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.
Revolution requires convincing 8 billion people of a possible utopia whereas market socialism exists right now to some degree - FOSS, cooperatives, credit unions etc. are all part of market socialism. 120 million Americans for example are part of credit unions - more than any big bank in America. If we connected all the credit unions so they could talk to each other, you could transact with any branch or ATM - it could rival any big bank. It is harder to convince someone to upend their life for revolution than to convince them the benefits of credit unions over regular banking (again, markets, or in this case banking exists, and we need to engage with it currently). As for donating, many donate to Wikipedia, fediverse etc. When we are not starving, we’ll donate it all to a good cause.
First off, it’s great that you’re thinking about things seriously, I don’t want to discredit that effort. However, there are several issues with this.
Revolution
Historically, revolution has happened in the Global South, and not merely by convincing the working class, but through organization. Look to how Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc all had revolutions, and you’ll see it was driven by sharpening contradictions in class antagonisms.
“Utopia”
Marxism rejects Utopianism, ie thinking of a model and trying to build it outright. Marxism requires revolution, yes, but takes a gradualist approach to collectivization once the revolution has happened. This is Scientific Socialism, which analyzes trajectories in Capitalism to predict what a Socialist society would look like.
FOSS
FOSS isn’t “Market Socialism.” It’s its own category of software that doesn’t rely on profit or competition.
Connecting all of the Credit Unions
How do you plan to go about such a monumental task? Most Credit Unions are local organizations, for local users. There isn’t a historical example of this happening.
Going from a unified Credit Union to charity
Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn’t be willing to or able to donate en mass.
For all of these reasons, this isn’t really a practical plan, which is why studying history and theory is important.
Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn’t be willing to or able to donate en mass.
If you can imagine a global unified credit union, where everyone is equal, with better benefits than traditional banks, you’ve essentially removed capitalists from banking - think about that. You could do the same with other essential industries like education, healthcare, food etc.
I understand the concept, the problem is with implementing it from where we are now, and proving that energy would not be better applied via revolution and implementing Socalism. Your thought process is along the same lines as the Utopian Socialists like Owen, who tried to convince people but ultimatley failed. The reason Marxism has a much better track record is because of Scientific Socialism, which is based on analyzing how to get from here to there. I recommend reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
As I understand, scientific socialism acknowledges class struggle and current material conditions, but still requires overthrow of capitalist systems. You’re suggesting it’s easier to convince people to overthrow their banks (and have no personal banking?) rather than switch to a global credit union.
I’m suggesting that the idea of creating a global credit union within the boundaries set by Capitalism, and carrying it to fruition, is far more difficult than revolution. You’re asking the absolute most wealthy individuals to sit by and watch their wealth dry up and to do nothing about it.
Okay, at least we’re talking about execution now. I’ll read the essay, but like unix and fediverse and credit unions exist right now and capitalists can’t stop them. They can only compete with them in the free market. They certainly won’t be able to stop them once they get even bigger and more mainstream.
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.
Revolution requires convincing 8 billion people of a possible utopia whereas market socialism exists right now to some degree - FOSS, cooperatives, credit unions etc. are all part of market socialism. 120 million Americans for example are part of credit unions - more than any big bank in America. If we connected all the credit unions so they could talk to each other, you could transact with any branch or ATM - it could rival any big bank. It is harder to convince someone to upend their life for revolution than to convince them the benefits of credit unions over regular banking (again, markets, or in this case banking exists, and we need to engage with it currently). As for donating, many donate to Wikipedia, fediverse etc. When we are not starving, we’ll donate it all to a good cause.
First off, it’s great that you’re thinking about things seriously, I don’t want to discredit that effort. However, there are several issues with this.
Historically, revolution has happened in the Global South, and not merely by convincing the working class, but through organization. Look to how Russia, China, Cuba, Vietnam, etc all had revolutions, and you’ll see it was driven by sharpening contradictions in class antagonisms.
Marxism rejects Utopianism, ie thinking of a model and trying to build it outright. Marxism requires revolution, yes, but takes a gradualist approach to collectivization once the revolution has happened. This is Scientific Socialism, which analyzes trajectories in Capitalism to predict what a Socialist society would look like.
FOSS isn’t “Market Socialism.” It’s its own category of software that doesn’t rely on profit or competition.
How do you plan to go about such a monumental task? Most Credit Unions are local organizations, for local users. There isn’t a historical example of this happening.
Under Capitalism, even with a unified Credit Union, people still suffer from being at the whims of wealthy Capitalists, and likely wouldn’t be willing to or able to donate en mass.
For all of these reasons, this isn’t really a practical plan, which is why studying history and theory is important.
If you can imagine a global unified credit union, where everyone is equal, with better benefits than traditional banks, you’ve essentially removed capitalists from banking - think about that. You could do the same with other essential industries like education, healthcare, food etc.
I understand the concept, the problem is with implementing it from where we are now, and proving that energy would not be better applied via revolution and implementing Socalism. Your thought process is along the same lines as the Utopian Socialists like Owen, who tried to convince people but ultimatley failed. The reason Marxism has a much better track record is because of Scientific Socialism, which is based on analyzing how to get from here to there. I recommend reading Socialism: Utopian and Scientific.
As I understand, scientific socialism acknowledges class struggle and current material conditions, but still requires overthrow of capitalist systems. You’re suggesting it’s easier to convince people to overthrow their banks (and have no personal banking?) rather than switch to a global credit union.
I’m suggesting that the idea of creating a global credit union within the boundaries set by Capitalism, and carrying it to fruition, is far more difficult than revolution. You’re asking the absolute most wealthy individuals to sit by and watch their wealth dry up and to do nothing about it.
I think you should read the essay I linked.
Okay, at least we’re talking about execution now. I’ll read the essay, but like unix and fediverse and credit unions exist right now and capitalists can’t stop them. They can only compete with them in the free market. They certainly won’t be able to stop them once they get even bigger and more mainstream.