What a market is

[sc4r]

A market is a means of dynamically measuring and balancing needs against other needs so as to determine the production balance that best satisfies those needs given limited total resources.

Now in the Capitalist market 'need' as far as the market is concerned is measured by money.

And money in the capitalist system is not distributed evenly. Which means that greater weight is given to peoples needs if they as people have more money.

And because they are allowed by capitalism to participate in the market as both consumers and producers it is possible for them to use the market to aquire the very means of disproportionately influencing it (namely money).

Capitalism, of course, allows people to trade not merely in current production but in the rights to future production (this is what effectively 'comon ownership of the means of production' stops).

So if you forbid people from trading in future rights, and as producers/suppliers, you have a market which performs exactly the same (very valuable) balancing function but does not create cumulative inequity.

Thats why a 'socialist market' is neither Anti-marxist nor Capitalist; and why it is pretty much a 'must have' for any long term viable society. Nothing else remotely addresses the reality that people want different things to other people ,and the goal that as far as possible they should get as many of those things as is commensurate with fair sharing of those things.

[Xprewatik RED]

Elaborate. Socialism is no good either you go toward a fully communistic society or you stick to capitalism. Socialism decays over time. It is a money based system, with no money incentives, thus over time it fails. There is a patriotic boom then from then on the system decays and slowly collapses.

[sc4r]

Originally posted by Xprewatik [email protected] 19 2003, 01:21 AM
Elaborate. Socialism is no good either you go toward a fully communistic society or you stick to capitalism. Socialism decays over time. It is a money based system, with no money incentives, thus over time it fails. There is a patriotic boom then from then on the system decays and slowly collapses.
Elaborate yourself.

All you have done is to assert that it must be one thing or the other. Since I'm self evidently saying that no it does not, suppose you explain why the market I just described is not commensurate not only with progress towards communsim but actually fully consistent with a communist system itself. Or at least ask a question or raise an objection phrased at the same level as what I wrote.

What you actually have done is to raise an objection that assumes things that are directly challenged by what I wrote. You cannot progress by doing that sort of thing. Sorry.

I could elaborate till kingdom come and not get anywhere unless you take the trouble to formulate a question or objection at an appropriate level. What would you have me do? write out the 35 years worth of expereicne and research that contribute to my view of this question?

Sorry, this business of appropriate question level to enable true discussion is one of those things that is very hard indeed to explain to people. Thats partly because we are all conditioned to argue rather than discuss and few of us have much real experience of actual productive discussion.

What do you mean by a 'money based system'. What do you understand by the term 'money'. Whats does 'money' represent in a capiatlist system? What does it represent in a socialist system. What do you mean by a 'money incentive'. Why do you say that a socialist system has none. And of course how does all of this stack up to creating a system with no stablibity?

All of these sorts of things would need to be made clearer before you statement had the status of anything beyond a simple unjustified assertion. In other words merely a pretty unjustifed (and in my mind probably uninformed) opinion.

[Xprewatik RED]

Well in socialism, prices are controlled wages are controlled etc etc, however, currency is still used in the purchasing of good and commodities.
In socialism party members military officials, and other people of importance earn more thus they can purchase items that are nicer then that of the laborer( at least in socialist societies so far). How do you suppose to motivate a worker who cannot be fired, yet did not pass college examinations thus cannot move up to a level where he enjoys his job?(not all workers are like this)

[sc4r]

Ahh I see. Thankyou (and I mean that sincerely).

You are talking of a command economy socialist model. Not about Market socialism.

Prices are not controlled centrally in market socialism, thats the actual point of a market.

Whether you pay 'party officials' or officials more than a labourer is not a feature of Socialism but a decision taken by an individual Socialist society. Its not something that impacts on theory unless you can show why this must be the case. I pretty obviously say that there is no reason why it should be so.

Personally, as I said in another thread, I actually do see that differnetial reward (not on the basis you suggest though) would be needed in any immediately post Capitalist Socialism. This could be assessed through a markey mechanism itself, or it could be simply imposed by society and decided by designated individuals. Its not perfect either way, but we are talking now of pragmatic consideration not of unattainable perfection.

The key question for you would be why you feel you can say that it would be impossible to motivate someone without financial reward if they were in a Socialist society but by implication say that this would not be the case in a communist society with the identical imediate history?

Your arguments really seem to me to be directed against Socialism rather than against market Socialism specifically. Why socialism (perhaps then leading to communism) is a better idea than 'direct to communism' is a completely different discusion. One that is basically decided by realistic practical expectations. In my view (in common with Marx) it is totally and utterly implausible to think that overnight people are going to aquire the social skills and attitudes required to make any system of commnism feasible. Marx saw socialism as a step because he felt that people would not suddenly put these skills and attitudes into effective practise having never done anything like it before. I totally agree.

I can just about concieve of 'straight to communism' working by a different process of growth / development. This time by starting off with a very small closed socety which gradually grew and and incorporated more and more people rather than by developing the attitudes of a large body of people already within a society. BUT, and its a huge but, I dont actualy see that such a fledgling small society would be allowed to develop unmolested to the point hat it could actually defend itself anyway.

I suppose that WITHIN a socialist society such a communist society might be allowed to develop BTW. Which is yet another reason wht the 'straight to communism' types seem to me to be so incredibly self destructive when they oppose a more limited socialist movement.

P.S. You have prompted me to think and in doing so led me to a new insight. I had never before considered the idea of a fully fledged communist society within a Socialist one. My thanks for that; it's actually made me think that just possibly this forum is not such a waste of time after all. One idea like that is worth a lot to me. MY THANKS.

[Bradyman]

That's an intricate idea Sc4r.

"I suppose that WITHIN a socialist society such a communist society might be allowed to develop BTW."

Exactly. There is no direct approach to communism. It takes time to condition the people into the understanding that people are working together. At the present moment everyone fears all they do not know because they are in direct competition with one another. Under your ideas of Market Socialism, hopefully, those fears would be alleviated. With this accomplished, the mutual trust between people would eventually lead to the abandonment of money in general. Thus a form of Communism would appear.