What are Sup Forums's opinions on Market Socialism...

What are Sup Forums's opinions on Market Socialism? Do you really think the entirety of industry should be owned by a few Jews rather than respectable worker co-ops?

Imagine how much better a market economy could be if we actually had some control over the incentives. No more 5$ minimum wage, no more "just dump it in the ocean, Frank", no more adventures in the middle east.

Us, the workers, we could run the show AND still have a meritocracy. Surely we can all get on board with this rather than have Wal-Mart own your house and your wife's son(looking at you AnCaps).

If you think worker co-ops are good why don't you join one or form a group to establish one?

Looks like my ex girlfriend ;)

Because the laws and profit incentives are currently catered towards hierarchical private corporations, in order to stay afloat, a CEO must treat his workers like shit and allow them no rights.

That is why we have to use the state to set up a Public sector and invest in co-ops. If we all get settled into co-ops, the need for a state would almost vanish because we would have the ability to make our own decisions regarding healthcare, wages, etc. The Mondragon corporation in Spain has it's own bank, it's own health insurance, and its own training.

But if you cuck the workers out of any money or real decision-making, expect to have a big daddy forever.

Builds stagnation into the system as it puts up a barrier for innovation.

>Have good idea
>Start company to put it into practice
>Whoops that means you own a private company. Can't do that.
>What to do?
>Go to government to try and get people together to do it
>Bogged down in bureaucracy
>Eventually others decide your idea is too risky. Denied.
>Good idea fades into the aether.

big daddy state***

or simplify the tax code so fat cats can't dodge taxes so everyone's on the same playing field

You don't have to go to the government, it doesn't work like that.

Rather, if your company gets over a certain size, the workers gain the right to take your business and set it up as a co-op but a lot of them will probably like your direction, so they'll form a co-op with you and set you up as the chief decision maker, your vote will account for much more than the normal worker. That way, you get the opportunity to innovate AND American workers don't have to eat shit sandwiches everyday.

Give it a rest, comrade. These classcucks won't listen to reason.

>or simplify the tax code so fat cats can't dodge taxes so everyone's on the same playing field.

That'll never be sustainable, once the fat cats cuck everyone out of affordable prices, the workers will vote for a larger state and progressive taxation. As has happened time after time.

I'm talking about a permanent solution here, there'll still be plenty of opportunities for individuals to be rich.

>once the fat cats cuck everyone out of affordable prices

how do they do that in a free market

monopolies are impossible in a free market

That's a lot of wishful thinking.

Here's what will happen with that regime:

>After you make X amount of money or employ X amount of people suddenly your company is public property
>Before you reach that point you instead lay off some workers or simply don't expand the business in order to stay below the limit
>Perhaps start new companies to instead have 5 smaller companies doing the same job as 1. Each below the limit.
>Big government doesn't like that you are exploiting this obvious loophole. Cracks down.
>Size limit is reduced, or the number of companies per person is limited.
>Again people shift to exploit the loophole. Companies are spread out within the family. 1 small company per person, but still part of the same family.
>Again an enraged government cracks down.
>Rinse
>Repeat
>???
>Gulags.

Fuck off socialist scum

>monopolies are impossible in a free market

Ella Freya S2

show me one monopoly that existed without the assistance of government

>monopolies are impossible in a free market

Simply not true, we've never lived in a Stalinist regime where it was impossible to get a company to monopolize.

We've always had periods in history where there was very little intervention and you still had monopolization, how? Well to put it simply, the profit incentive to form monopolies is ridiculous, as in once you have it, you basically own the prices.

So what does that mean, it means you can bet Porky will do anything to monopolize, this includes having a "small" state, collaborating with other companies, privatizing EVERYTHING, forcing your opponent out of business through marketing and underselling until they go bankrupt etc, enforcing intellectual property rights as many libertarians seem to advocate doing, adding bullshit clauses into the NAP.

There are tons of ways to maintain a monopoly in a Market economy, especially since resources are scare and you have the privilege to privatize everything you can afford to. Not to mention that competition will be ridiculously hard when the workers are making an average of 10$ an hour.

Google.

>suddenly your company is public property

No, I said WORKER co-op. This isn't anything close to communism.

>business owner can do bull shittery X.

It would be against his own interest to do, it doesn't matter how many companies you have, if your amount of employees reaches a certain limit, they can appeal to take over the entire brand. Which is why you would prefer to negotiate a large percentage for yourself, being that you made the entire venture possible, or any other profitable arrangement. It would have to be more profitable because you're no longer limited to profiting from 40 workers tops, you can now negotiate with the entire worker force.

>if we actually had some control over the incentives.

you have control over the entire game by either working or not working for employers

why can't you fucking commies understand this

is this capslock? she got even prettier.

It is more profitable for you to negotiate a certain share or right than it is to only continuously profit from the same 40 workers.

>you have control over the entire game

Oh sweet, what are my options?

>either working or not working

Yeah, you're an idiot. A co-op would allow for much more decision making than whatever bullshit you think actually happens.

...

>Workers own the means of production
Explain how your idea is different from that basic tenet of socialism/communism.

>It would be against his own interest to do
Because you will string him up/sic the government on him? Again, sounding very like the good ol' days of Stalin.

>worker co-ops?
they would end up being run by kikes too.

>capitalism is perfect, until you get good at it, then fuck you and everything you built.

Because Communism necessitates that

1. EVERYTHING is commonly owned
2. no markets whatsoever
3. no state
4. no capital
5. planned economies
6. one class of workers.

Also, you're partly right, it is Socialism in a sense because the workers, the people who work, own the MOP, which is why I called it Market Socialism, read the OP.

Socialism and Communism are not synonyms. Socialism has a much broader meaning that allows for Reformism, Anarchism, and Marxism. Communism is just a utopian idea that has never been achieved except for in very small tribes and primitive societies, hence why the phrase primitive communism is thrown around a lot.

T. Marx and every other Leftist thinker.

It's just another stupid rebrand of Marxism that will fail like all the others.

We already have pretty successful co-ops to look at....I don't see why making it the norm will have it destined for failure?

You're kind of painting Capitalism as a divine monolith by the way, even if you don't like your perception of what you think Marxism is, you should still be humble given the abysmal failures of your own system.

That's confusing the ideal of communism with the reality of it. For example, how the fuck are you going to have no state, no markets, AND a planned economy?

At best your idea is communism light. Basically capitalism until you don't like it any more, then communism.

You are falling into the same trap the commies did - to assume that people are perfect and that they are all 100% on board with your ideal.

It will fail in the same way. People won't play ball and you will either have to give up on your ideal or you'll have to force the matter.

Co-ops are fine. There are plenty of successful ones.

However the vital difference is that those co-ops are voluntary organisations, not government mandates for all business conducted in the country.

>For example, how the fuck are you going to have no state, no markets, AND a planned economy?

It's not a centrally planned authoritarian economy like you're thinking of, it's more of a hippie thing that's completely voluntary and decentralized to individual choices. For example, 100 people need clean water, they all agree to not shit in the river so they have that clean water, bravo, you just planned a resource without a state.

Another example, 100 people need their grass cut, 50 people agree to do it in exchange for printed hentai, bravo, you've just achieved a planned economy without a state. It's planned in the sense that it's voluntarily decided by a community rather than performed by exploiting workers.

>how can you enforce it?

I don't, it's in your own best interest to do it or live in squallor, that's how every economy work. If you collaborate you prosper, if you don't you die. The trick is how you organize it.

>At best your idea is communism light. Basically capitalism until you don't like it any more, then communism.

>You are falling into the same trap the commies did - to assume that people are perfect and that they are all 100% on board with your ideal.

>It will fail in the same way. People won't play ball and you will either have to give up on your ideal or you'll have to force the matter.

What commies are you referring to here? How is my idea communism light? Communism is just a utopian meme probably in the far future.

>Basically capitalism until you don't like it any more.

What?

>However the vital difference is that those co-ops are voluntary organisations, not government mandates for all business conducted in the country.

You're fine with co-ops existing, I'm advocating that co-ops own the majority of industry. These 2 proposals are radically different so your criticism is irrelevant.

Also, why would I care about mandates that protect workers and allow for a much better standard of living?

>Central planning
>With no central planning authority AKA government

You're making this shit up as you go along.

>I don't enforce it
Well your idea rests on absolutely everyone being 100% on board with you ideal. What happens when someone says no? Red Guard?

>What commies are you referring to here? How is my idea communism light? Communism is just a utopian meme probably in the far future.

I am referring to both the communist ideal that has no state, no private property and everyone singing kumbaya, as well as the communist reality of iron fist rule by central government. You are describing aspects of both.

>What [do I mean by capitalism until you don't like it any more]?
I gave you an example of why your idea of socialism is not as effective as capitalism in the realm of innovation. You said, essentially, fine have capitalism until a certain point then it's my turn to do "market socialism".
That market socialism being real red USSR communism other than that is does not come into effect until your company reaches some arbitrary size.