Be ex-Yugoslav

This bascially.
Djilas came up with the New Class 'theory' which stated that party nomenclature became its own class for which he was criticised by Trotskyists like Mandel but he wasn't the first to suggest something like this, the 'new class theory' was very similar to one proposed by an obscure italian socialist called Bruno Rizzi in the 30s who basically said the same thing and that this new 'bureaucratic collectivism' was a new mode of production neither capitalist nor socialist. He actually got into a debate with Trotsky who disagreed claiming that isn't reflective of the USSR and that the bureaucracy doesn't hold economic power and can't be a class and that its un-marxist.
Later some western anti-soviet leftists adopted this theory and that's where shachtmannites and other 'third camp' retards come from. Then there's the Cliffites who took a middle ground between the shachtmannite 'bureaucratic collectivism' nonsense and the orthodox trot degenerated workers' state with Cliff coming up with the notion of 'state capitalism' which has regrettably caught on massively on the left in general, at least online.

sounds about right

The Trotskyist view on the Soviet Union (evil stalinist dictatorship, state controls everything) meshes very well with the support of market socialism, which is supposedly non-bureaucratic and engages the proletariat more in production. Sadly Yugoslavia never really implemented "workplace democracy" to a significant degree, and the liberalisation of the economy started earlier than the USSR, causing employment, heavy debt, growing inequality etc. It was an experiment but in the end I think it just brings you to the conclusion that cyberplanning is necessary.

Trotsky isn't even difficult to read, there's literally no excuse to make shit up like this.

Attached: couldyoufuckingnot.jpg (592x439, 38.31K)

I said the Trotskyist view, not Trotsky's. It's not like Troskyists are a minor academic sect, they have major websites and organizations. And what I get from the majority of them is that they don't even consider the USSR socialist under Stalin's and later administration (yet it was somehow more socialist during Lenin???), and they constantly talk about bureaucracy destroying the system etc.

Dengism-Titoism. Nationalize the commanding heights of the economy and allow light industry and consumer goods to be handled by co-ops. Tbh for all it’s flaws market socialism would still be a huge step in the right direction and imo would be far more achievable in the west.

SOCIALISM IS WHAT A LABOUR GOVERNMENT DOES

Attached: HM.jpg (869x1122, 159.61K)

I didn’t say that. I said that Titoism combined with some nationalization could be useful to a state aspiring to socialism.

HURR

It’s not, there’s no wage labour or exploitation of surplus value, and certain forms of alienation disappear. It’s not socialism but it isn’t capitalism either.

That's what the USSR had I believe (at least between 1930-1956 or something like that). Maybe not a 50-50 exact split but something similar.

how has it failed asshole?

it didn't, it was the fault of ustascha, mudslimes (and maybe to some extend also milosovic), all were played against each other by the imperialists who wanted to destroy that pharos of socialism.

The concept of state capitalism was first coined by Lenin though.

In a market society, what are workers paid if not wages? Moreover, as such wages must necessarily be dictated by market forces, surplus value will certainly exist since it arises even from "fair, equal exchanges".

In the USSR they were paid wages as well.

Attached: pov_of_phil.png (468x600, 276.06K)

Those wages were
1) not determined by market competition but by central planning;
2) highly limited (due to the former) in their scope of their divergence: the ratio between highest and the lowest earners being set somewhere around 6:1;
3) expressed in a currency that functioned somewhere between 'capitalist money' and 'labour vouchers' in effect.

no
yes

Capital is inherently exploitative. In a perfect market socialist society workers would still be exploited (by themselves). Read Marx.

It wasn't coined by Lenin, it predates his use of it quite a bit. I was explaining the various analyses of the USSR which advanced the idea of a 'new class' one of which was Cliff's notion of state capitalism which i was referring to. Lenin meant by state capitalism something quite different, Cliff just used the existing phrase for his new idea.

Ahh I see.

fucking lol

Socialism involves abolition of markets, as they act back and discipline labour, but let's include markets anyway.

Getting real tired of Turd Positionism.

Attached: 10235889.png (600x600, 268.5K)

They will be paid by the fruits of their labour, allocated according to a democratic decision. While the pressures of the market will likely weigh heavily on these decisions, they will still possess far more agency than in a normal capitalist enterprise.
That doesnt make any sense, if the workers own the enterprise then their payment will be in the form of profits. By this logic porkies get paid "wages" when they collect profits from their businesses.

Self exploitation is literally nonsensical. True they may have to deny themselves enjoyment of their labour and re-invest into the enterprise, but this is fundamentally different from exploitation. Under this logic porkies under capitalism are also exploited, since they too have to limit how much money goes into their pocket and re-invest in the company.

It wasn't and it meant completely different thing.

Actual State Capitalism is when state-owned enterprises act independently and interact with each other through market exchange. I.e. all relevant functions of Capitalism persist.

Revisionist State Capitalism is completely different thing, as correctly points out, as it is based on completely different (non-economic) understanding of Capitalism and simply uses the same words to confuse people.

Having a labour market basically destroys the whole rationale for a socialist revolution, i.e. removing the proletarian existence as a surplus portion of humanity and freeing us from dependence on bourgeois masters. It's a shitty idea that needs to die.

And did ML work any better? There are only two small shitty countries where it still survives from what I recall.

Attached: its-enough-to-make.png (288x254, 91.51K)

Attached: pov_of_phil.png (468x600 276.06 KB, 276.06K)

It was not capitalism, at least.

Who the FUCK let Lasalle on the board?

Attached: MarxThink.jpg (960x893, 27.39K)

I didn't say the full fruits of their labour. I said that in the absence of anybody appropriating the fruits of their labour what they do receive cannot be called a wage. I'm not suggesting that market socialism is an end goal, or even that its really socialism. I'm saying that it could be useful as an intermediary stage similar to the NEP, and that it can't be considered capitalist because it lacks key characteristics (ie class distinctions and wage labour).
This is a far better argument against marksoc as an intermediary stage imo, however I think that such an economy would naturally lend itself towards genuine socialism as enterprises consolidate and naturally centralize.

Not sure how else you would describe workers being given control over their own profits.

the market does exactly that, nigger

So then are porkies wage labourers?

A manager of a big company is pretty much a porky in post-industrial capitalism. Ownership and control aren't so clear-cut anymore.

That's not what I'm getting at. A the owner of a company is forced by market considerations to re-invest a portion of the profits into the company, and keeps the rest for himself. However we don't call the part he keeps a wage, since its not the leftover from exploited surplus value. If that's the case, then how can the money pocketed by workers in a co-op be called a wage?

Isn't that what the term "labor aristocracy" was created for?

Wages are the price of labour-power as a commodity, not some evil device used by AnCap-Man™ to hold down le virtuous proles.

This is Lasallean nonsense and nothing else. Paying workers more generously isn't Communism, unless you mean something different than "the fruits of their labour," whatever that may be.

Ay yo what did that Carl Mark nigga write as a literal chapter title in some short ass pamphlet that u can read in like 2 seconds?

Oh yeah

Workers don't profit, headass nigga.

That implies that they are selling their labour power to somebody though does it not? If workers in a co-op can still be said to be selling labour power, then wouldnt that also apply to the petty bourgeoisie (assuming they contribute actual labour to their business)?
I'm not talking about paying them more, I'm talking about worker owned enterprises here. I'm also not suggesting that this would be communism or even socialism, merely that it would be a major step in the right direction, and that it would no longer be capitalism.
But if the workers are the ones selling the commodity then wouldn't they produce profits?

The owner doesn't depend on selling his labour power as the only commodity, though. Coops can be said to "exploit themselves" since their wages and profits depend on market forces instead of rationally planned allocation. The problem is that you try to square the theory with the existence of markets, but it doesn't work since the whole thing is about replacing markets. Calculation of inputs, administration of production, planning etc. were emphasized heavily by Marx and Engels, it was only later western Marxists that tried to salvage this somehow by removing the spook of planned economics.

I'm not denying the existence of self-exploitation, I'm just saying that its different from wage labour, and thus market socialism is not capitalism.
I'm fully in favour of replacing markets. I'm just talking about market socialism as a short term step which will facilitate the implementation of a planned economy and allow for the rapid construction of a worker's state.

Yes

I don't understand what your conception of petit-bourgeois is here.

What we're speaking of here is selling your labor-power in order to produce commodities. If someone is doing this, regardless of who's in charge or how much they are paid, they're a wage-laborer.

You sure?

My biggest problem here is the notion of a "worker owned enterprise" as socialism.

You're reducing Communism as a movement here. Instead of abolishing the commodity form, wage labor, exchange, value, capital, and other things that constitute capitalist society, you're speaking strictly of shifting a bourgeois social relation into the hands of the workers.

People already do this. Cooperatives already exist and they mean NOTHING. This isn't just a matter of "who's property is who's," it's about how society and production function as a whole.

In a distorted worker-managed capitalism, perhaps.

Attached: Marx-kun.jpg (620x380, 158.01K)

I get it, I just remain unconvinced that this is the proper way to go. Historically we certainly don't see that attempts to set up marksoc lead to the securing of the gains of the revolution, we see it precisely as revisionist forms that take place before capitalist restoration can be done in its full glory.

...

I get what you're saying about market socialism and a mixed economy, but in general it's not even desireable anymore. There was a discussion in the Cockshott thread about "venture communism" and how one might build a network of worker cooperatives. The truth is that with modern tech it's far easier to simply integrate everyone into a centrally planned economy and eliminate the instability of an internal market. One could maintain certain positive aspects of the market (i.e. tracking consumption and demand for consumer goods) without totally surrendering to market forces.

Labour power is ability, it isn't concrete labour. An artisan who makes goods with tools he owns and who sells these goods isn't selling his labour power. Workers in a democratic firm who produce something together with machinery they collectively own and who sell the things they produce are not selling their labour power.

>I'm also not suggesting that this would be communism or even socialism, merely that it would be a major step in the right direction

Reading is hard.

Where was there a statement to the contrary?

No, he's selling the product of his labor.

Idk where all the obvious statements are coming from.

Then are they paid for their labor or for salesmanship? How is collective ownership dictated beyond just being managed by the people working there?

I'm willing to concede that I missed this, though I disagree that it would even be a step in the "right direction."

Same as with the artisan. They sell things they make, they don't sell their labour power. If wages are defined as what you get for selling your labour power, an artisan doesn't receive a wage, and neither do they.

I think it comes down to a question of incentives.
How do you encourage workers to work when there are no incentives.
The answer market socialism gives is by letting coops generate their own money and have its decisions be made democratically by the workers.(right?)
What is ML answer to that problem?

...

Wait I just thought of something.
Why not give each worker a scoreboard and have them rate their peers and have that determine their wage.

those usually calling themselves ML aren't, marked socialism is the most direct realization socialism and the closest to actual communism, because in marked socialism, when a company was succesful, it had a 100% direct beneficial impact to their income, while in COMECON that was not at all the case.

… and yes, decisions be made (directly) democratically by the workers in companies with 10-70 employees, beginning at 30 they could decide whether they want to switch to representative democracy electing a workers council, beginning at 70 it was mandatory.

Socialism is workplace decision-making
Go away Richard Wolff

I guess that's this slavic spirit they talkin about

But people say richard wolff is hiding his power level

Have you ever heard of this place called Cuba

fucking hell
are you me?

Attached: 8sati rada.jpg (927x819, 180.75K)