Profit falling leading to imperialism seems like its because of profit/expansion driven leadership which isn’t impossible under a coop model but seems fairly unlikely and is more or less a certainty under a more undemocratic and authoritarian hierarchy under capitalist enterprises.
In fact, one of worker coop’s “weaknesses” is that they have a tendency to not grow at all, which has been suggested as a major reasons why they don’t dominate our economy despite tending to be more resilient than conventional firms.
Profit falling leading to imperialism seems like its because of profit/expansion driven leadership
Leadership is irrelevant. Firms MUST reinvest some surplus value back into the firm. This will lead to the increase of capital in the business, and lead to overaccumlation crises. Firms must find new markets for their goods, or face certain economic despair.
In order to compete and grow, sure, reinvestment is needed. But even within capitalism, when markets are saturated the lay offs only happen because of a desire for profit growth when faced with a ceiling and they just cannibalize their own company because of perverse incentives. Cooperatives often willingly just impose pay cuts and hour cuts across the board during lean times like a market saturation and then usually endure as a result without the brain drain with their workers still “employed” at the end of the tunnel. Even if new market growth never comes, coops would simply stabilize and become easier work if become fairly low paying work. Where as capitalists tend to sell off the husk of a barely functioning firm for one last quick buck just before its usually doomed to closure from being carved up and mismanaged by leadership that no longer gives a shit.
I’m a socialist but not a strict Marxist. Even if I agree with a lot of his work, in particular I think his analysis is correct about the unsustainable relationship between labor and capitalists because of exploitation for profit, alienation, lack of control over laborer’s own work, etc. That said, I find meta-narratives (by any economist or philosopher) fairly wrong headed and verging on mystical and the level of rigidity towards market’s functionality regardless of potential configuration (like say into a mutualistic market system of coops) similarly wrong-headed and “prophetic”. I meet that level of certainty with skepticism.
I do think that eventually a mutualist market would probably become sort of meaningless eventually and turn into something else.
labor and capitalists because of exploitation for profit
Cool. Worker coops have this.
alienation
As worker coops have.
lack of control over laborer’s own work,
As worker coops have. Especially in a majoritarian “democratic” worker coop model.
That said, I find meta-narratives (by any economist or philosopher) fairly wrong headed
No prophetism here.
Worker coops involve:
A worker, going to work, and selling their labor power for a wage. Just with an extra bonus at the end of the year with the profits and maybe some involvement in voting for decisions of the firm. The production of products for exchange value rather than use-value, a commodity. That’s called capitalism. The firm MUST reinvest SOME of the surplus extracted from their workers, into the operation of the firm, or else it could not continue to operate, this is exploitation, and will lead to imperialism, crisis and alienation.
Could it be a more resilient capitalism? Sure. A better Capitalism isn’t socialism though.
I do think that eventually a mutualist market would probably become sort of meaningless eventually and turn into something else.
This is what social democrats think. That eventually the market system will “reform” itself to socialism. Capitalism can’t be reformed, it’s inherently flawed.
That’s assuming they operate on a wage model rather than pure dividends. But whatever, you are opposed to currency in general so the specifics don’t matter to you in that case. Regardless if there is a wage system its democratically agreed upon and I don’t know if I see that as a big deal.
As worker coops have. Especially in a majoritarian “democratic” worker coop model.
I think the alienation you are describing as stemming from being in a “majoritarian” coop is something we’d run into on a fully collectivized society as well. Its just different sizes.
I’m curious if you think syndicalism has the same problem? More or less the in-between. Instead of a market you have a single negotiating table between industries. No market competition but you still would have competing interests.
The firm MUST reinvest SOME of the surplus extracted from their workers, into the operation of the firm, or else it could not continue to operate, this is exploitation, and will lead to imperialism, crisis and alienation.
Do you think a “firm” of one person self exploits? If 99% of an economy is collectivized/communal but then some person decides to do the black market thing and self exploit for personal profit (using resources rather than currency), is that system still capitalism? Who is the immoral one in that case, the self exploiter correct? Are they cheating themselves? or the rest of the population? Both?
No this is gibberish. Exploitation is only meaningfully immoral when its a person or persons exploiting others through coercion and a undemocratic enforced authoritarian hierarchy.
As for imperialism, I don’t think imperialism stems from only economic exploitation. Nationalism, racism, and a rampant growth mindset are generally an aspect if not a requirement.
Is imperialism possible under a mutualist economic system? Absolutely. I don’t agree that it is inevitable.
Could it be a more resilient capitalism? Sure. A better Capitalism isn’t socialism though.
I define socialism as worker ownership of the means of production. That can look like a lot of things. This is all semantics though and I largely don’t care you call me a socialist or social democrat or whatever. Actual social democrats and left liberals would just call mutualists like myself socialists. Not socialist enough for the socialist club or liberal enough for the liberal club.
Also, if you concede that mutualism would be more resilient than capitalism, I’m not sure why you are so concerned about inevitable crisis.
This is what social democrats think. That eventually the market system will “reform” itself to socialism. Capitalism can’t be reformed, it’s inherently flawed.
The mechanism social democrats describe capitalism dissolving into socialism is through a welfare state, not worker coops. If you want to relate those together I think that’s just bad faith and perceiving ideological disagreements as a monolithic opposition.
That’s assuming they operate on a wage model rather than pure dividends.
Dividends are wage labor. You can calculate the hourly pay rate by dividing the dividends you received by the number of hours worked.
I think the alienation you are describing as stemming from being in a “majoritarian” coop is something we’d run into on a fully
I do think alienation remains in a socialist mode of production, yes, but what I am referring to here is your point about “control of own work”, in a majoritarian coop, you are bound by the decisions of the majority to produce what they tell you.
I’m curious if you think syndicalism has the same problem? More or less the in-between. Instead of a market you have a single negotiating table between industries. No market competition but you still would have competing interests.
I don’t really think syndicalism is an economic mode, its an organizing tactic.
Do you think a “firm” of one person self exploits?
A firm of one person is an artisan, petty bourgeoisie. They do not self exploit as all the money they make from their own labor is returned to themselves.
Who is the immoral one in that case, the self exploiter correct?
I don’t believe in morals.
Exploitation is only meaningfully immoral
Exploitation is not a moral term. Exploitation refers to the fact that wage laborers produce more value then they receive in their wages. Marx termed this “exploitation”, it’s not a moral claim.
As for imperialism, I don’t think imperialism stems from only economic exploitation.
It does.
Nationalism, racism, and a rampant growth mindset are generally an aspect if not a requirement.
All of these are products of Capitalism. Capitalism causes, nationalism, racism, and a “rampant growth mindset” which in turn leads to war. It’s called materialism.
Is imperialism possible under a mutualist economic system? Absolutely. I don’t agree that it is inevitable.
It is inevitable as worker coops are bound to seek new markets for their products by the contradictions of capitalism.
The mechanism social democrats describe capitalism dissolving into socialism is through a welfare state, not worker coops.
I was referring to the reformist belief that a better capitalism will lead to socialism.
Dividends are wage labor. You can calculate the hourly pay rate by dividing the dividends you received by the number of hours worked.
Dividends aren’t paid based on hours. They’re based on revenue minus expenses. Dividends are definitionally not wages.
I don’t really think syndicalism is an economic mode, its an organizing tactic.
Anarcho-Syndicalism, like Mutualism, is an economic model. I was using short hand and just calling it syndicalism.
I don’t believe in morals.
You believe in good and bad, right and wrong, ethics/morals, or at least some kind. Otherwise you would not bother advocating for or against any particular economic or societal model.
Exploitation is not a moral term. Exploitation refers to the fact that wage laborers produce more value then they receive in their wages. Marx termed this “exploitation”, it’s not a moral claim.
I know the term “exploitation” is not intrinsically a moral condemnation but a technical description. But the whole reason worker exploitation is something socialists/communists argue against is because it is harmful. Harm being a problem only makes sense if you operation on a a belief system of ought or ought not.
All of these are products of Capitalism. Capitalism causes, nationalism, racism, and a “rampant growth mindset” which in turn leads to war. It’s called materialism.
Nationalism and racism existed before capitalism. Focusing on economic growth as a facet of a individuals or groups also did, and the people with that mentality essentially brought about capitalism (early merchants).
It is inevitable as worker coops are bound to seek new markets for their products by the contradictions of capitalism.
Why is it inevitable?
I was referring to the reformist belief that a better capitalism will lead to socialism.
You describe a system of mandatory worker coops, private ownership of the means of production being made illegal, as reform? I’d say that’d be a drastic change. At most it blurs the line.
Of course, that’s probably not what you mean. I’m not sure if you are a leftcom or an accelerationist but I imagine your suggestion is that only violent revolution can succeed? If so I find that unconvincing and deeply undesirable.
Profit falling leading to imperialism seems like its because of profit/expansion driven leadership which isn’t impossible under a coop model but seems fairly unlikely and is more or less a certainty under a more undemocratic and authoritarian hierarchy under capitalist enterprises.
In fact, one of worker coop’s “weaknesses” is that they have a tendency to not grow at all, which has been suggested as a major reasons why they don’t dominate our economy despite tending to be more resilient than conventional firms.
Leadership is irrelevant. Firms MUST reinvest some surplus value back into the firm. This will lead to the increase of capital in the business, and lead to overaccumlation crises. Firms must find new markets for their goods, or face certain economic despair.
In order to compete and grow, sure, reinvestment is needed. But even within capitalism, when markets are saturated the lay offs only happen because of a desire for profit growth when faced with a ceiling and they just cannibalize their own company because of perverse incentives. Cooperatives often willingly just impose pay cuts and hour cuts across the board during lean times like a market saturation and then usually endure as a result without the brain drain with their workers still “employed” at the end of the tunnel. Even if new market growth never comes, coops would simply stabilize and become easier work if become fairly low paying work. Where as capitalists tend to sell off the husk of a barely functioning firm for one last quick buck just before its usually doomed to closure from being carved up and mismanaged by leadership that no longer gives a shit.
I’m a socialist but not a strict Marxist. Even if I agree with a lot of his work, in particular I think his analysis is correct about the unsustainable relationship between labor and capitalists because of exploitation for profit, alienation, lack of control over laborer’s own work, etc. That said, I find meta-narratives (by any economist or philosopher) fairly wrong headed and verging on mystical and the level of rigidity towards market’s functionality regardless of potential configuration (like say into a mutualistic market system of coops) similarly wrong-headed and “prophetic”. I meet that level of certainty with skepticism.
I do think that eventually a mutualist market would probably become sort of meaningless eventually and turn into something else.
Cool. Worker coops have this.
As worker coops have.
As worker coops have. Especially in a majoritarian “democratic” worker coop model.
No prophetism here.
Worker coops involve:
A worker, going to work, and selling their labor power for a wage. Just with an extra bonus at the end of the year with the profits and maybe some involvement in voting for decisions of the firm. The production of products for exchange value rather than use-value, a commodity. That’s called capitalism. The firm MUST reinvest SOME of the surplus extracted from their workers, into the operation of the firm, or else it could not continue to operate, this is exploitation, and will lead to imperialism, crisis and alienation.
Could it be a more resilient capitalism? Sure. A better Capitalism isn’t socialism though.
This is what social democrats think. That eventually the market system will “reform” itself to socialism. Capitalism can’t be reformed, it’s inherently flawed.
That’s assuming they operate on a wage model rather than pure dividends. But whatever, you are opposed to currency in general so the specifics don’t matter to you in that case. Regardless if there is a wage system its democratically agreed upon and I don’t know if I see that as a big deal.
I think the alienation you are describing as stemming from being in a “majoritarian” coop is something we’d run into on a fully collectivized society as well. Its just different sizes.
I’m curious if you think syndicalism has the same problem? More or less the in-between. Instead of a market you have a single negotiating table between industries. No market competition but you still would have competing interests.
Do you think a “firm” of one person self exploits? If 99% of an economy is collectivized/communal but then some person decides to do the black market thing and self exploit for personal profit (using resources rather than currency), is that system still capitalism? Who is the immoral one in that case, the self exploiter correct? Are they cheating themselves? or the rest of the population? Both?
No this is gibberish. Exploitation is only meaningfully immoral when its a person or persons exploiting others through coercion and a undemocratic enforced authoritarian hierarchy.
As for imperialism, I don’t think imperialism stems from only economic exploitation. Nationalism, racism, and a rampant growth mindset are generally an aspect if not a requirement.
Is imperialism possible under a mutualist economic system? Absolutely. I don’t agree that it is inevitable.
I define socialism as worker ownership of the means of production. That can look like a lot of things. This is all semantics though and I largely don’t care you call me a socialist or social democrat or whatever. Actual social democrats and left liberals would just call mutualists like myself socialists. Not socialist enough for the socialist club or liberal enough for the liberal club.
Also, if you concede that mutualism would be more resilient than capitalism, I’m not sure why you are so concerned about inevitable crisis.
The mechanism social democrats describe capitalism dissolving into socialism is through a welfare state, not worker coops. If you want to relate those together I think that’s just bad faith and perceiving ideological disagreements as a monolithic opposition.
Dividends are wage labor. You can calculate the hourly pay rate by dividing the dividends you received by the number of hours worked.
I do think alienation remains in a socialist mode of production, yes, but what I am referring to here is your point about “control of own work”, in a majoritarian coop, you are bound by the decisions of the majority to produce what they tell you.
I don’t really think syndicalism is an economic mode, its an organizing tactic.
A firm of one person is an artisan, petty bourgeoisie. They do not self exploit as all the money they make from their own labor is returned to themselves.
I don’t believe in morals.
Exploitation is not a moral term. Exploitation refers to the fact that wage laborers produce more value then they receive in their wages. Marx termed this “exploitation”, it’s not a moral claim.
It does.
All of these are products of Capitalism. Capitalism causes, nationalism, racism, and a “rampant growth mindset” which in turn leads to war. It’s called materialism.
It is inevitable as worker coops are bound to seek new markets for their products by the contradictions of capitalism.
I was referring to the reformist belief that a better capitalism will lead to socialism.
Dividends aren’t paid based on hours. They’re based on revenue minus expenses. Dividends are definitionally not wages.
Anarcho-Syndicalism, like Mutualism, is an economic model. I was using short hand and just calling it syndicalism.
You believe in good and bad, right and wrong, ethics/morals, or at least some kind. Otherwise you would not bother advocating for or against any particular economic or societal model.
I know the term “exploitation” is not intrinsically a moral condemnation but a technical description. But the whole reason worker exploitation is something socialists/communists argue against is because it is harmful. Harm being a problem only makes sense if you operation on a a belief system of ought or ought not.
Nationalism and racism existed before capitalism. Focusing on economic growth as a facet of a individuals or groups also did, and the people with that mentality essentially brought about capitalism (early merchants).
Why is it inevitable?
You describe a system of mandatory worker coops, private ownership of the means of production being made illegal, as reform? I’d say that’d be a drastic change. At most it blurs the line.
Of course, that’s probably not what you mean. I’m not sure if you are a leftcom or an accelerationist but I imagine your suggestion is that only violent revolution can succeed? If so I find that unconvincing and deeply undesirable.