Market Socialism

[Kamil]

Is there any one here who advocated market socialism such as what was practiced Yugoslavia or in the current "socialist-orientated maket economy" of Vietnam? If so, what are your ideological reasons behind this and can you explain how a market socialist economy would function, what your ideological definition of the term is? If not, why are you AGIANST market socialism and why do you feel a centrally planned command economy is the better alternative?

[Savage]

Market socialism is an oxymoron, I seriously doubt that anyone on revleft would uphold it.

[sanpal]

Market socialism is an oxymoron, I seriously doubt that anyone on revleft would uphold it.

I know at least one man on revleft who exactly will uphold it. "Market communism" is really oxymoron, market socialism (as theoretical concept) is not.

[Savage]

I know at least one man on revleft who exactly will uphold it. "Market communism" is really oxymoron, market socialism (as theoretical concept) is not.
That's entirely dependent on your understanding of socialism. I uphold socialism as an early stage of communism, in which both the state and market have been abolished.

[sanpal]

I uphold socialism as an early stage of communism, in which both the state and market have been abolished.

That's entirely dependent on your understanding of socialism. I uphold communism as a variant of socialism, in which both the state and market have been abolished.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Every socialist society starts out as a market economy. So it's a matter of where to go from there, not whether or not "market socialism" is possible or is an oxymoron.

[sanpal]

Every socialist society starts out as a market economy.

Without doubt.


So it's a matter of where to go from there, not whether or not "market socialism" is possible or is an oxymoron.

Maybe it's a matter (of where to go from there) for left communists?

Of course, in marxist view the finite goal is communist society
which can be achieved through the transition period having
parallel economies i.e. market economy as a sector + new
non-market economy (plan, communist relations) as
a sector too which have to becreated by the Proletarian government.
So market proletarian socialism is not an oxymoron.

[mykittyhasaboner]

Maybe it's a matter (of where to go from there) for left communists?

Of course, in marxist view the finite goal is communist society
which can be achieved through the transition period having
parallel economies i.e. market economy as a sector + new
non-market economy (plan, communist relations) as
a sector too which have to becreated by the Proletarian government.
So market proletarian socialism is not an oxymoron.

"Where to go from there" was a quick way of saying how to abolish the market in the most definite and successful possible way. This, ironically, means sustaining the market for some time, using a "shadow planning" system (as Paul Cockshott once put it) to operate alongside and plan within the market, until planned economics takes over completely.

This was the situation in all socialist societies in the 20th century, and will be the case tommorrow, except handled in a far different manner.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Gosplan started out that same way.

[renzo_novatore]

Market socialism as advocated by mutualists and by some marxists like david schweickart would, I think, work well. And indeed, I have a great deal of respect for market socialists, because my transition to anarcho-communism from libertarianism would never have happened if I didn't discover Benjamin Tucker or Proudhon. But it does have flaws - the biggest problem with market socialism, imo, is the fact that we would still have to submit to the blind forces of the marketplace. When instead we could control production for our own benefit. Human control of production I think is saner than some superstitious invisible hand, you know?

[∞]

Market Socialism still exhibits business cycles which can alienate workers. Market socialism still has set work day and a quota that has to be met, the wages are a little better but it still doesn't solve the problem at hand.

and to the OP, people who aren't advocates of Market Socialism, do not necessarily support a planned economy (a planned economy by definition, don't get into semantics with me). I believe in a close market without standardizations, and markets that specialize into each individual consumer, all firms belonging to the workers themeselves.

[Paul Cockshott]

Market Socialism still exhibits business cycles which can alienate workers. Market socialism still has set work day and a quota that has to be met, the wages are a little better but it still doesn't solve the problem at hand.

and to the OP, people who aren't advocates of Market Socialism, do not necessarily support a planned economy (a planned economy by definition, don't get into semantics with me). I believe in a close market without standardizations, and markets that specialize into each individual consumer, all firms belonging to the workers themeselves.
Quite so. Although Yugoslavia had quite good productivity growth, it did not create sufficient jobs to employ the population and unemployment had to be kept down by migration to Germany.

[ar734]

Quite so. Although Yugoslavia had quite good productivity growth, it did not create sufficient jobs to employ the population and unemployment had to be kept down by migration to Germany.

A question about Germany: Is it true that workers there make up 50% of the boards of directors of major corporations? If so, does that qualify as market socialism?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Nope. Market socialism refers to wholesale state ownership but on the basis of market planning and pricing. At least that's the orthodox definition.

[Paul Cockshott]

A question about Germany: Is it true that workers there make up 50% of the boards of directors of major corporations? If so, does that qualify as market socialism?
No, because the beneficial owners of the firms are still private shareholders rather than either the public or the employees