The people and organizations who most incentivized and therefore most likely to break the NAP are the ones that can get away with it and profit from that misdeed. Therefore in the long run, the NAP will routinely be broken with little to no consequence by powerful groups that have all the incentive in the world to do so.

##BOTTOM TEXT

Lorem ipsum odor amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Velit arcu in tempus varius orci nulla litora cras magna. Dapibus consequat posuere quam lacus vestibulum taciti eget ultrices. Molestie dui dapibus accumsan congue; neque magna sociosqu. Pulvinar hendrerit vulputate donec, primis class orci. Vel integer sociosqu augue pharetra volutpat eleifend consectetur efficitur. Netus tempus tellus himenaeos leo conubia nulla auctor. Mus commodo dolor vivamus, dui lacinia ipsum mauris sodales nec?

Claim: Lenin made the argument as capitalism evolves, wealth and production concentrate in a few hands, which creates a need for new markets, so countries have to turn to imperialism.

Counter: The definition of imperialism is: a policy of extending a country's power and influence through diplomacy or military force. As long as you have power hungry leaders, are in need of resources, etc., imperialism will exist.

• Ironically the USSR itself was very imperialistic, exerting power over Eastern Europe and other regions, showing that imperialism is driven by state power and strategic interests, not solely by capitalist motive

I get so tired of the radical all-or-nothing thinking of the radical left that claims capitalism = fascism. So much I thought I would do an OP with that above quote. That quote is from the chapter on "Fascism" from my poli sci textbook "Political Ideologies: an Introduction" by Heywood.

Just to be clear. In no way is Heywood saying Fascism = socialism. It's just a tiny subchapter giving a nod to the role socialism has played in the ideological aspect of fascism. The context leading up to that quote goes as such:

At times, both Mussolini and Hitler portrayed their ideas as forms of ‘socialism’. Mussolini had previously been an influential member of the Italian Socialist Party and editor of its newspaper, Avanti, while the Nazi Party espoused a philosophy it called ‘national socialism’. To some extent, undoubtedly, this represented a cynical attempt to elicit support from urban workers. Nevertheless, despite obvious ideological rivalry between fascism and socialism, fascists did have an affinity for certain socialist ideas and positions. In the first place, lower-middle-class fascist activists had a profound distaste for large-scale capitalism, reflected in a resentment towards big business and financial institutions. For instance, small shopkeepers were under threat from the growth of department stores, the smallholding peasantry was losing out to large-scale farming, and small businesses were increasingly in hock to the banks. Socialist or ‘leftist’ ideas were therefore prominent in German grassroots organizations such as the SA, or Brownshirts, which recruited significantly from among the lower middle classes.

Second, fascism, like socialism, subscribes to collectivism (see p. 99), putting it at odds with the ‘bourgeois’ values of capitalism. Fascism places the community above the individual; Nazi coins, for example, bore the inscription ‘Common Good before Private Good’. Capitalism, in contrast, is based on the pursuit of self-interest and therefore threatens to undermine the cohesion of the nation or race. Fascists also despise the materialism that capitalism fosters: the desire for wealth or profit runs counter to the idealistic vision of national regeneration or world conquest that inspires fascists.

Third, fascist regimes often practised socialist-style economic policies designed to regulate or control capitalism. Capitalism was thus subordinated to the ideological objectives of the fascist state. As Oswald Mosley (1896–1980), leader of the British Union of Fascists, put it, ‘Capitalism is a system by which capital uses the nation for its own purposes. Fascism is a system by which the nation uses capital for its own purposes.’ (Heywood, 2017)

I often do definitions countering these false attributions that capitalism = fascism. Like this definition of capitalism or this definition of capitalism.

Here is a good example of investopedia just contrasting it with a planned economy:

Capitalism is an economic system that maintains that the production of goods and services should remain in the hands of private individuals and businesses, not governments. To be successful, these individuals will produce the goods and services needed by the public, at the prices that the public is willing to pay.

The law of supply and demand will determine what goods are produced and the quantities of them that are produced. Competition among businesses will ensure quality and affordability. The drive for greater market share will encourage innovation.

By contrast, in a planned economy, production and prices are controlled by the government through central planning. The government determines which products are needed, and the prices and quantities that must be supplied for the greater good.

tl;dr Capitalism =/= fascism and the socialists on here are just as dishonest as the other side saying fascism = socialism.

Laws mandated public/worker ownership of 50% of the economy, with the other 50% being privately owned?

I contrived this example because I want to know how you'd classify such an economy, not because I think such a system can or should exist.

Wierd question, but is there any way I can use a B.A. in PolySci to just help people? I know that's vague, but I have a reason. I'm interested in PolySci as my main passion is reading political history and theory, and I wanted to be able to enhance that knowledge through a degree so that I could use it towards my home state of Mississippi. I want to find out what its problems are and help solve them with my passion, in other words. I'm asking here because I thought it would be interesting to get two sides' opinions on this.

PS: I don't have a degree, I'm still in High School, so please excuse any of my ignorance on the subject lol.

Thanks!

I know conservatives love to argue that they support small government because they support privatization of the public sector. But, no. Fascist economics are capitalist and they cut taxes on the wealthy and privatized their public sector. Conservatives like fascists support a nationalistic form of capitalism, where private businesses must act in the interests of the country. Which is why they use protectionism/isolationism/tariffs. Mercantilism is regarded as the first form of modern capitalism and yeah it's a nationalistic form of capitalism. Tariffs and protectionism originated from Mercantilism.

Sources:

https://www.britannica.com/topic/fascism/Conservative-economic-programs

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economics_of_fascism#

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism#History

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/national-security/if-trump-wins-america-isolationist-1930s-rcna140357

At my company, we are rewarded 2% of the margin of increase in profits this quarter over the previous year's corresponding quarter. That means if we make 100k more third quarter this year than the previous year, they take 2k and split it up among employees.

I was wondering what people's thoughts are on just forcing employers to pay out a flat 30%-50% of profits equally among workers. I know capitalists aren't gonna like it but i haven't formed a position on it yet because i don't know any potential negative ramifications so please don't grill me and call me an idiot.

edit: there has to be a better argument against this idea than 'the owners deserve everything always forever as long as time exists and employees deserve the bare minimum'

The reason republicans and democrats tend to believe a set of political leanings on various topics rather than having varied opinions is because of Core Beliefs. I think it comes down to a few core beliefs that inform most political opinions. Which is Individualism/Personal Responsibility and Humanitarianism/Collectivism.

I’m not much of a conservative anymore so just putting that out there now.

Conservatives/Republicans normally fall on the more individualistic/personal responsibility side of beliefs and are typically less humanitarian. There is a strong sense of personal responsibility in this camp, which is why they typically don’t care much about homelessness or poverty because they really think that if you’re in that situation it’s your fault. I think most people believe in personal responsibility and the meritocracy to some degree but conservatives seem to fall into the error of simply not acknowledging that the system in which we live and numerous other factors can and does affect the outcomes of peoples lives. People that are born in high crime areas are significantly more likely to become a criminal, people that are born poor are likely to remain poor, etc etc. They basically have a “no excuses” mindset about most political topics, normally leaving out nuance or circumstance. Personal Liberty above all is something that can fairly accurately describe the conservative position on the economy. Even if the personal liberty disadvantages a lot of people, it must not be infringed upon.

Leftists are more humanitarian, that’s their core belief that informs most of their political views. They care more about the well being of people, even poor and homeless people, than Personal Liberty or ideas of personal responsibility/individualism. Which is why they speak more on poverty and income disparity, taxing the rich, wealth allocation, prison reform, global warming, and the border policy. Which personally I think our immigration process should be reformed so people can become citizens faster rather than being waitlisted for years on end.

But ya I guess when people ask why America is so divided politically is because the main ideas are kind of at odds with each other.

Also the way things play out practically speaking is the main topic when discussing economic systems. I think leftists can be a bit too optimistic with how they view socialism and communism. Those systems could have major problems, which is why I’m more of a capitalist myself. I think our system works we could just reform it to be more charitable to people who need money and stuff. But idk maybe the only way it could possibly work is if we go full socialist. If not just go full free market. Idk im not that educated on all the intricacies of the economy and all the regulations and laws and stuff.

EDIT : The capitalist will normally rebut and say “the government only wants to add more regulation and taxes to the economy so they can seize more power and control the people more”. Which may be true, but the left doesn’t want an authoritarian government so they really don’t believe that rebuttal. I suppose it’s a problem of truth. The truth is really hard to find in most of these discussions.

Surveillence capitalism is the collection and commodification of personal data by corporations. Its a relativly new development under capitalism that happened due to new technological developments. You could argue that its not that bad becosue data collection is used to develop better social media algoritams that will give people what they want but theres also the fact that that same techonogy can be used to manipulate large populations to vote for who ever benifits those corporations the most. Something that is arguably already happening to some degree or another.

I would like to see AnCaps and their opinion on this. Becosue at least on paper surveillence capitalism has developed from the supposedly libretarian nature of free markets but is undeniably authoraterian.

From what I hear, you Socialists stubbornly believe that socialist coops are more productive and more innovative. You seem to think that coops result in more loyalty from the people who work there, and in turn this results in better products, less waste, less wear and tear of property, plants and equipment, and more polished product that the consumer loves.

Despite all contrary evidence, you seem to think you don't need CEOs. You think you're smarter than CEOs and you don't need them. Great! If CEOs cost a bunch and add no value, why not fire him and split that money among you the workers in a coop?

But you know what? I have an even better idea.

You could form an alliance of Socialist consumers who would only buy from socialist firms i.e. coops. This way Socialists would only trade with fellow socialists and cut out the capitalist firms altogether. You could even issue your own currency - it takes 5 minutes to set up a cryptocurrency for you to circulate amongst yourselves. And then you can snowball and grow your revolution this way, perhaps a couple of years down the line you convert a whole city into coops. Then a whole state, and finally the world.

You effortlessly achieve your revolution, simply because you are more innovative and more intelligent and more hard-working than capitalists, and you enjoy moral high ground expressed as brand value, and because you cut all those useless middle men like CEOs you save a bunch of costs too, and because you do not charge profit as you have no shareholders. All those factors result in your coops producing better, more innovative products at lower costs and mich higher money-for-value for the consumer.

Gradually as your coops proves to be the superior business model, the capitalists will all want to buy into your coops. But of course, as a staunch believer of Marx you simply say NO and watch the capitalists devoured by their own fear and greed as their firms are reduced to bankruptcy in front of their eyes, and the billions of dollars they hoard vapourize overnight, delivering you that cathartic moment you've dreamed for your entire lives.

So why don't you do it?

Why not?

There is only one reason, and that is all of those things you believe about socialism, coops, capitalists and yourself are false. Coops aren't more productive. Coops aren't more innovative. Coops are incredibly inefficient and nobody wants to buy from them. And you are not smarter than the CEO whom you loathe.

You would learn all this if you were in business for just a week or two, but you simply don't have what it takes to do it.

So go to sleep, you don't want to get up late and piss off your boss tomorrow morning.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/29/opinion/trump-national-decline-data.html?ogrp=dpl&unlocked_article_code=1.V04.bU-s.T6v4Titbzy_7&smid=em-share

article for people to read with data.

Here is the excerpt I think that is interesting. Just replace voter with politically aware or politically active and I don't think it is a stretch how it may be relevant to many on this sub.

Yet overarching narratives have a big impact. Research shows that voters are typically more influenced by the state of the nation, as they understand it, than by the state of their own lives. This may seem counterintuitive, but it makes sense: Their lone vote is astronomically unlikely to affect their lives, so they treat it as an act of self-expression rather than self-interest. (Political scientists call this sociotropic voting.) And when it comes to understanding the state of the nation, voters consistently judge it to be in worse shape than they do their own neighborhoods and themselves. (Political scientists call this the optimism gap.)

Hi, since the left start becoming more and more like their other extreme counterpart and normalizing anti-semitism in its ranks ive been working on a list of easy to remember/easy to teach ideas about the left, the list is an atempt to present leftism in a easy way to people who dont know anything about it. I have been working on it for a while, like everytime i think a new thing i add a new item to the list.

I will basically work on this list forever but i believe its already in a good position to start sharing it. The points are edited in a way that they can be saved in a word document and people can just crlt+c and crlt+v in youtube live streams chats, so ppl can spread the informatin if they want. The goal is that eventually everyone will understand what the left is and humanity will finally stop being gaslighted by this evil ideology.

I will post the list in the comments, thanks for the attention and if you guys could copy theses points, save it in a word document to share with people later it would help alot, thanks.

This is what I think any time I see capitalists throwing shade on socialists who achieve a modicum of success in capitalist societies. You might as well call supporters of universal healthcare hypocrites for having private insurance, as if neglecting their own healthcare needs in the short term gets them closer to what they want for society in the long term.

I'm not talking about increasing welfare and advocating for human rights. I mean the communism that promises for a world where "money" doesn't exist, in a sense that people work accordingly to what they can do best, and not for monetary incentive.

But I feel like without advanced automation it'd be pretty difficult in terms of resource allocation. The market is hard to predict because the jobs would created by the people in power, not by a collective. Plus, people would still have to do labor, so i find it hard to believe that it would be a net gain if we transitioned from capitalism to communism.

Why must it be all or nothing? Neither of them(on their own) gets us where we need to be. Life and humans are a lot more complex than any “ism” can contain (in a box).

What people fail to realize is that both systems bring their own unique qualities. Capitalism, pushes you to keep bringing new ideas to the table, and to hustle – and that’s cool. But when left on its own — It can turn into extortion galore.

Socialism is there to dampen the free-for-all, making sure us working class aren’t just being taken advantage of. It’s supposed to guarantee people the basics.. the stuff you need to live.. if you go too far with this, people may lose their drive to stay innovative. So we just need a collective system— not just one, strict, to the tee ass system

Note: Pedantry is the quality of being overly concerned with minor details, rules, and formalism, or of showing off one's knowledge in an inappropriate way — please try to refrain from this, thank you 🙏🏽

Another note: Their definitions cannot coexist— but can some of their qualities coincide with one another?

Cards on the table: I am on the left, but I don't really like the Soviet Union or the People's Republic of China. I sympathize the most with anarchists, but I'm not too strict about it.

Anyway, we haven't had a death count post in a while AFAIK, so this will either stir shit up or let it settle. I don't really care because I go on here to blow off steam. My point is this: there is so much variance within capitalism and socialism that any individual group's failings don't represent the failings of the ideology as a whole. The colonial capitalism of Imperialist Britain isn't the same as the social democracy of Sweden and the famine of the Great Leap Forward has nothing to do with the EZLN.

So then what do death counts actually prove? They prove that the things that lead to them were bad. If you can show that group x is doing the same thing as Imperial Britain did that lead to the Bengal Famine or that group y is copying bad ideas from Maoism that lead to the GLF, then you can count the death toll in that specific instance. The 100 million number in the black book of communism, beyond the criticisms people have with their count, is irrelevant to any form of socialism that hasn't been tried or didn't contribute to the count. Also, it combines numbers from different versions of socialism. Just as we would say Sweden had little to do with British imperialism, Vietnam can't be thrown under the bus for China's failings.

You might say, "but groups Sweden and Britain were a part of the global capitalist system! They benefitted from Britain's imperialism!" My response is to point out that Sweden is a small, sparsely populated country. It can't efficiently produce everything it needs to function. Comparative advantage exists. The Soviet Union also traded for resources with Western powers for most of its existence. The fact of the matter is that the great economic powers of the world, the US, France, Britain, Germany, and Japan, are capitalist and even the most pure socialist will have to do business with them. You can't grow rubber in Canada and you can't drill for oil in Portugal.

Capitalism under the current model is broken. Outside Investors own everything and under this model, Investors control worker wages, cut equipment expenses, and overall have the final say and do not contribute to the generation of that capital. They lobby with politicians to cut regulations, write laws mandating the purchase of things like insurance and vaccines etc while simultaneously giving share packages to these lawmakers to benefit the, as well. They also ban the ownership of things made at home like 3D printed parts, only to make it legal to purchase one from a licensed vendor.

Under my model, only the creators of the capital can own that capital. So only direct employees of a company can own shares of that company and I would go so far as to say no subsidiary investing. I would have to think under this model companies should not be able to buy other companies out anyway and cant donate to political campaigns. But if we allowed buisness to own each other then no subsidiaries. For example: Disney owns Pixar but they cannot invest in each other. Currently places like Blackrock and vanguard are helping to concentrate mo ey into the hands of a very few people.

investing would be like a loan. You give 1million and get a return amount in a specified time. But under my model, employees can vote to cut 10$ off shares across the board to go towards development and new products as well as expansion or hiring more workers. If america is a buisness and were a democracy, why do we not run it the same in a buisness? Also to fix more, you also ban any elected officials at any level from being able to invest as well as their immediate family and next of kin. This prevents corperate intrests from swaying lawmakers. Let morality and science guide regulations, not the promise of money or increased buisness.

Some say having government get involved with buisness is a bad idea but you fail to realize WE are supposed to BE the government and THEY are supposed to speak for all of us based on what we want! Under the current model its all about who has the most money.

If you have an argument against my model and for the current, please give a detailed walk through to help us understand the thought process and why this model is fair and just. If it is not about being fair, you must provide a mean as to what this model is centered around.

I understand why, on economic matters, there are essentially two ways of thinking, so, with all the nuances etc, people converge toward one of two "poles", left and right. But why do these poles seem so divided even on other unrelated issues, like civil rights? For instance, why is it that, if you don't like taxes on the rich, you are also more likely to despise gay marriage? (Just random example to explain my point). At least this is true in some countries, not everywhere.

Of course my gut answer is that some people are just morons, they don't care about anybody, hence they would have moron stances (i.e. rightwing) on every issue. But I might be biased ;) Is it just tribalism, i.e. my group is right, they are wrong, hence I will oppose everything they stand for and viceversa? Or what is it?

Introduction

The aim of this proposal is to think about an economy that combines both efficiency and equity by implementing socialism in a market framework. Common proposals for market socialism centre around a system that is largely or even entirely comprised of labour-managed firms. I will argue that mandatory cooperative market socialism has significant drawbacks that need to be considered and then argue for alternatives.

I will define labour-managed firms as firms that are owned equally and entirely by participating employees, where managerial decisions are either voted on by all members or are handled by an elected management committee which sets prices, manages output policy and investment decisions. The analysis will focus on the microeconomics of labour-managed firms.

The Equilibrium Condition of Labour-Managed Firms

The problem with an economy consisting largely or entirely of such firms would be that it economy would probably suffer from structural unemployment due to the disincentives that LMFs have on hiring new workers, as well as from weak output and underinvestment.

This is because LMFs operate under a different imperative than capitalist firms. Instead of seeking to maximise net profits, they seek to maximise the average income per worker, which is defined as the total income divided by the number of workers. This means that such firms will only hire new workers up until the value of the marginal product of labour (MPL) equals the averge income of existing workers. Once the firm reaches a point where the MPL is inferior to averaged income, it will stop hiring since doing so would dilute the income share of all workers.

Conversely, capitalist firms have a different equilibrium condition since they seek to maximise total profits, which is total revenue minus total costs. They will hire additional workers as long as the marginal revenue product (MRP) of labor is greater than or equal to the marginal cost (MC) of labor, which is usually the wage. The MRP is the MPL (additional output from one more worker) times the price at which the output is sold. Capitalist firms will stop hiring once MRP equals MC. This equilibrium condition generally allows capitalist firms to hire more workers than an LMF.

Another potential problem of LMFs is that new workers need to buy an equity stake to become equal worker-owners, and since many potential workers may not have the financial resources to afford the upfront cost of buying a stake in the firm, this might put additional strain on hiring workers.

There are ways in which this problem can be addressed, such as through loans to help spread the cost over time as well as via reduced initial investment plans and deferred payments of profits where new members might receive a reduced share of profits until their stake is fully paid off. However, this may also lead to noticeable inequalities within LMFs and create a labour aristocracy of senior workers within the firm.

Example

Let's assume the following conditions:

That the wage rate (MC) is at $50/hr for a capitalist firm and that the current average income for LMF's is at $55/hr. Let's assume further that there are two workers that want to be hired by either one firm. Worker A has a MRP of $60/hr and a MPL of $60/hr. Worker B has a MRP at $53/hr and a MPL at $53/hr.

For the capitalist firm:

Equilibrium Condition: MRP = MC

Worker A: MRP of $60/hr > MC of $50/hr. The capitalist firm would hire Worker A. Worker B: MRP of $53/hr > MC of $50/hr. The capitalist firm would also hire Worker B.

For the labour-managed firm:

Equilibrium Condition: MPL ≥ Average Income

Worker A: MPL of $60/hr ≥ Average Income of $55/hr. The labour-managed firm would hire Worker A. Worker B: MPL of $53/hr < Average Income of $55/hr. The labor-managed firm would not hire Worker B.

In this example, the capitalist firm would hire both worker A and worker B because both have an MRP that exceeds the wage rate. The labour-managed firm would hire only worker A because worker B’s MPL is less than the current average income of $55/hr.

Output, Capital Formation and Investment

Output may also be artificially low in LMFs since doing so would keep prices higher and thus raise the average income. Capitalist firms are incentivised to increase output, as this can lead to higher total profits which is the goal. They continue to expand production as long as the marginal revenue (MR) from additional output exceeds the marginal cost (MC) of production. LMFs on the other hand, will usually reduce output if the average income per worker can be maintained or increased with less production. This is because more output usually means hiring workers which runs into the aforementioned problem.

The investment behaviour of firms is likewise affected by its equilibrium condition. Capitalist firms seek to outcompete other firms by gaining market share. As such, they tend to use a large part of revenue to reinvest, but LMFs are reluctant to do that since worker-owners would have to divert a larger share of profits from their income to be set aside for investment. The incentive not to do so is higher, the lower the wage paid out from the worker's stake is.

However, much of this also depends on the ability of LMFs to acquire external financing, which it may do by issuing bonds and non-voting shares to potential investors. Usually though, they rely on bank loans. Cooperative and mutual banks are a key player here and help provide capital when traditional banks won't. I will expand on banking in my section on policy recommendations.

Returning to the issue of output, it is possible that changes in market conditions make it that increased output increases average income. This can happen when the (MRP) of labour is greater than average income or if already existing workers become more productive with labour-saving technologies.

Other situations where this can occur is in economies of scale where increased output and bulk purchases reduce the average cost per unit. However, this is rarer for LMFs than for capitalist firms, again because worker-owners will not be so willing to reinvest a large part of their income share into R&D and physical capital.

Performance and Longevity

In spite of the issues noted above, the takeaway shouldn't be that LMFs are inferior to conventional firms. There are many ways in which they are successful. The fact that LMFs maximise the average income of all their workers-owners means that these workers are much more committed to the firm than in conventional ones. Having a stake and a voice leads to higher satisfaction and also productivity, although this depends on the sector. LMFs seem to be most successful in manufacturing, service as well as agriculture and food production.

LMFs also seem to have higher survival rates compared to similarly sized conventional firms. This is because they are much less likely to lay off workers and because they usually prioritise stability over short-term gains. Wage differentials between managers and workers are also significantly narrower which makes the interests of labour and management much more aligned than they would be in a conventional firm.

However, the point of this post is to highlight that even though the labour-owned and managed firm may be an interesting iteration of socialist organisation, it is unrealistic and unwise to argue that the bulk of economic activity should consist of such firms. Here are some alternative policy proposals:

Regulatory Frameworks and Financial Incentives

Instead of mandating socialisation at the firm level, I propose that market socialism should be conceived of as a market economy with a relatively egalitarian distribution of wealth, coupled with a regulatory framework that ecourages the proliferation of LMFs as well as worker participation in conventional firms.

States should seek to create national legal frameworks that promote the proliferation of cooperative and collective ownership. This could be done via tax write offs for firms that encourage employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs), as well as a right of first refusal policy which would force employers to offer the first opportunity to purchase the company to their employees when its up for sale. This should be further facilitated via capital gains tax exemptions on the sale of a business to employees.

The OECD countries with the largest and most successful cooperative sectors are located in Southern Europe. These include Spain with 1.3% of their workforce working in the cooperative sector and Italy with 3.8%. These are concentrated in the Basque region of Spain and Italy's Emilia-Romagna region. Other countries have similar laws, but are often not as extensive. However even in Italy, the share of cooperatives in relation to the overall economy is still quite small.

Universal Inheritance

Workers are almost definitionally asset poor and can only rely on selling their labour. As such, starting a cooperative or buying into one is probably one of the biggest challenges to coop proliferation. When building socialism, the goal should then be to democratise access to capital. One way this could be achieved is by implementing a universal inheritance scheme. A system where every individual gets an unconditional one time capital grant once they reach adulthood.

Its most recent prominent theoretician is Thomas Piketty who proposes an endowment set at 60% of the average inherited wealth per adult, which would be around 120,000€ in countries like France. This would be financed by a progressive annual tax on total net wealth (assets minus liabilities) including financial assets and real estate. 1% on net worth of 1.3 million and 2% on 6.5 million as well as a progressive inheritance tax. Rates on inheritances will vary, but should go as high as 70-80%.

Public Banking and the Social Control of Investment

Another step would be to strengthen public capital formation via a system of public banks where debt-financing replaces equity-financing as the primary source of external capital for both LMFs and conventional firms. Like this, LMFs could pursue a measure of democratic decision-making while having external ownership and oversight, thus not running into the problem of the equilibrium condition being tied to the average income per worker.

Conventional firms would likewise be more susceptible to the oversight of public banks. The extensive use of public banks in capital formation has a significant precedent in the East Asian Tiger economies of the postwar period. Especially in Japan, South Korea and Taiwan. In Taiwan's case, up until the 1980s, 80% of gross private capital formation was bank-financed as opposed to equity-financed, with the goal of guiding firms towards socially optimal development plans. Most banks were publicly owned, with private ones only holding around 5% of deposits.

Investment planning is a key feature here. Public banks can provide incentives for firms to invest in particular sectors of the economy against the signals of the market by offering differential interest-rate loans as well as through state-directed investment. For example, high interest rates would be charged to industries that cause significant negative externalities such as pollution. Market socialism could thus come in the form of democratic control over investment decisions in a market system.

Co-determination

Lastly, strengthening board-level employee representation, also known as co-determination in conventional firms is just as crucial. However, the literature on co-determination practices in OECD countries suggests that such practices are rather disappointing. Germany is usually help up high as an example of strong co-determination laws, but this practice has had a non-significant impact on wages, the wage structure, the labour share, revenue, employment or profitability of the firm, although it had small positive effects on capital investment.

Other studies suggest the same for other OECD states, noting small increases in wages, possibly leading to slight increases in job security and satisfaction. This is due to the lack of meaningful bargaining power in spite of formal-procedural participation. However, if already existing co-determination policies would be coupled with an equal distribution of initial endowments for people entering the labour market, it could significantly strengthen the bargaining position of labour and make the threat of exist more likely, thus forcing employers and managers in conventional firms to take the interests of representative employees more seriously.

Conclusion

The laid out policies represent an alternative vision of what market socialism could look like without exclusively relying on mandatory socialisation at the firm level. The size of the cooperative sector depends on the regulatory framework and financial incentives that the state creates.

Most importantly however is to focus on creating an egalitarian income and wealth distribution and broadening the access to capital for individual citizens entering the labour market, whether it be at an LMF or a traditional firm. This, combined with a system of public banking could fundamentally transform the way people interact in an economy, while letting the market system set prices and output levels.

References

Cicopa. (2016). Cooperatives and Employment: A Global Report. International Organisation of Industrial, Artisanal and Service Producers’ Cooperatives (CICOPA)

Jäger, S; Noy, S; Schoefer, B; (2021). "What Does Codetermination do?". NBER Working Paper Series, 28921

Jäger, S; Schoefer, B; Heining, J; (2020). "Labor in the Boardroom". The Quarterly Journal of Economics. 136 (2): 669–725

Meade, J. E. (1972). The Theory of Labour-Managed Firms and of Profit Sharing. The Economic Journal. 82(325), 402-428

Park, R., & Sengupta, S. (1998). Does Employee Ownership Enhance Firm Survival? In V. P. Wright, V. J. Glass, & V. E. V. Byers (Eds.) (1998). Employee Participation, Firm Performance and Survival Elsevier. 1-33

Piketty, T. (2020). Capital and Ideology (A. Goldhammer, Trans.). Harvard University Press.

Wade, R. (1990). Governing the Market: Economic Theory and the Role of Government in East Asian Industrialization. Princeton University Press.

Ward, B. (1958). The Firm in Illyria: Market Syndicalism. The American Economic Review. 48(4), 566-589

Hey everyone,

I’ve been reflecting on the impact of capitalism on working conditions and living standards. It’s hard to ignore the evidence that capitalism often leads to poorer conditions for laborers—wage stagnation, job insecurity, and a lack of benefits seem to be the norm for many. It is obvious the system often prioritizes profits over people.

Despite some exceptions, what’s intriguing to me is how working-class wage laborers generally seem to exhibit more communal and collective values, often aligning more with socialist or communist ideals, while many staunch defenders of capitalism come from middle-class backgrounds or are actual business owners. This disconnect raises questions about who really benefits from the system and who’s invested in defending it.

I’m curious—how many of the self-proclaimed capitalist apologists here on this subreddit actually own property or capital themselves, either through inheritance or are they genuinely self-sustained? It feels like this distinction is crucial in understanding their perspectives.

So my argument is that the USSR and the eastern block were crumbling since the liberalization, and the collapse of the USSR was not an illegal dissolution against the will of the people, and in fact, was supported by the majority of the people.

In 1985 Gorbachev got elected and started to liberalize, and he implemented the policy of democratization in 1987, and allowed the people of eastern block to have more autonomy.

By 1988 the Caucasus were succeeding and killing and expelling each other, and the Baltics were declaring themselves independent and the USSR lost control of these regions, even though they were not fully independent yet.

By 1989, eastern European countries like Poland, Hungary, Czechoslovakia, and more had mass protests and strikes resulting in communist leaders leaving office by violent or non-violent means. In the election that followed, liberals and anti-communists won the election by a landslide, and with the overwhelming majority's support, they transitioned to a market economy and liberalized. Also, multiple SSRs like Ukraine, Belarus, and Kazakhstan were rioting and striking.

By 1990, from the democratization, the communist party lost multiple elections from all around the USSR, and the Baltics declared the annexation of the Baltics after WW2 illegal and declared the re-establishment of Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia. In Ukraine, communists lost elections by a landslide and later both parties passed the declaration of state sovereignty, which claims that the Ukrainian state has economic, military, and diplomatic independence and only the sovereign Ukrainian state has full control over the land and the airspace of Ukraine. Belarus also passed the declaration of State Sovereignty.

On March 17, 1991, the USSR had a referendum on continuing the USSR as a new federation with greater autonomy among its member states, where the federal government has a militaristic and diplomatic monopoly. 77 percent voted in favor of the reform, however, the three baltic states, caucasus, and Modova boycotted the referendum demanding full independence. In June of that year in the first presidential election of Russia Soviet Federal Socialist Republic, Yeltzin won by a landslide and declared itself independent from the USSR.

That year, Baltic states and Caucasian states such as Georgia and Armenia which boycotted the USSR referendum had their independence referendum. Lithuania voted for by 93 percent, Estonia and Latvia around 75 percent, Georgia by 99 percent, and Armernia by around 70 percent.

Seeing the USSR crumbling, on 19 August, the army and the hardline communists attempt to coup the government and arrest Yelzin to stop the liberalization and keep the soviet union standing. However, due to the lack of popular support and the failure to control the government, the coup ends unsuccessfully.

Seeing the coup, Ukraine and Azerbaijan refused to join the Union Treaty and many others declared soverignty and succeeded from the USSR. Only few days after the coup, Ukraine officially passed the declaration of Independence through their parliament.

In 1991 December 1, Ukraine had its own independence referendum which 91 percent of the people voted for, and in 1991 December 29th, 99 percent of Azerbaijan voted for independence. Since Ukraine was the second biggest republic in the USSR, the realistic chance of keeping the USSR vanished, and in the meeting between Ukraine, Russia, and Belarus's leaders they formally announced the end of the soviet union, and established an EU like entity that was The Commonwealth of Independent States.

So, every country that succeeded had major support, and so called illegal dissolution only happened after most of the states declared independence and were de facto independent. Im not going to argue if this was a good change or a bad change, all Im claiming is that the desolution was almost inevitable by 1991, and people who claim that the former USSR states wanted to stay in the Union and was forced out of it because of the corrupt politicians are either ignorant, or lying.

Question for socialists: do you agree with Paul Cockshott that Marx had a labor theory of value?

https://paulcockshott.wordpress.com/2020/05/07/defending-the-labour-theory-of-value-again/

Paul Cockshott defends the claim that Marx indeed held a labor theory of value, contrary to the claims among some socialists economists who argue otherwise. He recalls that until the late 20th century, both Marxist and non-Marxist economists agreed on Marx’s labor theory of value. However, with the rise of interpretations that downplay the empirical rigor of Marx’s analysis, some scholars now pretend that Marx’s work does not assume labor as the foundation of value, focusing instead on dialectical or textual interpretation rather than empirical testing.

Cockshott counters that while Marx did acknowledge deviations between labor values and actual prices, this does not mean Marx rejected the labor theory. Instead, Cockshott asserts that Marx’s analysis assumes a foundational proportionality between labor input and commodity value, a basis for Marx’s discussions of surplus value, exploitation, and class relations.

Cockshott argues that while Marx allows for price fluctuations from supply and demand, he consistently relies on a proportional relationship between socially necessary labor time and the price or value of goods. This assumption is vital for Marx’s theory of both absolute and relative surplus value. Absolute surplus value, according to Marx, arises by lengthening the working day, which assumes a direct proportionality between labor time and the value added by labor. Similarly, relative surplus value results from reducing the labor needed to produce workers’ necessities (often through technological advances), which in turn lowers the cost of maintaining the workforce, allowing more of their output to constitute surplus value for the capitalist.

Cockshott stresses that this proportionality between labor and value also underpins Marx’s critique of Ricardo’s monetary theory. According to Marx, the price of a commodity relative to gold is determined by the labor embodied in both, a perspective consistent with Marx’s labor theory of value. Cockshott challenges those who reject this proportionality to reconstruct Marx’s analysis without it, arguing that doing so would undermine Marx’s insights into exploitation and surplus value.

He further claims that there is empirical support for labor determining price (notably, strong correlations between labor content and commodity prices), but that it is challenging to differentiate Marx’s theory from neoclassical economics in some aspects. For instance, the observation that profits fall when capital growth exceeds employment growth can be derived from both Marxist and neoclassical frameworks, as shown in the work of economist Robert Solow. Therefore, Cockshott emphasizes that, despite different interpretations, the labor theory of value remains central to Marx’s analysis, with Marx’s theoretical framework deeply reliant on the correlation between labor time and commodity value.

Is that they are all hopelessly exploited, homeless, starving to death, all dying because none of them have healthcare, unable to stand up for themselves without being executed by CIA or Elon Musk, cannot be expected to learn new skills to improve their quality of life or move somewhere with better opportunities

…but at the same time be absolutely certain that they will overthrow the entire capitalist world order and “take care” of the entire capitalist class and appropriate all private property from everyone and collectively in agreement manage those acquired means of production under a socialist umbrella in a manner that is much more effective than the current capitalist system

…but they can’t do that right now for some reason

Not sure how they make the leap of faith from the first part to the second and what magic ingredient they need for the last part

For whatever absurd reason, socialists keep insisting on using their own little quirky subjective and personal definition. For example, when they say they want wealth equality, they don't mean equal income or equal wealth, but they mean "abolishing rent and inheritance".

For example wealth equality means:

• Abolishment of inheritance

• Abolishment of rent acquired through land or company ownership (especially if you're not actually working for that company.)

And no, taxes aren't a gotcha as they're merely a pooling of common resources to achieve outcomes impossible as individuals or even small polities (nuclear plants and other similar infrastructure., universities, healthcare)

Private property means:

• Not your toothbrush or personal property.

• Means of production. Any social structure organized to produce stuff under a private owner.

But private property can also mean "when rent" despite renting not being related to production.

It can also mean "when ownership is disconnected from necessity", like when wealthy individuals have beachfront mansions but don't use it, or having multiple luxury cars.

And private property can also be when something is used to produce other stuff, thus a means of producing stuff and not necessarily a social structure like a factory or business.

Capitalism means:

• When Goverment do stuff, because capitalism can't exist outside of government.

• Private ownership of the means of production.

It can also mean that said government or mean of production is for profit, but not being for profit doesn't necessarily make it not capitalism.

And a centrally planned economy with no markets and control centered on a democracy public sector can still be capitalism.

Socialism

• worker ownership of the means of production.

• Not capitalism.

A capitalist society is under consideration. By the LTV, I mean here the proposition that prices tend to or orbit around labor values. The labor value of a commodity is the sum of the labor that must be used directly and indirectly to produce a commodity.

Ricardo correctly criticized Adam Smith for stating that the mere accumulation of capital and division into classes of capitalists and workers made the LTV invalid. But Ricardo knew that the LTV could not be entirely accurate in a capitalist society.

Can you point out another role of the LTV in Ricardo's work?

Anyway, here is Ricardo explaining that the LTV cannot be entirely true:

Suppose I employ twenty men at an expense of $1000 for a year in the production of a commodity, and at the end of the year I employ twenty men again for another year, at a further expense of $1000 in finishing or perfecting the same commodity, and that I bring it to market at the end of two years, if profits be 10 per cent., my commodity must sell for $2,310; for I have employed $1000 capital for one year, and $2,100 capital for one year more. Another man employs precisely the same quantity of labor, but he employs it all in the first year; he employs forty men at an expense of $2000, and at the end of the first year he sells it with 10 per cent. profit, or for $2,200 Here then are two commodities having precisely the same quantity of labour bestowed on them, one of which sells for $2,310 — the other for $2,200. -- Ricardo, Principles, Chapter 1, Section IV [British pounds changed to dollars by me. -- AC]

Ricardo goes on to consider the effects of variation in wages. Ricardo thought that an increase in the wage would lower the rate of profits. (Modern economists, such as Paul Samuelson, have shown that Ricardo was correct, with models of circulating capital, fixed capital, and extensive rent.) Thus, a variation in wages, unlike in the LTV, would change relative prices.

Ricardo was taken as abstract in his day. He concentrated on the system of prices of production. At one point, when he spoke in parliament, another member responded with something like, "Pray, what planet did you come from?"

Marx has extensive comments on Ricardo in his Theories of Surplus Value, the so-called fourth volume of capital. He thought Ricardo was not abstract enough. Marx contrasts his distinction between constant and variable capital with the distinction between fixed and circulating capital. The latter was available to Ricardo. The distinction between surplus value and profits is another distinction not available to Ricardo. Furthermore, Marx distinguishes between (labor) values and money prices in a way that Ricardo does not.

A scholar interested in the transformation problem must read the Theories, as well as some of Marx and Engels' correspondence. It is obvious that Marx understood Ricardo's rejection of the LTV. If you do read, you will find Bohm Bawerk's criticisms are obsolete. Bohm Bawerk echoes Marx's criticisms of previous developers of political economy, while thinking he is criticizing Marx. Bohm Bawerk just did not have these texts available.

Anyways, Marx thought Ricardo's explanations were "clumsy". For example, here he is trying to put Ricardo's point more simply:

Since capitals of equal size, whatever the ratio of their organic components or their period of circulation, yield profits of equal size—which would be impossible if the commodities were sold at their values etc.—there exist cost-prices which differ from the values of commodities. And this is indeed implied in the concept of a general rate of profit. -- Marx, Theories of Surplus Value, Part II. Chapter X, Section A.4.a.

I think Marx uses 'cost price' here to mean 'price of production', which is not how I read the terminology in volume 3 of Capital.

Marx is correct in saying that the divergence of relative prices from labor values comes about just with a positive rate of profits. One does not have to consider variations in the wage to make this point. I am not sure that Marx is fair to Ricardo here.

"The rich can only be rich if the poor are poor."

"The rich became rich by exploiting the poor."

There are fairly common beliefs among socialists. They're wrong.

Wealth is not a zero sum game.

Imagine a world with 2 people in it. Both are workers with different skills, and both have 10 money. One worker is a house builder and the other is a car builder.

They meet.

The house builder says "I'll pay you 10 money if you build me a car"

"Okay", says the car builder, "but only if in return you build me a house. I'll also pay you 10 money for it."

They agree on these terms and start working.

Next week they meet again.

"Here is your car"

"Great, here are your 10 money. Also here is your house"

"Thank you very much, here are your 10 money"

One week ago they both had 10 money, but neither had a house nor a car.

Now both have 10 money, and one has a house and the other has a car.

Both became wealthier!

New wealth has been introduced into the system!

And neither were exploited!

The real world of course is a bit more complicated than that.

Someone is selling the materials for the house and the car. Someone gathers/produces the materials the material seller sells in his store. The workers can't do every aspect of their job perfectly and by themselves, so they'll hire other workers. Someone needs to sell the products/service. For some f reason the government steps in and extracts as much taxes as possible without causing a revolution.

Everyone is adding a bit of value and in return gets paid.

Everyone gets wealthier.

Sure, some wealth vanishes over time. A house gets old. Cars break down. Materials degrade. The government takes some away.

But it's definitely not a zero sum game.

Here's a real world example:

I'm a taxi driver. I drive people around. They receive a certain value (getting from A to B) and in return they pay me. I make money for my boss. In return he pays me.

My boss got wealthier. I got wealthier. The person I drove got from A to B.

Everyone is happy.

Except the socialist. He thinks I should own a part of the car because I use it to work.

I didn't buy the car. I didn't calculate which car is best suited for the job. I don't service the car. I don't pay for fuel for the car. I don't have to buy a new car if this car breaks down, gets old or a crash happens. I didn't insure the car. I didn't pay taxes for the car.

I operate it.

Somehow I still should be entitled to owning a part of it, even tho I'm being paid to operate it.

Maybe socialists believe that because they think they're being exploited by their boss.

What's the solution to that?

I could also just get my own car.

I save up money and buy the car. Get a taxi license. I put fuel into it. I service it. I insure it. I pay taxes on it. And I operate it.

And then I go make some money, and yeah, I can then keep all the money. Minus what the government takes from me.

But I also carry all the risk and responsibility.

Examples:

Someone crashes into my car. It takes the insurance 2 months to pay me out so I can buy a new car. I don't make money for 2 months. Also the payment is less than the commercial value the car had for me. My problem. I also lost customers due to not being available for 2 months. This has long tern consequences.

The government raises taxes. I'm now forced to work more just to keep my standard of living.

The car manufacturer raises prices. But I need to buy a new car. Now I have to work more just to afford the same car.

These were just 3 examples but they illustrate potential risks that I, as a worker, don't have to deal with.

Somehow I still should be entitled to the profits of the business, even tho I've already been paid for my work. But because I work for my boss, I should also be entitled to the profits of his work.

After reading this post, please explain to me how wealth is a zero sum game and why I should be entitled to the "means of production".

Have a great afternoon everyone!

For whatever absurd reason, people keep insisting leftists want a chemical engineer and a marketing person and a brick layer apprentice and a senior welder all paid the same.

We don't.

We want:

1. Abolishment of inheritance
2. Abolishment of rent acquired through land or company ownership (especially if you're not actually working for that company.)

And no, taxes aren't a gotcha as they're merely a pooling of common resources to achieve outcomes impossible as individuals or even small polities (nuclear plants and other similar infrastructure., universities, healthcare)

From the mouth of Bakunin himself:

A. Equality does not imply the leveling of individual differences, nor that individuals should be made physically, morally, or mentally identical. Diversity in capacities and powers – those differences between races, nations, sexes, ages, and persons – far from being a social evil, constitutes, on the contrary, the abundance of humanity. Economic and social equality means the equalization of personal wealth, but not by restricting what a man may acquire by his own skill, productive energy, and thrift.

B. Equality and justice demand only a society so organized that every single human being will – from birth through adolescence and maturity – find therein equal means, first for maintenance and education, and later, for the exercise of all his natural capacities and aptitudes. This equality from birth that justice demands for everyone will be impossible as long as the right of inheritance continues to exist.

D. Abolition of the right of inheritance. Social inequality – inequality of classes, privileges, and wealth – not by right but in fact. will continue to exist until such time as the right of inheritance is abolished. It is an inherent social law that de facto inequality inexorably produces inequality of rights; social inequality leads to political inequality. And without political equality – in the true, universal, and libertarian sense in which we understand it – society will always remain divided into two unequal parts. The first. which comprises the great majority of mankind, the masses of the people, will be oppressed by the privileged, exploiting minority. The right of inheritance violates the principle of freedom and must be abolished.

...

G. When inequality resulting from the right of inheritance is abolished, there will still remain inequalities [of wealth] – due to the diverse amounts of energy and skill possessed by individuals. These inequalities will never entirely disappear, but will become more and more minimized under the influence of education and of an egalitarian social organization, and, above all, when the right of inheritance no longer burdens the coming generations.

In Critique of the Gotha Programme, Marx addresses the idea that goes as follows: "Labour is the source of all wealth... and since useful labour is only possible in society and through society, the proceeds of labour belong ... with equal right to all members of society".

First off, labour isn't the source of all wealth, because in nature, use-values exist, which are the basis of material wealth. You can't have the latter without the former.

Secondly, useful labour can be performed by an individual outside of society, as useful labour is what results in something of use, like grilled pork.

Finally, and most damming of all is that each individual possesses different abilities which would involve varying amounts of labour-time. The imposition of equality in terms of compensation would be unequal, therefore, not everyone should be paid equally under socialism!

Disclaimer: This is not meant to be a bait post or gotcha; I'm asking because I've asked this a couple of times on threads about free speech/hate speech and I keep receiving different takes on it and no one seems to have a clear cut response.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_T%C3%A9l%C3%A9vision_Libre_des_Mille_Collines

In short, RTLM was a radio station in Rwanda that is believed by scholarly research and legal proceedings to be primarily (or at least significantly) responsible for creating the hostile atmosphere that eventually blew up into a full blown genocide by broadcasting hate propaganda and disinformation about different political figures and parties as well as dehumanizing civilians or justifying violent action against them. A controversial research paper even said that 10% of the violent attacks could be attributed to violence they had incited, and in areas where they broadcasted there was a significantly higher degree of violence. It's also widely believed the prominent use of machetes during the genocide was the result of a radio broadcast during which the speaker said Tutsis deserved to be cut up into little pieces and through coded language such as "cut down the tall trees".

After the genocide multiple members of the station were found guilty of having incited a genocide by a UN tribunal - but they themselves never took up weapons or caused any direct physical harm and often times their rhetoric was not explicitly hateful - just disinformation meant to generate more hate, dehumanizing rhetoric, or through coded language to maintain plausible deniability in their involvement.

So my question is: Were they simply just exercising their right to free speech or was this different and the prosecution was justified?

So the capitalist class have made it clear that they dislike or maybe even fear white identarianism. Why is this though ? White identarians weather it be seperatism,nationalism,supreamcy wahtever term you want to use doesn't seem to be a threat to the capitalist class.

Facebook , Twitter, and YouTube have actively enhanced content moderation policies to remove hate speech and accounts associated with white nationalist groups. For example, Facebook banned explicit white nationalist content in 2019 and implemented algorithms and reporting systems to curb hate groups. YouTube similarly updates its policies regularly to remove extremist content, aiming to limit the reach of such ideologies.

PayPal, Stripe, and Square have refused to process payments for groups and organizations linked to white nationalism. By cutting off financial resources, these companies limit the ability of such groups to fund activities, events, or online recruitment efforts. PayPal has been particularly vocal about banning extremist accounts, stating it as part of their commitment to fostering safe and inclusive communities.

Microsoft has worked on using AI and data monitoring to identify hate speech and threats related to extremist ideologies across its platforms. Through their “Defending Democracy Program,” they support initiatives that promote inclusivity and educate on digital responsibility, aiming to counter online propaganda and disinformation.

Cloudflare provides website security services and has terminated contracts with several white nationalist sites, citing its commitment to human rights and the prevention of hate speech propagation online.

Walmart, Amazon, and Etsy have banned the sale of white nationalist and hate-related merchandise. By refusing to profit from or distribute such products, these retailers align their business practices with an anti-hate stance, contributing to corporate responsibility beyond profit. Go on Amazon you will ironically find more socialist merchandise then white nationalist merch.

The FBI (who socialist view as the enforcers of capital) have straight up said they think that white supremacy is the number one threat to America

So capitalist why do the capitalist class oppose white identarians ?

Socialist why do the capitalist not seem to fear you as much ?