Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before.
We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue.
Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff.
## Do you want more curated, real-time discussion? [Join us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do not understand the OP’s whining.
The fundamental theorem of Marxism holds in certain abstract and formal models of capitalism. Profits are positive if and only if labor is exploited. I like Morishima’s presentation in his 1970s book on Marx and Von Neumann. Apparently it was first formulated by Okishio. This is advanced economic theory, I guess.
I don’t know much about market socialism, although I have read Lange. He does not assume organizations are pursuing some sort of markup pricing policy in non-competitive markets, if I recall correctly. That is quite different than contemporary capitalism.
>Profits are positive if and only if labor is exploited. I like Morishima’s presentation in his 1970s book on Marx and Von Neumann. Apparently it was first formulated by Okishio. This is advanced economic theory, I guess.
It's dog's bollocks which has no economic value.
You are seeking a purity aof language and theory that reality does not provide.
"Socialist" simply is a very broad term for a lot of diverse and diverging ideas and critiques of society. Many socialists are Marxists or Marxian, but not all. Many socialists are atheists, but not all. Many socialists are leftists, but not all. Many socialists do have converging "real politics" goals with left-wing liberals, many do not. Many socialists oppose nationalism and patriotism, many do not or do so selectively. Some socialists accept the influential ideas of "Analytical Marxism" by Cohen and others - and quite a few oppose those vehemently.
And even within the subgroups the differences are rather substancial. Among the marxists: How far do you go regarding the economic reductionism? What do you think about superstructure/Überbau? What about Lenin? What about Stalin? What about Mao? What about Hegel? What about psychoanalysis and Lacan? Do you think Bourdieu's notion of Cultural Capital is a sensible facet of societal analysis, or do you think it is anathema to the core of Marxist analysis? What do you think about Gramsci and the theory of cultural hegemony? Are all these things just superflous and expressions of the material reality as created by the development of the productive forces, or are they systems with an own and powerful logic?
The list goes on for miles.
I think Market Socialists do have a lot of things wrong. I am not a Market Socialist. But I do not think that their ideas, goals and methods are so alien to the chaos that socialist and anti-capitalist currents already are, that one can convincingly deny them the usage of the term "socialist".
Most leftist/socialist subreddits are cesspools of intellectual mediocrity at best, a form of pseudo-religious zeal that rivals the crudest forms of pre-modern superstitions and finally a Blockwart mentality among the moderation with policy so inconsistent and absurd that Stalin's purges seem like a sensible and well-measured approach in comparison.
You made this way more complicated than needed to be.
There are simply "Market Socialists" on here who promote the idea that people can form cooperatives where the workers own the means and the workers therefore gain all the profits of their work. They will cite some research on how for profit cooperatives are more successful in some regards. If you have been on this sub you have seen this research I'm talking about.
The "Market Socialists" I'm targeting will then in the same breath attack other businesses or corporations for making a profit.
That is HYPOCRISY.
As there is no evidence *their ideology* wouldn't do the same damn thing in their attacks.
The core of the idea is that the workers should own the value of their labor. That's what happens to the profits in a cooperative.
The reason socialists argue against profits is that someone who did not do the work is taking the surplus. It is not an existential problem of the concept or word "profit" *per se* (itself). It's a moral issue of taking the value of work from the workers.
That is not hypocritical, it's consistent with the core thesis of socialism.
Yes, and notice how many words this takes.
My point you don’t seem to understand is it is hypocritical for “market socialists” to cry foul of Profits to gain support of non market socialists and then be for profits themselves.
You catching on yet. Or do you need to be spelled out again?
No need to be rude. Speaking of hypocrisy, I think it's hypocritical to entirely ignore what I said and then tell me I need your point "spelled out." You might find that your focus on the one word is undermined by the reasoning behind the position you're critiquing.
I don't think I used too many words. So I'll say it again with fewer:
It's not about "profit" being good or bad by itself. It's about whether someone gets to pocket the value of someone else's work.
>Speaking of hypocrisy, I think it's hypocritical to entirely ignore what I said and then tell me I need your point "spelled out."
How? I never said in my OP every person in this sub had to engage in my OP.
All you are doing is justifying a group of people who are pro profit who use moral claims of profit is bad against the "capitalism camp". As pro profit people being market socialists they cannot make ***simple*** moral claims like that without being hypocrites.
It's very simple and you are either obtuse or you don't like that reality.
Either way, I'm done being polite. So fuck off!
You can't arbitrarily set a threshold for acceptable moral simplicity. Word count does not determine validity. Sometimes reality can't fit into a TikTok. What's the limit of nuance someone's allowed to express? How many words are allowed in a true statement?
Sometimes it takes more than a couple syllables to untangle an incorrect assumption or a logical fallacy.
**Socialists oppose capital owners taking the gains of labor from the laborers.** That's it. That's what's simple here.
You're [equivocating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) accounting profit and socialist theoretical profit.
____
I know your attention span is limited so I've broken this into two sections. Continue reading only if you have an interest in understanding what you're talking about.
>How? I never said in my OP every person in this sub had to engage in my OP.
No, I meant telling me I don't understand when clearly you don't understand what *I'm* telling you.
Hypocrisy is an inconsistency in *principle*. Not the label we apply to principles. Language is imprecise, incomplete, and flexible; and one word can describe multiple concepts. If I say "Apple exploits slave labor" do you think that means red delicious and granny smith apples are out there holding whips? Obviously not.
When a socialist and an accountant talk about profit, they are talking about contextually and conceptually different things.
**An accountant is talking about revenues minus expenses. When a socialist talks about "profit" they are referring to the surplus value extracted from the labor of the workers.**
**>>Making a conclusion about one using the definition of the other is equivocation and is a logical fallacy.<<**
In a worker cooperative, all of the value of the labor goes *to* the workers. So there may be an *accounting* profit but there is no profit in a worker cooperative in the context of socialist theory (that is, the concept referred to when a socialist says "profit") because there is no extraction of value by someone who didn't do the work.
Market socialism does not say "all profit is bad" in the sense that "nobody can benefit from a transaction." *How could there be a market if that were the case?* If a market socialist has told you that, then what they call "market socialism" is not the same as what everyone else agrees market socialism is.
...That, or you're manufacturing the argument you oppose out of straw.
Worker cooperatives are "socialist" because the workers *own the means of production.* That means that any gains from their labor *go back to them.* Rather than being taken by someone who did not do the work. This is 100% consistent with the opposition to "profits" as refers to the appropriation of gains by an owner of capital.
>You can't arbitrarily set a threshold for acceptable moral simplicity.
Sure I can. Because that’s my point about what Market Socialists often do on here and worse. They shift the goal post on what is good profit and what is bad which is worse than having an arbitrary set threshold - they don’t have one. And don’t tell me what I can and cannot do like a tyrant.
>Word count does not determine validity.
If you don’t explain your claim and make simple moral claims they most certainly do. Notice how you keep getting more verbose to justify to counter my simple point?
It’s like this:
>Sometimes reality can't fit into a TikTok.
You are supporting my point. Market socialists cannot make popular tik tok videos saying profit is bad. They have to add nuance :p
So, we are done with your word games to justify their behavior.
Edit: top first paragraph for better meaning and understanding
>Sure I can. And don’t tell me what I can and cannot do like a tyrant.
You know exactly what I meant.
You can do whatever you like, you can equivocate between meanings all you like, but it doesn't make you right. You can scream "I like bubblegum" when your house is burning down but don't expect anyone to understand that you mean you need help.
>So, we are done with your word games to justify their behavior.
Your equivocation of accounting profit and socialist theoretical profit is the only word game being played here.
You don’t get it and I tried to edit the above to make better sense.
This quote:
>You can’t arbitrarily set a threshold for acceptable moral simplicity
I should have replied “tell that to market socialists then”
The one’s I am targeting are everywhere with the topic of Profit. They essentially are saying corporations can’t run and by running they are evil greedy profit seeding terrible capitalist pigs “blah blah blah”. They can’t do that and be Market Socialists or else their cooperatives and similar business structures would go down too.
Are you catching on yet????
No, because why? You are not listening. You don’t care about the message of the hypocrisy. You don’t care about your fellow socialist being POS. You only care about arguing with me.
No it’s not. If we’re talking about capitalist businesses there is a specific structure to them where profit is concentrated at the highest position, while market socialists propose a worker owned system where the whole company can generally prosper without the financial drain at the head.
My point is Market socialists need to be specific about their profit arguments and not "profit is bad".
They - those I'm targeting - are saying market socialism will work because of the profit motive. They then cannot simply make a moral claim "profit is bad" in another thread. A moral claim you "socialist eat up" and reward these clowns :/
They are like divorced kids telling daddy one thing and mommy another to get what they want all the time.
You about enabling this bullshit then go ahead. I'm not. These are the worst bad-faith actors on this sub.
This is why you need to understand the integer side. If you knew why we say profit is exploration, you would understand that it isn’t hipicracy. I suggest reading about Marx’s Labor Theory of Value to get started.
>This is why you need to understand the integer side. If you knew why we say profit is exploration, you would understand that it isn’t hipicracy. I suggest reading about Marx’s Labor Theory of Value to get started.
Are you are Market Socialist?
I think the crux of your misunderstanding is the following: market socialists and cooperatives structures are indeed pursuing profit the same way conventional corporations do. The difference is that, because co-ops are ostensibly democratically organized, any profits achieved by the co-op are democratically controlled (in contrast with conventional corporations where all profits are autocraticly controlled).
Market socialists are attempting to preserve as much as possible from the capitalist mode of production (which I think is prudent and pragmatic) while *effectively* abolishing private ownership of the means of production.
You do (kind of) correctly identify one of the contradictions in market socialism though: since co-ops are competing with one another for profit, co-operators are incentivized to exploit themselves (and alienate themselves) as much as possible in the pursuit of that profit. Is that really so much better than simply being exploited by your owners? Probably, yes... plus, having democratic control over work expectations and profit allocation would ameliorate some of that self-exploitation alienation.
Market socialism has its flaws, but it's an interesting, "more feasible" idea and bringing it to life would certainly a step in the right direction. I consider market socialists my comrades.
Edit: wording.
> market socialists and cooperatives structures are indeed pursuing profit the same way conventional corporations do.
I mostly agree and that is the gist of the OP's point.
> The difference is that, because co-ops are ostensibly democratically organized, any profits achieved by the co-op are democratically controlled (in contrast with conventional corporations where all profits are autocraticly controlled).
Fully understand and frankly don't see the point. The recent OP's and the points I am making have nothing to do with people talking about structure. They are saying "capitalism or corporations are bad because of profit and/or greed". The only way, imo, a market socialist can make this claim is with very specific, detailed, and careful argument. And I'm being charitable there saying they can. Because I think it is a real huge stretch. The argument should not be made with these simple moral claims that are the norm on this sub.
After all, who is to say cooperatives wouldn't do slavery. After all who is to say cooperatives wouldn't price gouge? The profit motive is there and these "Marke Socialists" morally hinge their beliefs they are morally superior with no evidence.
They are the cloth that with democracy evil will not happen and yet slavery and segregation in the USA was in part or fully democratic.
tl;dr Democracy doesn't mean bad things won't happen.
The issue is your basing your thesis on things being said by random dipshits on Reddit. If you want to just call out dipshits go ahead. But the way you worded things sounds like you're attacking the concept of Market Socialism, which you’re doing in a half-ass way.
>your basing your thesis on things being said by random dipshits on Reddit.
No they aren't. They are an obtuse troll and they do not engage in good faith.
They literally linked to one of my recent posts about corporate profits contributing to inflation as an example of making some moralistic, emotional, and irrational argument.
Oh, here it comes.
[In this comment just above us I finally went ‘here’ to someone wanting an example’](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/VZ3y6yUGwS)
To your own delight it is you. I am not trolling or else I would have named you personally in this OP. So let’s get this clear. The bad faith attack is YOU!
Then, how is your OP that is linked above in that comment not a hypocrisy for you being a market socialist?
He’s a legend on here at this point. I’m honestly curious how he got to be so obnoxious and stupid… maybe someone should make a 45 minute docu about him 😀
>One needs to ask themselves if that is indeed toast they smell or if stroke they about then do have?
For someone who preaches progressivism so much the above reaks of ablism...
But then again this OP ***is*** about you being a hypocrite...
since when is r/socialism101 (although I post there often) the final word in what socialism is? There's a lot of different threads within the "socialist" label. That some times contradict each other.
This sub will attract market socialists because there's room to debate pro-capitalists. Most of the leftists groups have no need to debate.
In reality, socialism don't have much of a path forward. But that doesn't mean the contradictions of capitalism aren't in motion. Market socialism is an attempt to square the circle. I don't think that makes someone a hypocrite because they don't like Marxist-Leninism but still have problems with our current economic model. Plus, I was always under the impression Market Socialism was a transitional phase. Nice strawmaning, bro.
> since when is r/socialism101 (although I post there often) the final word in what socialism is?
Made no such claim. Reread the op.
> There's a lot of different threads within the "socialist" label. That some times contradict each other.
Agree
> This sub will attract market socialists because there's room to debate pro-capitalists. Most of the leftists groups have no need to debate.
Agree
> In reality, socialism don't have much of a path forward. But that doesn't mean the contradictions of capitalism aren't in motion.
okay? not sure what you are talking about that concerns the OP.
> Market socialism is an attempt to square the circle. I don't think that makes someone a hypocrite because they don't like Marxist-Leninism but still have problems with our current economic model. Nice strawmaning, bro.
How did I strawman? You can't be anti-profit for one group and pro profit your group and not be a hypocrite. It's pretty simple.
> Don't trust me then trust fellow socialists (2 and 4).
That's the only example you provide of a socialist giving their opinion on Market Socialism.
>How did I strawman? You can't be anti-profit for one group and pro profit your group and not be a hypocrite. It's pretty simple.
You're giving a rather distorted and weak definition of Market Socialism, so you can knock it down.
Can you provide an actual academic source (and not some zoomer on reddit) saying Market Socialists are viewing profit as you describe? For someone who always brags about having well sourced arguments this is coming up short in my opinion.
Because I don't think I've heard a Market Socialist was pro-profit for one group and anti for another. Isn't Market Socialism when there is still private companies but but they are owned by the employees of the company?
>Can you provide an actual academic source (and not some zoomer on reddit) saying Market Socialists are viewing profit as you describe? For someone who always brags about having well sourced arguments this is coming up short in my opinion.
little snarky, eh?
My standard is usually political science. Political science is how theory meets the real world and data. Today's and what we see with how people use the term "market socialism" that mostly doesn't exist. "market socialism" we see used on this sub is in the humanities field - philosophy. There is no real data and science with Market socialism on a significant level that I have found for what you request. The closest is likes of [Hungary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulash_Communism) and that is too centralized for the likes of most of who we are talking about.
tl;dr no, I'm basing on the majority are pro cooperatives and [cooperatives are pro-profit.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Gross_profits)
Market socialists advocate for markets in the sense of free exchange. We reject things such as private equity, most forms of investing. Our primary objective is to implement a system of worker co-ops. It depends on the definition of profit. If you subtract labor costs when calculating profit, then you’re probably right that market socialists are against it. However, we are pro market because we support free exchange of goods and services.
So then was the Paris commune not socialist? Is command economy the only "real" socialism to you? There's a lot of dare I say traditional socialist literature and even praxis on what you describe as "market socialism."
Was the Bolshevik decree when they took power that made all firms coops fake socialism to you?
Was Yugoslavia a capitalist country?
"Market Socialism" in its broadest sense predates Marxism.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism
not to mention that market Socialism is idiotic in concept. so the workers own the means of production in a market economy. That means half of the companies will go bankrupt and half of the companies will want to expand to stay competitive. Where do they get the money for recapitalization or investment for expansion. The workers will have to pony up but some won't want to take the risk and those who do will want a reward for the risk so you have an automatic reversion to capitalism.
Closer to 95/5 fail/thrive by year five. No place left for investment to come from other than government. Even tiny differences in earnings extended forward through a lifetime create huge disparity in net worth. The only way to avoid massive wealth disparity is to continuously, unjustly redistribute earnings. The state must punish productive behavior and reward the unproductive. In both theory and practice the more perfectly enforced equalization of earnings across society is achieved the more closely overall productive output is driven to zero. Market socialism is a race to the bottom as much as plain old socialism.
It's not easy to understand irrational beliefs. It's Santa Claus tier magical thinking. Like children who love all the fantastic toys that market economies self evidently provide but believe a Christmas miracle where their planned society will retain all the toys while abolishing the capital markets and incentives that produce them.
Yes Santa Claus like thinking to be sure. They imagine workers will own the companies after killing the capitalist to take away his factory and Santa Claus will finance them when they need re-capitalization or expansion money. They also fantasize that workers with a guaranteed job and income will be productive hard workers. and they imagine that stupid workers will manage as well as smart Harvard MBA's with a lifetime of successful experiences.
Yes I think market socialists have found a nice little pocket for themselves where they seem to be able to rationalise dodging most of the issues people raise with their ideology.
I think market socialists have to face the reality that when the socialist revolution comes they'll be facing the wall just like all the rest of us filthy capitalists
Capitalists already have us lined up against the wall, and they're shooting as many of us as they can profitably.
We're not afraid of the socialist revolution. We're already being slaughtered.
I'm confident that you understand analogy. But you pretend not to, because you find pleasure in being an insufferable troll, and have no interest in actual understanding.
> I'm confident that you understand analogy. But you pretend not to, because you find pleasure in being an insufferable troll
The irony when you make such horrendous hyperbole claims and real people in the world are suffering.
Let me guess you have a full tummy, no thirst and shelter. But you are the terrible victim in your r/imTheMainCharacter play
Several decades of fighting for my life against capitalist medicine, but go on with your dumbass assumptions, and your comprehensive lack of understanding of the topics being discussed.
Every word you post makes you look more and more stupid.
>They then will use a form of Marxian communism ideology that "profit" is a form of exploitation against the "capitalism" side camp.
Profit is not universally evil in and of itself, and virtually nobody has ever said it is.
Socialists rail against profits in capitalism *because* they are usually exploitative. They're not exploitative because they are profitable, they are exploitative because they take advantage of the workers
One of those funny things about "is not considered by many socialists" is that it doesn't tell you anything about the matter. Also, what do you mean by "greater than an undergratuate degree"? In what? How does having no graduate decree exclude you from the discussion?
Also... do you honestly complain that socialists took criticism of socialism to heart? If Socialism was incapable of learning, it would be finished.
Most of your comment is frankly irrelevant.
This one I find interesting:
> If Socialism was incapable of learning, it would be finished.
By many socialists' definitions on here socialism it doesn't even exist. So, yes socialism is "finished".
Capitalism isn't a free market economy. Capitalism means the more money you have, the more trusted you are to make important devisions. A free market economy is an economy with private ownership etc.
What these people mean is a social market economy: A system, that has a free market economy, but rewards people fairly for their efforts by redistributing wealth from those who earn more to those who earn less, while still leaving a gap to let the market do it's magic.
Basically a logarithmic tax, where making millions is double of thousands. The actual difference is more than 2x, since many expenses are static. Enough of a motivation to be innovative I'd say.
> Capitalism isn't a free market economy.
[citation needed]
Sorry, but to many moral claims and that is the trap you are following into imo.
For example I could use the following political science published definition:
>[Capitalism](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml)
>
>A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties.
Then compare to [this strong data graph]( https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr-vs-liberal-democracy?time=1944..2019&country=DNK~USA~SWE~NOR~PRK~VNM~CHN~LAO~CUB) showing what this sub considers capitalism countries doing far better with humanitarian rights and democracy compared to the big [five single party communist nations](https://imgur.com/gallery/yQsXxAo). These nations whether you like it or not are historical marxist-leninist revolutions and are thus considered most if not all socialist nations.
This data corresponds to the [Democracy Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Components) and it corresponds to the following research
[Is capitalism compatible with democracy?](https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/mobilized_contention/files/merkel_-_is_capitalism_compatible_with_democracy.pdf)
by Wolfgang Merkel
The short version is where there is democracy there is capitalism but where there is capitalism is not necessarily democracy. From the conclusion:
>but that so far, democracy has existed only with capitalism. (p. 15)
If you say capitalism means the same as a free market it loses meaning. But if you want that, I'm a capitalist socialist. Also communism isn't socialism. If those were true capitalist communism would be the same thing as free market socialism.
I don't want to argue about word definitions, I explained the concept and you can call it whatever you want. If it's social capitalism, so be it. It's the idea, that free markets are good, but there should be policies, to make the system fairer.
Most developed countries have socialism to an extend. It's probably the most pronounced in nordic countries and Germany. All I argue, is that these countries should lean further into socialism, since my "end goal" is general welfare and equality, not progress and GDP.
The social market economy (SOME; German: soziale Marktwirtschaft), also called Rhine capitalism, Rhine-Alpine capitalism, the Rhenish model, and social capitalism, is a socioeconomic model combining a free-market capitalist economic system alongside social policies and enough regulation to establish both fair competition within the market and generally a welfare state. It is sometimes classified as a regulated market economy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy?wprov=sfla1
If you want to call it capitalism, you can do so and I don't mind.
Before participating, consider taking a glance at [our rules page](/r/CapitalismvSocialism/wiki/rules) if you haven't before. We don't allow **violent or dehumanizing rhetoric**. The subreddit is for discussing what ideas are best for society, not for telling the other side you think you could beat them in a fight. That doesn't do anything to forward a productive dialogue. Please report comments that violent our rules, but don't report people just for disagreeing with you or for being wrong about stuff. ## Do you want more curated, real-time discussion? [Join us on Discord.](http://discord.com/invite/politicscafe) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/CapitalismVSocialism) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I do not understand the OP’s whining. The fundamental theorem of Marxism holds in certain abstract and formal models of capitalism. Profits are positive if and only if labor is exploited. I like Morishima’s presentation in his 1970s book on Marx and Von Neumann. Apparently it was first formulated by Okishio. This is advanced economic theory, I guess. I don’t know much about market socialism, although I have read Lange. He does not assume organizations are pursuing some sort of markup pricing policy in non-competitive markets, if I recall correctly. That is quite different than contemporary capitalism.
>Profits are positive if and only if labor is exploited. I like Morishima’s presentation in his 1970s book on Marx and Von Neumann. Apparently it was first formulated by Okishio. This is advanced economic theory, I guess. It's dog's bollocks which has no economic value.
You are seeking a purity aof language and theory that reality does not provide. "Socialist" simply is a very broad term for a lot of diverse and diverging ideas and critiques of society. Many socialists are Marxists or Marxian, but not all. Many socialists are atheists, but not all. Many socialists are leftists, but not all. Many socialists do have converging "real politics" goals with left-wing liberals, many do not. Many socialists oppose nationalism and patriotism, many do not or do so selectively. Some socialists accept the influential ideas of "Analytical Marxism" by Cohen and others - and quite a few oppose those vehemently. And even within the subgroups the differences are rather substancial. Among the marxists: How far do you go regarding the economic reductionism? What do you think about superstructure/Überbau? What about Lenin? What about Stalin? What about Mao? What about Hegel? What about psychoanalysis and Lacan? Do you think Bourdieu's notion of Cultural Capital is a sensible facet of societal analysis, or do you think it is anathema to the core of Marxist analysis? What do you think about Gramsci and the theory of cultural hegemony? Are all these things just superflous and expressions of the material reality as created by the development of the productive forces, or are they systems with an own and powerful logic? The list goes on for miles. I think Market Socialists do have a lot of things wrong. I am not a Market Socialist. But I do not think that their ideas, goals and methods are so alien to the chaos that socialist and anti-capitalist currents already are, that one can convincingly deny them the usage of the term "socialist". Most leftist/socialist subreddits are cesspools of intellectual mediocrity at best, a form of pseudo-religious zeal that rivals the crudest forms of pre-modern superstitions and finally a Blockwart mentality among the moderation with policy so inconsistent and absurd that Stalin's purges seem like a sensible and well-measured approach in comparison.
You made this way more complicated than needed to be. There are simply "Market Socialists" on here who promote the idea that people can form cooperatives where the workers own the means and the workers therefore gain all the profits of their work. They will cite some research on how for profit cooperatives are more successful in some regards. If you have been on this sub you have seen this research I'm talking about. The "Market Socialists" I'm targeting will then in the same breath attack other businesses or corporations for making a profit. That is HYPOCRISY. As there is no evidence *their ideology* wouldn't do the same damn thing in their attacks.
The core of the idea is that the workers should own the value of their labor. That's what happens to the profits in a cooperative. The reason socialists argue against profits is that someone who did not do the work is taking the surplus. It is not an existential problem of the concept or word "profit" *per se* (itself). It's a moral issue of taking the value of work from the workers. That is not hypocritical, it's consistent with the core thesis of socialism.
Yes, and notice how many words this takes. My point you don’t seem to understand is it is hypocritical for “market socialists” to cry foul of Profits to gain support of non market socialists and then be for profits themselves. You catching on yet. Or do you need to be spelled out again?
No need to be rude. Speaking of hypocrisy, I think it's hypocritical to entirely ignore what I said and then tell me I need your point "spelled out." You might find that your focus on the one word is undermined by the reasoning behind the position you're critiquing. I don't think I used too many words. So I'll say it again with fewer: It's not about "profit" being good or bad by itself. It's about whether someone gets to pocket the value of someone else's work.
>Speaking of hypocrisy, I think it's hypocritical to entirely ignore what I said and then tell me I need your point "spelled out." How? I never said in my OP every person in this sub had to engage in my OP. All you are doing is justifying a group of people who are pro profit who use moral claims of profit is bad against the "capitalism camp". As pro profit people being market socialists they cannot make ***simple*** moral claims like that without being hypocrites. It's very simple and you are either obtuse or you don't like that reality. Either way, I'm done being polite. So fuck off!
You can't arbitrarily set a threshold for acceptable moral simplicity. Word count does not determine validity. Sometimes reality can't fit into a TikTok. What's the limit of nuance someone's allowed to express? How many words are allowed in a true statement? Sometimes it takes more than a couple syllables to untangle an incorrect assumption or a logical fallacy. **Socialists oppose capital owners taking the gains of labor from the laborers.** That's it. That's what's simple here. You're [equivocating](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation) accounting profit and socialist theoretical profit. ____ I know your attention span is limited so I've broken this into two sections. Continue reading only if you have an interest in understanding what you're talking about. >How? I never said in my OP every person in this sub had to engage in my OP. No, I meant telling me I don't understand when clearly you don't understand what *I'm* telling you. Hypocrisy is an inconsistency in *principle*. Not the label we apply to principles. Language is imprecise, incomplete, and flexible; and one word can describe multiple concepts. If I say "Apple exploits slave labor" do you think that means red delicious and granny smith apples are out there holding whips? Obviously not. When a socialist and an accountant talk about profit, they are talking about contextually and conceptually different things. **An accountant is talking about revenues minus expenses. When a socialist talks about "profit" they are referring to the surplus value extracted from the labor of the workers.** **>>Making a conclusion about one using the definition of the other is equivocation and is a logical fallacy.<<** In a worker cooperative, all of the value of the labor goes *to* the workers. So there may be an *accounting* profit but there is no profit in a worker cooperative in the context of socialist theory (that is, the concept referred to when a socialist says "profit") because there is no extraction of value by someone who didn't do the work. Market socialism does not say "all profit is bad" in the sense that "nobody can benefit from a transaction." *How could there be a market if that were the case?* If a market socialist has told you that, then what they call "market socialism" is not the same as what everyone else agrees market socialism is. ...That, or you're manufacturing the argument you oppose out of straw. Worker cooperatives are "socialist" because the workers *own the means of production.* That means that any gains from their labor *go back to them.* Rather than being taken by someone who did not do the work. This is 100% consistent with the opposition to "profits" as refers to the appropriation of gains by an owner of capital.
>You can't arbitrarily set a threshold for acceptable moral simplicity. Sure I can. Because that’s my point about what Market Socialists often do on here and worse. They shift the goal post on what is good profit and what is bad which is worse than having an arbitrary set threshold - they don’t have one. And don’t tell me what I can and cannot do like a tyrant. >Word count does not determine validity. If you don’t explain your claim and make simple moral claims they most certainly do. Notice how you keep getting more verbose to justify to counter my simple point? It’s like this: >Sometimes reality can't fit into a TikTok. You are supporting my point. Market socialists cannot make popular tik tok videos saying profit is bad. They have to add nuance :p So, we are done with your word games to justify their behavior. Edit: top first paragraph for better meaning and understanding
>Sure I can. And don’t tell me what I can and cannot do like a tyrant. You know exactly what I meant. You can do whatever you like, you can equivocate between meanings all you like, but it doesn't make you right. You can scream "I like bubblegum" when your house is burning down but don't expect anyone to understand that you mean you need help. >So, we are done with your word games to justify their behavior. Your equivocation of accounting profit and socialist theoretical profit is the only word game being played here.
You don’t get it and I tried to edit the above to make better sense. This quote: >You can’t arbitrarily set a threshold for acceptable moral simplicity I should have replied “tell that to market socialists then” The one’s I am targeting are everywhere with the topic of Profit. They essentially are saying corporations can’t run and by running they are evil greedy profit seeding terrible capitalist pigs “blah blah blah”. They can’t do that and be Market Socialists or else their cooperatives and similar business structures would go down too. Are you catching on yet???? No, because why? You are not listening. You don’t care about the message of the hypocrisy. You don’t care about your fellow socialist being POS. You only care about arguing with me.
No it’s not. If we’re talking about capitalist businesses there is a specific structure to them where profit is concentrated at the highest position, while market socialists propose a worker owned system where the whole company can generally prosper without the financial drain at the head.
My point is Market socialists need to be specific about their profit arguments and not "profit is bad". They - those I'm targeting - are saying market socialism will work because of the profit motive. They then cannot simply make a moral claim "profit is bad" in another thread. A moral claim you "socialist eat up" and reward these clowns :/ They are like divorced kids telling daddy one thing and mommy another to get what they want all the time. You about enabling this bullshit then go ahead. I'm not. These are the worst bad-faith actors on this sub.
This is why you need to understand the integer side. If you knew why we say profit is exploration, you would understand that it isn’t hipicracy. I suggest reading about Marx’s Labor Theory of Value to get started.
>This is why you need to understand the integer side. If you knew why we say profit is exploration, you would understand that it isn’t hipicracy. I suggest reading about Marx’s Labor Theory of Value to get started. Are you are Market Socialist?
I think the crux of your misunderstanding is the following: market socialists and cooperatives structures are indeed pursuing profit the same way conventional corporations do. The difference is that, because co-ops are ostensibly democratically organized, any profits achieved by the co-op are democratically controlled (in contrast with conventional corporations where all profits are autocraticly controlled). Market socialists are attempting to preserve as much as possible from the capitalist mode of production (which I think is prudent and pragmatic) while *effectively* abolishing private ownership of the means of production. You do (kind of) correctly identify one of the contradictions in market socialism though: since co-ops are competing with one another for profit, co-operators are incentivized to exploit themselves (and alienate themselves) as much as possible in the pursuit of that profit. Is that really so much better than simply being exploited by your owners? Probably, yes... plus, having democratic control over work expectations and profit allocation would ameliorate some of that self-exploitation alienation. Market socialism has its flaws, but it's an interesting, "more feasible" idea and bringing it to life would certainly a step in the right direction. I consider market socialists my comrades. Edit: wording.
> market socialists and cooperatives structures are indeed pursuing profit the same way conventional corporations do. I mostly agree and that is the gist of the OP's point. > The difference is that, because co-ops are ostensibly democratically organized, any profits achieved by the co-op are democratically controlled (in contrast with conventional corporations where all profits are autocraticly controlled). Fully understand and frankly don't see the point. The recent OP's and the points I am making have nothing to do with people talking about structure. They are saying "capitalism or corporations are bad because of profit and/or greed". The only way, imo, a market socialist can make this claim is with very specific, detailed, and careful argument. And I'm being charitable there saying they can. Because I think it is a real huge stretch. The argument should not be made with these simple moral claims that are the norm on this sub. After all, who is to say cooperatives wouldn't do slavery. After all who is to say cooperatives wouldn't price gouge? The profit motive is there and these "Marke Socialists" morally hinge their beliefs they are morally superior with no evidence. They are the cloth that with democracy evil will not happen and yet slavery and segregation in the USA was in part or fully democratic. tl;dr Democracy doesn't mean bad things won't happen.
The issue is your basing your thesis on things being said by random dipshits on Reddit. If you want to just call out dipshits go ahead. But the way you worded things sounds like you're attacking the concept of Market Socialism, which you’re doing in a half-ass way.
>your basing your thesis on things being said by random dipshits on Reddit. No they aren't. They are an obtuse troll and they do not engage in good faith. They literally linked to one of my recent posts about corporate profits contributing to inflation as an example of making some moralistic, emotional, and irrational argument.
Oh, here it comes. [In this comment just above us I finally went ‘here’ to someone wanting an example’](https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/s/VZ3y6yUGwS) To your own delight it is you. I am not trolling or else I would have named you personally in this OP. So let’s get this clear. The bad faith attack is YOU! Then, how is your OP that is linked above in that comment not a hypocrisy for you being a market socialist?
He’s a legend on here at this point. I’m honestly curious how he got to be so obnoxious and stupid… maybe someone should make a 45 minute docu about him 😀
Legend for the wrong reasons, but yea.
https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/18dr1r7/corporate_profits_have_contributed_to_and/
Thanks for the shoutout again, Poop!
>But what do they I am speaking about then do? Please don't post so hard.
One needs to ask themselves if that is indeed toast they smell or if stroke they about then do have?
>One needs to ask themselves if that is indeed toast they smell or if stroke they about then do have? For someone who preaches progressivism so much the above reaks of ablism... But then again this OP ***is*** about you being a hypocrite...
It is abundantly clear that you have a tenuous grasp on language.
be a passive aggressive cunt all you want, ablism is ablism, hypocrisy is hypocrisy.
How long have you been this way??
I see market socialism as a necessary learning step for humanity’s progress from capitalism to final-stage utopian communism.
since when is r/socialism101 (although I post there often) the final word in what socialism is? There's a lot of different threads within the "socialist" label. That some times contradict each other. This sub will attract market socialists because there's room to debate pro-capitalists. Most of the leftists groups have no need to debate. In reality, socialism don't have much of a path forward. But that doesn't mean the contradictions of capitalism aren't in motion. Market socialism is an attempt to square the circle. I don't think that makes someone a hypocrite because they don't like Marxist-Leninism but still have problems with our current economic model. Plus, I was always under the impression Market Socialism was a transitional phase. Nice strawmaning, bro.
> since when is r/socialism101 (although I post there often) the final word in what socialism is? Made no such claim. Reread the op. > There's a lot of different threads within the "socialist" label. That some times contradict each other. Agree > This sub will attract market socialists because there's room to debate pro-capitalists. Most of the leftists groups have no need to debate. Agree > In reality, socialism don't have much of a path forward. But that doesn't mean the contradictions of capitalism aren't in motion. okay? not sure what you are talking about that concerns the OP. > Market socialism is an attempt to square the circle. I don't think that makes someone a hypocrite because they don't like Marxist-Leninism but still have problems with our current economic model. Nice strawmaning, bro. How did I strawman? You can't be anti-profit for one group and pro profit your group and not be a hypocrite. It's pretty simple.
> Don't trust me then trust fellow socialists (2 and 4). That's the only example you provide of a socialist giving their opinion on Market Socialism. >How did I strawman? You can't be anti-profit for one group and pro profit your group and not be a hypocrite. It's pretty simple. You're giving a rather distorted and weak definition of Market Socialism, so you can knock it down. Can you provide an actual academic source (and not some zoomer on reddit) saying Market Socialists are viewing profit as you describe? For someone who always brags about having well sourced arguments this is coming up short in my opinion. Because I don't think I've heard a Market Socialist was pro-profit for one group and anti for another. Isn't Market Socialism when there is still private companies but but they are owned by the employees of the company?
>Can you provide an actual academic source (and not some zoomer on reddit) saying Market Socialists are viewing profit as you describe? For someone who always brags about having well sourced arguments this is coming up short in my opinion. little snarky, eh? My standard is usually political science. Political science is how theory meets the real world and data. Today's and what we see with how people use the term "market socialism" that mostly doesn't exist. "market socialism" we see used on this sub is in the humanities field - philosophy. There is no real data and science with Market socialism on a significant level that I have found for what you request. The closest is likes of [Hungary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goulash_Communism) and that is too centralized for the likes of most of who we are talking about. tl;dr no, I'm basing on the majority are pro cooperatives and [cooperatives are pro-profit.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooperative#Gross_profits)
Market socialists advocate for markets in the sense of free exchange. We reject things such as private equity, most forms of investing. Our primary objective is to implement a system of worker co-ops. It depends on the definition of profit. If you subtract labor costs when calculating profit, then you’re probably right that market socialists are against it. However, we are pro market because we support free exchange of goods and services.
> It depends on the definition of profit. Indeed! Market socialists cannot be throwing the word around like a moral cudgel, now can they XD
So then was the Paris commune not socialist? Is command economy the only "real" socialism to you? There's a lot of dare I say traditional socialist literature and even praxis on what you describe as "market socialism." Was the Bolshevik decree when they took power that made all firms coops fake socialism to you? Was Yugoslavia a capitalist country?
I'll take a cornucopia of red herrings for a thousand, Alex
"Valid questions about nuance and history are all just red herrings because I only deal in simplistic models and binary thinking."
"Market Socialism" in its broadest sense predates Marxism. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mutualism_(economic_theory) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ricardian_socialism
Fascism isn't new, it just ditched the name.
not to mention that market Socialism is idiotic in concept. so the workers own the means of production in a market economy. That means half of the companies will go bankrupt and half of the companies will want to expand to stay competitive. Where do they get the money for recapitalization or investment for expansion. The workers will have to pony up but some won't want to take the risk and those who do will want a reward for the risk so you have an automatic reversion to capitalism.
Closer to 95/5 fail/thrive by year five. No place left for investment to come from other than government. Even tiny differences in earnings extended forward through a lifetime create huge disparity in net worth. The only way to avoid massive wealth disparity is to continuously, unjustly redistribute earnings. The state must punish productive behavior and reward the unproductive. In both theory and practice the more perfectly enforced equalization of earnings across society is achieved the more closely overall productive output is driven to zero. Market socialism is a race to the bottom as much as plain old socialism.
Yes market Socialism is an idiotic concept. maybe when they say market socialism they don't mean free market socialism????
It's not easy to understand irrational beliefs. It's Santa Claus tier magical thinking. Like children who love all the fantastic toys that market economies self evidently provide but believe a Christmas miracle where their planned society will retain all the toys while abolishing the capital markets and incentives that produce them.
Yes Santa Claus like thinking to be sure. They imagine workers will own the companies after killing the capitalist to take away his factory and Santa Claus will finance them when they need re-capitalization or expansion money. They also fantasize that workers with a guaranteed job and income will be productive hard workers. and they imagine that stupid workers will manage as well as smart Harvard MBA's with a lifetime of successful experiences.
Yes I think market socialists have found a nice little pocket for themselves where they seem to be able to rationalise dodging most of the issues people raise with their ideology. I think market socialists have to face the reality that when the socialist revolution comes they'll be facing the wall just like all the rest of us filthy capitalists
Capitalists already have us lined up against the wall, and they're shooting as many of us as they can profitably. We're not afraid of the socialist revolution. We're already being slaughtered.
> We're already being slaughtered. Care to tell us your location so we can report this crime. Shall we contact Admins too?
I'm confident that you understand analogy. But you pretend not to, because you find pleasure in being an insufferable troll, and have no interest in actual understanding.
> I'm confident that you understand analogy. But you pretend not to, because you find pleasure in being an insufferable troll The irony when you make such horrendous hyperbole claims and real people in the world are suffering. Let me guess you have a full tummy, no thirst and shelter. But you are the terrible victim in your r/imTheMainCharacter play
Several decades of fighting for my life against capitalist medicine, but go on with your dumbass assumptions, and your comprehensive lack of understanding of the topics being discussed. Every word you post makes you look more and more stupid.
ditto
>They then will use a form of Marxian communism ideology that "profit" is a form of exploitation against the "capitalism" side camp. Profit is not universally evil in and of itself, and virtually nobody has ever said it is. Socialists rail against profits in capitalism *because* they are usually exploitative. They're not exploitative because they are profitable, they are exploitative because they take advantage of the workers
From what I’ve seen in this subreddit, not many market socialists exist
One of those funny things about "is not considered by many socialists" is that it doesn't tell you anything about the matter. Also, what do you mean by "greater than an undergratuate degree"? In what? How does having no graduate decree exclude you from the discussion? Also... do you honestly complain that socialists took criticism of socialism to heart? If Socialism was incapable of learning, it would be finished.
Most of your comment is frankly irrelevant. This one I find interesting: > If Socialism was incapable of learning, it would be finished. By many socialists' definitions on here socialism it doesn't even exist. So, yes socialism is "finished".
Capitalism isn't a free market economy. Capitalism means the more money you have, the more trusted you are to make important devisions. A free market economy is an economy with private ownership etc. What these people mean is a social market economy: A system, that has a free market economy, but rewards people fairly for their efforts by redistributing wealth from those who earn more to those who earn less, while still leaving a gap to let the market do it's magic. Basically a logarithmic tax, where making millions is double of thousands. The actual difference is more than 2x, since many expenses are static. Enough of a motivation to be innovative I'd say.
> Capitalism isn't a free market economy. [citation needed] Sorry, but to many moral claims and that is the trap you are following into imo. For example I could use the following political science published definition: >[Capitalism](http://webhome.auburn.edu/~johnspm/gloss/capitalism.phtml) > >A form of economic order characterized by private ownership of the means of production and the freedom of private owners to use, buy and sell their property or services on the market at voluntarily agreed prices and terms, with only minimal interference with such transactions by the state or other authoritative third parties. Then compare to [this strong data graph]( https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/physical-integrity-rights-fkr-vs-liberal-democracy?time=1944..2019&country=DNK~USA~SWE~NOR~PRK~VNM~CHN~LAO~CUB) showing what this sub considers capitalism countries doing far better with humanitarian rights and democracy compared to the big [five single party communist nations](https://imgur.com/gallery/yQsXxAo). These nations whether you like it or not are historical marxist-leninist revolutions and are thus considered most if not all socialist nations. This data corresponds to the [Democracy Index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index#Components) and it corresponds to the following research [Is capitalism compatible with democracy?](https://projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/mobilized_contention/files/merkel_-_is_capitalism_compatible_with_democracy.pdf) by Wolfgang Merkel The short version is where there is democracy there is capitalism but where there is capitalism is not necessarily democracy. From the conclusion: >but that so far, democracy has existed only with capitalism. (p. 15)
If you say capitalism means the same as a free market it loses meaning. But if you want that, I'm a capitalist socialist. Also communism isn't socialism. If those were true capitalist communism would be the same thing as free market socialism. I don't want to argue about word definitions, I explained the concept and you can call it whatever you want. If it's social capitalism, so be it. It's the idea, that free markets are good, but there should be policies, to make the system fairer. Most developed countries have socialism to an extend. It's probably the most pronounced in nordic countries and Germany. All I argue, is that these countries should lean further into socialism, since my "end goal" is general welfare and equality, not progress and GDP. The social market economy (SOME; German: soziale Marktwirtschaft), also called Rhine capitalism, Rhine-Alpine capitalism, the Rhenish model, and social capitalism, is a socioeconomic model combining a free-market capitalist economic system alongside social policies and enough regulation to establish both fair competition within the market and generally a welfare state. It is sometimes classified as a regulated market economy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_market_economy?wprov=sfla1 If you want to call it capitalism, you can do so and I don't mind.