read it

tl;dr

It is socialism, but an inferior and unsustainable form

No, it is not socialism

TL;DR My communism is better than your communism

Therefore i would compare that to surplus extraction and the creation of profit. Simply putting a factory in the hands of the workers isn't enough to change its status as capital. If the factory is still run under the competitive dictates of the market, the law of value still impinges on the workers as an external force, alienating them, driving them to decrease socially necessary labor time and increase productivity. The capitalist is, as Marx said, simply capital personified. In a free market "socialist" society, the collective of workers is itself the "personification" of capital.

Socialism is inferior and unsustainable

Too bad that the word "socialism" was first invented and developed by people other than the guys you cite, so I'm afraid you can't own the label @Loser

Capitalism is inferior and unsustainable

RIGHT 👏 WING 👏 LIBERALISM

@Kazimir Malevich so conservatism

Lol

Then again ideological solipsism is in high demand these days - "only the guys I like matter"

@Kazimir Malevich ok Sargon

Soygon of Mossad

Stolypin was a Right-wing Liberal.

@Xinyue Lol i am no sectetarian, but instead of responding to my critique you call me sectetarian without debunking my points

i love market socialism

Don't you dare compare Sargon to the saint.

```Then again ideological solipsism is in high demand these days - "only the guys I like matter"```


you literally do that all the time 😂 @Xinyue

Except that I do not

I literally accept people I resent as socialists if they subscribe to the basic principle

do you not respond to my criticism? no let's call him a sectetarian

lol

your theory is bad

was Stolypin pro Abortion?

🤔

hehe

Abortion was a non-issue in Russia at that time. @AdorableStormtrooper

But he was a Christian so very unlikely.

commies legalized it

I got banned from a teen dating server for calling a black kid a monkey and telling him to get out of the country

Worker-cooperatives have workers own, operate and manage the means of labour; therefore, a market economy consolidated solely around worker-cooperatives is, in fact, a distributed socialist system realised in the worker-cooperative enterprise.

It is an inferior form of socialism, but since the means of labour are in fact owned and managed by their workers as equals, it *is* socialism.

**The only way to deny this is to define socialism as something OTHER than worker ownership of the means of labour**

ok.

if Stolypin wouldn't purge the Hook Noses like Stalin, he ain't no good

Georgians are epic people.

no

Georgia is Russia

"If they don't wear a turban, they aren't epic" - Adoraabibel-val Salah-Suturm

tbh Russia should take Georgia and Turkey should take Armenia this time :3

No

Russia should re-annex all the former SSRs

Annexation is gay.

Integration > colonisation

@Xinyue, do you support the DPRK?

on anti-imperialist basis yes, though not in ideology

Based and Redpilled

anti what

When putting the ">" it was meant to say "ideologically preferrable" rather than "realistically preferrable".

Russian annexation of Azerbaijan

🙅 🙅 🙅

"Worker-cooperatives have workers own, operate and manage the means of labour; therefore, a market economy consolidated solely around worker-cooperatives is, in fact, a distributed socialist system realised in the worker-cooperative enterprise."

Just because it has worker cooperatives does not exactly mean it is socialist, nor does it mean it has socialist elements, The capitalist is, as Marx said, simply capital personified. In a free market "socialist" society, the collective of workers is itself the "personification" of capital. Not only that, but under such conditions labor-power must be a commodity! For, if labor power isn't a commodity, then the market cannot be regulated by the law of value, it cannot exhibit the supposed rationality or allocative efficiency.

"It is an inferior form of socialism, but since the means of labour are in fact owned and managed by their workers as equals, it is socialism."

As i just refuted your socialism i do not think just because it has worker co-ops that it is socialist as i have demonstrated before; marx literally talked about this.

The only way to deny this is to define socialism as something OTHER than worker ownership of the means of labour

I just did? and kruschev is pretty anti-socialist but what i see

@Xinyue

they still add "ov" and "ski" after their names in Azerbaijan now

just sounds stupid

that's integration

@Loser Marx and Engels themselves considered many people who would not qualify as socialists under your definition, who came before them, as socialists. They are called "utopian socialists", and market socialism falls within this brand. Its not *scientific socialism,* its not *Marxian,* which is why we reject it (I used to be MarSoc until I realised its totally inviable), but it is no doubt socialism. Utopian socialism, perhaps, but it is socialism.

Marx didn't invent the term, nor did he pretend he did, unlike you.

no Socialist ever talks about why Communism would be a good thing

@AdorableStormtrooper Perhaps "integration" is an incorrect word. Think "trade partner" as opposed to "colony"

like NAFTA?

you want that?

@Xinyue Yes i have read socialism scientific and utopian, and market socialism was never described here; it is absolutely not socialist and scientific socialism would be anti-revisionist. It is absolutely not socialist, as i mentioned before in my previous points but you rejected that and deflected.

Like SSRs.

Very integrated trade union.

wait

u want USSR?

Like BRICS but better.

@AdorableStormtrooper CAPITALIST 👏 USSR

Hot take.

No, i am not saying the USSR should repeat itself and stalin had many mistakes

but it is nonetheless a example

Capitalist USSR

Hot take

lol

Stalin was the best Soviet Leader

debatable

The USSR died with Stalin

Lenin was very good

true

the Union lived and died by him

Lenin was a bellend

@Loser Aspects of Proudhon's thinking definitely fall within the market socialist frame of thinking, let alone Saint-Simon, and both were certainly considered an Utopian Socialist by both Marx and Engels. Then again, you are clearly a person of dogmatic inclination, and the dogmatic intellect is a weak form of intellect - it lacks creative impetus and cannot stand on its own.

Make Turkey and Azerbaijan One Again

@Xinyue ". Then again, you are clearly a person of dogmatic inclination, and the dogmatic intellect is a weak form of intellect - it lacks creative impetus and cannot stand on its own." like again you didn't refute my points on it being anti-dialectical and still having profit motive and fetishization, but calls me a sectetarian. " Aspects of Proudhon's thinking definitely fall within the market socialist frame of thinking, let alone Saint-Simon, and both were certainly considered an Utopian Socialist by both Marx and Engels." Obviously, but that is not my point.

xinu is a 1920s Communist Ideologue put out of Time

That was, however, my point. Both of them were market socialists in many aspects of their thinking and they qualified as socialists, even if utopian. Your doctrinaire subpar point was thoroughly refuted by this simple observation.

No, as that is not a counter-argument

you just refuted market-socialsim

not talking about my own argument

Yes it is. You cited Marxists to prove that marsoc isn't socialism, and I utilised same exact appeal to authority and cited Marx and Engels to prove that they can be considered socialists.

What's going on here?

It is *not scientific socialism*

Commie Cat fight

but Utopian forms exist

Oh wait okay

@Xinyue No, as it is not scientific socialism and marx WAS

@Enigmatic★Chromatic u commie?

Yeah I would consider Market Socialism socialism, but I thinks it's misguided

Nobody denies that it isn't fucking scientific socialism, the whole point is that there's socialism beyond the scientific and MarSoc belongs there