Profit falling leading to imperialism seems like its because of profit/expansion driven leadership
Leadership is irrelevant. Firms MUST reinvest some surplus value back into the firm. This will lead to the increase of capital in the business, and lead to overaccumlation crises. Firms must find new markets for their goods, or face certain economic despair.
In order to compete and grow, sure, reinvestment is needed. But even within capitalism, when markets are saturated the lay offs only happen because of a desire for profit growth when faced with a ceiling and they just cannibalize their own company because of perverse incentives. Cooperatives often willingly just impose pay cuts and hour cuts across the board during lean times like a market saturation and then usually endure as a result without the brain drain with their workers still “employed” at the end of the tunnel. Even if new market growth never comes, coops would simply stabilize and become easier work if become fairly low paying work. Where as capitalists tend to sell off the husk of a barely functioning firm for one last quick buck just before its usually doomed to closure from being carved up and mismanaged by leadership that no longer gives a shit.
I’m a socialist but not a strict Marxist. Even if I agree with a lot of his work, in particular I think his analysis is correct about the unsustainable relationship between labor and capitalists because of exploitation for profit, alienation, lack of control over laborer’s own work, etc. That said, I find meta-narratives (by any economist or philosopher) fairly wrong headed and verging on mystical and the level of rigidity towards market’s functionality regardless of potential configuration (like say into a mutualistic market system of coops) similarly wrong-headed and “prophetic”. I meet that level of certainty with skepticism.
I do think that eventually a mutualist market would probably become sort of meaningless eventually and turn into something else.
labor and capitalists because of exploitation for profit
Cool. Worker coops have this.
alienation
As worker coops have.
lack of control over laborer’s own work,
As worker coops have. Especially in a majoritarian “democratic” worker coop model.
That said, I find meta-narratives (by any economist or philosopher) fairly wrong headed
No prophetism here.
Worker coops involve:
A worker, going to work, and selling their labor power for a wage. Just with an extra bonus at the end of the year with the profits and maybe some involvement in voting for decisions of the firm. The production of products for exchange value rather than use-value, a commodity. That’s called capitalism. The firm MUST reinvest SOME of the surplus extracted from their workers, into the operation of the firm, or else it could not continue to operate, this is exploitation, and will lead to imperialism, crisis and alienation.
Could it be a more resilient capitalism? Sure. A better Capitalism isn’t socialism though.
I do think that eventually a mutualist market would probably become sort of meaningless eventually and turn into something else.
This is what social democrats think. That eventually the market system will “reform” itself to socialism. Capitalism can’t be reformed, it’s inherently flawed.
Leadership is irrelevant. Firms MUST reinvest some surplus value back into the firm. This will lead to the increase of capital in the business, and lead to overaccumlation crises. Firms must find new markets for their goods, or face certain economic despair.
In order to compete and grow, sure, reinvestment is needed. But even within capitalism, when markets are saturated the lay offs only happen because of a desire for profit growth when faced with a ceiling and they just cannibalize their own company because of perverse incentives. Cooperatives often willingly just impose pay cuts and hour cuts across the board during lean times like a market saturation and then usually endure as a result without the brain drain with their workers still “employed” at the end of the tunnel. Even if new market growth never comes, coops would simply stabilize and become easier work if become fairly low paying work. Where as capitalists tend to sell off the husk of a barely functioning firm for one last quick buck just before its usually doomed to closure from being carved up and mismanaged by leadership that no longer gives a shit.
I’m a socialist but not a strict Marxist. Even if I agree with a lot of his work, in particular I think his analysis is correct about the unsustainable relationship between labor and capitalists because of exploitation for profit, alienation, lack of control over laborer’s own work, etc. That said, I find meta-narratives (by any economist or philosopher) fairly wrong headed and verging on mystical and the level of rigidity towards market’s functionality regardless of potential configuration (like say into a mutualistic market system of coops) similarly wrong-headed and “prophetic”. I meet that level of certainty with skepticism.
I do think that eventually a mutualist market would probably become sort of meaningless eventually and turn into something else.
Cool. Worker coops have this.
As worker coops have.
As worker coops have. Especially in a majoritarian “democratic” worker coop model.
No prophetism here.
Worker coops involve:
A worker, going to work, and selling their labor power for a wage. Just with an extra bonus at the end of the year with the profits and maybe some involvement in voting for decisions of the firm. The production of products for exchange value rather than use-value, a commodity. That’s called capitalism. The firm MUST reinvest SOME of the surplus extracted from their workers, into the operation of the firm, or else it could not continue to operate, this is exploitation, and will lead to imperialism, crisis and alienation.
Could it be a more resilient capitalism? Sure. A better Capitalism isn’t socialism though.
This is what social democrats think. That eventually the market system will “reform” itself to socialism. Capitalism can’t be reformed, it’s inherently flawed.