this post was submitted on 08 Feb 2025
486 points (93.1% liked)
The Democratic People's™ Republic of Tankiejerk
736 readers
207 users here now
Dunking on Tankies from a leftist, anti-capitalist perspective.
Rules:
- Be civil and no bigotry of any kind.
- No tankies or right-wingers. Liberals are allowed so long as they are aware of this
- No genocide denial
We allow posts about tankie behavior even off fedi, shitposts, and rational, leftist discussion. For a more general community [email protected] is recommended.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
What does it even mean to own the means of production? How are decisions made? Big decisions can go to a vote, but what about small ones? I don't see how any organization can function without some kind of hierarchy. But the way you describe socialism implies that hierarchy can't coexist with socialism.
Maybe the pirate ship system would work well.
Every man got the same share except the captain (2x) and quartermaster (1.5x) and the doctor (1.5x) any of that position can be replaced anytime by a vote
Aye, this be a fittin' trajectory for ye politics
Maybe the base pay the same for everyone but and only do a multiplies on profit sharing.
The socialist democratically owned company would still elect a CEO or something like it to make those kinds of decisions, and if they don't make good decisions they can be recalled by the employees to be replaced with someone else. The way I look at it it would be like how companies are currently but with all employees owning shares of the company rather then outside investors or the owner of the company. Atleast that's how I interpret it but there's probably a million different ways you could set it up while still having it be much more democratic then the modern structure.
True, and actually these companies already exist, at least in name. Not sure how well they function or how closely they follow what you describe.
That is capitalism
"Capitalism is when there's management"?
Many of the contradictions and crises of Capitalism are still present even under worker coop models in a market economy. Surplus value is still extracted, that money must be reinvested in the business to remain competitive. Meaning the Tendency of The Rate of Profit to Fall Remains, meaning capitalist crises remain. Imperialist incentives remain, and a worker coop nation-state would be equally imperialist as one with private corporations.
Other than the end-state of communism, a stateless, moneyless society, I'm curious as to what you think counts as 'not capitalist'?
Lord.
You run an explicitly anti-capitalist community and don't believe in the TRPF?
I think socialism requires an explicitly anti-nationalist character and the elimination of the commodity form. This looks like production with quotas (use-value), probably labor vouchers (but its not a requirement) and some form of worker ownership, like workers councils.
Marx himself regard the tendency of the rate of profit to fall as an incomplete aspect of his theories. It's highly contested, and ultimately, while important to 'scientific socialism' conceptions of why capitalism must fall, is neither explanation nor justification for those of us who believe that capitalism should fall, but will not necessarily do so of its own inherent contradictions.
Marx was a brilliant theorist, and we are all deeply indebted to his contributions to socialist thought - that's not the same as thinking that every idea he put forward, with the limited evidence available to him, and him operating as a positive trailblazer in the 19th century as an exile in a deeply hostile society, was absolutely incontrovertibly correct.
I mean, again, though, that looks to me more like the end-state of communism. If that's all you're willing to accept as non-capitalist, that's fine, I suppose, but that's a very high bar to clear, and many want clearer intermediate steps which will create the conditions to implement that.
Upvoted for having a reasonable conversation, btw, this is what left discourse is for
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.
Dividends are not a meaningful change to the wage labor system, they are simply an obfuscation, a different method of paying wages that appears to be more fair. But surplus value is still extracted in the exact same way, and the True Hourly Wage can be calculated by the amount of dividends paid by the number of hours worked. And with this, you can calculate the amount of surplus value generated for the firm.
I do not argue against exploitation. I see it as a reality of Capitalism. Exploitation leads to The Law Of The Tendency Of The Rate of Profit To Fall. This leads to inherent contradictions in the capitalist system and in turn leads to economic crisis.
Yes, but the nationalism and racism we see in the forms today are capitalist in nature. In pre-capitalist societies, nationalism and racism took different forms as best to serve the ruling elite, whatever that may be. Pre-capitalist societies also have primitive commodity production and capitalist-esque elements that are similar to the society we have today, which lead to similarities of those nationalism and racisms to what we see today.
You would need to read Lenin for the gritty details. But in simple terms, as the capitalist crisis is made inevitable by the accumulation of capital, firms seek to solve, but really only temporarily stall, this crisis by finding new markets where the process can begin again.
Yes, because it is a modification to the capitalist system, and not a replacement of the capitalist system with a new form.
Only revolution can replace the capitalist system with a new mode of production. If you don't wish to change the mode of production, no violent revolution is necessary, but as long as capitalism exists, so will it's contradictions.
I've left the meta-ethics for last since it's not really important to the main discussion.
No, I'm a moral error theorist. I think all moral claims evaluate to false. My basis for this is rooted in hard determinism and hard incompatibilism. I explain the contradictions of capitalism and how socialism as a mode of production can solve these contradictions. I advocate for socialism as it's in my self interest, and I think in other peoples self-interest as well.
Before I continue, I just wanted to say thanks for indulging me. I enjoy this kind of discourse. (edit: and I apologize for the spelling/grammar errors in my previous response, I ran out of time and had to rush it)
I wonder if this doesn't verge on simply seeing capitalism in everything that can be seen as dysfunctional in the current and previous economic systems. Maybe just turning the term into a economic boogeyman and watering down its more specific definition.
Whenever I read books of that nature I find myself either debating with the very words I'm reading and frustrated by the lack of a counter from the author (because, you know... its a book), or bored as I agree with it. That said, I probably should anyway. I might start listening to audio books of theory on my commute or something.
I noticed that edit. We might disagree on what counts as private ownership. Its best we not argue over the definition, but I think it might be valuable to ask if you believe in a distinction between "private" and "personal" property?
I don't think a violent revolution would meaningfully be any more capable and in Leninism's case result in state capitalism that is if anything more unlikely to "dissolve" into communism than even Social Democracy. Social Democracies decay back into capitalism as capitalists capture government and roll back reforms and state capitalism just decays into capitalism but with capitalists and government officials blurring into each other.
There would be virtually no individuals with sufficient authority with Mutualism (or Anarcho-Syndicalism) for roll backs to be as purposefully directed. Power would be more evenly spread which would act as counter balances to running right back into exploitation, imperialism, etc (edit: in the sense of these things being unethical/harmful, not as technical concepts). And achieving a Mutualist market economy would "boil the frog" so to speak and minimize reactionary push back (Something Social Democracy fails at) and weaken/prevent power concentration (something state capitalism fails at).
I am also a hard incompatibilist. Though I am also sympathetic to Egoism and Absurdism.
Moral error theory contradicts itself on a fundamental level: If all moral statements are "false" this implies that truth holds moral value and that is the basis of a moral error theorist's beliefs.
I don't think it actually matters if ethics or morality have some kind of moral external proof or external truth to what humans desire in life or society. The superior alternative to moral error theory is to accept that morality and ethics exists in our minds individually and collectively and is "blurry". Our conscious experience of existence being generically "positive" or "negative" is modulated by morality and ethics and this matters because nothing matters intrinsically other than what we want to matter.
Bringing up our self interest is also indicative of a sense of morality or ethics and at least in implication contradicts your belief in moral error theory. If anything it sounds more like you are a Stirnerite Egoist (maybe).
Morality and ethics matter as long as we exist. Once we're all dead though, sure its stops mattering but then so does the discussion surrounding economic models.
No. Nationalism and racism are products of capitalism. Part of capitalism is the division of the global proletariat, and subjugating them to a respective national bourgeoisie. Part of capitalism is the superexploitation of ethnic minorities and division of communities along ethnic lines to maintain the power of the bourgeoisie. Capitalism is a mode of production, and all that happens under it is part of its effects.
In truth, no. I think people can be in possession of objects and for one reason or another it's "theirs", but I don't really believe in property, at all. But worker coops in a market system imply the existence of private property even ignoring the personal/private distinction.
Some anarchists support insurrection over revolution, if your more palatable to that (considering you're a mutualist?). But in essence this insurrection has the character of revolution in that, it is a violent rejection of the mode of production established by the state.
I don't disagree
Your organizational model will fall victim to the contradictions of capitalism as long as you retain capitalism. You can't avoid that.
I don't think hard incompatibilitsm is mutually exclusive with Egoism. Maybe absurdism.
To be clear, If hard incompatibilism is true, moral agents simply do not exist.
How does it imply that? Truth simply is, somethings are true, or false. "This apple is red". Is a truth apt statement. I'm also a normative nihilist, so the sentence "we ought to believe things are true" is false to me.
Which is compatible with error theory. This brand of error theory is called fictionalism, effectively after accepting all moral truths are false you retain moral discourse because it is convenient. But, I think you are an ethical subjectivist/moral relativist.
Which is ethical subjectivism. As a moral error theorist, I don't think it's impossible for people to believe in moral facts. "Sam believes murder is wrong." Can be true or false. "Murder is wrong." is always false.
Stirnerite egoists also don't believe morals exist. Self-interest is simply convenient to me. I don't think it's good or bad.
So everything that happens right now is capitalist in nature? Wouldn't that imply everything that follows is also capitalism? That would make communism a form of capitalism. It would also mean that feudalism was also capitalism since trade happened during feudalism and city states made profit.
I just think this is overly broad as to make "capitalism" a umbrella term, largely to service propaganda efforts in the short term but produce a fundamentally undermining boogeyman to cause internal conflict down the road of any kind of leftist success.
Setting aside the hard incompatibilism and error theory for a moment, property is theft but property is also freedom. Do you think "freedom of association" is a value worth maintaining in society? Seeing as no one consents to being born, does the individual owe a collective anything at all? Is it not pleasurable for the vast majority of people to feel "free" (even if its an illusion) and thus "in their best interest" to feel free? Including feeling free from even joining a collective in order to pursue a competing position? To even stay within said group can be pleasurable in that societal context because instead of being an obligation its a choice.
Property in at least some form is necessary for a lot of intrinsically emotionally pleasurable things. Maybe its not always called "property" but the terminology doesn't matter. Possessions that are respected by the rest of society is more or less the most rudimentary form. Even if its not "real", life is not worth living without possessions, thus property.
Given this, there is utility in my definition of "Private Property" that makes it undesirable on a systemic, emotional, and intrinsic level. Private property is not possession or personal property. Its called "private" specifically to differentiate it. It is property used for production that is owned via purchasable deed or stock, rather than by anything else, like say participation.
I could be made more accepting of that assuming the insurrection was engineered to be as bloodless as possible. I should clarify, on the anarchist vs authoritarian scale I merely lean anarchist. I'd not be that uncomfortable with the "statist" label of "Market Socialist" either. I just go with Mutualist because its slightly closer to my inclination to let individuals do what they want.
Probably not, though both are very "will" oriented.
I agree, which is why I'm a consequentialist as well.
Given the context, it implies it because the only reason someone would argue that ethics are not real or true is that they themselves apply moral weight to truth. Maybe they don't, but its strange that they'd even argue about it at all in that case.
I have a lot more to say on the "This apple is red" statement but that is beyond the scope of this conversation.
EDIT: Suffice to say the most relevant part of my thoughts though is that even truth of objective reality is viewed through the lens of subjective perception. Morality and ethics are not concerned with the scientific observation of a "hard reality" thus saying "All moral statements are false" just comes off as a psychological shortcut to dismissing all ethics/morality.
Evaluating ethics/morals on some plane of objective accuracy outside of conscious minds makes no sense. In your example, "Murder is wrong" is true within the mind of Sam, given that's the context that ethics or morality matters. I don't think any other context matters, at least off the top of my head.
Just like our argument over what "capitalism" is, its just the subjectivity, utility, and pragmatism of language. There is no rule of the universe that states what capitalism is.
My understanding of Stirnerite egoism is that it sees societal morality as non-existent but places a lot of value on individual's intrinsic motivation, which includes an individual's thoughts on what they want to do for others and what they expect from others. Or at least that's what I think "Union of egoists" means, its been a while since I've engaged with it.
EDIT: I forgot to respond to something:
Agree to disagree, I don't think that is an inevitability of Mutualism/Market-Socialism. Its an observation and a consistent phenomena of similar systems, but I don't think its unavoidable with such a system. I view that as meta-narrative and I don't believe in meta-narratives.
No. Capitalism is wage-labor, and generalized commodity production. This is the mode of production. The human action under this mode of production are products of it. Nationalism is a tool the ruling class uses to divide the proletariat. Same with racism, patriarchy, and all forms of division other then class. Nationalism does not exist in a vacuum, it is given to us by our education, and the institutions of power. Capitalism is what drives this.
I'll try to illustrate this. Nationalism IS capitalism, because what nationalism is, is the creation of a "national identity", the institutions of the nation-state, and the subjugation of the national proletariat to its respective national bourgeoisie, ergo, the division of the global working class.
I don't know what that means.
No
Yes.
Yes
I have no problem with possessions, I have a problem with creating a metaphysical fantasy of the idea of the "ownership" of things, property. I view property as the idea of the metaphysical "right" of ownership of an object or land. I reject that this really exists.
Why bloodless? When Capitalism is bathed in blood daily?
You need to understand the mechanisms of capitalist crisis. It's not a meta-narrative, we can demonstrate the contradictions of generalized commodity production in mathematical value terms.
I was trying to figure out if you were a societal collectivist in terms of what you think would be in our best interest as individuals. A truly collectivist society would not be permissive of the freedom of association. If someone can choose to not participate or even compete, that may risk undermining the collective's interests. There is a sliding scale here though.
Yeah I more or less agree. I don't really believe in rights at all. For me property is more of an aspect of social constructs and that property in some forms holds value in a society I'd like to live in. Just not private property.
Consequences. If you minimize the bloodshed, you are more likely to have a stable and functional society afterward to maintain a new system. And also obviously, just minimizing deaths is always preferable to me regardless of cause. Further, the question is not of blame but if you find yourself in the position to prevent death that doesn't mean you can prevent other deaths. Even after an insurrection that established some kind of path to ending capitalism, killing more directly if anything will cause even more indirect systemic deaths.
Also, I said "bloodless as possible". I know that statistically speaking some likely would end up dead to save many others in such a situation. If letting someone live means capitalism wins, then by all means in this scenario, kill them, but most of the time it wouldn't be necessary.