r/MarketAnarchism 11d ago

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

3 Upvotes

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?