this post was submitted on 13 Jan 2025
381 points (94.6% liked)

Memes

46157 readers
1595 users here now

Rules:

  1. Be civil and nice.
  2. Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] fakir@lemm.ee 2 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Thanks again!

In other words, Market Socialism is nice in that it removes exploitation, but is no nearer to Communism than Capitalism. The leap to public ownership is no closer, just the relations of exploitation are removed. How do we get to Communism, and what role can worker cooperatives play in that? The solution is to perform a revolution and establish a Proletarian State. This is a hard requirement to begin with, otherwise you can’t simply accomplish Market Socialism, the bourgeoisie would never allow it.

Right, so market socialism is better than capitalism, and I'm arguing it is easier to get there than revolution. I'm also kinda arguing that market socialism will naturally lead to everyone just donating their belongings to the greater good once everyone is content with what they get from market socialism, otherwise I see it impractical to simply snatch private assets for public ownership. Lastly, I agree it would seem like the bourgeoise would never allow it, but things like Linux and the fediverse exist and they'll only get stronger and harder to beat with network effect.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 4 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I guess I have to ask, why do you think Market Socialism is easier than revolution, and if so, why hasn't that happened? Same with the idea of people just donating to the greater good, in a system surrounding competition?

There's a difference between FOSS and production, where industrial Capital can cost billions.

[–] fakir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Revolution requires convincing 8 billion people of a possible utopia whereas market socialism exists right now to some degree - FOSS, cooperatives, credit unions etc. are all part of market socialism. 120 million Americans for example are part of credit unions - more than any big bank in America. If we connected all the credit unions so they could talk to each other, you could transact with any branch or ATM - it could rival any big bank. It is harder to convince someone to upend their life for revolution than to convince them the benefits of credit unions over regular banking (again, markets, or in this case banking exists, and we need to engage with it currently). As for donating, many donate to Wikipedia, fediverse etc. When we are not starving, we'll donate it all to a good cause.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

First off, it's great that you're thinking about things seriously, I don't want to discredit that effort. However, there are several issues with this.

  1. Revolution

Historically, revolution has happened in the Global South, and not merely by convincing the working class, but through organization. Look to how Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc all had revolutions, and you'll see it was driven by sharpening contradictions in class antagonisms.

  1. "Utopia"

Marxism rejects Utopianism, ie thinking of a model and trying to build it outright. Marxism requires revolution, yes, but takes a gradualist approach to collectivization once the revolution has happened. This is Scientific Socialism, which analyzes trajectories in Capitalism to predict what a Socialist society would look like.

  1. FOSS

FOSS isn't "Market Socialism." It's its own category of software that doesn't rely on profit or competition.

  1. Connecting all of the Credit Unions

How do you plan to go about such a monumental task? Most Credit Unions are local organizations, for local users. There isn't a historical example of this happening.

  1. Going from a unified Credit Union to charity

Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn't be willing to or able to donate en mass.

For all of these reasons, this isn't really a practical plan, which is why studying history and theory is important.

[–] fakir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago* (last edited 1 week ago) (1 children)

Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn’t be willing to or able to donate en mass.

If you can imagine a global unified credit union, where everyone is equal, with better benefits than traditional banks, you've essentially removed capitalists from banking - think about that. You could do the same with other essential industries like education, healthcare, food etc.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I understand the concept, the problem is with implementing it from where we are now, and proving that energy would not be better applied via revolution and implementing Socalism. Your thought process is along the same lines as the Utopian Socialists like Owen, who tried to convince people but ultimatley failed. The reason Marxism has a much better track record is because of Scientific Socialism, which is based on analyzing how to get from here to there. I recommend reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.

[–] fakir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

As I understand, scientific socialism acknowledges class struggle and current material conditions, but still requires overthrow of capitalist systems. You're suggesting it's easier to convince people to overthrow their banks (and have no personal banking?) rather than switch to a global credit union.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

I'm suggesting that the idea of creating a global credit union within the boundaries set by Capitalism, and carrying it to fruition, is far more difficult than revolution. You're asking the absolute most wealthy individuals to sit by and watch their wealth dry up and to do nothing about it.

I think you should read the essay I linked.

[–] fakir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

Okay, at least we're talking about execution now. I'll read the essay, but like unix and fediverse and credit unions exist right now and capitalists can't stop them. They can only compete with them in the free market. They certainly won't be able to stop them once they get even bigger and more mainstream.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)

We were always talking about execution. FOSS is regularly undermined and Credit Unions are almost always more local than otherwise.

[–] fakir@lemm.ee 1 points 1 week ago (1 children)

So you're saying the fediverse can't outgrow Reddit because it's FOSS and not corporate controlled? I'm saying it will and there's nothing Reddit can do about it.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 3 points 1 week ago (1 children)
[–] fakir@lemm.ee 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Not sure why what? Btw I found this to add to the discussion - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=swpR41pRdMA - it seems market socialism is compatible with Marxism - markets existed before capitalism and will exist in market socialism too, while planning could be a mix of central and local.

[–] Cowbee@lemmy.ml 1 points 6 days ago

Why do you think FOSS and Lemmy in general will overtake Reddit?

Either way, as for Wolff, Marxists don't say you can't have coops in Socialism, I explained earlier how we could have them in Socialism, Marxists however believe revolution is easier and still necessary than peacefully asking the ruling class to watch as their Capital gets wrested from them.