[Ademir]

The orthodox definition of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production, rather than state ownership of the means of production. Therefore autogestionsim is by definition socialist. The mere fact that you are not allowed to purchase stocks or start a company and then hire people to work in it means that it's not capitalism, regardless of what rules govern exchange.

But it isn't worker ownership of the means of production, necessarily. It can also be a system where workers own only a share of their own workplace, rather than the means of production as a whole. It's just capitalism with multiple owners in each enterprise and the capitalists have to do some work.

[Wolfman]

The orthodox definition of socialism is worker ownership of the means of production

But it is executed by state ownership.

Therefore autogestionsim is by definition socialist.

Not really. Under Socialism all the companies in the economy would be nationalised, so there would be no competion. Also, the workers would run all the companys, in Autogestion they run the company they work in (which means it's not even control over the means of production, but of the company they worked for). The fact that Autogestion is also called Left Libertarianism, and is also called a slew Anarchist ideas should say something about how Socialist it is.

The mere fact that you are not allowed to purchase stocks or start a company and then hire people to work in it means that it's not capitalism

Except under complete Capitalism you couldn't buy stocks anyways. However, you could start a company and hire people to work for you. As I said, there were low interest loans available in Titoist Yugoslavia so that people could start there own company. Unlike in a Capitalist Economy, the owner would have to turn the company over to the workers when he had paid off his loan. Also, when the company was turned over the former owner would receive a higher wage then the rest of the workers, assuming the amount of work actually done remained the same.

[Dr House]

The fact that Autogestion is also called Left Libertarianism, and is also called a slew Anarchist ideas should say something about how Socialist it is.

Left-libertarianism and anarchism are both widely considered to be socialist.

[Wolfman]

No government = Socialism.

[Dr House]

Yep. Ask pretty much any anarchist.

[albionfagan]

Titoism wasn't any more fascist than Stalinism, the usual stalinist bullshit is present in this thread it seems.

Credit where credit it is due, who else could have kept a lid on the Balkans.

[Wolfman]

^

Yah, but unlike Stalinism, Titoism worked econoomicy

[Dr House]

Stalinism worked quite well economically, actually. Whatever other problems they had, Stalin authored a long period of breakneck economic growth, unrivaled by any country but China in the late 20th century. Additionally, fully developed USSR, while had a far lower standard of living than the West due to shitty consumer goods and chronic shortages, still had first-rate social services, no unemployment, no hunger problems and full employment.

By the way, I've seen you mention more than once that Socialist Yugoslavia had a standard of living comparable to the US at the time. By what measures exactly did they have a comparable living standard? From what I've read of the SFRY they had a GDP per capita comparable to modern-day Poland in the 80s, far lower than the US GDP or even US median salaries at the time.

[Wolfman]

Titoist Yugoslavia grew from being an economic backwater about the same as Russia, to having a standard of living about the same as the US at the time. If Russia did that well, it would have had to have had a higher standard of living then the US.

still had first-rate social services, no unemployment, no hunger problems and full employment

Also something that was present in Titoist Yugoslavia.

By the way, I've seen you mention more than once that Socialist Yugoslavia had a standard of living comparable to the US at the time. By what measures exactly did they have a comparable living standard?

I'll try to find my source. It'll be in my response to your response (hopefully)

[Dr House]

Titoist Yugoslavia grew from being an economic backwater about the same as Russia, to having a standard of living about the same as the US at the time. If Russia did that well, it would have had to have had a higher standard of living then the US.

You seem to not have understood my post. Russia had a much better standard of living than it's given credit for, but still much worse than the US. I find it highly implausible the SFRY had a higher standard of living than the US given that Americans until the early 70s received the world's highest wages.

Also something that was present in Titoist Yugoslavia.

I would imagine. Most states in the USSR's near-abroad enjoyed similar amenities if you will, to Soviet Russia.

I'll try to find my source. It'll be in my response to your response (hopefully)

I look forward to it.

[Wolfman]

You seem to not have understood my post. Russia had a much better standard of living than it's given credit for, but still much worse than the US. I find it highly implausible the SFRY had a higher standard of living than the US given that Americans until the early 70s received the world's highest wages.

OK, understood. And scroll to the bottom for the rest

I would imagine. Most states in the USSR's near-abroad enjoyed similar amenities if you will, to Soviet Russia.

I hope you're not impling some kind of satilite statehood. Yugoslavia and the Kremlin broke ties shortly after WWII, and Russia hated and insulted Tito about as much as the US did. While the US was calling Yugoslavia a Communist Hell hole, the Kremlin was calling Tito a revisionary, and a capitalist puppet. Ironicly, both spent huge sums of money trying to get Yugoslavia to join there side.

I look forward to it.

Meh, cann't find it. I did find that it had a 6.1% annual economic growth (which I think higher then the US on average during the Cold War). However, I cann't find anything concerning a comparable standard of living. However, considering the kinds of people that get attracted to a system like Autogesition tend to want eqaulity for all, it seems likely that who ever wrote that may have been referring less to actual living wages, and more to economic equality. Bit, I'll keep looking.

[Meslocusist]

I think that there's ample evidence that economic equality doesn't equal living standards.

I think that autogestion has some promise, but since it is mostly untried, I will say that overall it remains to be seen as to whether or not it would work.

Feel free to argue, though

[Dr House]

Who owns the means of production is the least of my concerns. I'm more worried about how they are run.

Who owns them has profound political connotations of course, but it's a secondary concern. Ultimately what will benefit workers the most is maximizing labor productivity.

[Eauz]

Ultimately what will benefit workers the most is maximizing labor productivity.

Then why do you support an economic system that does not attempt to maximise labour productivity? At the moment, it's a complete waste of labour productivity, especially in the down side of market economics.

[Wolfman]

I think that there's ample evidence that economic equality doesn't equal living standards.

That's Socialism, not Autogestion.

but since it is mostly untried

Aside from Titoist Yugoslavia, Anarchist Spain, and the Paris Commune, it has been tried many times. Hotel Bauen, FaSinPat, Republic Windows and Doors, The LIP Factory, Mondragon Cooperative Corpation, AK Press, and so on.

Feel free to argue, though

I intend to.

On a related note, House if you want we could hash out the old 'Autogestion/Socialism' thing here. There's no real discussion to jack.

[Dr House]

Then why do you support an economic system that does not attempt to maximise labour productivity?

I most certainly don't do that. Singapore-style neo mercantilist capitalism is the most productivity-maximizing economic system in existence.

At the moment, it's a complete waste of labour productivity, especially in the down side of market economics.

That's because industrial production in the US has been in decline since the late 60s and never recovered. I don't support capitalism as it exists today.

[Meslocusist]

[I think that there's ample evidence that economic equality doesn't equal living standards.]

That's Socialism, not Autogestion.

I was merely stating that the terms "Economic Equality" and "Level of Living Standards" are not equivalent. Presumably this is not even contestable.

[but since it is mostly untried]

Aside from Titoist Yugoslavia, Anarchist Spain, and the Paris Commune, it has been tried many times. Hotel Bauen, FaSinPat, Republic Windows and Doors, The LIP Factory, Mondragon Cooperative Corpation, AK Press, and so on.

There has yet to be a moderately sized modern economy run on autogestionist principles. However, I think it certainly think it should be tried, as it would put a stop to corporatism, which would lead to a better government and a better society.

[Wolfman]

I was merely stating that the terms "Economic Equality" and "Level of Living Standards" are not equivalent. Presumably this is not even contestable.

I don't plan on arguing that. I thought you were making the claim that Titoism included economic equality.

There has yet to be a moderately sized modern economy run on autogestionist principles.

Define 'moderatly sized'. Considering East Europe Yugolsavia was a fairly developed economy. Venezuela has many Autogestionist companys. Mondragon is the 7th largest company in Spain, and has many other Autogestionist companys in it. Italy also has many small companys run on Autogestionist, or Quasi-Autogestionist models.

[TropicalK]

Autogestionist companies occur in capitalist and even libertarian systems. Nobody opposes them as they hurt nobody unless a government subsidizes them.

I would think an autogestionist economy would mandate that all companies become autogestionist. This would be a major difference as it takes away many incentives of savings based capital projects. This is also an impediment to freedom of contract.

[Dr House]

Capital could be secured through credit, which is the preferred method of procuring capital for most businesses today anyway. The big problem (other than obvious problems inherent to any kind of democratic organization) would be tech start-ups, which would take years to generate any kind of return. Often they can't even properly pay their employees and pay in stock options instead.

I see nothing wrong with infringing the freedom of contract. I would never allow a business entity to hire an illegal immigrant, for example.