Communism: Discussion on practicalities

[Kilobugya]

This is why I'm hesitant with market socialism. I used to be a market socialist back in time during my transformation from being a social Democrat to a full fledged leftist, but now I genuinely worry that a market socialist economy would be a slippery slope back to capitalism.

I personally think market socialism (ie, a free market of cooperatives) has a place at least during a long transition period. But most fundamental or network-based things (housing, healthcare, education, energy/telecom, water, transports, ...) should be handled as public services. I also believe we should progressively phase out money, only keep it for luxuries or necessarily scarce things, with free access being the norm for the rest. And the more the technological progress allows it, the more things should be taken out of the "socialist market" and into the domain of (cybernetic) planning and/or free access.

[Enjuku]

I think market socialism covers so many different things, it's easy to equate it with libertarianism.

You got market socialists who support the PRC and market socialists who essentially want every business to be a coop. It's confusing lol

I'm all for co-ops. I don't identify as a socialist of any sort, however.

Coops are cool unless you live in one

[Salus Maior]

I'm all for co-ops. I don't identify as a socialist of any sort, however.

Coops are cool unless you live in one

I mean for corporations. Worker-owned corporations.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

I fall in the latter camp.

Other than minor things like coop vs union, what really separates your views from say left-libertarians or syndicalists?

Class analysis? Tolerating a hierarchy in the workplace?

Hes an agorist so he divides society up more than your average leftist. Whereas socialists divide society into proletariat and bourgeoisie, Agorists further divide businessmen into three categories, those being the entrepreneur, the non statist capitalist and the state capitalist. The entrepreneur takes risks and creates new products and ideas that benefit both the market and society whereas the non statist capitalist kinda just does business without really evolving the business they do. Think of early Steve Jobs as an entrepreneur or Dr. Dre, compared to the local bike shop owner who is a non statist capitalist who just runs a small business selling stuff while not really changing what he sells or coming up with new ideas. The statist capitalist meanwhile is big business and cronyism in the flesh. They're the ones who control the government and influence it to aid their interests above others. Whereas the entrepreneur is seen as good by agorists and the non statist capitalist is seen as morally ambiguous, the statist capitalist is seen as basically the devil, manipulating society for their own gain and doing everything in their power to hold back entrepreneurs and non statist capitalists whose small businesses threaten their stranglehold of the economy. While I'm no agorist, I do agree that statist capitalists are definitely a thing (look at big pharma, the MIC or google) and small business constantly struggles to survive against them.

[Greater Cesnica]

I am a left-libertarian. I don't like workplace hierarchies.

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

Co-ops can exist with no hierarchy. Those are the kinds I favor.

[Conservative Republic Of Huang]

I am a left-libertarian. I don't like workplace hierarchies.

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

As a syndicalist, I see a fundamental role for unions in society. Doesn't mean I like how unions are currently constituted. If anything, I have a mild antipathy towards a lot of modern unions, but not towards unionism.

[Dowaesk]

Yeah I mean like imagine a town where they have a town hall meeting and say "okay so we're thinking about building a new bike trail but we want your opinion on it. We're passing around papers right now, please sign off on whether we should build a new bike path or not."

They do almost everything by referendum in Switzerland. Although, while that has made Switzerland more progressive than America in some aspects, Switzerland is also more conservative in other ways. For example, they didn't give women the vote until the 70's or so, and the last cantonal holdout on that issue didn't change until the 90's.

Which actually leads me to theorize that decentralized structures actually lend themselves to conservatism. But that's another thread.

I personally believe. A society like that of Switzerland is a desirable goal. I dont think conservative values is that bad. Liberal conservatism is also quite a desirable goal.

[Enjuku]

Coops are cool unless you live in one

I mean for corporations. Worker-owned corporations.

I know that was a joke haha

Working at a coop is nice. Living in a coop is hell.

[Greater Cesnica]

Other than minor things like coop vs union, what really separates your views from say left-libertarians or syndicalists?

Class analysis? Tolerating a hierarchy in the workplace?

Hes an agorist so he divides society up more than your average leftist. Whereas socialists divide society into proletariat and bourgeoisie, Agorists further divide businessmen into three categories, those being the entrepreneur, the non statist capitalist and the state capitalist. The entrepreneur takes risks and creates new products and ideas that benefit both the market and society whereas the non statist capitalist kinda just does business without really evolving the business they do. Think of early Steve Jobs as an entrepreneur or Dr. Dre, compared to the local bike shop owner who is a non statist capitalist who just runs a small business selling stuff while not really changing what he sells or coming up with new ideas. The statist capitalist meanwhile is big business and cronyism in the flesh. They're the ones who control the government and influence it to aid their interests above others. Whereas the entrepreneur is seen as good by agorists and the non statist capitalist is seen as morally ambiguous, the statist capitalist is seen as basically the devil, manipulating society for their own gain and doing everything in their power to hold back entrepreneurs and non statist capitalists whose small businesses threaten their stranglehold of the economy. While I'm no agorist, I do agree that statist capitalists are definitely a thing (look at big pharma, the MIC or google) and small business constantly struggles to survive against them.

Agorism is a means to an end. It is not supposed to be a continuous economic system. The end being a socialist or communist society.

[Kubra]

To be frank, these threads always turn to shit. You have someone asking about the simple practicality of communist society and what it might conceivably look like, then someone shows up and thinks they're smart for mentioning gulags or somesuch and then the entire thread derails. It then turns into a battle over definitions where a bunch of good-for-nothings try, and fail, to explain communism or inevitably contaminate the discussion with their own edgy off-brand version of "socialism".

If I was a moderator on this site, things would have to be whipped back into shape immediately.

You could say the same about most threads, man.

[Borderlands of Rojava]

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

As a syndicalist, I see a fundamental role for unions in society. Doesn't mean I like how unions are currently constituted. If anything, I have a mild antipathy towards a lot of modern unions, but not towards unionism.

The union I'm currently part of is weak and ineffective and believes in politely asking for things instead of pushing with force. We lost our hazard pay in May of last year and didn't get it back because our union asked for it back instead of saying "we're working in dangerous conditions and had hazard pay till two months ago. If this continues we are going on strike and this business is shutting down."

[Kilobugya]

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

Co-ops can exist with no hierarchy. Those are the kinds I favor.

No hierarchy at all is not really feasible - but hierarchies should be on a transient or punctual form. Like this person is "lead" on this project, this other person is "lead" on this other project. Or this person is in command in case of emergencies for the next 8 hours, but then it's someone else. Of course it depends a lot what the co-op is doing, how big it is, and how different the skillsets of the workers are.

[Enjuku]

Other than minor things like coop vs union, what really separates your views from say left-libertarians or syndicalists?

Class analysis? Tolerating a hierarchy in the workplace?

Hes an agorist so he divides society up more than your average leftist. Whereas socialists divide society into proletariat and bourgeoisie, Agorists further divide businessmen into three categories, those being the entrepreneur, the non statist capitalist and the state capitalist. The entrepreneur takes risks and creates new products and ideas that benefit both the market and society whereas the non statist capitalist kinda just does business without really evolving the business they do. Think of early Steve Jobs as an entrepreneur or Dr. Dre, compared to the local bike shop owner who is a non statist capitalist who just runs a small business selling stuff while not really changing what he sells or coming up with new ideas. The statist capitalist meanwhile is big business and cronyism in the flesh. They're the ones who control the government and influence it to aid their interests above others. Whereas the entrepreneur is seen as good by agorists and the non statist capitalist is seen as morally ambiguous, the statist capitalist is seen as basically the devil, manipulating society for their own gain and doing everything in their power to hold back entrepreneurs and non statist capitalists whose small businesses threaten their stranglehold of the economy. While I'm no agorist, I do agree that statist capitalists are definitely a thing (look at big pharma, the MIC or google) and small business constantly struggles to survive against them.

Oh so a little like how there's petit-bourgeoise and bourgeoise, just more specialized. I can vibe with that. Different classifications, same conclusion.

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

Co-ops can exist with no hierarchy. Those are the kinds I favor.

Not unless the market is very, very regulated. If I remember right one of the issues with the Maknovists for example was that all the coops couldn't distribute resources efficiently because the market was still affected by outside factors. So even though the workers got the fruits of their labor, that wasn't enough to live on.

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

As a syndicalist, I see a fundamental role for unions in society. Doesn't mean I like how unions are currently constituted. If anything, I have a mild antipathy towards a lot of modern unions, but not towards unionism.

Modern unions are definitely a different animal from unionism. Especially in the US where labor laws are horrible.

I.e. nursing unions tend to side more with management than their own members, for the sake of preserving their collective bargaining rights. Unions wouldn't have been like this a century ago.

[Greater Cesnica]

Co-ops can exist with no hierarchy. Those are the kinds I favor.

No hierarchy at all is not really feasible - but hierarchies should be on a transient or punctual form. Like this person is "lead" on this project, this other person is "lead" on this other project. Or this person is in command in case of emergencies for the next 8 hours, but then it's someone else. Of course it depends a lot what the co-op is doing, how big it is, and how different the skillsets of the workers are.

Yeah, I'm fine with that. When hierarchies get coercive is where the problems start.

[Duvniask]

To be frank, these threads always turn to shit. You have someone asking about the simple practicality of communist society and what it might conceivably look like, then someone shows up and thinks they're smart for mentioning gulags or somesuch and then the entire thread derails. It then turns into a battle over definitions where a bunch of good-for-nothings try, and fail, to explain communism or inevitably contaminate the discussion with their own edgy off-brand version of "socialism".

If I was a moderator on this site, things would have to be whipped back into shape immediately.

You could say the same about most threads, man.

I'm not wrong. You can see it unfold before your very eyes. The discussion has already devolved into coop-bullshit and talk of hierarchy and democratizing everything.

It's pathetic.

[Greater Cesnica]

You could say the same about most threads, man.

I'm not wrong. You can see it unfold before your very eyes. The discussion has already devolved into coop-bullshit and talk of hierarchy and democratizing everything.

It's pathetic.

What do you want to discuss then?

[Kubra]

I am a left-libertarian. I don't like workplace hierarchies.

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

consumer cooperatives are very different from workers cooperatives, man.

[Greater Cesnica]

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

consumer cooperatives are very different from workers cooperatives, man.

^

[Kubra]

You could say the same about most threads, man.

I'm not wrong. You can see it unfold before your very eyes. The discussion has already devolved into coop-bullshit and talk of hierarchy and democratizing everything.

It's pathetic.

I didn't say that you were wrong, merely that you were crying in the rain.
At least this ain't /his/.

[Enjuku]

You confused me by saying you fall into the camp of market socialists wanting everyone to be a coop

Cooperatives exist already and they're very hierarchal. Whole Foods has coops.

consumer cooperatives are very different from workers cooperatives, man.

Worker coops come in different forms. Ranging from just having partial stock for some employees to having full ownership.

[Duvniask]

I'm not wrong. You can see it unfold before your very eyes. The discussion has already devolved into coop-bullshit and talk of hierarchy and democratizing everything.

It's pathetic.

What do you want to discuss then?

I'm at a loss as to why you can't glean the answer from the post I made prior, the one that Kubra responded to. It is, after all, contained in the quote in the post that you yourself responded to.

[Ifreann]

To be frank, these threads always turn to shit. You have someone asking about the simple practicality of communist society and what it might conceivably look like, then someone shows up and thinks they're smart for mentioning gulags or somesuch and then the entire thread derails. It then turns into a battle over definitions where a bunch of good-for-nothings try, and fail, to explain communism or inevitably contaminate the discussion with their own edgy off-brand version of "socialism".

If I was a moderator on this site, things would have to be whipped back into shape immediately.

Sounds like we're all better off without you in charge of anything, then.

[Duvniask]

To be frank, these threads always turn to shit. You have someone asking about the simple practicality of communist society and what it might conceivably look like, then someone shows up and thinks they're smart for mentioning gulags or somesuch and then the entire thread derails. It then turns into a battle over definitions where a bunch of good-for-nothings try, and fail, to explain communism or inevitably contaminate the discussion with their own edgy off-brand version of "socialism".

If I was a moderator on this site, things would have to be whipped back into shape immediately.

Sounds like we're all better off without you in charge of anything, then.

Tell me something, do you look at this thread and see a discussion revolving around the subject of the OP or not?

[Ifreann]

Sounds like we're all better off without you in charge of anything, then.

Tell me something, do you look at this thread and see a discussion revolving around the subject of the OP or not?

It's fine, put your whip down.

[Kubra]

Sounds like we're all better off without you in charge of anything, then.

Tell me something, do you look at this thread and see a discussion revolving around the subject of the OP or not?

There's maybe 3 Communists total on NSG, 2 of which may be able to discuss the subject at any great length.
This is the fate of any thread that implies the need of some reasonable depth on more specific and more niche topics.