Does anyone still seriously believe in economic marxism?

"loot"
They don't use it.

>Anarchy has ever been viable in the modern era
>Anarchy has ever been viable in the last 2 millennia

Okay

>He thinks I'm some commie
Cute.

Your meme ideologies don't work in the real world retard. Cooperativism is as cutthroat as any capitalist system (read on the Spanish book publishing coop that ended up outsourcing its production to China) and anarchism is just retarded.

No rule of law = No property = No viable economy

Grow up.

kek this

steppe tribes

>meanwhile capitalism curb stomped everywhere communism was tried
>communists even teamed up too
>USSR only reached 57% gnp of US
>harder communists try the more they die and screw their own economies

>Syndicalist & Anarchist Economies are high tier
Ah yes, because clearly we've seen syndicalism and anarchism success throughout the world, right?

>Communism is good, goy, perpetuate the Jewish Oligarchy
>"As early as 1907, Stalin wrote a letter differentiating between a "Jewish faction" and a "true Russian faction" in Bolshevism"
>Communists end stop tolerating Jewish bullshit
>The international Hyenas use capitalist countries to wage proxy wars and economically cripple communist countries

When will Western society wake up? We must collectively contemplate the Jewish question.

>When will Western society wake up? We must collectively contemplate the Jewish question.
That question was settled long ago. Acts 14:2.

Hardly anarchic. Scythians had kangdoms.

...

>uses a planned economy to prove his point

oh no it’s retarded

And obviously, coops are forced to compete in a capitalist system when operating in a capitalist structure. And fish can’t breath on fucking land.

Maybe if you didn’t murder us all.

>Maybe if you didn’t murder us all.
Talk shit, get hit. You can't promise to destroy capitalism, nation-states, and religion, and expect to not receive massive resistance from most of the world.

>we’ll destroy capitalism... by instituting state capitalism

Even the Soviets were smart enough to know not to trust the anarchists.

>coops are forced to compete in a capitalist system when operating in a capitalist structure.
If coops were more efficient then we wouldn't need corporations. Yet I've never heard of a worker-run cooperative making any significant contribution to industrial research or innovation. Most of them fail within the first five years.

Yeah, God forbid we’d try to help the working people and give them control if the means of production.

Also, syndicalism and anarchism are not inherently opposed to religion. That’s a tankie view.

You have to be over 18 to post on Veeky Forums.

Coops ARE more efficient. The reason they can’t compete is because they have less disposable income due to higher wages all around.

thenation.com/article/worker-cooperatives-are-more-productive-than-normal-companies/

populareconomics.org/the-efficiency-of-worker-cooperatives-is-just-fine-thank-you/

brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/1995/01/1995_bpeamicro_craig.pdf

The fact is, coops are at a disadvantage because private industry pays workers less. If all businesses were coops, the higher wages and demand would inevitably stimulate even greater economic growth.

>Wow it's almost like different people pursue different goals, so a centralized planned economy would make a mess of things!

What do you think economic marxism is, OP?

>coops are at a disadvantage because private industry pays workers less.
So they are less efficient. Glad you agree.

Holy shit, I am proving as to why they can only function outside a capitalist system, not that they’re more efficient within one.

Do you have the memory of a goldfish, you utter child?

Furthermore, the discussion was ON syndicalist and anarchist economies, not anarchist economic systems within private, capitalist systems. After I explain and counter your point of them being less efficient, by explaining this is due to them competing with private property, and in fact have a higher industrial output, you move the goalposts.

Liberals are the biggest pseuds on this board.

Your links don't prove that.

First article claims worker cooperatives are more efficient but provides no evidence to back that assertion. Second article provides a bunch of economics papers, THREE of them refer to private companies with some worker ownership (ie. Wal-Mart qualifies) which are NOT worker-run cooperatives, only one paper deals with actual cooperatives and surprise surprise it comes from a book called "After Capitalism", which I haven't read but sounds biased as fuck.

Your last link is the only one with some sort of validity, but it only refers to the plywood industry and one of the authors notes the sample size is too small to draw any conclusions.

So, like I said,
>I've never heard of a worker-run cooperative making any significant contribution to industrial research or innovation. Most of them fail within the first five years.

Finally, the goal of any corporation is to draw a profit. If the cooperatibe cannot compete and draw a profit because its labor costs are too high, then by definition it is NOT efficient.

You didn't prove shit, you posted a bunch of links you probably didn't even fully read. Most of those papers were talking about regular corporations with some worker ownership, not cooperatives per se.

All you did was make me waste 15 minutes of my life I am never getting back.

>says coops are more efficient
>Russian empire ditched them and became more efficient
>Soviets brought them back and removed personal incentive and fomented two of the worst famines Russia had ever seen in the span of a decade
>then relied on US for imports
>then went to China to figure out what they're doing
>oh they're co ops are using private incentives
>and then they largely ditched those for private companies
History says otherwise mate.

All you will find in this thread is people calling other people children for not believing or not believing in X. Sad.

>>oh they're co ops are using private incentives
should be
>oh they're using co ops that are using private incentives

Yes.
But they're the anti-vaxxers of the field of economics, no serious economist takes it seriously any more and hasn't since the 1990s.
>uses a planned economy to prove his point
Probably because there is no anarchist economy to compare it to? Even communism is less of a failure.
>Maybe if you didn’t murder us all.
That's what you get for killing nuns and destroying churches. If your perfect system can't withstand agression from a hostile power then it frankly deserves to fail.

>Finally, the goal of any corporation is to draw a profit. If the cooperatibe cannot compete and draw a profit because its labor costs are too high, then by definition it is NOT efficient.

Because you are once again judging this upon a capitalist system. It’s obviously more beneficial to a business’ growth the kess it’s workers are paid. But I am discussing this in the perspective of an anarchist economy, in which private markets aren’t applied.

The point of the links is that businesses run on a cooperative scheme still have a similar output, not that they can compete with private business, as I have said for perhaps the 4th time now.

Yes, private businesses are more efficient under capitalism. Now for the 5th time. You are shouting at a brick wall.

The point is that cooperatives within a syndicalist economy would be no less efficient than private indusry in a capitalist economy, but putting one within the other is like putting a fish on land. Private industry under a capitalist framework is at an inherent advantage as the workers are paid less, providing more room for industrial expansion and technological improvement.

The point is that within a system outside private property, these coops no longer have to compete, and flourish as is.

This will be my last post, as it’s fucking half 1.

>only had the chance to apply our economy within a brutal civil war with our allies backstabbing us
>fail
>haha! anarchism is a failure! back in line prole.

yeah and it's best to not take them seriously and to generally ignore them (I mean it's worth reading about marx more broadly and as part of an understanding of the history of economics it's not uninteresting, however for modern economic study it's useless)

>This will be my last post, as it’s fucking half 1.

Why are britfags always the stupidest?

>only time people want to try anarchism is during brutal civil wars with no allies
To be fair that's hardly surprising

>The point is that cooperatives within a syndicalist economy would be no less efficient than private indusry in a capitalist economy
Except they weren't successful in different economic modes that catered to them specifically,capitalist and varying degrees of socialist all.
>Why are britfags always the stupidest?
I'm noticing the trend.

Well my state consists of 5 people so it should work out.

>Because you are once again judging this upon a capitalist system. It’s obviously more beneficial to a business’ growth the kess it’s workers are paid
It's also beneficial because that excess money goes into things like R&D, innovation, and gets reinvested into growth of the company. If workers - predictably - vote to take home most of the company's surplus then cooperatives will stagnate and fail, as it often happens.

>But I am discussing this in the perspective of an anarchist economy, in which private markets aren’t applied.
That's even worse, without the competition the market system provides all you get is economic stagnation. You still haven't answered how are you planning to enforce property rights without a government to enforce the law.

>still have a similar output
1. Efficiency is not output, two different things.
2. You've only proven this for a sample of 30-something businesses in the plywood industry, the only valid paper out of all your spam.

>these coops no longer have to compete
How is this a good thing?

>>The international Hyenas use capitalist countries to wage proxy wars and economically cripple communist countries

Which war crippled Venezuela?
Because as far I am aware their own policies crippled then, as in any other country socialism was tried

Stop blaming your neighbors for you being such a mess

Redditors trying to colonize this board right now, yes. Communism is by definition the soy creatura's ideal world

Reminder to not take anarkiddies seriously ever.

Millions of college students.

>all creatures ideal world is some creatures ideal world

Captian obvious strikes again

>

Marxists are usually people from hardcore christcuck families who reject their christcuck upbringing only to replace it with a secular Christianity

>all creatures ideal world
>implying communism is ideal for everyone

Well, what about the economic sanctions and embargoes imposed unto venezuela? surely that will negatively affect its economy.

Yes, i was implying that, another glorious success for captian obvious over here

>makes obviously false statement
>is surprised when people call him out on it

>we wuz KHAGANS n shiet

An ideology that can't swim in a sea of other ideologies is useless

Sadly, yes.

Those "embargoes and sanctions" target the leadership's private assets, not the nation. Try again.

>giving people who have nothing more to offer than their sheer physical labor the exceedingly complex means of production is a good idea
If the working class could manage the means of production, they would have moved up into management.

>Maybe if you didn’t murder us all.
>we're better than Capitalism even though we can't complete with capitalism
lmao

I wasn't aware of that, thank you for the clarification.

No problem.

They ARE talking about embargoing the oil as the humanitarian crisis worsens though. It would be a game changer seeing 96% of Venezuela's exports are oil.

At least three of my fucking PoliSci Profs

...

>maybe if you didnt murder us all

Are you talking to capitalists or tankies? One of them will let your commune live if you convert.

How would you even apply labour theory in contemponary "abstract" economy?

>bizarre ideologies from 19\early 20 century can apply to modern day society
do people actually believe it? question goes both to communist and nazi larpers

Yes. And stop spamming threads implying a distinction between "economic" and "cultural" marxism. This is already the 7th or 8th this week. Fuck off already.

Yeah, poor little Saudis, forced by the evil imperialist to live in luxuries.

Everything is possible, as long as you in your internet safespace.

>It's also beneficial because that excess money goes into things like R&D, innovation, and gets reinvested into growth of the company.
Within this context, you don't need excess money to go into R&D, innovation and such. Money is just an unnecessary middle step.
>If workers - predictably - vote to take home most of the company's surplus then cooperatives will stagnate and fail, as it often happens.
I somehow don't see workers taking 20 pairs of shoes for themselves. Plus, this would be regulated. Collective ownership doesn't mean that they can take everything whenever they want.
>You still haven't answered how are you planning to enforce property rights without a government to enforce the law.
Private property wouldn't exist. As for petty crime on personal property, I see no reason why regional pseudo-police forces couldn't be formed democratically by the very community.
>Efficiency is not output, two different things.
In a system where corporations don't exist to make money, but to simply output the highest quality products in the shortest amount of time, it is.

I'm not the user you were arguing with btw

Can you people stop acting as if every socialist is in charge of defending every government who ever called itself "socialist"? What crippled Venezuela (an awful regime altogether) was that it was run by complete morons who depended solely on oil to survive, not whatever "socialism" Venezuela had, if it had any.
I'm not gonna blame capitalism for every single moron who happens to ruin a capitalist country.

reminder that anarchism and all other such ideologies are not inherently opposed to management

>we

No, but if the workers could manage the means of production effectively they would have become foremen, investors and managers in a meritocratic capitalist system

No, Marx is irrelevant in economics.

HA

everyone who has predicted the failures of market economies are marxist economists, all the shills and capital pigs continue to fail to understand this shit which is pretty basic.

keep fighting comrade

Economic Marxism? Nobody relevant. Certainly not any economists.

In reality, Marx's greatest contribution is historical materialism.

ive taken 3 upper level econ courses at university and we literally only ever mentioned marx, every professor told me "his system is kind of shit". The system everyone uses is Keynesian, which is has some Marxist ideas but also some Smithian

I had a Peruvian Macro 101 professor that put it very succinctly: "There are no Marxist Economists. It's an oxymoron."

And it's very true.

I'm not claiming that management should always be physical workers

Yes, as marginalism is the discipline specifying assumption of economics.

You'd want political economy.

the entirety of Western Universities do unironically. In my entry level english class we had to read a chapter on Marx's economic theory and how it can be applied to the Black community in Europe and America.

This English class was taught by a homosexual fat mexican man with a pink mohawk who wasn't even a teacher, he was a masters student. Life is a meme and Economic marxism is perhaps one of the biggest

>This English class was taught by a homosexual fat mexican man with a pink mohawk who wasn't even a teacher, he was a masters student.
I would ask for my money back

>paying for college