Issue of the Market

[Servia]

How does Democratic Socialism get rid of the market? I see the value in workers owning their workplaces, but it doesn't address the market itself, or am I wrong in assuming that democratic socialism only creates an economy where worker cooperatives are competing with each other?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The first question is, of course, what do you mean by "democratic socialism"? In real life, the moniker is mostly used by social-democratic and sub-social-democratic politicians like Sanders. And yes, these people want to preserve the market. Generally an economy consisting of cooperatives trading on a market is not any kind of "socialist" economy but capitalism.

[Servia]

Are you aware of the organisation Democratic Socialists of America? This group's philosophy is generally what I think of when discussing Democratic Socialism. I reject the notion that Sanders is democratic socialist even though he may call himself one.

[Црвена]

Are you aware of the organisation Democratic Socialists of America? This group's philosophy is generally what I think of when discussing Democratic Socialism. I reject the notion that Sanders is democratic socialist even though he may call himself one.

The About page on the DSA's website contains the following excerpt from the group's original programme:


We are socialists because we share a vision of a humane international social order based both on democratic planning and market mechanisms to achieve equitable distribution of resources, meaningful work, a healthy environment, sustainable growth, gender and racial equality, and non-oppressive relationships.

(http://www.dsausa.org/about_dsa)

So it seems that according to them, "democratic socialism" (I really, really don't like this term) would entail some sort of mixture between a planned economy and a market economy. I'm not sure how that would work. Nor do I see why it would be of use, or consistent with socialism, to retain any aspect of the market system.

[reviscom1]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the OP was really asking: What model of common ownership to use? The 2 models I'm aware of are a Soviet Unionish planned economy, where everything is owned and run by a large, bureaucratic state or workers' collectives - kind of like Capitallism but the "employees" manage the companies and get the profits.

For me the important goal in constituting a Socialist economy is the elimination of the profit motive - it concentrates too much of the money supply in too few hands, makes provision of the service/product secondary to making a profit, and makes people behave in artificially selfish and undignified ways.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Are you aware of the organisation Democratic Socialists of America? This group's philosophy is generally what I think of when discussing Democratic Socialism. I reject the notion that Sanders is democratic socialist even though he may call himself one.

I'm aware of the DSA. They were a right-wing split from the Cold War social-democrats in the SPA, formed when Harrington hit on his unique and unprecedented (note: this is sarcasm) strategy of dragging the Democrats by the sleeves until they adopt the programme of European social-democracy of the seventies. They're still at it, too, bless'em.

[Црвена]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think the OP was really asking: What model of common ownership to use? The 2 models I'm aware of are a Soviet Unionish planned economy, where everything is owned and run by a large, bureaucratic state or workers' collectives - kind of like Capitallism but the "employees" manage the companies and get the profits.

The OP's question pertained specifically to "democratic socialism" and how it would replace the market.

Central planning which isn't hampered by bureaucracy and the continued existence of the law of value would look pretty different from the Soviet planning model. And anything which is "kind of like capitalism" is not social ownership. Socialism, which is when means of production are held in common by the whole of society, not just workers in a certain workplace, necessarily involves the abolition of the market and of the very notion of ownership.


For me the important goal in constituting a Socialist economy is the elimination of the profit motive - it concentrates too much of the money supply in too few hands, makes provision of the service/product secondary to making a profit, and makes people behave in artificially selfish and undignified ways.

You're absolutely right about the elimination of the profit motive (though I don't entirely agree with your motivations - heh - for wanting it to be eliminated), but this cannot be done through a Soviet-style model or through a syndicate/collective model. The profit motive is an integral part of any sort of market system.

Also, Xhar-Xhar Binks/Anglo-Saxon Philistine (I can't keep up with these username changes :/), you might be interested to know that I have "seen the light" with regards to central planning :)

[Sibotic]

'Democratic socialists' is frequently a fairly loose term, but it isn't equivalent to Proudhonian forms of things known as 'mutualism,' etc., which in preserving the atomisation of the market and such don't qualify as socialism. It generally isn't as focussed on such matters and in that sense it could vary, being in a sense not that binding with reference to forms of 'socialism,' of course.


So it seems that according to them, "democratic socialism" (I really, really don't like this term) would entail some sort of mixture between a planned economy and a market economy. I'm not sure how that would work. Nor do I see why it would be of use, or consistent with socialism, to retain any aspect of the market system.
To be fair, their mention of 'market mechanisms' there seems to be more along the lines of filling a blank space left after 'democratic methods' in isolation, it otherwise reads as a fairly conventional attempt to sum up popular socialist discourse a while ago, although obviously it then seems to have a 'social democratic' tint. Given that 'democratic socialism' was frequently opposed to such, however,' it's unlikely that the foundation of such terms and identification with them tends to be equivalent. It may still be so, however. It's a time to pause for thought for a ''socialist' organisation when their 'programme' is basically just the last Taylor Swift album, however.

[Црвена]

'Democratic socialists' is frequently a fairly loose term, but it isn't equivalent to Proudhonian forms of things known as 'mutualism,' etc., which in preserving the atomisation of the market and such don't qualify as socialism. It generally isn't as focussed on such matters and in that sense it could vary, being in a sense not that binding with reference to forms of 'socialism,' of course.


To be fair, their mention of 'market mechanisms' there seems to be more along the lines of filling a blank space left after 'democratic methods' in isolation, it otherwise reads as a fairly conventional attempt to sum up popular socialist discourse a while ago, although obviously it then seems to have a 'social democratic' tint. Given that 'democratic socialism' was frequently opposed to such, however,' it's unlikely that the foundation of such terms and identification with them tends to be equivalent. It may still be so, however. It's a time to pause for thought for a ''socialist' organisation when their 'programme' is basically just the last Taylor Swift album, however.

I don't see why there's a need to write that name in the blank space. But yeah, I don't get socdems.

And don't you diss Taylor Swift on my watch. :mad:

[Sibotic]

I don't see why there's a need to write that name in the blank space.
To be fair, while it might be seen as a concession, in the US democracy did have strong undertones of negative freedoms, and hence atomisation, etc., and while 'democratic socialism' frequently marshals 'democracy' in opposition to the Soviet Union and such in a way which tends towards apologism, this can easily suggest the use of such a term in the circumstances. As opposed to other alternatives which may, um, present themselves. They don't want to just suggest the US as it was, so to speak.


And don't you diss Taylor Swift on my watch. :mad:
I mean, obviously 'Blank Space' is a utopian tour de force. But even democratic socialism, amorphous as it is, is in many ways superior.

[Црвена]

To be fair, while it might be seen as a concession, in the US democracy did have strong undertones of negative freedoms, and hence atomisation, etc., and while 'democratic socialism' frequently marshals 'democracy' in opposition to the Soviet Union and such in a way which tends towards apologism, this can easily suggest the use of such a term in the circumstances. As opposed to other alternatives which may, um, present themselves. They don't want to just suggest the US as it was, so to speak.

No entiendo. :confused:


I mean, obviously 'Blank Space' is a utopian tour de force. But even democratic socialism, amorphous as it is, is in many ways superior.

http://www.lionsdenu.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/angry-man-meme-generator-motherfucker-i-ll-kill-you-96776d.jpg

[Sibotic]

As opposed to other alternatives which may, um, present themselves. They don't want to just suggest the US as it was, so to speak.
This is more understandable than your passionate reaction to comparisons of Taylor Swift and forms of socialism. Your favouring of Taylor Swift over a form of revolutionary politics suggests that you aren't likely to kill anyone, let alone me.

This is more a possible explanation for such a phenomenon than a fundamental cause, of course.

That their last two albums were named 'Red' and '1989' might well make them seem endearing to certain tendencies, and perhaps to Bordigists, otherwise it just marks the music as increasingly irrelevant. Comparable albums by 'Democratic Socialism' would be markedly superior, and not only for the name. They would also have a greater coherence than your aesthetic and non-Stalinist policies, or a lack of pronounced oriental bias linguistically. In brief, perhaps if you lack a girlfriend, you should get a new one.

Having said which, to return to the OP because we only half-left (we could keep going and people could keep missing these, because apparently when you speak colloquially people take it as a license to get needlessly passionate about Taylor Swift), as was said 'democratic socialism' as such doesn't necessarily address the question of the market, or the overall linkage of society, and hence if the 'democratic' element is stressed overmuch in an atomised manner then this can generally lead acknowledged or unacknowledged to the market being restored to take on this role. That said, 'democratic socialism' as such isn't necessarily, as was specified, non-socialistic, which is a territory so to speak monopolised by certain forms of anarchy. Anarchistic tendencies, especially in non-anarchists, can easily lead to the restoration of capitalist views, although they needn't.

[Blake's Baby]

... it seems that according to them, "democratic socialism" (I really, really don't like this term) would entail some sort of mixture between a planned economy and a market economy. I'm not sure how that would work...

As others have said, see Europe in the 1970s (both sides of the Iron Curtain to be honest, they had limited markets in the Eastern Bloc too).



... Nor do I see why it would be of use, or consistent with socialism, to retain any aspect of the market system.

Well, quite. What they're talking about is an interventionist capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

To be fair, while it might be seen as a concession, in the US democracy did have strong undertones of negative freedoms, and hence atomisation, etc., and while 'democratic socialism' frequently marshals 'democracy' in opposition to the Soviet Union and such in a way which tends towards apologism, this can easily suggest the use of such a term in the circumstances. As opposed to other alternatives which may, um, present themselves. They don't want to just suggest the US as it was, so to speak.


What I'm hearing from this is that 'democratic socialists' are just libertarians with a different kind of *branding*, that's all.

Along these lines, btw, I have democratic socialists right next to 'left nationalists' (libertarians) on my political-spectrum illustration:


[3] Ideologies & Operations -- Fundamentals



http://s6.postimg.org/6omx9zh81/3_Ideologies_Operations_Fundamentals.jpg (http://postimg.org/image/cpkm723u5/full/)


---





[W]hat [democratic socialists are] talking about is an interventionist capitalism.


Exactly.

Retention of markets = nation-based economic inequalities globally = hierarchies of nations = imperialist hegemony = economic-based justifications for interventionist foreign policies.

So the 'democratic socialist' moniker is just political marketing that greatly foreshadows nationalist-opportunistic politics.

[Servia]

This was a response from one of the honorary chairs of the Democratic Socialists of America:

we're not for a market, necessarily, in large scale capital (government should own investment banks, control investment in infrastructure, etc)...but if you eliminate the market completely, it's much harder to ascertain what products folks want to consume...and it would mean workers wouldn't really control worker owned firms because the government would tell them how to invest rather than workers deciding how to invest and then seeing if fokls want to use/.buy the products they produce...see Michael Harrington's chapte ron Market and Plan in Socialism: past and Future...even "planned economies" end up using forms of "shadow pricing" (thru input-output tables) to figure out if they are using resources efficiently..you can only get rid of markets totally if you assume there is no scarcity at all, of time, etc...after all, unless we labor in whatever way we wish, whenever we wish, you would need some sort of labor market..how would you get folks to do tough jobs, dirty jobs, less desirable jobs if you didn't have some degree of monetary incentives via a labor market???

[ckaihatsu]

This was a response from one of the honorary chairs of the Democratic Socialists of America:




we're not for a market, necessarily, in large scale capital (government should own investment banks, control investment in infrastructure, etc)...but if you eliminate the market completely, it's much harder to ascertain what products folks want to consume...and it would mean workers wouldn't really control worker owned firms because the government would tell them how to invest rather than workers deciding how to invest and then seeing if fokls want to use/.buy the products they produce...see Michael Harrington's chapte ron Market and Plan in Socialism: past and Future...even "planned economies" end up using forms of "shadow pricing" (thru input-output tables) to figure out if they are using resources efficiently..you can only get rid of markets totally if you assume there is no scarcity at all, of time, etc...after all, unless we labor in whatever way we wish, whenever we wish, you would need some sort of labor market..how would you get folks to do tough jobs, dirty jobs, less desirable jobs if you didn't have some degree of monetary incentives via a labor market???


I love the hack job here, where they first tack left, to favor 'government' / (nationalization) over capital, but then right-away *backtrack* into apologetics for markets. It's a textbook example of politicking, and is absolutely 'seasonal' during the present time of election campaigning.

These 'democratic socialists' are expert at invoking the boogeyman of runaway top-down bureaucratic control, implying that workers control is necessarily doomed to crash-and-burn, so why even try.

Worse, the 'market' paradigm / culture is *imposed* onto anything socialistic, like centralized input-output tables, so we see the political-culture war fully underway here, and at all times from them.

I'll note that finding out what people want to consume could be done *easily*, with regular surveying methods, and I happened to just speak to the last point, about 'who does the gruntwork', at another thread:





The issue that the OP raises is perennially a *weak spot* in revolutionary theory, but it's one I've put my attentions to, particularly thanks to the environment of RevLeft, the comrades here, and its discussion-board format:




Quick clarification:

Hypothetically, liberated labor would *never* have to be measured, because in the best-case scenario everything would be produced as a 'gift economy', with all work effort being voluntarily and freely given, for production for the common good, *and* it would be sufficient for everyone's needs.

But if *any* of these factors, for *any* given good or service could *not* be guaranteed, then it would *not* be a gift economy (for those particular items). Society would have a common interest, of some extent, in providing some kind of social incentive for those who would do the distasteful but socially-necessary labor that others would not readily do.

Since all liberated-production would be for the sake of eliminating scarcity, the only component remaining that *could* be conceivably scarce in such a society would be (liberated) labor itself.

I developed a model that enables communism's 'free access' and 'direct distribution' while providing social incentives for any work efforts at distasteful tasks -- the reward would be the empowerment to select and activate available and willing liberated labor, in proportion to one's own actual performed labor:


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'



http://s6.postimg.org/jjc7b5nch/150221_labor_credits_framework_for_communist_su.jp g (http://postimg.org/image/p7ii21rot/full/)


And:





[If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.