Under Marxist analysis, kinda, essentially. Worker cooperatives change the relation from Proletarian/bourgeois to entirely Petite Bourgeoisie. The worker-owners of each firm are, by ownership, more interested in their own firm’s success than the success of the broader economy. This is the main critique of Market Socialism from a Marxian analysis.
Now, that doesn’t mean Market Socialism isn’t an improvement on Capitalism, it certainly helps reduce exploitation, but you don’t actually gain the benefits of collectivized ownership and common planning that allows Humanity to truly take mastery over Capital. The benefits of moving from competition to cooperation is massive.
Realistically, cooperatives can serve as a good basis of a transitional Socialist state, alongside traditional markets and a robust public sector, as long as strong central planning is employed and gradually the cooperatives and traditional private firms are folded into the Public Sector over time as they develop to the level that public ownership and planning becomes more efficient than market forces.
Thanks, Cowbee! It seems to me, that in practice (as opposed to theory, not game), if socialism is 5 steps away on the chessboard, then market socialism has to be step 1, simply because that’s where we are (1. markets aren’t going away tomorrow, and 2. everyone currently has to engage in the economy one way or another). It’s what is the ‘adjacent next’. Changing everyone’s minds all at once seems mathematically impossible. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is possible that all our collective energies might be better spent focusing on just step 1.
No problem! As for your analysis, it depends on if you agree with Marx, and Marxists, or not. If we hold to Marxian analysis, we need to tweak a few things here. As a Marxist, I am going to do my best to stick with that.
What is Socialism?
Socialism is a transitional stage to Communism. It is characterized by, above all, an economy where public ownership and central planning is primary. There’s really no such thing as a pure system untainted by what came before it or what will come next, which is where Dialectical and Historical Materialism come into play as philosophical aspects of Marxism. The reason this is important is because Socialism isn’t 5 steps away, it’s simply one revolution away, and such a system can’t abolish Private Property or enforce full worker cooperatives overnight as the infrastructure for that hasn’t been developed.
Put another way, if the company you work at right this instant turned into a worker cooperative, production would grind to a halt as everyone tried to figure out how to change organizational structures, responsibilities, and how to run things. This extends further when you add in the incredible complexity of logistics, supply lines, who your company trades with for machinery and raw materials, etc.
Why cooperative property?
If we hold Marxian analysis, it is through market competition that companies centralize and prepare themselves better for central planning. Wal-mart, Amazon, etc all develop and employ incredibly complex forms of internal market planning that can simply be adjusted after folding into the public sector. Whether this company is cooperative or private makes no difference on its ability to shift to public ownership and central planning.
In other words, Market Socialism is nice in that it removes exploitation, but is no nearer to Communism than Capitalism. The leap to public ownership is no closer, just the relations of exploitation are removed.
How do we get to Communism, and what role can worker cooperatives play in that?
The solution is to perform a revolution and establish a Proletarian State. This is a hard requirement to begin with, otherwise you can’t simply accomplish Market Socialism, the bourgeoisie would never allow it. This process will be entirely different in every country, but most will have certain constants.
What will this new Socialist State do? First, highly developed and critical industries will be nationalized and planned. The remaining industries will retain private property and cooperatives, but with heavy involvement in planning from the government. This becomes a sort of Socialist Market Economy, where the Public Sector is primary, and markets are heavily controlled but allowed in order to develop the Productive Forces to the point that they can be harvested and folded into the Public Sector. Where applicable, cooperatives can help reduce the levels of exploitation in the interim between private ownership and public ownership, especially in the agricultural sector where farming isn’t as industrialized. Gradually, class struggle is heightened and eventually full public ownership is achieved.
In other words, Market Socialism is nice in that it removes exploitation, but is no nearer to Communism than Capitalism. The leap to public ownership is no closer, just the relations of exploitation are removed.
How do we get to Communism, and what role can worker cooperatives play in that?
The solution is to perform a revolution and establish a Proletarian State. This is a hard requirement to begin with, otherwise you can’t simply accomplish Market Socialism, the bourgeoisie would never allow it.
Right, so market socialism is better than capitalism, and I’m arguing it is easier to get there than revolution. I’m also kinda arguing that market socialism will naturally lead to everyone just donating their belongings to the greater good once everyone is content with what they get from market socialism, otherwise I see it impractical to simply snatch private assets for public ownership. Lastly, I agree it would seem like the bourgeoise would never allow it, but things like Linux and the fediverse exist and they’ll only get stronger and harder to beat with network effect.
I guess I have to ask, why do you think Market Socialism is easier than revolution, and if so, why hasn’t that happened? Same with the idea of people just donating to the greater good, in a system surrounding competition?
There’s a difference between FOSS and production, where industrial Capital can cost billions.
Good question!
Under Marxist analysis, kinda, essentially. Worker cooperatives change the relation from Proletarian/bourgeois to entirely Petite Bourgeoisie. The worker-owners of each firm are, by ownership, more interested in their own firm’s success than the success of the broader economy. This is the main critique of Market Socialism from a Marxian analysis.
Now, that doesn’t mean Market Socialism isn’t an improvement on Capitalism, it certainly helps reduce exploitation, but you don’t actually gain the benefits of collectivized ownership and common planning that allows Humanity to truly take mastery over Capital. The benefits of moving from competition to cooperation is massive.
Realistically, cooperatives can serve as a good basis of a transitional Socialist state, alongside traditional markets and a robust public sector, as long as strong central planning is employed and gradually the cooperatives and traditional private firms are folded into the Public Sector over time as they develop to the level that public ownership and planning becomes more efficient than market forces.
Thanks, Cowbee! It seems to me, that in practice (as opposed to theory, not game), if socialism is 5 steps away on the chessboard, then market socialism has to be step 1, simply because that’s where we are (1. markets aren’t going away tomorrow, and 2. everyone currently has to engage in the economy one way or another). It’s what is the ‘adjacent next’. Changing everyone’s minds all at once seems mathematically impossible. I guess what I’m trying to say is that it is possible that all our collective energies might be better spent focusing on just step 1.
No problem! As for your analysis, it depends on if you agree with Marx, and Marxists, or not. If we hold to Marxian analysis, we need to tweak a few things here. As a Marxist, I am going to do my best to stick with that.
Socialism is a transitional stage to Communism. It is characterized by, above all, an economy where public ownership and central planning is primary. There’s really no such thing as a pure system untainted by what came before it or what will come next, which is where Dialectical and Historical Materialism come into play as philosophical aspects of Marxism. The reason this is important is because Socialism isn’t 5 steps away, it’s simply one revolution away, and such a system can’t abolish Private Property or enforce full worker cooperatives overnight as the infrastructure for that hasn’t been developed.
Put another way, if the company you work at right this instant turned into a worker cooperative, production would grind to a halt as everyone tried to figure out how to change organizational structures, responsibilities, and how to run things. This extends further when you add in the incredible complexity of logistics, supply lines, who your company trades with for machinery and raw materials, etc.
If we hold Marxian analysis, it is through market competition that companies centralize and prepare themselves better for central planning. Wal-mart, Amazon, etc all develop and employ incredibly complex forms of internal market planning that can simply be adjusted after folding into the public sector. Whether this company is cooperative or private makes no difference on its ability to shift to public ownership and central planning.
In other words, Market Socialism is nice in that it removes exploitation, but is no nearer to Communism than Capitalism. The leap to public ownership is no closer, just the relations of exploitation are removed.
The solution is to perform a revolution and establish a Proletarian State. This is a hard requirement to begin with, otherwise you can’t simply accomplish Market Socialism, the bourgeoisie would never allow it. This process will be entirely different in every country, but most will have certain constants.
What will this new Socialist State do? First, highly developed and critical industries will be nationalized and planned. The remaining industries will retain private property and cooperatives, but with heavy involvement in planning from the government. This becomes a sort of Socialist Market Economy, where the Public Sector is primary, and markets are heavily controlled but allowed in order to develop the Productive Forces to the point that they can be harvested and folded into the Public Sector. Where applicable, cooperatives can help reduce the levels of exploitation in the interim between private ownership and public ownership, especially in the agricultural sector where farming isn’t as industrialized. Gradually, class struggle is heightened and eventually full public ownership is achieved.
Does this all make sense?
Thanks again!
Right, so market socialism is better than capitalism, and I’m arguing it is easier to get there than revolution. I’m also kinda arguing that market socialism will naturally lead to everyone just donating their belongings to the greater good once everyone is content with what they get from market socialism, otherwise I see it impractical to simply snatch private assets for public ownership. Lastly, I agree it would seem like the bourgeoise would never allow it, but things like Linux and the fediverse exist and they’ll only get stronger and harder to beat with network effect.
I guess I have to ask, why do you think Market Socialism is easier than revolution, and if so, why hasn’t that happened? Same with the idea of people just donating to the greater good, in a system surrounding competition?
There’s a difference between FOSS and production, where industrial Capital can cost billions.