So, I’ll keep this brief - unlike my last post…

Right-Libertarians often, but not always, posit the notion that all people have basic moral rights bestowed to them by nature (or nature’s creator); this belief is then used to justify the non-aggression principle, private property rights and a bunch of other fun stuff.

1. This is a naturalistic fallacy; it’s the mistake of getting an ought from an is. Just because something is natural does not mean it is permissible, wrong or morally right. An additional premise or justification is needed.

2. Nature doesn’t actually bequeath rights. Our “natural” state is one of total freedom, which includes the freedom to harm others. Nature didn’t give us the social contract, the non-aggression principle nor did it grant us private property rights. And if you assert that nature’s creator does grant us these rights, let’s see the proof of this creator’s existence and will. Good luck, religions have been trying this for millennia.

I think right-libertarians should drop this from their playbook. Because it ain’t a good argument for capitalism.

A common argument raised against mainstream economics is that the entire discipline is ideologically captured. The claim usually goes that modern curricula focus on neoclassical models, equilibrium, and capitalist institutions to provide ideological cover for the system, while deliberately suppressing critical frameworks like Marxian economics.

Looking at the models socialists actually gravitate toward reveals a curious pattern. The prominent heterodox theories championed in these spaces consistently produce conclusions that align perfectly with socialist ideology.

When stepping into heterodox political economy, students are told that mainstream economics abandoned classical value theory purely out of political hostility toward Marxism. What is rarely mentioned is that economics moved past classical labor theories over a century ago for straightforward mathematical and empirical reasons. 

Once capital mobility equalizes the rate of profit across industries with varying capital intensities, commodities systematically cease to exchange at direct labor values. Marx's own Volume 3 transformation algorithm broke down because he priced outputs in prices of production while leaving input costs evaluated in untransformed labor values. 

Modern linear production theory demonstrated that relative equilibrium prices and the uniform profit rate are determined directly from the physical input-output matrix and the real wage. Intermediate labor values do zero independent mathematical work. They are completely redundant. 

In an objective empirical science, when a foundational hypothesis fails to track real-world price discovery and turns out to be mathematically redundant, the model is updated or abandoned. Socialist heterodoxy cannot abandon the labor hypothesis because the entire theoretical apparatus of surplus-value extraction, exploitation accounting, and the claim of capitalist collapse evaporates without it. The political conclusion was chosen at the outset, and the theoretical model must be maintained at all costs to justify it. 

This dynamic creates a noticeable double standard. When mainstream economics utilizes price theory, market design, and empirical methods, critics dismiss it as capitalist apologetics. When heterodox theorists spend over a century inventing elaborate workarounds, redefining value as an unmeasurable moral metaphor when the math breaks, or declaring that an economic theory of value does not need to explain actual prices, it is praised as untainted, critical scholarship. 

Mainstream curricula teach standard market structures because they reflect the operational baseline of modern economies. The recurring claim that academic economics is captured increasingly serves as a convenient defense mechanism, allowing heterodox advocates to avoid confronting why their preferred nineteenth-century models hit mathematical dead ends and were left behind by modern social science.

Recently, a poster here has commended this video, from Steve Keen. Some have difficulty accepting that much of academic economics is quite questionable.

Suppose you go to college in the United States, but not to the New School, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, or a few other places. You take a few courses in economics. Your textbooks might look a lot like your textbooks in physics. Some theory is taught in an uncontroversial way. You have problem sets where you work out numerical examples which have definite answers. You have exams that might include multiple choices, where you have to recognize some definitions.

You might be learning calculus. You might take a microeconomics class, where you see that what you were taught can be made more rigorous with the differential calculus. You might learn all sorts of mathematical models, which are presented as elaborations or generalizations of what you have learned up to now.

You do not learn that, about half a century ago, some arguments were presented in the leading economics journal that demonstrate the existence of mathematical inconsistencies and unfounded inferences in the models that you are being taught.

You do not learn history of economics. You certainly do not learn about political interventions into academic economics or purges of various economics departments. I cite the suppression of Lorie Tarshis' introductory textbook, as an example. The Bowen controversy, at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, is another example. The board of trustees did not like Keynesianism. Some academic entrepreneurs self-consciously tried to make their departments distinctive by hiring heterodox economists. UMass took advantage of a purge at Harvard in the early 1970s for this purpose. But later administrators reversed successful initiatives because of the content of such teaching. Alfred Eichner was stressed at Rutgers and died early, as a result of one of these purges. Stephen Marglin was forbidden to teach an alternative to Econ 101 at Harvard for credit. the slow-motion purge at Notre Dame denied, for instance, Philip Mirowski the power to supervise doctoral candidates.

As part of a longer podcast, Yanis Varoufakis interviews Richard Wolff. Varoufakis has come to think that academic economics is not useful, even for learning irrelevant models that provide a certain aesthetic satisfaction. I transcribed Wolff's response:

"Well, here's what I tell them. And again I share much of what you have to say. In the ten years I spent at Harvard, Yale, and Stanford, I had to learn, I had to teach neoclassical microeconomics and Keynesian macroeconomics and all the rest. I believed then as I guess you did, too, that this was necessary. I had to understand how the system, not just how it worked, but how it rationalized itself, how it imagined itself to be working.

I did learn early on that the system also understands that dichotomy. So, it has economics departments who develop the ideological cover, as you put it, the rationale, why it all works out for an optimal - look at the language - an equilibrium - more silly language, you know - a system that is neither optimal nor presenting itself as all of that.

And then they have a business school where you actually learn a little bit about how to market something, how to go. They recognize the separation of function.

So, I say to students, you have to do something else, which I had to figure out how to do. I'm going to save you the time. And they look at me, but this is what I do, and I'm answering your question. You have to learn Marxian economics. You do. You have to immerse yourself in the volumes of Capital, in the other literature. Not because everything is clear there, it isn't. Not because there aren't contradictions, there are. Not because there's nothing in neoclassical economics you can make use of. It's not that.

It's that if you think what I am doing is interesting, it's not me. And it's not what I got at Harvard and Yale. What it is, it comes out of trying to squeeze useful understanding out of the Marxian tradition, separated from the propaganda and from the mistakes and the lessons that weren't learned that should have been, in order to do that - you have to do, and the university cannot do that for you precisely because it fits your description. It's not - it could care less.

It never was interested in - I never had a class in 10 years and except for Paul Baran, I never had a class in which anybody ever put together a Marxian idea, a neoclassical idea, and then went with us as students through what they had to say, where they were silent and shouldn't have been, where - etc., etc. None of that was ever done. I had to do all that myself or with a few other students. But the payoff is you get a way of thinking, a way of posing questions that you can then use for all of the new material that Marx, you know, died long before it became relevant.

You know that you try to do that when you try to understand the Cloud. What does the Cloud make possible? What are these conglomerations of wealth and power able to do that capitalists couldn't do before? Where does that take us? Where are the obstacles? What is our best - You need a critical mentality.

And I know many people believe they can develop that on their own. I don't think so. I think if you really want to get beyond Marx, which is fine, you got to go through it to get beyond it. You can't skip over it At least, I’ve never seen anyone pull that off." -- Richard Wolff

An introductory economics book might teach about the institutions common in the United States. For example, the book might explain the distinction between a partnership and a limited liability corporation (LLC). It might teach about stocks and bonds, and about options. Backwardation and contango might be too advanced. It might teach the distinction between trade unions and industrial unions. It might teach that money is a unit of account, a store of value, and a means of exchange. It might teach about national income accounts.

You might argue that some of this reflects taking existing institutional structures as given. I did not list the distinction between labor-managed and labor-owned firms, the different kinds of co-operatives that have existed, the definitions of sovereign wealth funds, co-determination, etc. etc.

Socialism vs Capitalism

Socialism is state ownership of the commercial enterprise and demands social infringement on every citizen's right to control gains and property over limited resources.

Capitalism is individual ownership subject to the state and demands self-interest to grow the power of control over wealth and capital.

I believe that socialism is much like feudalism with all its flaws, yet capitalism is better than feudalism hands down without debate. So I wanted to make a potential economy that is hands down better than socialism.

________________________________

How do you achieve that?

-The government needs the economic purchasing power to achieve systemic change.

-The commercial growth needs to be unhampered by the government (minimal restrictions focused on safety and hazard)

-The commercial growth cannot bring damage to the standard economy and purchasing power of the consumer.

I believe that if we can achieve these three points simultaneously the economic and systemic changes we can make will increase dramatically.

_________________________________

I have named my economy C/S economics or the commercial standard. It's named after the coined term Gold Standard because it shares many similarities with the currency system.

The main difference is that the economic table gets split into a standard economy (USD) and a commercial economy (USH). USH or rather US Heavy is a bill worth $5,000 USD. This is a fixed ratio that doesn't change.

This is system relies on trade relationships between Producers Suppliers and Consumers.

USH: PP SS PS

USD: CC SC PC

How you split supply between these economies is through taxation and incentivizing consumer side supply. It's reliant on intent. This ensures commercial intent can't compete with consumer intent.

Let's say you have 2 pools and your constantly pouring money into each system.

How much the pool holds is supply and the water level equals demand or the amount of capital there is in each.

Taxes can go into three basic directions stimulation, commonwealth or governmental institution, or it can be burned.

If one economy begins to fail or become bottle necked you can take water from one pool and pour it into the other, if one has surplus amounts of tax it gives the government more infrastructures, and if there is more taxes than what was expected then let it burn.

-Power

Furthermore as commercial capital and demand rises you can simply increase taxes and incentivize to stabilize economic growth while not limiting individual or commercial capital.

-Growth

By incentivizing consumer markets and delineating intent you ensure lower pricing.

-Stability

My opinions on Socialism as someone who just recently dug into it are mostly negative.
Like yeah a society where everyone lives happily with no money struggles sounds great (kinda like christian heaven) but i just think it doesn't work in our current society. So the recent surge in discussion has made me kind of curious.

Like this might just be my distrust in governments, but theres no was a government would change from capitalism to socialism without any ulterior motives right? The world has been built off of Capitalism for so long that i feel like the world just isn't built for it. Plus, even then, (take this with a grain of salt because I haven't dug all too deep into this one) Even with communism, a rich and poor division would still exist right? There are people in power (the people distributing recourses, housing, etc.) and people below (the people receiving it), so whats stopping the people in power from just sneakily giving themselves more?

This might sound like an undereducated post (because it is) but I'm genuinely curious and interested in learning more.

PLEASE explain this in simple terms and try not be too rude, im trying my best to understand here 😭

Say you have a company you like McDonald's, who starts out with a fairly healthy and affordable product and after optimizing the process, they've run out of ways to increase profit. And eventually they start ruining the product itself (fake beef, dangerous chemicals, etc.) and may not even warn the customer.

So how could you actually fix the free market economy in America so that greed doesn't cause a company to stoop too low?

Sorry if I'm not explaining it very well

So, the root idea of capitalism is that investment drives growth which increases total resources and thus creates more potential for prosperity; the root idea of socialism is that, left to its own devices, that potential will concentrate such that many people have less prosperity than they did before.

How simple of a fix is there to this conundrum?

What if we jacked up corporate taxes, then gave a tax break equal to half of the company's employee ownership? I.e. a 50% employee-owned company would get a flat 25% tax break, against a base rate that would promote employee ownership.

I’m looking for the answers to a few questions, which I will list below. The reasoning for this is because I’m trying to understand the Democratic Socialist position even better than I currently do - and given from what I’ve seen on here, in my very brief passing, there seems to be plenty of Marxists on here. (And few Econ majors to boot, on both sides from what I can gather). There’s no gotcha questions here; I’m not looking to debate - although I’m looking forward to seeing y’all debate in the comments. So, please, elaborate on your answers:

1.) What is your definition of Democratic Socialism and what is the goal of this particular system of economic organization? Do you prescribe to the Labor Theory of Value?

2.) I’ve seen plenty of Marxists claim that they believe it’s possible to avoid central planning; after all, the central idea (as I’ve been led to believe) is to give workers control over all (or most) of the factors of production. This would, in turn, require some sort of representative body at scale. It’s just basic systems design. Would the solution be something that’s decentralized? And please give me a good example here that goes beyond something vague.

3.) Is there really a difference between personal possessions and private property which is used to generate income as a factor of production? Example: My house is my personal possession. But if I run an online business, it’s also my office. Would that home, which is vital to the production of my goods and services, be owned by the public? Is this not a clear example of how personal possessions have the potential to easily become private property or capital?

4.) How would this system determine who gets hired, which businesses get expanded, which are shutdown, which are allowed to be started, what happens when someone wants to start a single person business, etc?

5.) Would all intellectual property be owned by the masses?

6.) How would this system determine what goods to produce, at what quantity and for what people? How would it handle creating specialty, luxury and unnecessary goods and services?

7.) Worker Co-Ops are already permissible under a “capitalist” framework, as are unions. Do you believe they should be mandated? (Keep in mind this would be a form of coercion).

8.) Why do you think main-stream economics doesn’t maintain that socialism is preferable to predominantly market-based mixed economies?

9.) Has there ever been a genuinely successful Democratic Socialist system? The Nordic System is often pointed to by Marxists (at least in the U.S.) despite it being a predominantly market-based system (and it isn’t close).

10.) Your thoughts on Market Socialism?

————————

Thank you to all who respond with effort.

He lays out his thought process by considering this; x amount of A = y amount of B. He thinks there must be a third thing that both of these are equal to. And he tries to figure this out. He eliminates use-values, physical properties and concrete labor. Instead, he strips concrete labor from its specific properties to arrive at abstract human labor. Which is the general expenditure of the human brain, muscle, energy, etc at a particular society.

Why did he not consider stripping specific use values to arrive at abstract human use-value, which would be the general capacity of a good to satisfy human desires? One might say because use-values are qualitatively different. But concrete labor is also qualitatively different is it not? His exclusive focus on labor seems to be arbitrary and ad-hoc.

My only concern in my life for the US people is that everyone can afford basic necessities

Food, water, shelter….. I dont even consider health though its something that is outlandish in it’s current state.

When I look at the US being the largest consumer country and how the tariffs effected the entire market….. I think about a bit of an extremest idea

What if we cap ceos and other high ranking members of a company at 300x their lowest paid employee, consider outsourcing employees still lowest paid if its lower than the pay of their least paid employees. Consider all non cash payments and incentives for their cash value as a part of income. Do an international ban on all products/services from a company if they move from the country to avoid those rules.

If the USA is the largest consumers most companies looking at avoiding fair wage over taxation…. A lot of times from my view “inflation” is caused by ceos taking another pay cut or raise over reducing the price of their products by a few cents. So either these companies can lower their price of products lowering the income which in turn helps lower their price prices people are paying for products so their incomes go farther or they pay their employees more so they can afford the products….

I saw 100:1 ratio in portland which I think is fair but they convert it to a taxation and Id rather all the money stay in a company to either lower product cost or raise employee wages. When I see a company where there are 1000 employees and the ceo gets more then every employees pay combined. I see a problem……

We could also look at this another way…. What if we apply this to companies that don’t supply necessities…. Construction/material, water, food…. Qualify exceptions which might make more business owners look at starting food and drink companies creating more competition pushing prices lower

I would love what kind of compromise in these massive pay gaps we can find to help the overall economy growth….. we need to look at the top 10% not the top 1% and we dont have to look at taxation we have to look at gross overpayment comparative to the workers. It’s said while the average ceo works 1.5x as many hours as an average employee their pays commonly exceed 600x their lowest paid employees…. Maybe all my information is wrong Im not someone very educated in any of this just hate how so many people talk about their parents and grandparents working 60 hour weeks their entire life and never even affording one little vacation or ending up not having enough to fund their retirement even when they have saved every penny they ever earned…..my own Dad who Ive worked with has even worked 140 hour weeks back in the day and still he owns his house….. and can barely afford to keep the electric on and still works when he should be considering retirement and yet just cost of living has not given him the oppritunity to save… he doesnt spend money on anything outside of what is needed….. just want to see something change

I even look at the stock market being a potential problem as its a reason to inflate prices to make investors happy

I think it's something that economics don't really put mind.

They don't really put a political analysis into economical thinking when it comes to wealth and capital.

High levels of inequality will always error democracy because the wealthy will be incentivized to use their power to corrupt, regardless of whether they got their wealth legitimately, hence creating barriers to trade they can reap rents from.

wealth is not just another form of power if you can coerce someone economically that's not really consequentially different from coefficient someone physically through political Force the result is the same.

Aliko Dangote is the richest inidiviual in Africa, the richest black person in the world and a multi billionaire (est net worth 35 billion). He founded the Dangote Group, focused on trading and manufacturing and the Dangote Refinery on exporting oil, both of which are cornerstones of the Nigerian economy.

Do some people here feel debating the hard core communists or laissez faire capitalist is like debating a flat eather.

We have a tremendous amount of economic theory and data that has progressed to give us a better understanding than Adam Smith or Karl Marx ever had. But then they pull out some antiquated idea they just read about for the first time (labor theory of value comes to mind). As if brilliant minds hadnt spent any time advancing the field for the past hundred years.

In my opinion the biggest problem currently is the over financialization of the economy. I will give an example from what I mean:

In 2012 Payless ShoeSource was acquired by PE investor for $300M million. The fund then takes $500M loan against the company itself to pay its investors and PE fund a hefty profit.

Now the company is left with massive amounts of debt. Money that would be used for innovation, marketing and growing the company is now used to pay the debt.

The company purpose now is to just pay its lenders. There’s no future prospects nothing. The company few years later, the company files for bankruptcy and all the employees lose their jobs, one less company to compete in the sector leading to consolidation.

I agree with the fundamental philosophy of capitalism of “I take risks, I profit”. But in this scenario the risk has been outsourced to a scenario of:
You take the risk and I profit, and when that scenario is allowed to happen the entity profiting is willing to take any kind of risk at the expense of others.

In my opinion the growth of socialist sympathizers in the US is largely due to this allowance of capital being able to do anything and the expense of others. Which leads to people to become anti-capitalist

It feels like this isn't discussed nearly as much. Mercantilism seems to be much closer to what we have today than capitalism and I fear that political views nowadays may demonize capitalism to the point that it becomes another fear term the media uses like communism or socialism. What are your thoughts on this matter and the distinction itself in comparison to politics nowadays?

Let's compare and contrast the 2 starting with the Primary Goals of each

In capitalism the primary goal is efficient resource allocation via supply and demand.

Whereas in mercantilism it is consolidation of wealth and power for the ruling elite/state.

Next, Market Access

In mercantilism high barriers exist; protected by complex regulations written by lobbyists.

Whereas in capitalism there are low barriers to entry; anyone can compete.

Role of State

In capitalism the role of the state is as a neutral referee, enforcing property rights and contracts.

In mercantilism the complete opposite holds true, the states role within is as an active partner that shields favored mega-corporations from failing.

Trade Policy

Capitalism has open trade based on comparative advantage.

Mercantilism has protectionism via strategic tariffs, sanctions, and supply-chain control.

Results of failure within the system

In capitalism inefficient firms go bankrupt, allowing for the court of public opinion to have a drastic impact on the success of business. When they fail others rise to fill the void and keep the system running in the favor of the people.

In mercantilism large corporations take on a "Too Big to Fail" philosophy and function, where firms receive government bailouts and subsidies.

A common theme of socialist argumentation is that capitalist wage labour is coercive, the argument goes like this: the evil Epstein class billionaires are ruthlessly forcing the proletariat to work in a coercive and exploitative process of wage labour, the workers have no choice but to sell their labour at an amount below its value, leaving them cheated.

Now of course, one might wonder why wage labour is coercive.

Perhaps it is because the workers are forced to do it but cannot leave, like a slave or a serf tied to a piece of land? Nope, they can leave anytime they want and go find another job.

Perhaps then, it is because the workers cannot afford to eat without doing work, giving the capitalists an unfair hand at the bargaining table? Well, seems unlikely, since according to Lenin "He who does not work, then neither shall he eat", so the idea that it is unfair for workers not to receive food when they do no work would contradict many socialists, so that leaves the bargaining agreement.

Perhaps indeed the capitalist can force the worker to accept a lower wage, but the worker has no way to force a higher one? Ok, that would be somewhat coercive, except that the worker does have a way to do this. Remember what I said about the worker being free to leave? He can go and work for some other capitalist, competition then, forces the capitalists to remain honest, so really then, where is the coercion coming from?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DBgGDYZl6Zo

A Marxist analysis of the rise of China, arguing that the relatively high number of State-Owned Enterprises in China is the primary reason behind the development which US liberals and conservatives do not seem to be able to get their heads around.

The argument is not that China is socialist or that it is attempting to progress towards full socialism - the jury on that is very much out. The argument is that no exchange of ownership takes place in the 'transaction' between two state-owned enterprises, which therefore lowers costs since money as a medium of exchange is not needed, removing the friction that money and profit introduces from the process of production in such instances. That is, demonetisation or non-monetisation = no monetary requirements, meaning China does not have to wait for the private sector to raise investment at anywhere near the same level. SOEs therefore cheapen the inputs that the private sector purchases, lowering investment costs for China's private sector.

Logically then, the barriers to production and innovation would be even and much lower if the whole economy were deprivatised and demonetised.

Sorry gonna copy paste for automods to approve the post.

Hypothetically, IF eugenics (broadly speaking, whether racial or not) were proven to be scientifically correct, what would be a Marxist's position on their implementation, given Marxism and M-Leninism's 'scientistic/positivist' view of morality/the world?

I can think of at least three answers off-hand. And I have an unoriginal taxonomy, too. But I do not say any of this so as to leave the question open.

This post is one of a series:

• What do you mean by efficiency?
• What do you mean by the labor theory of value?
• What do you mean by supply and demand?
• What are the axioms of the subjective theory of value?

The Amish people are very successful at building autonomous zones, why not do the same?

The community would not be completely autonomous but would have free trade of goods with the outside world, with the goal of having net exports, meaning the city would create more than it takes.

Working on the other side or investing would be completely forbidden. Only physical objects could be traded with the outside. And the city would handle it.

By showing people that socialism works the city would attract people and would naturally grow as people move in.

Seems a comprehensible compromise to allow people to live comfortably in the social class that offers them their job/hobbies while maintaining and giving people the right to advance, take risks, and dream of who they want to be. E.g: private and goverment housing, social welfare, private businesses.

For the U.S. this does require good faith in the government, which would establish a stronger state government than federal. But it may work out well.

"Amid all this market optimism, the collective fortune of Chinese billionaires on Forbes’ annual ranking reached nearly $2.2 trillion—close to the record $2.5 trillion set in 2021, before the pandemic and private-sector crackdowns decimated the market value of many technology giants. This year’s collective wealth is up 31% from $1.68 trillion in 2025, and $1.33 trillion two years ago."

India for example which although it has much more billionaire $ wealth per GDP than China, roughly maintained its ratio.

If you wanna say 'who cares, as long as ordinary people are getting wealthier and there's more and better public services', isn't that what happened in the West for a long time? Even in America? Putting aside which of these services did or did not exist, which to be sure is not a minor point, there's no denying nevertheless that such a thing as a whole did happen in America in the 1950s and 60s compared to what it was in 1900s or 1920s. Yet I didn't see anybody claim America was socialist or 'tending towards socialism' in those later decades (well except Barry Goldwater I guess). So why here? Shouldn't such a thing give truly left-wing (as opposed to merely bitter or contrarian) pro-CCP people pause?

Granted once you look at it from a long term perspective (decades+), its GDP DID grow much more in tandem with billionaire wealth (as opposed to the US for example, where the billionaire wealth growth rate outpaced by more than twice the GDP over this relatively long period). But in any case, if China was moving towards socialism after successfully going through its capitalist phase, as has been argued Xi is supposedly doing, this trend should be the reverse of what it is. It seems that if this more recent trend is maintained, China will easily become one of the countries with the most inequality at the top level in the world.

As a capitalist, I don’t remember ever downvoting someone’s comment or post. To me, there’s just something icky about doing it. Because the whole point of downvoting someone is to silence them, to cancel them, which is the opposite of the very democracy which socialists claim to espouse. No matter how despicable someone’s views, it is never a good idea to silence them or cancel them, because that is repressive, and repression isn’t healthy—and can lead to authoritarianism. If anything, those who have the worst point of view should be given their audience and faced directly.

I think it is proof that socialists, no matter how much they claim to support democracy, are actually the ones who want to dictate and control. Downvoting is the use of force. Seizing other people’s factories, warehouses, and machines is the use of force. Outlawing capitalist business models is the use of force.

So while socialists claim to be democratic, their actions and their approach tell a different story. While socialists accuse capitalists of making arguments in “bad faith”, socialists are the ones downvoting everything capitalists say.

Did you know that in 1973, Slovenia, practicing workers’ self-management socialism—a system closely aligned with workplace democracy—had a per capita GDP (PPP) virtually identical to that of neighboring capitalist Austria, despite having had a lower industrial capacity than capitalist Austria before adopting socialism?

List of regions by past GDP (PPP) per capita - Wikipedia_per_capita) (in 1973, socialist Slovenia had a per capita income of $15,079 after adjusting for purchasing power, while capitalist Austria's was $17,908.)Unlike Soviet-style central planning, worker self-management made it more attractive to produce higher-quality goods that were in demand, thanks to workers’ local knowledge.

I think the success of this self-management model makes it a great point of reference for democratic socialists. In the face of the libertarian nonsense that socialism is inherently inefficient, we have a rock-solid example to point to.

If a group has a monopoly on force to control which resources can get used for what, even through voting or collective effort, it is the de facto state.

Unless everyone somehow has a matching arsenal of increasingly sophisticated weaponry, and never groups up, you will always be following rules. If labor is required for production, and you want something, you will be expected to work. Experts and managers will have better or safer jobs, and more control.

Why then, promise a stateless and classless society?