Within this context, i think that large-scale capital allocation (currently managed via the stock market and gov spending) can be handled in the following way:

Each collective pays in a portion (figure that out later) of each payment it gets to its collective fund. This portion goes to an alliance fund.
Once a [time period], vouchers are distributed, representing dollars in the fund on a 1-to-1 basis. Every project in every collective in the alliance gets to say why they should get your vouchers. You can give your vouchers to any project you want, as long as you are not a member of that project. These vouchers are then turned in for money from the alliance fund.

Using the usual assumptions of economics (perfect info, rational choices, ect.) you can predict that people will invest in things that maximize their utility; one of the effects of this is that the average value of everyone's transactions continuosly goes up. Further, attempts to cheat the system by not meeting your goals don't work long term, because they add in the info as to who is and isn't trustworthy, and then ceases funding for the expansion of firms controlled by bad actors.

It would be hard to call this system capitalist in the least, but it is still amenable to analysis by "capitalist" economics

@Chaton @Poet the Bush @BoleslawBierutLover

I for one like a good left-wing market cooperative. If as a staging operation from whence the mindset of the people as a whole can become accustomed to the idea of it. In my experience most people falter at the idea of communally or collectively owned industries because they believe the people as a whole would not be capable in the "complex" problems of managing regular payrole.

That's stupid. Payroll is really, really easy. You just all take your shares of the profit every [time period]

Plus, co-ops are awesome, having all the upsides (constant innovations) of markets with none of the downsides of capitalism (no need for constant growth, no one is acting as a servant to a master, ect)

It's what most people seem to not understand, fundamentally paperwork isn't the most complex thing in the world to do ever. Maybe buisiness finance is a lot harder than home finance, but if you're all having trouble then someone could be appointed by the whole to do it, or like most of them do; have independent accountants do the numbers.

I mean shit, if the company Gore can run on this very idea with over 9,000 paid employees then why can't the rest of us?

Is it really even that hard? It seems really easy for a firm of about a dozen people, which is what most co-ops would be

What's Gore?

Gore is a company here in the States that makes special fire-resistent fabrics for cars, fire-fighters, and the US Army; recently they branched into computer parts. They have some 9,000 employees, none of which are superior to the other and even the founder carries the same title as everyone; associate. They're structured completely horizontally and found that in order to surmount the challenges of having a totally horizontal company with such a large pool of members it's to continually split their factories/shops. Every time one shop goes above 150 people ("We start seeing cars park in the grass" as I've heard someone put it) they go to build or establish an entirely new autonomous plant for another 150 people.

Huh

They've been rated one of the best companies to work for for awhile now. The idea is based on what their founder learned working at DuPont where small autonomous groups would be formed if only to form as-needed problem solving units, and they worked so well the guy figured, "Why not all the time?"

...wait, it's not even ideologically motivated?

More off of personal experience, so no. It's not like the guy read Proudhon and thought, "I like this guy. Let's do Proudhon."

He did it, they worked out the kinks as the organization grew, and it is as it is.

Huh

How do the factories interact with eachother?

I'm not sure. I tried to look into that myself. But I'm sure they have some people going between to figure out what each other are doing. There has to be some level of inter-shop management. But all I've read stresses the horizontal-ness of it and some of the criticsm leveled against going that route (ie: some critics like to talk about how it's easy for people to hide their unproductivity in this manner of organization).

But if it's gotten as big as it had, it's worth looking into some more and consideration. I know there's a few other companies I link to when people complain about how a lack of hierarchy is bad to underline how you can have an effective large company without supervisors or managers; Mondragon in Spain is another I use too.

Mondragon doesn't have managers?

I thought mondragon had managers

Last I checked they're a bike manufacturing co-op.

Or so they're called on de webz

Who?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation

Yeah

They don't just make bikes

I thought they made bikes, must have been looking at something else.

Ohwell.jpeg

Fair enough

Do you know of any good discords? I'm looking for anything anti-capitalist but pro-market

@AaronMk

No, not off-hand.

Do you know any good communist discord?

I know of an anarchist discord

Uhuh

^^^

anarchists, marxists are all degenerates, nazbol is the way to go

Are you russian?

Only nazbols worth having discussions with are russians, other nazbols are just memers

CYKA BLYAT

no

im not russian

hey niggers

I'm from Uncensored Politics

nigga have fun getting paid the same

😉

cause lol capitalism causes unemployment.
```
get a job ;)
```

tfw no one cares

@xTom >When you try a form of communism that has never even been touched by your gods marx and lenin and you think it will actually work

@MLM (TW) fuck you degenerate

@MLM (TW) you little cunt

I'll stamp on you

Ah oh, questioning someones sexuality as an argument tactic. Look out internet.

this comrade guy is very frustrated

Funny how he says other people do nothing but whine yet all i've ever seen him do is complain and cuss out other people

sad!

calm down

there he goes deleting every post of his

classic comrade turnip

@Deleted User lenin is no god, national boslhevism is the only way, and the nazbol have no allegiance

Can you summarise the difference between Nazbol and Leninism?

@Deleted User Yes, everything remotely significant

Isn't NazBolism a mix of corporate fascism and Leninism?

I honestly don't know anything about it.

@Deleted User Nazbol is a meme.

Way I've interpreted Nazbol is, "Gee, Stalin was a good leader except he didn't have enough Hitler."

Economically National Capitalist, Socially Falangist or some other kind of clergical Fascism (not necessarily Nazi but pretty close in all honesty), and politically Stalinist. Its an interesting ideology, but yes it is basically a meme.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-OaToU2Zobs

👍

Only the concept of classes been there before Marx.

He just agreed with common knowledge.

>Communists strike when you least expect them to bc dialectics

Reee

Fucking commie dialectic

Classes are known to be as old as written history, worked pretty well for the most part

>worked well

except it was the cause for the most important revolutions

also what do you mean worked well? classes aren't something you implement

Yeah but things were stable until then werent they?

>Implying anything ever has been stable

>Except for all sorts of peasant revolutions

and slave revolts

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_peasant_revolts#Chronological_list

I dont know maybe? For the better than slaves at least it was okaaaay for the time
And you do implement a class system i thought, doesnt india with the castes?

Implying that's been entirely stable either, or not being slowly liquidated as the country modernizes.

last time humanity was without classes was tribal societies, you don't have anything to compare class socities to

only eachother

which is the right thing to do

Caste and class exists as a means to protect the property of a small minority of individuals who claim spiritual or military supremecy of something. So long as material power invests itself into a small population and more have greater than the whole then there will be class conflict.

So long as the means by which further material property is made, if not reforms and reorganization of the way property is treated this process will forever persist.

The anti-aristocratic class reforms of the American and French revolutions were find for their time; when a single individual could only hold a piece of a market in proportion to his physical capability. But the owning of automation puts these ratios far out of whack.

To return to India: there has been Dalit uprisings, mostly after the 18th century. But the Greeks recorded a far taller class structure. Further, the Buddha was considerably critical of the caste system and Buddhism teaches against caste differences.

This small group of individuals who claim spiritual or military supremacy do so because they are capable of doing so, and if you are incapable of defending what you own, you don't deserve it anyway - this is the true nature of the world - not just for people, but for animals as well. Even if you took away everything today, and everyone had uniform resources - most would waste what they are given, some would save their portion, but there will always be those chosen few who will seize the resources others would have wasted.

You can only prevent this by having some of overwhelming state apparatus to hold back the flow of human nature - temporarily - until some future even breaks the levies and overwhelms the state.

Look at india - the lower caste shits in the streets even when they have the choice of toilets. In other words - they don't shit in the streets because they are disenfranchised - quite the opposite - they are disenfranchised because they shit in the streets. They were born trash, their children will be trash, and so will their line. This is the essence of the caste. The Ancients knew this - and yet we pretend that everyone is the same.

Human nature changes over time, and humanity, being a rational being, ought to control his own nature for the better. A strong state is the perfect apparatus for this, and in doing so would create a future human far in advance of naturalist who falsely assume it so be static or otherwise sacred in some way. Indeed Socialism is the perfected of man because only this kind of apparatus is objective about the best parts of the human condition, and not subject to primitive ideals like ethnocentrism or bias in group preferances.

The state is not the path to salvation, the individual is

"The individual himself is still the most recent invention.
For many generations, being separated from the herd was a punishment and guilt was acting not in accord with its interests."
(Friedrich Nietzsche)