Why havent you taken the Market Socialism pill? Do you even read economics?
Why havent you taken the Market Socialism pill? Do you even read economics?
Other urls found in this thread:
Ok, gimme the rundown
Yugoslavia was probably the least autistic Marxist regime so far, but that wasn't real socialism. What would you call worker owned capitalism? State syndicalism?
This is not rocket science. In syndicalism the trade unions own MOP.
Bc the only thing propping it up was IMF loans, and as soon as Gorbie fell for the market forces meme, it had no further use
No reform could have saved the Soviet Economy. It was rotten from the core by corruption. Taking too much loans and not balancing your public finance is just bad political economy.
The point of socialism is classless society dumbass
Not that you are wrong, but
In communism we will have a classless stateless society. Socialism is the path to it.
The profit motive is incompatible with workers receiving the full fruits of their labor, the boom-and-bust cycle and overproduction would continue to exist even if all companies were worker-owned, planned production is superior to market competition (hence why all advanced capitalist industries tend toward monopoly over time), class solidarity would break down if workers saw each other as competitors and not allies, and a whole bunch of other reasons that I'm too lazy to go into detail with right now.
Point is, market socialism is stupid and unstable.
Forgive me for being a retard but, when you have a market economy regardless of the ownership of the means of production, don't you give more power of choice to the wealthy? Any type of unequal income distribution would generate unfair social choices of what, how and how much to produce of any good. In a market economy, people vote with their money, yes. But only the ones who have money can vote.
Ye that's what I meant by the point of socialism, a system that encourages labor aristocracy is definitely not the path to classless society
Its the only realistic option to capitalism as planned economy has been proven to be extremely inefficient and collapse over time.
Market socialism is the first path to communism as you exterminate bourgeoisie and take over the MOP The workers who use the MOP will get the full profit that is produced by their work on the MOP.
You mean neoclassical bullshit that just serves to prop up capitalism and actually contradicts classical economists like Smith and Ricardo and even Keynes (who acknowledged instead of denied a class system) even if his ideas still have currency? The notion of "Economics" as an objective science and not something POLITICAL is laughable. Neoclassical economics completely reject empericism cause empiricism favors Marxism. Marx made extensive use of actual statistics while the Austrians (whose dicks you are gobbling without being aware of it) preferred to think of some metaphysical "free market" which is completely detached from economic reality. Supply & Demand, a core tenet of neoclassical economics, is not verifiable and statistically incorrect.
PLEASE read Marx and watch Cockshott's vids on econ, especially the LTV. You do not understand "economics", you have internalized bourgeois economics and fooled yourself into thinking you can wield it in favor of socialism.
Industrial output statistics prove the contrary. Socialist countries increase production more than capitalist countries that were in similar starting positions. Industrial output in the former USSR has actually decreased heavily, and it's actually LIGHT INDUSTRY (which supposedly markets organize better) which has suffered the most.
I used to be like you and spout truisms that sound good in my head (a central planning system is only good at big bulk shit like trains and combine harvesters but fails at shoes and soap) but the evidence actually shows the contrary: post-soviet countries have suffered in their ability to produce consumer goods and are instead importing them while exporting raw resources (mostly oil and gas). They have gone down the supply chain and regressed, their economy is less complex.
Can anyone tell me wtf "command capitalism" is? Is that supposed to be state capitalism or what?
It’s just capitalism but the state has a long term plan for economic development and intervenes in the economy to ensure that the goals of this plan are met. China is the best modern example of this, but the German and Japanese Empires did it quite a bit in the 19th century. It’s also sometimes called “developmentalism”.
This is not socialism, its labor aristocracy, and you're a philistine for suggesting it is
Nigga what? Labour aristocracy refers to workers in imperialist countries who benefit from surplus labour extracted from colonies. It has nothing to do with co-ops or market socialism.
A scenario where oil workers live in mansions while workers in the least profitable sectors live in poverty is absolutely a form of labor aristocracy.
From each according to their ability, to each according to their need
no it isn't lmao
I don't think Tito believed market socialism was the end of history…
First explain why they took that IMF loan, and then tell me why Albania was covered in bunkers.
Shortsightedness and an underestimation of the predatory nature of finance capital.
Hoxha was a retard.
Hard to argue with trips of truth, but it's worth noting during the violence of the Yugoslav breakdown Albanians took shelter in the bunkers at points
What "socialism" actually existed in Yugoslavia? Did workers own their means of production? Did they make workplace decisions democratically?
That still isn't what you think it is, read marx you brainlet
Based but I dont see why we should prefer it over Planned Economy.
Doesn't it necessarily produce an overproduction crisis? How do you direct the economy the way people need it? If every worker controlled industry produces for their own profit, won't there be an uneffective way of producing goods? Like three Shampoo Factories wich all produce Shampoo instead of one central one that produces the best shampoo to their abilities with all knowledge combined.
I don't really see the need for Market Socialism, how does it solve the contradictions of markets, such as overproduction and uneffective economies that don'T concentrate on peoples need and the use value of products?
I think that market socialism would be very useful as an intermediary stage similar to the NEP. It would allow for a swifter recovery of the economy after a revolution or civil war, and would keep the economy moving as different planning schemes are experimented with. The natural tendency of market consolidation would also make complete nationalization of industry easier in the long term, and the success and failure of individual firms would both accustom workers to self government as well as show the best methods of doing so. However unlike the actual NEP or Dengism, there wouldn’t be any real danger of subverting worker’s rule of the state.
Why the FUCK would you have BANKS in socialism?
Why the FUCK would you have BANKS in socialism?
shut up hoxha
Y'all need to read this:
TL;DR: self management was good but it as bogged down by bureaucracy and politisation, despite ironically trying to rid itself of those two things.
The terrible, catastrophic fate of growing only at the same pace as the rest of the developed nations.
Only The Market (tm) could possibly keep up with the meteoric rise the USSR entered by planning its economy.
Markets are anarchism and therefore anti-arxist, trotsky had the right idea about what to do with its advocates.
What a joke.
If Tito hadn't weakened the USSR by going "non aligned" I'd have no problem with him using markets to fulfill a specifically Yugoslav socialism.
The split can only be blamed on Stalin's autism.
Why is it that tankies are incapable of nuanced takes on anything? It’s not enough for Tito to be a revisionist, he has to be a Nazi and agent of the West too.
If Stalin hadn’t tried to treat Eastern Europe like a colony and thrown the Greek communists under the bus to appease British Imperialism there wouldn’t have been a split.
Look at the thread on Lithuania and please tell me that you still think the USSR was an ebil colonial state.
They needed to do that so they could throw out invading Nazis
That's not in eastern bloc and happened after Stalin. Cat-poster is correct in that every country in the bloc was USSR's bitch, and faced the risk of tanks if it wanted to leave.
Right because trying to assassinate the leader of another country because they want to be independent is a totally standard and healthy response between two equal partners.
Lmao what? The KKE had already thrown out the Nazis, and as soon as they did the British came in and joined forces with the Greek Nazi collaborators to destroy the communists. Stalin, as per an agreement with Churchill, allowed them to do this and demanded that Tito stop sending weapons to the KKE. Tito refused and this was the source of the Tito-Stalin split.
why would he do that?
What are you referring to?
letting churchill do his shit
They signed a pact that Greece was under UK theory, and Stalin didn't want to risk war with the US.
He had struck a deal during the war to divide up power between Britain and the USSR in the Balkans.
Was the USSR not in a better position? The Anglos wanted to attack anyway but decided not to because they would lose.
doesnt really seem worth it
Point still stands that no actual colonialism and exploitation of the eastern bloc existed.
Is sending in the military if an eastern bloc countries wanted to make the soviet union weaker and play a role in the downfall of socialism now exploitation?
That's what I meant by being able to successfully beat the Nazis.
It's significantly harder to preserve the union and kill fascists if both the U.S and Nazis are trying to massacre you.
Thank you tank for proving you are historically illiterate.
I don’t think that anybody here would call the USSR imperialist by Lenin’s definition. However denying the Great Power chauvinism that riddled their relations with other socialist states is denying reality.
Thanks for proving my point. If one state unilaterally intervening with military force in the internal affairs of another isn’t great power chauvinism, then what is?
What does that have to do with selling out the Greek communists? The Nazis were for all intents and purposes defeated by the time of the percentages agreement and the revolutionary struggle of the greek communists, who followed the orders to stand down in 1945 only to become victims of white terror, rose up again in 1946 after ww2 was over, fyi. Stalin absolutely didn't need to withdraw support from the greek communists, order them to stand down and accept the deeply reactionary bourgeois government which was massacring communist workers and peasants, kidnapping thousands of children of communists to send them to indoctrination camps and adopting them off to american families. There was no nazi threat, there was only unwillingness to support at all the struggle for socialism and freedom of the greek people so as not to in any way confront the UK and US.
Commodity exchange is so tightly managed by corporations nowadays that I have trouble understanding what would even be the point of socialism. Why not manage the distribution of resources directly ourselves? Why not apply the internet for this purpose? I don't get it.
The point of market socialism I mean.
yeah, markets have lost literally all their few positives/advantages over planning with the advent of the internet and potential for cybernetic planning. The existence of distribution monopolies like Amazon gives us everything we need already in terms of productive forces and infrastructure.
Lmao what a retarded definition. According to this the US doesn't exercise great power chauvinism because they don't declare themselves to be superior to the people in subject countries. Also the emphasis on exploitation deliberately conflates chauvinism with imperialism, which again, would preclude the US from being "chauvinist" in a number of cases where they treat countries like puppets without necessarily exploiting them (e.g Western Europe, Canada, South Korea, Japan). Not only that but this seems to mainly be talking about nationalities within a state itself, such as white supremacy in the US, rather than chauvinism between states in the field of international relations. Any state that thinks it has the right to dictate the internal affairs of another country regardless of the consent of its government or people is exercising chauvinism.
Markets are the root of the problem. Literally what is leftism.
…..that's because the actual "my nation's better then your's" definition of chauvinism is a crucial part imperialism.
bruh, absolutely voluntarist.
blocking roads would qualify as chauvinist if we use your liberal idea of chauvinism as "forcing ideas on others"
Chauvinism is endemic to imperialism but imperialism isn't endemic to chauvinism, so you can't treat them as if they were the same thing. They are separate phenomena, and so their definitions can't both presuppose each other. The US is Chauvinist towards Japan, but not imperialist towards it, just as the USSR was chauvinist but not imperialist towards their satellites.
Are you retarded? It's not just forcing policy on other's, its one state forcing policy on another where you have no right to. It's one thing for worker's to block a road to protect their rights in a strike, its totally different for a state to invade another for the purposes of subjugating it. In one case it's the oppressed standing up to the oppressor, in the other case its the oppressor subjugating the oppressed. You're acting like some kind of liberal when you reason that all force is the same regardless of context, who is wielding it against who etc.
The very definition of chauvinism implies viewing a group through a lens of "civil" superiority.
Now do you see the U.S annexing Tokyo to "civilize" it? No, because Japan isn't being treated in a chauvinist manner!
For proof on chauvinism being needed for imperialism just look at the origin of the fucking word; a fucking tool of Emperor Napoleon
Lmao do you think that’s chauvinism is just an ideological expression of imperialism and not an actual relationship that exists between two countries?
Yeah, bite me.
ra ra rasputin russias smallest uwu bean
Regardless of what you want to call it, the USSR was dominating its satellites, meddling in their internal affairs, and denying them the right to self determination. In other words, it was behaving in a chauvinist manner even if it’s ideological justification was different from what others have used.
I’m talking about Yugoslavia dipshit, there were no Forest Brothers or Polish reactionaries there. Stalin tried to assassinate Tito because he refused to sit by and let full scale white terror be unleashed on the Greek communists.
It was more of a mistake from Stalin, he should have hold up diplomatic ties to yugoslavia instead of his possesiv behavior with wich he tried to get it eastern aligned
Back to OP's question: I'm not a market socialist because repeated buying and selling generates extreme inequality. This happens automatically and irrespective of whether there are big differences between people in terms of intelligence and how much they work and the likely outcome for an individual is only weakly coupled with that individual's contribution.
I've developed the view over the past few years that idiots will always want their garbage commodities and their Pizza Hut pizza, Market Socialism is pretty much the only way to still provide this garbage and still have it be anything in the ballpark of equitable.
I don't think its the ideal system, but its the most practical.
"Market Socialism" is literally coops with capitalism. In Yugoslavia, firms ran based off of profit and competition incentives. Wages between owners and employees increased 20 fold. The division of labor still existed, and exclusively benefited the well-educated, more well off. They didn't even get rid of private property.
Yes, that's called civilization. I don't understand your problem with this particular feature. Do you think we're all going to be indistinguishable polymath ubermensch in an egalitarian world free of exploitation?
I fail to see the problem with this vision of the future
Depends which kind of division of labour you're talking about: social or technical? Technical division of labour obviously isn't going anywhere, but social division of labour can certainly be lessened.
"The division of labour is the economic expression of the social character of labour within the estrangement. Or, since labour is only an expression of human activity within alienation, of the manifestation of life as the alienation of life, the division of labour, too, is therefore nothing else but the estranged, alienated positing of human activity as a real activity of the species or as activity of man as a species-being." -Karl Marx, Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
"While the division of labour increases the productive power of labour and the wealth and refinement of society, it impoverishes the worker and reduces him to a machine. While labour gives rise to the accumulation of capital and so brings about the growing prosperity of society, it makes the worker increasingly dependent on the capitalist, exposes him to greater competition and drives him into the frenzied world of overproduction, with its subsequent slump" Capital Volume I - Marx
Please, read Marx, or maybe you're not a Marxist. Maybe you should find another board.
Not indistinguishable as people would pursue whatever their interests are but I was under impression that that's the ultimate goal.
Maximizing human potential and all that.
All of your analyses of Yugoslav political economy are fucking dogshite. Let me teach you, moju djecu.
Right let's get on with the functional and structural weakness of the Yugoslav economy from a geographical context. Yugoslavia is horrifically uneven and geographically isolated. As such A) it didn't industrialise really that much outside of Slovenia and areas of Croatia B) it had poor infrastructure both at unification (1919) and post-war (1945) and C) this inequality wasn't just spread over geographical regions like in say France or Germany, but across the nations within Yugoslavia (for example the poorest region was the majority Albanian Kosovo SAR). As such Yugoslavia was perhaps in the weakest position economically of any ML state following WWII.
So after WWII, Yugoslavia introduces a planned economy. Because it is very lightly industrialised and the main financial centres of the economy were totally wrecked by the Nazi (mostly in Slovenia) it happens relatively easily. Collectivisation mostly goes without a hitch because a lot of land owners have been killed anyways so it is split-up between families with one little village revolt occuring during the whole process. Then the Stalin-Tito split happens.
Because Tito is an edgelord, he decided "well you know what, if we aren't doing what the Soviets are doing in terms of geopolitics, let's look at other shit too". So he looks towards his wartime comrade Djilas. Djilas is like
"yo we should introduce worker control of the MoP"
Tito is like "Heh, maybe, maybe",
"oh and also what-about we introduce multipar-."
"Get the fuck out".
So Djilas is kicked out of the party. However Tito follows his advice on decentralising economic authority from the state. He does this in three main ways. First is by giving some economic powers to the constituent republics of the socialist federation. Second was be decentralising authority from a planning agency to the firms themselves. Third was allowing family-owned & run businesses to operate with impunity provided they did not hire any outside labour. There was also one political reform: the SKJ was officially deestablished as the established constitutional part of Yugoslavia (though it remained the sole legal party). This last one was quite important because the separation of state and party was meant to be a move to depoliticise the economy.
Now what this resulted in was a few things, but in short the Yugoslav economic system relied on three main factors. First was that most natural monopolies were still state owned and run, although with a far greater input from the state governments. The second was that most industrial firms operated somewhat autonomously (I will get back to that later) producing mostly secondary industry goods like cars etc. Finally there was a low level of small businesses that provided various consumer products on an artisanal basis: they were only really important in the tourist industry though (which was Yugoslavia's second main industry after arms). So this actually worked pretty damn well, Yugoslavia has something like the third highest GDP growth of any state from 1950-75 after from SK and Japan. However there are major issues in this system.
First was that the "autonomy" firms had was quite small. While the party itself had been removed from the planning process, many bureaucrats still existed just as they did in other eastern bloc countries. So while the firms did have workers' councils, they were still run by a bureaucratic like management that rewarded nepotism more than merit. The second is that Yugoslavia had high unemployment. A decent chunk of this was offset by sponsored labour migration in other countries (see Gastarbeiter in Germany) or by youth work programmes to build things like motorways, but Yugoslavia still had chronically high unemployment, and it was also quite seasonal based on tourism. This is because in autonomous firms there is actually a perverse incentive not to hire people, since profit-sharing encourages fewer hires than are necessary. This reduces bloat but when there is no other mechanism for employment (remember small businesses are not allowed to hire people) outside of state works programmes than it creates such an issue. The big problem for Yugoslavia, however, was credit. So in a ML economy capital is in the hands of the state: the state makes back any investment it puts into the economy by inherently existing. Obviously in a capitalist system of any sort credit is handled and managed partially by the state but mostly through independent actors like banks or shareholders: who make their investment back from the profits of the companies they invested in, but obviously this is more risky for the actor involved. Now Yugoslavia had the worst of these systems: the state had to do all the investing, but the risk fell solely on them. So the Yugoslav state had to do all the provision of credit from the smallest of enterprises to the car firms to the arms factories.Now the state has to source that credit from somewhere. Yugoslavia doesn't export much (apart from guns) and the income from tourism in terms of hard foreign cash isn't much. So it has to take out loans. thing is, there is only one major lender that will give a communist state money on the world market that isn't Moscow: the IMF. So yeah, that's how the Yugoslav debt crisis started.
And that's Yugoslavia folks, good basic mechanics but it had some major fundamental flaws.
Anglo-American imperialists also fought against the Axis. That doesn't omit the fact that there were similarities.
You are completely oblivious to the amount of education and training involved in certain professions if you think everyone can be simultaneously biologists, computer scientists, physicists, chemists, etc. all at once. Some things, particularly sciences and intellectual professions, take decades to develop the amount of knowledge and skill necessary to contribute significantly to their professions. Unfortunately, we do not yet have the ability to make people live hundreds of years, and thus some sort of division of labor is desirable for scientific progress. In my own field of research I see regular collaborations between biologists, mathematicians, and chemists, and even beyond that there has been a general trend over the last several decades for major discoveries to be uncovered by massive teams. This isn't the Renaissance anymore where it's easy to be a polymath because some of the most basic discoveries about the natural world hadn't yet been made and were within any one person's grasp. Solving and proving fundamental theorems in physics require hundred of millions of dollars and massive international consortia.
Pretty interesting analysis user, thanks for writing it.
How competitive were the internal markets? Did multiple steel mills compete to supply steel to a construction project? What was the consequences for worker owned enterprises failing?
Depends on the level. At the artisanal and petit-bourgeois level they were quite so. Take a tourist booking a holiday in Dalmatia: they could choose from several hotels, eat at several restaurants, they'd be several boatmen willing to take them out to sea.
However if you wanted a car, you were getting a Jugo.
Within a firm yes, but most firms were unified by industry. So you might have the managers fight with the management of the firm over who would get the contract, but the contract would be held by a singular firm. Considering how the bureaucracy fed into the management f firms it did lead to big stoppages from time to time.
They didn't. Legally, a firm couldn't go bankrupt. The state just shouldered the costs. This is why the credit source crisis started when profits started declining (as they did across the world) in the 1970s.
Here's some further reading btw: journals.openedition.org
We have enough productive forces to meet everyone's needs on Earth. I'm not sure why more scientific progress, under capitalism, is important , or why you think such progress wouldn't happen under a cooperative society.
GDP is a shit indicator, you need to look beyond aggregate GDP numbers
you need to look at the structure of the economy, what industries contribute what share of the GDP, where are they contributing, in what markets, etc etc
in global capitalism of today GDP statistics might as well mean nothing, there are so much cracks that value can slip thru that it is not even funny, inner corporate transfer prices, jurisdiction shenanigans, you fucking name it
I unironically trust soviet economic statistics more, even though their statistics were not that good either, especially their obsession with gross indicators, and a tendency to reduce the number of indicators over time
but at least they had one whole integrated economy where you could see value generated at each production step without much bullshit
state enterprises can be unprofitable, as in fact many of them were in soviet union, especially right after all the dust settled after forced industrialization
what to do with unprofitable enterprises was the main question that divided soviet economists and plagued soviet economic debate after the war
one half advocated for khozraschet and economic responsibility of enterprises, that if you siphon profits from one enterprise to the other you basically punish more efficient workers and kill all incentives to improve productivity
other half argued basically fuck the law of value, as long as industries profitable, and economy as a whole profitable, it doesn't matter if we siphon some profits from one enterprise to the other in the same industry, in industrialization most factories were built as a part some large production process so they should be treated as a whole, and as to productivity improvements, we have prime costs reduction plans, we have new MOP integration plans, we have tariff scales for crews and individual workers, it all cancels out :^)
soviets managed their money tight, and I mean fucking TIGHT, balance was their gospel, financial system's balance of payments in particular
I guess. As long as some lefty's mom is willing to pay the toll.
Tbf I was using it more as a comparative. And I got the figure slightly wrong, it was that Yugoslavia was the fourth fastest growing country in terms of GNP, after Japan, SK, and China between 1950-1985.