How would market socialism work?

[JFB.anon]

Market socialism is basically the usage of Workers' self-management/cooperatives to ensure worker's get the full profit of their labor. However, that would basically mean that less workers = more profit microeconomically. Wouldn't that mean high unemployment, as people would have to start businesses en masse? ("Do people even want to start businesses en masse?" is the question here.)In a theoretical society, wouldn't the government have to ingrain entrepreneurship from young?:confused:

[Gustav HK]

How would market socialism work?

It wouldn´t.

[Jose Gracchus]

Capitalist relations will remain in part, during the transition to socialism but after the working-class has been raised to the ruling class. But "market socialism" is a contradiction in terms.

[Tim Cornelis]

Market Socialism is not a contradiction in terms. Market socialism, imo, is undesirable, but it's socialism nonetheless.

Less workers does not mean higher profits, because you need an X amount of output to maximize profits. With 10 workers I can produce 50 cars making, say, 500,000 dollars. But with 5 workers I cannot still produce 50 cars.

Market socialism would function the same as the capitalist market does now, except for the internal management of the workplaces. That would indeed mean unemployment but because of higher wages and, supposedly, more effective markets it would be significantly lower.

Also, arguing market socialism does not work is empirically false.

[The Jay]

Why couldn't it work? There are several companies and factories that are worker controlled, in which everyone is paid the same, and I mean in the United States. Market socialism would just mean that this principle would be applied to every enterprise would it not?

[Gustav HK]

Titoite Yugoslavia had a special form of capitalism, it wasn´t socialist.

[Rodrigo]

@LiquidState: Are you referring to cooperativism? This kind of property turns into a traditional capitalist property occasionally.

[The Jay]

@LiquidState: Are you referring to cooperativism? This kind of property turns into a traditional capitalist property occasionally.

Yes, I am talking about worker-only cooperativism. This seems like the closest a capitalist system can come to a socialist society, and a viable blueprint to a socialist market. If anyone thinks that's a pile, I'm open to be educated.

[Broletariat]

The way Marx defined Capitalism, generalised commodity production, market "socialism" is still Capitalism and thus prone to all the tendencies Marx laid out in Das Kapital.

[Jose Gracchus]

Market Socialism is not a contradiction in terms. Market socialism, imo, is undesirable, but it's socialism nonetheless.

Less workers does not mean higher profits, because you need an X amount of output to maximize profits. With 10 workers I can produce 50 cars making, say, 500,000 dollars. But with 5 workers I cannot still produce 50 cars.

Market socialism would function the same as the capitalist market does now, except for the internal management of the workplaces. That would indeed mean unemployment but because of higher wages and, supposedly, more effective markets it would be significantly lower.

Also, arguing market socialism does not work is empirically false.

What defines socialism? What defines market socialism in your use? Why can I not use Titoist Yugoslavia as a case of failed market socialism.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Since the OP has been restricted, this thread should be moved to OI. :confused:


Capitalist relations will remain in part, during the transition to socialism but after the working-class has been raised to the ruling class. But "market socialism" is a contradiction in terms.

Yes and no. It isn't a contradiction when thinking about Bourgeois Socialism, Petit-Bourgeois Socialism, True Socialism, and so on critiqued by Marx and Engels.

The political DOTP will undoubtedly be merged with some form of "socialist" agenda. Although it isn't one of any phase of the communist mode of production, we just have to make sure that agenda facilitates the transition, like having a Fully Socialized Labour Market (http://www.revleft.com/vb/supply-side-political-t152098/index.html) (the absence of which has been a failure of almost every market-socialist model to date) or Meidnerism for dealing with capital markets.

[Tim Cornelis]

What defines socialism? What defines market socialism in your use? Why can I not use Titoist Yugoslavia as a case of failed market socialism.

I'm not a Marxist so I'm not going to adopt the definition of capitalism as generalized commodity production. I define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production and socialism as collective ownership of the means of production. Meaning market socialism is a form of socialism. The fact that the law of value still applies to market socialism is another discussion.

And Titoist Yugoslavia didn't fail per se.

In terms of economic growth it did not better or worse than any other Eastern bloc country.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/Eastern_bloc_economies_GDP_1990.jpg

In practice "workers' self-management" merely amounted to "workers' co-determination".

[Broletariat]

I'm not a Marxist so I'm not going to adopt the definition of capitalism as generalized commodity production. I define capitalism as private ownership of the means of production and socialism as collective ownership of the means of production. Meaning market socialism is a form of socialism. The fact that the law of value still applies to market socialism is another discussion.

Even with your non-marxist definition, market socialism is still Capitalism. It's privately owned by a few people, namely those that work there.

Also, it's not JUST the law of value, it's goddamn near everything in Das Kapital that applies to market socialism since it fits the definition Marx set out of Capitalism.

[Tim Cornelis]

Even with your non-marxist definition, market socialism is still Capitalism. It's privately owned by a few people, namely those that work there.

That's not private ownership, that's collective ownership--all working people own means of production.


Also, it's not JUST the law of value, it's goddamn near everything in Das Kapital that applies to market socialism since it fits the definition Marx set out of Capitalism.

Like I said that's another discussion entirely.

[Nox]

In terms of economic growth it did not better or worse than any other Eastern bloc country.


Economic growth doesn't correlate with control of the proletariat, otherwise China would be the perfect Socialist society :rolleyes:

Also, to the OP, Market Socialism doesn't work, it's a load of rubbish.

Hoxha > Tito

[hatzel]

Economic growth doesn't correlate with control of the proletariat, otherwise China would be the perfect Socialist society :rolleyes:

As luck would have it, the question wasn't necessarily so much about the degree to which the proletariat were in control (not least because Goti said market socialism was 'undesirable,' and I guess he would find workers' control pretty desirable, though I don't know), but whether or not the system worked. Or, more correctly, whether it failed. This is, of course, a hideously vague question (what does it mean for an economic system to 'work' or 'fail'?), but if the worth of an economic system is to be judged on entirely economic performance, growth and so on, Yugoslavia couldn't be seen to have failed economically, when compared to the other Eastern Bloc countries. And considering these countries could hardly boast of a great degree of workers' control, it may be fair to argue that Yugoslavia's economic system did not categorically fail as an economic system, at least not when compared to surrounding nominally socialist countries under slightly different economic systems. Perhaps it failed to reach fully manifested socialism, but that's the same of all the other lines on that graph there.


Hoxha > Tito
Putting it in a spoiler doesn't mean you're not dropping some trollish spam up in da place.

[tir1944]

Guys read what Hoxha and the CPC wrote on the so called Yugoslav market-socialism...

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hoxha/works/1978/yugoslavia/index.htm

http://www.marx2mao.com/Other/IYS63.html

[Gustav HK]

Titoite Yugoslavia got big credits from the USA (and Western Europe too, I think).

It also had high inflation and unemployment, especially in Kosova.

[Gustav HK]

As Romania they were drowning in debt in the 80´ies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Socialist_Federal_Republic_of_Yugos lavia#Collapse_of_Yugoslav_economy

[Gustav HK]

BTW is there a logarithmic version of the growth tabel?

[Broletariat]

That's not private ownership, that's collective ownership--all working people own means of production.

With that sort of argument we could say there's ALREADY collective ownership.

I mean, stock owners have a COLLECTIVE share of a corporation right?

[Travis Bickle]

David Schweickart---> After capitalism (newly published 2011)

The mathematical models coupled with empiricial studies are impressive. Good solid work. Such work is rare.

Gives proponents of both capitalism and other forms of socialism a run for the money.