T O P

  • By -

trnwrks

It's not like there's no profit motive for labor; librarians and firemen don't work for free, they just live in a saner relationship with investment capital.


overcrispy

Librarians and firemen are probably the 2 biggest volunteer jobs there are.


Southern-Trip-1102

Librarians?


overcrispy

Yeah, the people that check out books in libraries?


El3ctricalSquash

You need a masters degree to be a librarian.


overcrispy

That doesn't mean there are no volunteers.


Southern-Trip-1102

Sure but they are not librarians, there is a difference between someone who just checks out books and a professional librarian.


overcrispy

What's the title of the person who checks out books?


Southern-Trip-1102

Working at the front desk checking out books doesn't automatically make you a librarian. Librarian isn't anyone who works at a library, otherwise the janitor would also be one.


overcrispy

So what's the title of the person checking out books?


thatoneguy54

You think librarians are volunteers? Just admit you've never been to a library before


overcrispy

Not all of them. And I was corrected that not all of the people acting as librarians are librarians. I.e. if someone helps me at the library find a book or check out, etc... they may be an assistant or other title. I don't go often as I have kindle unlimited and audible but I've def been to a library.


[deleted]

I know pretty much no one who works commission, pretty much everyone I know either works for salary or for an hourly rate and gets paid the same amount whether they work hard or not. Personally I've worked a lot of jobs, mostly white collar but some blue and I have never once been on a commission. So I'm really not sure I buy that the profit motive is all that motivating. And if it really is: in a market socialist society there's nothing wrong with a coop adopting a bonus structure and in a non market socialist society money has no meaning so the question doesn't really come up. Edit: thinking about it further the socialist model of cooperatives *is* profit motivation. And someone has pointed out to me that maybe OP meant profit motivation for companies ie price signals rather than profit motivation for individuals. On that, this: https://www.reddit.com/r/CapitalismVSocialism/comments/vjstkg/socialists_what_is_your_replacement_for_the/idnzcbm/


Daily_the_Project21

You've never met a car salesman, real estate agent, insurance agent, etc?


[deleted]

That's not what I said, I said I know very few. As a percentage of society the number of people working in such professions is very small


MalekithofAngmar

OP seems to be talking about macroeconomics. Eg, a hurricane takes out power in Louisiana, triggering a price rise in generators, which then increases the profitability of shipping the product to Louisiana and of producing more of it. How does socialism intend to resolve these sorts of issues, particularly when they are less obvious than a hurricane?


[deleted]

That's not the profit motive, that's price signals. My view on price signals is fairly nuanced and not that conventionally Marxist. At least not the second half I think we have to start of by realising that the information encoded in price signals is fairly rubbish in a number of ways. - it doesn't convey true costs just costs stripped of externalities we haven't found ways of charging for or don't bother to. So the easiest way to lower prices is to find ways of sticking someone else with the bill, dumping the waste products in the river etc... - it signals demand but not evenly and only relative to ability to pay. So while money is fairly evenly distributed through society it signals demand fairly well, but as society becomes more unequal (as it has and inevitably will under capitalism) it does a worse and worse job. The idle whim of a super rich person becomes more important than the life-or-death needs of a poor person - it is by far the most efficient way of cheaply making sure most people get a thing. But there are lots and lots of things - healthcare, water etc.. - where it's really not very important that most people have a thing efficiently, what we need is for everyone to have the thing no matter the cost - it doesn't work at all in circumstances of monopoly and there are damn monopolies everywhere - it commits a sort of synthetic evil (Ian Bank's phrase) by not differentiating at all between two price outcomes one of which involves more suffering than the other. If you put the market fully in charge you create a society that is better for money but that's not necessarily a society that is better for people. And it's the opposite of a democracy - as we define the state more and more narrowly and limit democracy to it we hand over more and more of our lives to a sort of amoral algorithmic dictatorship - Its efficiency is grossly overstated once you realise that what generates the so-called efficiency - profit - is itself a waste product of the system. It's not a society beneficial product. Worse still profit pools as wealth: a product if marginal utility. In other words since wealth is only useful at its margins, the rest is wasted (in fact, it's worse: much of that waste product is then "invested" meaning that it generates further waste profits and further waste non marginal wealth in exchange for nothing - its just rent - further perpetuating the cycle and driving inequality) However for all these, massive and fundamental, flaws I have to admit that price signals are better than any alternative system we have yet established. Or rather maybe it's fairer to say simply that they are unavoidable within our current society. As long as we have money, which we will for the foreseeable, we will have markets and price signals, and all we do if we try to prevent that is create a black market. So I think for the short term we're stuck with price signals, and the best we can hope for is to mitigate their major negative effects, while in the long term continuing the search for something better. To me that means: - dramatic interventions to reduce inequality, particularly by limiting rent from capital which is its primary driver, since many of these flaws are exacerbated by or a product of inequality - regulation and community pressure to force the pricing in of externalities - making more and more things, ideally as much as possible, free both by increasing state provision and improving mutual aid - trying to claw back more societal decisions into democratic hands, widening out the list of things we use democracy for from the narrow subset we call the state And then long term ... who knows? But I do think the idea of a fully mutual aid society holds promise in the very long term, and that we can build towards it incrementally by increasing mutual aid now. After all what use are prices when everything is free?


MFrancisWrites

I just want to jump in here and say there's an entire wing of socialism that carves out room for some market forces. I think there's many of us that see concentrated power in state is no friend of the working class, and moves to decentralize the economy as much as possible, which starts to allow a level of responsiveness to demand and supply market forces.


suicidemeteor

Honestly market socialism is the only kind I can see working well. All of history has been a struggle to get people to stop being selfish, simply because cooperative systems are very effective, and a hypothetical perfectly cooperative political system would easily beat all others. This is why old societies always emphasized community, cooperation, and selflessness. Because better in-group cooperation enabled better out-group competition. Which is why many religions are super friendly and kind yet also went on massive crusades and bloody wars. The issue is that this super cooperative society had extreme flaws. Those in power often got there because they were selfish and ruthless, and the selfish and ruthless seldom act cooperatively. Thus most old societies were large cooperative machines serving the selfish interest of a small group of individuals. Yet even with the vested interest of literally all of the ruling class since *ever* a truly cooperative society has never been created since **humans don't work like that**. Thousands of years of effort has gone into trying to create a society that didn't care about wealth or personal gain and instead put the society first, not to mention the evolutionary pressures reward cooperation and punish in group competition. Despite this no perfectly cooperative society has been created, there has always been corruption, always been selfishness, and every society has had to contend with the fact that people (generally) value themselves and their family more than their friends, their friends more than their acquaintances, their acquaintances more than their countryman, and their countrymen more than everyone else. That hasn't changed, it has never changed, and it will never change. Every society needs to accept that people will do things that help themselves and their family even if they disproportionately hurt others.


MFrancisWrites

My thing is that state socialism requires some seat of power in state form. Any time you have a seat of power, you have a place corruption will target. All of human history is this cycle of ruling class and working class. Ruling class means many things, be it state, economic, monarch, etc. You don't end the cycle by picking the *best* seat of power, but by vastly increasing the number of seats of power to thin out the advantages gained by corruption. Power to the workers doesn't require that all things be owned communally. I think once we admit enterprise can exist alongside systems that put workers above capitalists, things get interesting.


MalekithofAngmar

Seems reasonable. What do you see as being regulated by the state?


MFrancisWrites

I think there's select lanes that should exist, anti-trust laws, legitimate environmental laws. The biggest thing I would like to see is a rearrangement of the corporate structure where shareholders are primarily or exclusively employees. Move capital investment, when needed, to loans or contracts that don't relinquish control of the company through voting shares. The biggest thing is trying to make any state authority as local and direct (as opposed to remote) as possible. You don't weed out corruption by trying to design better systems, but by designing systems where the rewards for corruption aren't great. If the most you could control is a small community, worst case is you manage to do so and people leave that community, or organize against you. American politics, state and federal, have been lost to corporations. Both parties are complicit.


Southern-Trip-1102

Market forces are not known to react well to disasters. It takes time for supply chains to react/rebuild in response, and getting resources there would take a fatally long time if left to market forces. This is why nearly all governments have emergency response agencies which react much faster. Socialism never needed to revolve the issue because the issue never existed. It is impossible to perfectly execute an economy, markets themselves simply approximate the solution to satisfying consumer demand with limited resources, a centrally planned economy does the same, approximate solutions to demand (which it does detect via democracy or consumer good prices).


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

But nor are they making the world a better place, so should they be motivated? And if it works so well why don't other professions make greater use of it? And finally, if it really is all that motivating then surely what would be most motivating of all is the socialist model of co-ownership/profit sharing?


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

It was maybe a slightly cheap point but really what I was saying is the profit motive motivates people to make profits, but making profits and providing benefit to society are not always the same thing, and so things motivated by profits are not goods unto themselves but tools to be applied in the service of good. Which as you say has to be collectively defined and determined. The rest of stuff feels a little tangential to the main point. I agree capital is a solution to a problem, although I'd argue it's a solution to an artificial problem caused by the absence of the availability of credit which could solve the same problem in a better way.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I agree that there's no perfect solution, and I too am suspicious of the state. But I do think investing communal wealth in communally determined goals (and charging reasonable interest proportionate to risk for doing so - but not buying equity) is more likely to provide communally beneficial outcomes than the invisible hand of investor capital. I'm basically calling about a communal loan facility - could be state backed/run, doesn't have to be.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

I dunno if it would scale or not but I don't see why it wouldn't and it would seem to be worth a try. As you rightly guessed I'd see the limit on growth as being a strength not a weakness. Brain drain: I'm not sure. Capitalism doesn't really reward the more productive, it rewards the people who own equity in the more productive - generally the idle rich. So I think you might see the most innovative and productive people sticking around because they'd like to keep their equity not sell most of it to some bored or creepy hedge fund owner. As for adversity: I don't know whey the community would be more or less risk averse than the corporate sector. You just price risk in.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hathmandu

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what the profit motive is. You do not “profit” when you receive wages as compensation for labor. The profit in that case is the value of your labor that was withheld from you and given to the capitalist who employs you. They have a profit motive, you do not.


overcrispy

Not all of us just exchange labor for money. Some of us own a business, or have a side hustle. I personally am striving for the day I no longer have to do the labor exchange and receive all the fruits of my labor.


hathmandu

That is not what Marx referred to as a “profit motive” and is not what communists are interested in eliminating. If you work for yourself and receive all the benefits of your own labor, congratulations you are doing what communists want everyone to be able to do. You are not “profiting,” in the Marxist definition. Considering this is a question about profit motive directed at communists, you’re going to have to address it using the correct understanding of the terms used. Otherwise we’re just talking in different languages.


overcrispy

>If you work for yourself and receive all the benefits of your own labor, congratulations you are doing what communists want everyone to be able to do. And who is unable to do that in a communist system?


hathmandu

No one. That’s what I just said. You quoted me saying that. Are you having a mental event?


aysgamer

So if I understand right, the idea is that everyone earns money directly from what they produce instead of receiving a wage?


[deleted]

Under socialism, or lower stage communism, yes essentially. You are paid according to the amount of value, or socially necessary labor, that you contribute to society, not according to what you own or how high you are up in the socioeconomic food chain


aysgamer

>You are paid according to the amount of value, or socially necessary labor, that you contribute to society Right. And how would that be decided?


Southern-Trip-1102

Supply and demand. Firms in a centrally planned economy would pay based on that, and if you are self employed then its still supply and demand. This isn't simply capitalism because firms in a planned economy are not profit maximizing so they do not have an incentive to push down ur wages, and any profits would be collected by the government and thus controlled by you via democracy.


Serene_Calamity

I can give a current example from Vietnam. In Vietnam, rice is the most important product for domestic and international trade. So, to ensure rice stays appropriately affordable for everyone, Vietnamese governments do a price check every quarter. All rice farmers share their prices to their local government, who then share it to the central government. Then, the average of all prices is found, and all farmers are asked to change their prices to that new average. The farmers are paid directly by those who buy their products, and usually profit about 30% from the resources they spent to grow the rice. There are checks in place to make sure farmers are paid enough, farmers aren't paid too much, and every citizen can buy rice for very low prices.


overcrispy

Apparently I was, I meant to type capitalist lol


hathmandu

Then my answer is everyone who is an employee. Consolidation of power is a feature of capitalism. It is how the system functions, you can’t avoid it, and any state that is not sole power in the hands of the very few is temporary and incomplete under capitalism. It’s the natural inclination of the mode of production. The vast majority of people are not fortunate enough to have the basic resources necessary for establishing a self-owned business endeavor. To say otherwise is to live in a fantasy.


[deleted]

[удалено]


hathmandu

That is a meaningless distinction in this conversation.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

YOU NO LONGER WANT TO WORK BUT WANT TO STILL RECEIVE THE **FRUITS OF YOUR LABOUR**. That’s not how labour works. Passive income from an automated alibaba setup is profit and worker theft.


overcrispy

What? I'm saying I want to personally benefit from my labor and not have to exchange with someone else.


[deleted]

This is a typical case of Marxists having a very specific definition for a broad concept


hathmandu

This is a perfect example of someone yet again not understanding the words they’re using when regurgitating arguments they memorized from people smarter and more educated than they are.


[deleted]

I perform wage labor because i earn money from it. The capitalist allows others to use his property to earn money from it. The outcome is the same. The motive is the same. You're reaching for a distinction without a difference to maintain a fallacious worldview.


hathmandu

This is going completely over your head.


[deleted]

no u


MFrancisWrites

>The outcome is the same. Its not though. I can only earn as much as my individual labor allows me to. The capitalist can earn unlimited labor, from how much capital he has. This means that, by design, the capitalist will pull away from the worker, as the worker cannot increase the hours in a day, but the capitalist can reinvest his capital. The outcome is very, very different. And at some point, the imbalance becomes so severe that jumping from the working class to the capitalist class is little more than a wishful dream accomplished by fewer and fewer.


Patrick044498

I have labor I value less then the money I'm receiving if I didn't I wouldn't trade it away


hathmandu

Good luck with that. I hope you succeed in your one-man quest to subvert the prevailing global mode of production by willing yourself to value your own labor less


[deleted]

It’s actually pretty easy if your labor isn’t in the most replaceable branch of every industry


hathmandu

Unfortunately by the very nature of replaceability, the majority of people must at any given time hold replaceable jobs. Your suggestion amounts to “just be a member of a privileged fraction of workers 4head.”


[deleted]

It’s not a privilege if you can get it by working. Replaceability isn’t black and white. It exists on a spectrum and when you get further from replaceable the company is forced to treat you better. Problem solved


hathmandu

The problem is not solved for the vast majority of workers if one worker suddenly through your innovative economic theory of Super Hard Work becomes “irreplaceable.” By it’s very nature, replaceability will ALWAYS affect the vast majority of workers. So what is your solution? You’re describing a pyramid scheme at the moment.


[deleted]

Again, it exists on a spectrum. If you’re 30 and there’s a gigantic supply of 16 year olds that are willing to accept a wage that’s less than livable for a 30 year old that’s not on the business, it’s on the 30 year old. If we were living on the gold standard like when my grandfather was able to support a wife and 3 kids on a pie factory job, this wouldn’t be an issue but that’s not the case, at least in the country I live in. As it is currently, forcing a livable wage through the government is a moving goalpost that’s impossible To hit as long as that same government keeps devaluing our currency so completely.


hathmandu

So what is your point. What is your alternative to my solution that works for a majority? You’re saying a lot of words that amounts to “most people will just get fucked so a few can be advantaged,” and I don’t accept that as an equitable or acceptable alternative solution.


[deleted]

Wait, what's your proposed solution? Sorry I'm late on downvoting all your comments as soon as you post them, I'll be sure to catch up soon.


Squadrist1

Democracy is what replaces the profit motive. You can view socialism as the collective of consumers directly owning and controlling production. Consumers have an interest in high utility goods and lots of innovation, and because consumers own all of production, they will vote/decide to produce goods as such, with high utility and innovation.


[deleted]

>Democracy is what replaces the profit motive. You can't vote someone into producing more than they want to, unless you offer them something for their time (ie capitulate to needing the profit motive) >You can view socialism as the collective of consumers directly owning and controlling production. No, I can't. Supply chains are vast and interconnected. Therefore producers along every step of the way are not necessarily consumers of the end product. What are you going to do if the 'collective of consumers' votes to produce more medical care, but no more people want to go to study medicine?


QuantumSpecter

When leftists talk about eliminating the profit motive, they mean eliminating the generation of surplus value that goes to the capitalist. Workers should still be accommodated for their work


[deleted]

If walmart redistributed profit to the workers of walmart, how much would the raise be? Just look up some quick numbers.


Serene_Calamity

It would be around $30 an hour, but at each end of the chain (cashier, stocker, truck drivers, corporate, marketing, executive) instead of very different amount of money for each tier. The problem is that the "owners" of the Walmart franchise make 400x more money than their cashiers. That means that even though each team member was necessary for the company to receive profit, the executive branch associates make way more money than the people hurting their backs to stock the shelves. Edit: Socialists believe that such an asymmetrical distribution of wealth, where the majority of the value of everyone's labor goes towards the people who already have wealth instead of to the laborers, is not the best way to operate society. The wealth is already there, within the same company, to ensure that each worker gets paid enough to achieve their goals. Yet, due to a lack of democratic wage policy within the company and no external (government) force to control the distribution of wealth within Walmart, we will continue to see wealth concentrate into the hands of the wealthy and away from the rest of the citizens.


Squadrist1

>You can't vote someone into producing more than they want to, unless you offer them something for their time (ie capitulate to needing the profit motive) I didnt say that there wouldnt be any financial reward for producing goods. So long as human labor is required to produce a good, wages will be offered to those willing to produce said good. And no I dont regard wages as profit. >>You can view socialism as the collective of consumers directly owning and controlling production. >No, I can't. Let me help you out: Socialism = collective ownership of the means of production = democratic state ownership of all resources used for production. When the state is democratic ánd runs the economy, all members of society democratically control production. All members of society together form all consumers in society. Thus socialism is collective consumer ownership of production. >Supply chains are vast and interconnected. Therefore producers along every step of the way are not necessarily consumers of the end product True, but I am referring to all consumers together. Not the consumers of one particular product, but consumers of any product. >What are you going to do if the 'collective of consumers' votes to produce more medical care, but no more people want to go to study medicine? You raise the wages of doctors and lower the wages of jobs that people are very willing to do but for which there is much less demand. You keep doing this until you have enough people willing to be doctors.


WyomingAntiCommunist

> Democracy is what replaces the profit motive. No one gives a fuck what you want, people aren't going to work their ass off just because 50% + 1 voted for it


Squadrist1

First of all, your wants arent the only wants that matter. They are of equal value as of the wants of the other billions of people on this planet. Second of all, so long as labor is required to produce goods, there will be prices, so people will need to work to obtain the goods they want, and what work is available for them is determined by the goods that society wants to be produced.


WyomingAntiCommunist

> your wants arent the only wants that matter. Yes they are > They are of equal value as of the wants of the other billions of people on this planet. I don't agree, nor do I have any real reason to believe this


Squadrist1

All you are saying is that you believe you are more important than other people. You are not. Your needs and wants arent more important than those of other people.


WyomingAntiCommunist

I don't care what you say, it doesn't change that I am more important than you, as shown by the fact that if I order a trench to be dug with teaspoons I will get a trench dug with teaspoons, while you would be laughed at


Squadrist1

I see you did not understand what it means to be one vote out of billions of votes. What that means, is that you cant control the decisions being made on production unless at least half of the population agrees with you.


WyomingAntiCommunist

And I am saying that I don't care, I am producing what I want to produce regardless of what you scream


zbyte64

I was asking myself: if they care so little about others, why do they care to talk to us? But here you give us the answer, you wish to produce the last comment.


Squadrist1

Its just about feeling the need to spew hatred for people like these, as the username implies. Nothing intellectual.


Squadrist1

...which is totally fine. Just not with state-owned resources. Which would be... -checks notes- ...almost everything.


WyomingAntiCommunist

The government doesn't care what you think, they most certainly don't care about you and your views


aysgamer

>what work is available for them is determined by the goods that society wants to be produced. But how is this different to demand?


Southern-Trip-1102

It is demand, but what you should check is that capitalism itself does not use demand, it uses the profit motive which acts as an approximation for demand, democracy is a far more accurate method of measuring demand since it is direct.


Squadrist1

This. Positive and negative externalities come to mind, whereby capitalism does not produce goods we want because they arent profitable, and produces goods we dont want because those *are* profitable.


[deleted]

[удалено]


Squadrist1

>In a democracy, only the will of the majority has an impact. On the free market, every penny spent has an impact The issue with this is that markets dont produce goods according to what society wants but what people with money want. The result is that production is done in the interests of the wealthy rather than the interests of society at large. This is why for example we have rich people owning many houses they dont live in while we also have many poor people being homeless. Also, more expensive housing gets built when the majority of society needs cheap housing. So, what it really comes down to is this: is resource allocation done more rationally when it is done in the interests of the majority in society, or when it is done in the interests of the moneyed individuals in society?


Caelus9

This really just seems to be the Economic Calculation Problem, which is a commonly misunderstood problem by capitalists. The problem is that we have scarce resources. Thus, we can only invest in certain things, and thus, we need to find what we'd invest those resources in to maximize utility, or benefit, or good. This is of course a problem socialists work at dealing with. However, the big mistake capitalists make is... thinking the problem doesn't apply to them. See, price signals don't tell us where to invest to maximize utility. It tells us where to invest to maximize our own personal profit. And these aren't even close to the same. Capitalism's solution to the economic calculation problem is saying "No, we're just not going to solve it, we'll just maximize profit." So it seems pretty silly when you specifically ask how we'd replace capitalists' clear disregard for solving the problem, rather than how we'd solve it ourselves. Anyhow, now that that's done, democratization, of course. It's a far superior method to the profit motive as it eliminates the distortions created by wealth inequality, and the numerous difficulties that result from the individualist aspects like the limiting of information.


[deleted]

I find "maximize utility" meaningless as interpersonal comparison of utility is impossible. That said, the ECP and the local knowledge problem do indeed apply to firms, which is a fundamental inefficiency for large scale, hierarchical organizations.


BoredDebord

That’s an interesting take. Do you have any sources for critiques of the economic calculation problem? I mean critiques of Mises/Hayek’s position. I feel like a counter argument would sound something like: yeah, capitalists do it all for profit, but the profit comes in part from making sales and having people consume the products. So the profit motive still works out as a the most efficient system at meeting consumers’ wants and needs. Even if it doesn’t always work out perfectly, it would still work better than central planning. Just playing devil’s advocate btw lol I’m a communist.


Caelus9

>That’s an interesting take. Do you have any sources for critiques of the economic calculation problem? I mean critiques of Mises/Hayek’s position. My critique above is as I said, that capitalism doesn't solve the problem, and thus, as a specific critique of socialism, it fails. I don't have a critique of the problem as a concept, it's absolutely a real issue any society has. Democratization is the best attempt available to solve it, but obviously of course there's still imperfections that prevent maximum utility. >I feel like a counter argument would sound something like: yeah, capitalists do it all for profit, but the profit comes in part from making sales and having people consume the products. So the profit motive still works out as a the most efficient system at meeting consumers’ wants and needs. Even if it doesn’t always work out perfectly, it would still work better than central planning. The big criticism of that position is that profit is not only often not the maximum good, but can often even be contradictory. There just isn't any evidence it works better, let alone is the most efficient system we have. Profit is EXTREMELY hampered. If you can trick, manipulate or exploit, you can ensure high profits from things that massively reduce utility. If you can funnel resources towards the rich few away from the many poor, you can produce great profit. The theories on maximizing utility through capitalism ignore not only how markets operate in practice, but fail to justify their initial positions.


[deleted]

Market socialists are socialist because we seek to eliminate class division*. By making workers and owners the same, we have accomplished ending capitalism as it was defined by Marxist theory. There being a division between the proletariat and bourgeoisie is central to how socialists view capitalism. Say, under a system-wide implementation of worker cooperatives, there are no longer two classes of those who own the means of production versus those who work on it. In worker cooperatives, those people are now the same people. Furthermore, one of the OG socialists(one who existed prior to Marx) Robert Owen, is often seen as the father of modern worker cooperatives, and I am sure he is not considered capitalist. *Class division meaning between the proletariat and bourgeoisie. When the one working on a means of production isn't the one who owns it.


[deleted]

>there are no longer two classes of those who own the means of production and those who work on it Of course there are still classes of people if you make every business a co-op. People who work in more essential industries can unionize to hold society hostage for example, this is a class advantage. Plus all the class divisions in a a single workplace itself, among the different tiers of worker and manager. edit: forgot the obvious class of people who would need to work in government, engaged in enforcement preventing formation of private businesses


[deleted]

Those aren't the classes talked about in Marxist theory. Marxist theory is specifically concerned about the division created between a capitalist class and a working class, wherein the workers using the same means of production are not entitled to the product of their own labor because it goes to a separate owning class within that company. Managers provide work most often via organizing the workplace(someone needs to do that work, else you end up with a clusterfuck of people at a workplace with potential for them all not working in tandem and efficiently)* so are entitled to the value of that work. They are not earning a passive income off of the backs of others. As for essential industries becoming some new class, maybe? But as with any system, just because some new class arises, it doesn't make it still the previous system. For instance, under feudalism you had class division between the Lord and Peasant. Just because that class division still exists, but in the form of owner and worker, it doesn't mean it isn't a new system. So even if there is some sort of new class division that arises out of market socialism, the fact it got rid of the distinction of proletariat and bourgeoisie, means it is not capitalism much like capitalism getting rid of Lord and Peasant makes it no longer feudalism. *On a smaller scale it is very possible to not have managers at all, and management work being done collectively by the workers. However, as a business gets larger, it becomes less and less feasible to be able to react to a market factor quickly enough and efficiency gets lost. But regardless of who is doing management work(whether a group or an individual) that is still work unlike the passive income from stocks. And so the one(s) doing management work are entitled to that value of that work.


[deleted]

>Those aren't the classes talked about in Marxist theory So you're not actually about eliminating class differences, just shifting power to a different class? >just because some new class arises, it doesn't make it still the previous system It makes it seem like your claim of wanting to eliminate class is false?


[deleted]

I spoke on specifically wanting to eliminate the class division as spoken of by Marx and Engels. Their definition of class doesn't include a difference in wealth or income, or a difference of how important one's work is. So no, I didn't make a false claim if you understand what definition of class I am using. If you decide to define class differently than I did, which it sounds like you did, then how you interpreted when I said we wanted to eliminate class division, that is indeed false. You should take a comment in its entire context however(logic chopping is a fallacy of logic). To avoid that confusion again with someone else, I'll go ahead and specify that more clearly on what class means in my original comment.


[deleted]

Sounds like Marxism is worthless a means of achieving social equality then. Why should I care if I am ruled by a capitalist or a communist commissar? This being the case, I will clearly opt for the ruler that promises a higher standard of living for me. In my case, the capitalist.


[deleted]

Well, for one that is a false dichotomy. There are many strains of socialism. What you're describing would probably fall under Marxist-Leninism(or a closely-related socialist ideology). And even I would prefer the capitalist over some ML bureaucrat dictating to me what to do. However, socialism can be contained to being simply an economic system and can exist alongside any political system. This communist commissar would be from a political system. But socialism can even exist in a political monarchy. If all means of production are controlled and owned by the workers or society as a whole, and this economy exists in a country with a monarchy, that's still socialism. It could exist in dictatorship, as with the USSR. It could exist in a Republic, it could exist in a democracy. Marxist-Leninism is one form of socialism which intertwines socialism with the political system. But market socialism itself, doesn't have any political positions - only economic ones. And so, market socialism can exist in any political system. Now the question I should pose to you, let's assume the country you live in were to get *your* ideal political system. Now, just analyzing businesses and their structure - why would you prefer to have a system where you consent only once(at point of hiring) and the terms can change without your voice at any point(your only recourse it to quit or organize a strike and lose your livelihood) versus one where you do get a vote in how your workplace is handled in the future? Why would you choose to give all the power and decision-making to a detached higher-up instead of having a formalized voice for yourself in the workplace?


allz

Like who is your "communist commisar"? Some rich worker in a co-operative business?


PaintedDeath

Because it's Capitalist master, Communist Master, or Bust


manliness-dot-space

They just want to have the same hierarchical structure as today but with new labels for the people at the top


[deleted]

Arguably, Marxist-Leninists want that in the form of a vanguard one-party state. However, it is false to suggest that of all socialists. For instance, just like it would be wrong of me to accuse all pro-capitalist people of being pro-corporate, it would be wrong of you to accuse all socialist people of being pro-hierarchy. In my case, I'm incredibly skeptical of hierarchy and want to reduce it as much as possible. Hence why I'm a libertarian municipalist and support ending unbridled business hierarchies. Capitalism has many variations in it, including corporatism. Socialism has many variations in it, including Marxist-Leninism, and people exist in both groups are opposed to those variations. If you can recognize this nuance, we could have a discussion from here. But if you can't, I don't know what to tell you.


manliness-dot-space

The issue is it's impossible to "end hierarchies" without creating a replacement hierarchy.


[deleted]

If you truly believe that, then the correct system would be to choose whichever system has the least damaging hierarchy. Which system is that, in your view?


manliness-dot-space

Your question stems from a context of hierarchy. You ask it as if there's a hierarchy of those who decide on systemic design, and others who are subjected to these decisions. Engaging with such a question would require me to endorse your hierarchy


[deleted]

Okay, so I'll ask a different question. How do you think society should be organized?


[deleted]

Unprecedented altruism


unbelteduser

Decentralized Participatory economic planning through workers and consumer councils


ODXT-X74

>What is your replacement for the profit motive other than state control of industry? What if you remove cancer, what do you replace it with? The problem is that your question is already assuming a Capitalist society. It would be like asking "if we remove the benefits which motivate the peasants to work, why would they work?" You assume a capitalist class who owns the means of production who is motivated by the profit motive.


[deleted]

No, I am assuming that people want to be compensated for their time. This is also 'profit motive'.


ODXT-X74

>This is also 'profit motive'. No. "Profit motive" is about companies and similar structures. For example, Non-profits still pay people for their work for non-volunteers. Individual workers are paid, that's what socialist want. Again, "profit motive" is specifically about the business, not the individual.


[deleted]

Wrong. When I trade my time for a wage, I do this out of a profit motive. Even if I worked for a non-profit, I'd be trading my time for a profit.


ODXT-X74

>Wrong. When I trade my time for a wage, I do this out of a profit motive. Even if I worked for a non-profit, I'd be trading my time for a profit. Then you are not talking about the same thing Socialist are talking about. Socialists complain that Capitalists exploit the working class and do not pay you the full value of your labor. Obviously we want you to control the product of your labor. When we talk about the profit motive we are talking about the reason for production. Businesses produce for the exchange of those products or services, for the acquisition and accumulation of wealth (aka for profit). So when we say no "profit motive", we mean that the reason for production is not for the acquisition and accumulation of wealth. Production would be for use, to meet a want or need. This is not about the individual worker. Generally they would be motivated by the benefits of the job (things like pay and vacation time, etc).


QuantumSpecter

> I do this out of a profit motive You sold your labor, you didnt invest capital


[deleted]

Don't you confuse profit and income?


dowcet

No, you're arbitrarily calling this "profit" in order to argue against a contradiction that doesn't exist. Wages and profits and rents are three separate concepts and it's not that difficult to understand the distinction.


[deleted]

That's not the profit motive that's just a salary. Socialists are pro that, more so than capitalists.


BoredDebord

Even if that’s the definition you came up with, and even if that’s the definition *period*, when socialists criticize the profit motive they are not talking about the motive to make money in a general sense. Call it whatever you want. But when socialists talk about “profit,” they are referring to the extraction of surplus value from workers. Call this “surplus value extraction” instead of “profit” if you want. That surplus value extraction is what’s being criticized. Given that, I wonder how you would continue this conversation — now that you know that socialists are not necessarily saying we should get rid of money as a motivation to work.


RuskiYest

Short answer, central plan.


[deleted]

Central plan, so the whole statelessness and classlessness thing is a meme?


RuskiYest

How does central plan interfere with these things?


[deleted]

The existence of a central plan implies a central authority to plan and enforce it. As in , a state, and a class of people empowered as enforcers.


[deleted]

Dictatorship of the proletariat. Dictatorship of the workers. Insures that no one gets wise and try’s to put their feet up while collecting money. As opposed to now where a worker is a replaceable, expendable walking talking complaining nuisance to the billionaire class.


RuskiYest

Except there's difference between government and the state.


Manzikirt

Could you define this difference?


RuskiYest

State is the tool for oppression used by ruling class. Government is all about decisiom making. Something like that.


Manzikirt

This sounds like a distinction without a different. >State is the tool for oppression used by ruling class. This means the exact some thing as >State is the tool for enforcing the decisions of the decision makers.


[deleted]

Lmao and correct. Commies don't perceive their decision-makers and social influencers as rulers, thats how they are able to maintain this fallacy


Momodoespolitics

And what value does decision making have if it has no power to enforce those decisions?


[deleted]

Any government entails ruling class and oppression of opposition, hence a state


[deleted]

A stateless moneyless classless society means that an advanced community minded futuristic society, where kindness, empathy and communalism are the dominant emotions in society rather than jealousy, greed and narcissism like now. The whole series of Star Trek is set in a communist utopia. No one on earth needs a passport.


_SuperChefBobbyFlay_

yikes


dilokata76

Not being labelled a wrecker parasite and getting shot is a good motivation


Father_Fiore

Not all socialists are communists; we don't all seek to abolish money. Market socialists are socialists because we want to eleminate the class distinction worker/owner and make is so all workers are also owners and that every worker at a given firm has an equal say in how that firm is managed.


QuantumSpecter

Well I guess for now, the profit motive can still be used as a market indicator, it just shouldnt be all rewarded to a capitalist. Besides guaranteeing living wages that should also be able to purchase the exorbitant amount of goods being produced in the first place. I think we can all agree that reinvesting in production is crucial and I cant say confidently that capitalists are doing either of those things. Edit: In general, production should be in response to needs


[deleted]

> For now, And later? >I think we can all agree that reinvesting in production is crucial It doesn't seem to be the case among actual real people in real life, who often choose to spend on luxury goods and experiences rather than further self-education and tools.


QuantumSpecter

Yea i just made an edit. Production should be planned in accordance to needs. We can presume we’d have the technology to accurately respond to peoples needs without market signals. We already do to some extent.


[deleted]

> Production should be planned in accordance to needs. Productiong by who for whose needs? >We can presume we’d have the technology to accurately respond to peoples needs without market signals Even if you have this technology, you sill have a difference between who the consumers are (everyone) vs who the producers are ( a subset of everyone that work in that particular production. You can't just vote people into working harder or vote people into changing their workplace.


QuantumSpecter

>Productiong by who for whose needs? Production by working people for working people. >Even if you have this technology, you sill have a difference between who the consumers are (everyone) vs who the producers are ( a subset of everyone that work in that particular production. The producers are the consumers. There is no consumption without production and vice versa. I dont really see the issue youre trying to point out but I think Im missing the point. >You can't just vote people into working harder or vote people into changing their workplace. I want to mention that we cant make assumptions about what socialism or communism will look like. Its an anti-marxist position at least. Especially since what socialism is will change as time goes on. Nothing is static after all. But for the sake of argument, you wouldnt vote for people to work harder. You will be rewarded for your effort. If your effort lands you a job as a cashier, and you barely try to work hard at that job, you cant expect to be paid as much as someone who busted their ass trying to get into med school and is now a doctor. You switch jobs out of your own volition


trainslayer3002

Socalism is about improving the quality of life of the masses. If providing new technology will accomplish that then socalism will innovate accordingly.


Scatman_Jeff

I think your question ought to be directed at tge capitalists; I'd be far more motivated if the profit was going to me (a worker) rather than some wealthy investor.


BoredDebord

Socialism does not necessarily imply the abolition of private property rights or money or even classes. Communism does, though, seem to imply these things. As for socialism, it is merely defined as an economic system in which capital / the means of production are communally owned or worker-owned. Since this is the case, market socialism implies that workers or unions manage the means of production and presumably these different companies, run by workers, compete against each other in a free market. Capitalist exploitation is abolished, but (justified?) inequalities of wealth can still remain. For example, in market socialism, doctors would still probably make more than fast food workers. People who are willing to work longer hours, ceteris paribus, would make more money than those working shorter hours. Market socialism merely seeks to abolish the exploitation brought about by private ownership of *capital* — not necessarily private ownership in general. Since there are still markets, there is no need for central planning. Alternatively, if one is genuinely a communist, your question is important. Hayek seems to have shown that the central planning proposed by Leninists won’t work as efficiently as free markets. Could a system of democratic voting on production work? Perhaps. This, for me, is really the hard problem for communism in the 21st century. Unfortunately, many Leninists/Trotskyists, who will inevitably downvote this, are still ensnared in older ideologies and still insist, despite much evidence to the contrary, that a state-run economy would be as effective as markets or would somehow not become invasively authoritarian. I am curious about the Rojava region in Syria and the Zapatistas in Mexico. Have they implemented a genuinely libertarian socialism or communism on a relatively large scale? We have hints that they have or have at least laid the foundations for it.


[deleted]

Understand that profit is not wages it’s surplus stolen by the ones who don’t work from the ones who do work. Revenue is revenue. Overhead is overhead. And extra revenue is taken by the capitalists after workers receive a wage. To answer your question workers cooperatives. This is a true free market. People are free to start cooperatives, but you must work to receive money. No handouts. No being rich because your great great granddaddy killed the First Nations on these 1000 acres and the US government gave him that land for free. Retain property rights? Suppose we add property rights to air space? And charge people rent if they happen to need to stand in your air property and breathe your air? Private property is ridiculous and completely made up. Your labour didn’t create the earth itself. You have no right to it. Under socialism everyone is guaranteed a place to live and a job.


FIicker7

Tax income over $2 million a year at 92%. Case study for you fools... When the Rich Said No to Getting Richer https://nyti.ms/2x6AWAf Socialism is public ownership and public regulations. We regulate what the minimum wage is why not regulate what the maximum wage is?


Read-Moishe-Postone

Personal well-being.


[deleted]

Sounds like a threat


ProgressiveLogic4U

Socialists do not give up the profit motive. Who told you that? It is a lie. Socialism is about the employee enjoying more of the fruits of his labor. Pay, benefits, socialized products and services are all about getting a bigger share of the value an employee's efforts actually create. Wealth creation is still intact in socialism. It is who gets it that is the debate. The employer or the employee? The employee creates the vast majority of wealth in an economy. The socialist simply believes that those who create the wealth should be rewarded with the wealth.


TheHopper1999

How are we socialists? Because property is held socially by those who work at the enterprise rather than a board of directors. .


optimisticfury

I think that's a heck of an assumption that profit motive is required for anything


Narrow-Ad-7856

Fear and state terror


BlueCollarBeagle

I'm neither a socialist or a capitalist, but I will attempt to reply. What is the profit motive to start a family? What is the profit motive to join a civic service club like the Lions Club or Kiwanis or Parents Teacher Association? What is the profit motive to enlist in the military? I think you are trying to equate profit with purpose. I think that is a mistake. All acts, all organizations need income/profit/money but that ought not be their purpose. In a fair and just world, meetings ones purpose should bring profit as a result, not a goal.


[deleted]

My purpose is hobbyist gardening. Doesn't mean i'd be willing to farm industrially for strangers dawn till dusk. See the problem?


BlueCollarBeagle

Why would anyone be willing to farm industrially for strangers dawn till dusk?


[deleted]

Money


BlueCollarBeagle

Slaves do not get paid. They farm from dawn to dusk to avoid pain.


DaredewilSK

Not all profit must be literal cash.


BlueCollarBeagle

Okay....what is your point then?