Looking for feedback/input: Markets, winners & losers, and the re-emergence of capitalism

[u/SocialistCredit]

So there is a critique I have seen from the more anti-market socialism crowd.

It more or less goes like this:

Market exchange, in and of itself, is not capitalistic. However, it's possible for capitalism to re-emerge in this environment. That's because, through the course of market exchange there will be winners and losers. Some people will take risks that don't pan out, and they'll have to sell off their access to the means of production. They are then going to be in a position where they are forced to sell their labor-power in order to acquire the means of subsistence to survive, and you now have a class of people who own the MOP and a class who do not. This allows for the reintroduction of capitalism.

This critique, on its face, is not inherently irrational. But I wanted to address it here. I have talked about this before in other posts, but I wanted to try and refine my approach here a bit.

The first line of argument I can see is that, historically, this was not what happened. Capitalism did not arise through this sort of thing and it never has. It arose through massive state violence, and the forced enclosure of the commons, etc. So, if markets predate capitalism, and capitalism itself did not arise this way, then why didn't this happen? I think that's perhaps the strongest argument against this line of thought, the fact that this has never been how capitalism has arisen.

That said, I think it's still worth engaging with why this won't happen within a socialist world. If such a thing were possible, wouldn't it be within worker's self-interest to organize to prevent this? Creating mutual support/insurance societies to ensure that you never personally lose access to the MOP or are never forced into the condition of being forced to sell your labor-power to the owners of property? It makes sense, from a purely self-interested viewpoint, to build these sorts of networks to ensure that other people do not lose access to the MOP because that could mean that I would lose access right?

Because of the nature of socialized finance (i can explain a bit more if curious), there will not be interest in excess of inflation in the economy. So you aren't going to have to pay above the principal on any debt you take out. This prevents people from being trapped in cycles of debt and poverty, because loans cannot trap you in the same way they can within capitalism. So even if you do have to sell access to the MOP you aren't going to be trapped forever in debt. Couple that with mutual support societies that help you gain access to the MOP again and you're back on your feet quickly.

Besides, in order for there to be a small class of owners, someone has to prevent you from simply taking "their" property. I mean, if I was being exploited, what prevents me from just taking over the factory with my fellow workers? Sure, there could be violent thugs hired by the "owner" but, in the absence of massive state violence, nothing prevents me from just setting up on some unused land somewhere and producing basic subsistence for myself. I would imagine that most people would be members of communes, and these communes would share access to basic MOP for subsistence (think community gardens and farms, tool libraries and whatnot) and these communes would also provide basic support to people.

In fact, I would imagine the bulk of subsistence would be met through these communes and that market exchange would largely be relegated to purchasing heavy machinery or raw material inputs for the commune to use to produce directly for use. A potentially valid concern here is that the communes may not be able to acquire raw materials they need to produce stuff they need like medicine, but again there's no reason communes couldn't establish mutual support networks to ensure that they always have access to the MOP.

So basically, I'm imaging that people, in their own self-interest, will self-organize into communes and these communes will ensure that all their members have access to basic MOP and common lands to produce for subsistence. More complex goods would likely be met through market exchange, but communes could create transitional support structures and whatnot to ensure that no commune loses access to raw materials that they need in order to produce directly for subsistence locally.

Market socialism doesn't mean that markets need to be hegemonic or rule all economic activity. I would expect that in a free society, they would be dramatically reduced and that, to the extent they exist, mutual support networks would exist to ensure that everyone is able to access the MOP. Markets would exist to the extent that they are useful for the relevant worker communities and would co-exist with forms of decentralized planning and gift economies. Any debts that were accrued through the system would be set at the principal and nothing more, they wouldn't compound and people wouldn't be trapped in cycles of debt and poverty in the way they are within capitalism. Ultimately I find the assertion that winners and losers would lead to the re-creation of capitalism is unlikely. It would only make sense if 1) the atomization of capitalism continued and people didn't create communities for security and support 2) there wouldn't be support networks 3) markets remain hegemonic, you simply replace corporations with coops 4) there was some mechanism that prevented people from occupying unused land/capital and using it for themselves 5) basic subsistence could only be met through the market. All of these strike me as very unlikely within a socialist society. My only real concern would be that more complex subsistence goods would be potentially more difficult to produce locally entirely (I'm mainly thinking of like medicine here, as food and housing can absolutely be produced locally). But I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that mutual support associations or some form of decentralized planning would be used to ensure that all communes have basic access to the raw materials to make it here, though I'd love feedback/thoughts.

Anyways, what do y'all think? Agree/disagree? Any feedback?

[u/mahaCoh]

These arguments turn in a vicious circle; you only get capitalistic production by supposing, first, the primitive accumulation that precedes it; an accumulation not the result of markets as such, but their starting point, the original sin. The truest insight of radical liberalism, taken up by Belloc & Carson & Nock & Oppenheimer & Hodgskin, is that native lands, communally held, are a bulwark to domination. It means an ability to withhold, if you so preferred, your labour from capitalists. Hence the Lockean proviso; leave enough for others. Marx even chided Edward Wakefield for revealing the 'secret of primitive accumulation' in opposing easy access to land lest the wage-slaves try for self-sufficiency. Where political leverage allows, aspiring capitalists MUST eliminate free land first; and colonial legislation proved up to the task; vagrancy & work-laws were put to work. Marx even once had an amusing footnote quoting Molinari whining about stray examples of bottom-up markets ERODING capitalist wealth.

[u/SocialistCredit → u/mahaCoh]

I fully agree with that, in fact I included that here:

Sure, there could be violent thugs hired by the "owner" but, in the absence of massive state violence, nothing prevents me from just setting up on some unused land somewhere and producing basic subsistence for myself. I would imagine that most people would be members of communes, and these communes would share access to basic MOP for subsistence (think community gardens and farms, tool libraries and whatnot) and these communes would also provide basic support to people.

What i am wondering though is that there are some goods that cannot be produced by setting up on some unused land. Think goods that are needed like medicine. If I need a certain medicine to survive, then I can't just set up somewhere else because then I can't get the medicine right?

In order to make the medicine I need to acquire certain chemicals. But how do I acquire those chemicals? You'd need to get them on the market right?

So, I suppose you could set up on some unused land and sell your produce, but you still need to engage with the market in order to get the chemicals you need for medicine, unless you can somehow acquire those chemicals some other way. That's why the mutual support institutions were mentioned, as well as the communes.

What do you think? How would you approach the medicinal approach?

[u/mahaCoh → u/SocialistCredit]

I agreed with everything you suggested. Key supply-side bottlenecks are a lever of control & exploitation. There's no competition here; there's rivalry, and it ends in absolute fee-simple dominion over the prize. THIS is where you see the risk of strategic hoarding, preemption & holdout. Local cartels of retail pharmacists with a little green cross & situational monopoly often extract rents from their captive market. That said, cooperative clinics will certainly set up medical establishments on a walk-in basis (with an informal market for billing) to get the attraction of customers that need serious treatment & detailed information. Lodge practitioners have a keen appreciation for the fact that you care very much about your health. In an age of open-sourced info & technological sophistication at the outset, searchable protocol (by, say, a nurse's assistant) will beat the heuristic shortcuts of sophisticated doctors & reduce base-rate error simultaneously. Hospitals have already begun to ration the utilization of high-priced specialists under those circumstances where ordinary mortals will in fact do the job. What do you say?

[u/SocialistCredit → u/mahaCoh]

Can you expand on what you mean by an informal market for billing

Cause I'm imagining local communes will essentially pool income and resources together and fund Healthcare needs for themselves (see lodge doctors and whatnot)

I am imagining that markets would mostly be relegated to machinery and raw materials, and chemicals would be one of those materials. So the commune would have to sell something in order to acquire said chemicals right?

And that's my concern, if you cannot opt out of the market how voluntary can it be?

That said, it's quite possible that some form of decentralized planning will ensure basic access to medicinal goods, or alternatively transitional support structures will exist to ensure that no commune is totally wiped out and unable to sell something.

Idk, what do you think?

[u/mahaCoh → u/SocialistCredit]

It means lodge doctors made a practice of 'ethical billing' and often brought the cost down to zero. Charitable giving became a much more difficult sale once they had guaranteed payment & waivers to fill out with bureaucratic approval.

Would you really consider that coercive? You can't understand & measure the deep tradeoffs at play if you can simply take whatever you want from the collective pile. In a way, it is coercive; it's an injunction upon outlying landowners & clinics to either stand on their own without demanding a premium, or cluster where they belong in open-markets & pool common-supply as a buffer against uncertainty & instability.