Market Socialism

check out post-keynesian economics.
check out en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michał_Kalecki

Not that guy, but market socialists are not communists.

why do you use the term 'national intranet' rather than global internet? Why does the nation have to hoard all the useful ideas?

then how are goods distributed in a stateless society?

Using modern technology to plan an economy essentially relies on big data, which means (ironically) the production of goods will become more planned due to better predictions of demmand, thus in effect, corporations and businesses will slip into planned production as opposed to "roughly making" a number of things like we used to do in the past.

that and also the decentralization of production, i mean, 3d printers are real

A pseudo-market for consumer goods and services that uses labour vouchers, with direct allocation for producer goods by the central administration (not a state). This is completely different from what "market socialists" advocate, which is publically owned firms exchanging with each other on the market.

wouldn't the existence of labor vouchers warrant a police force to prevent false printing of them?

no because in communism everything is free

even money

I think what the future demands is an incredibly well educated workforce that is self reliant as opposed to hiring cheap labour

then how are goods not hoarded?

I think they are, well, at least hoarded and hidden, thus the kulak thing and the shitstorm brewing in venezuela (which involved companies hoarding shit to drive up prices etc)

dude like why would you want to hoard anything under communism

communism has no rules

you can do what you want whenever you want

why hoard ice cream for instance

you can only eat so much

like seriously think about it nigger

what the fuck do you want to hoard

gold? worthless

diamonds? also worthless

money? doesn't exist

seriously think deeper nigga

so you can trade with other hoarders? when someone has hoarded all the diamonds they will become of more value than food obviously and they could trade one diamond for a lot of food.

nigga this don't make sense

why would diamonds become more valuable

diamonds are only useful due to people being brainwashed (advertising) into buying them

destroy the bourgeois culture (OMG I MUST BUY A RING FOR MY WIFE) and it won't be worth anything anymore

I mean i guess if people really wanted to keep the tradition since corporations are abolished we could just mine like billions of diamonds for free because the supply of diamonds is kept artificially low by that one megacorp that mines them but that's such a stupid waste of manpower

? you can make artificial diamonds, hell china has perfected diamonds that can replace debeer's

scmp.com/business/companies/article/2076225/de-beers-fights-fakes-technology-chinas-lab-grown-diamonds

alibaba.com/countrysearch/CN/lab-created-diamonds.html

diamonds have value as tool bits, you do realise their use in cutting steel etc right?

but why would you need to cut steel under communism?

think about it

steel is mainly used for military hardware, ships, fighter jets, etc.

under communism that stuff wouldn't be needed anymore

haha lets live in mudhuts while the kulaks hoard all the precious resources. stick it to the man dude!

they don't exist under communism

no need to regress that far brick and mortar do fine

the environmental damage caused by the mass industrialization of society has led the planet to its doom

any serious communist acknowledges this and must plan for a future beyond "LOL LET'S BUILD MILLIONS OF FACTORIES AND HEAVY INDUSTRY BECAUSE I WANT TO LARP AS STALIN"

For starters labour vouchers in a modern context would be electronic credit, not physical tokens, and secondly you don't need a professional full time police force in order to prevent such crime. A workers militia where your average worker is required to contribute a certain number of hours a year to "police" work would be sufficient. There may very well need to be a handful of professional investigators working along side such a militia, but that hardly qualifies as a state in the marxist sense of the term.

Please fuck off back to Zig Forums you clueless shitposter.

so blockchain based labor vouchers as not to promote fraud and rely on a middleman

Why doesnt Cockshott write a blockchain based labour voucher system for the DPRK? He should write a Towards a New Jucheist Socialism which removes the naive direct democracy crap he wrote in the original book because it's not practical and DPRK is the only truly socialist country left with the ability to implement this

Since the data is handled in a centralized way, using blockchain is pointless.

...

there is the yugo flag poster in /leftytrash/ but he's kind of retarded

Centralisation isn't a matter of who rules society but how that administration is organised. Early feudalism was decentralised but it sure as hell wasn't run by the peasants. On the other hand a unitary direct democracy would be both centralised and worker controlled.

The people must be free from the oppression, exploitation and violence of hierarchies, private property, religious institutions and markets, and this is only achievable in a horizontal communist stateless society.

Attached: 1531346840029.jpg (335x315, 15.13K)

Yeah, I'm a market socialist. Seizing the means of production and cooperative labor are not exclusive with property and voluntary exchange. Rather, cooperatives being able to exchange goods is a true manifestation of the people's will.

DPRK wouldn't be capable of operating it. They still have problems with energy generation and distribution, they have been forced to slacken their grip on local markets for this reason. Pyongyang is mostly planned because it is the center of the state, they have their grip on Pyongyang very strong. Many of the other cities could see as little as 3 hours of electricity a day, which is run straight to the factories. Despite the state ideology and the seeming totality of their control, they can't be seen as having the level of reach of any of the developed states in the west. Their inability to consistently control all of the urban areas means that it is more efficient to allow for markets.

Oh, and if it wasn't clear the point of my post was to not only say that they wouldn't be capable of running a cybernetic state plan effectively, but also that the reason the DPRK has been liberalizing in respect to local markets and partnerships with foreign companies is because they can't effectively plan their economy. For them, some degree of market based production and distribution is the only way to make sure the economy is responsive and productive.

There is a fundamental aggressiveness to commodity-money exchanges. There is always the interest for the one giving the money to give an amount of money as low as possible and for the other to get an amount of money as high as possible. Suppose for the sake of argument the world suddenly turning into lots of medium sized co-ops. Is monetary profit now a sensible goal, just because the huge mega corps are gone (for now)?

Conservatives talk about people in debt like those must have bad character. We know that being in debt is not a trait like having red hair, it means having a role in a relation that always has at least one creditor on the other side. We know that, if we divide the world in two halves and look at how the halves trade with each other, one half running a dollar surplus in these trade relations mathematically requires the other side to have a corresponding deficit. So, why espouse profit as a general goal? What does that even mean? Having profits means you could have sold things cheaper, and having high profits means you could have sold much cheaper. So if you celebrate how high your profits are, you are just celebrating being an asshole to your consumers ("…and the bigger an asshole you become, the socialister the country is" – Tito). And as a general advice for everybody it has a paradoxical quality, like recommending that every country should run a trade surplus.

Of course, there are only so many hours in a day and energy isn't infinite. It makes sense to estimate what quantities consumers are willing to obtain. It makes sense to strive for producing quantities of consumer goods that can be sold at prices that justify that quantity; and it is sensible to expect that this goal will only be approximated. A certain quantity gets produced, and there might be a big discrepancy between the amount produced and the demand at production-justifying price, then the discrepancy is bad irrespective of its direction. There is no reason to celebrate that something got undersupplied (good gets temporarily rationed by higher price, so higher pseudo-profits in accounts) anymore than the opposite.