonism of interests between capitalist and labourer. 145

What happens when these two aspects of the capitalists’ role are confused is that one tends to forget that capitalists as such have anything to do with production.

We lose sight of class in production and only see class in terms of distribution and may seem legal changes in property rights independent of changing the mode of production itself.

There are also market wocialksts in the vein of Proudhorn who see the issue as distortion of markets and need to perfect markets from monopoly and such see nothing inherently wrong in capitalist production itself. There are variations but I am suspicious of market socialism theoretically.

[Monti]

I have already written about this question:
https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=180717
https://www.politicsforum.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=16&t=180567

According to me, there will never be socialism on earth if it is not market socialism, because other forms do not work.
I do not consider the soviet or the chinese systems as socialist because there cannot be socialism without democracy. It is a question of logic. If the means of production belong to the state and the state is not democratic, then the means of production are not owned by the people but by an oligarchy.

Marx was wrong in considering the market as a cause of alienation. And even the exchange between labour and wage is not in itself alienation or exploitation. The real problem is the unequal distribution of wealth. The remedy to this problem is collective ownership. It is both unnecessary and harmful to add planning to collective ownership.

[Monti]

It is a form of making socialist economics more "cute".

You do not like "CUTE socialism"? You prefer probably HARD socialism. Why ?

Only the abolition of the wages system itself would end exploitation. No reform of the market could possibly remove the antagonism at the heart of capitalism.

Socialism without the WAGE SYSTEM is impossible. The only alternatives are slavery, serfdom, independant labour and cooperatives. Are they better? If the state owns all enterprises and pays wages to the workers, you will maybe give this system another name than "wage system", but paying wages is a always wage system, even if they are paid by the state.
Maybe, you are waiting for the rule "to each following his needs". But it needs abundance. It will never happen.

[Senter]

You do not like "CUTE socialism"? You prefer probably HARD socialism. Why ?


Socialism without the WAGE SYSTEM is impossible. The only alternatives are slavery, serfdom, independant labour and cooperatives. Are they better? If the state owns all enterprises and pays wages to the workers, you will maybe give this system another name than "wage system", but paying wages is a always wage system, even if they are paid by the state.
Maybe, you are waiting for the rule "to each following his needs". But it needs abundance. It will never happen.

I will argue that it is not abundance we need, but the capability of producing abundance, because in our advanced capitalist society the capitalist routinely creates artificial shortages to enhance profits. Think “gasoline”.

So I think it is safe to say that we are already there, with the technology and development needed to create abundance!