Market Socialism

[ReD_ReBeL]

What are everybodys thoughts on Market Socialism? do you think Market Socialism could be used more effectively to distribute goods therefore being more effective than a centrally planned economy? Yugoslavia under Tito was market socialist and the livings standards where higher than that of the rest of the eastern bloc.

[MexAmLeft]

yeah somebody break down market socialism and how its different from a command economy

[ReD_ReBeL]

Command Economy- controlled economy in which the state takes all economic decisions.

Market socialism- an economic system in which the means of production are socially owned (meaning in general that "profits" in each company are distributed between its workers) and the production is not centrally planned but mediated through the market.

Theres a brief description of the two.

[ComradeRed]

I have read more criticisms of "Command Economics" from the bourgeois economists and it is becoming increasingly nonsensical. Hell, their criticisms applies to capitalism! :o

In reality, a command economy would be better than a "free" market one (even if you call it market "socialism"). The technology available would eliminate many of the idiotic tasks that no one wants in capitalism, why preserve them?

Market "socialism" is simply capitalism with red flags for sale! Quite frankly, the proletariat deserve freedom from slavery...not new chains!

[ReD_ReBeL]

Market "socialism" is simply capitalism with red flags for sale! Quite frankly, the proletariat deserve freedom from slavery...not new chains!

But in my opinion, Command economy in the soviet union etc was another form of exploitation, just not from corporations but from the state.State-exploitation. in soviet Russia higher skilled jobs paid more than an average job, therefore creating inequality. they wrn't free of there chains , they where slaves for the state.


The technology available would eliminate many of the idiotic tasks that no one wants in capitalism, why preserve them?

What are these tasks?

[anomaly]

Some of these 'tasks', red rebel, could be those of the garbageman, the janitor, lots of manufacturing jobs, etc. Many of these jobs are kept today simply because corporations do not want to invest in technology, since sometimes it is cheaper to pay a wage-slave to do such boring, repetitive tasks. Eliminate the profit motive, and eliminate such profit-based thinking. The profit motive is currently holding the world back.

For the record, market 'socialism' is just a 'nice-sounding' reformist system. Do we want to lighten our chains or destroy them once and for all? Always, comrades, choose the latter!

[ComradeRed]

But in my opinion, Command economy in the soviet union etc was another form of exploitation, just not from corporations but from the state.State-exploitation. in soviet Russia higher skilled jobs paid more than an average job, therefore creating inequality. they wrn't free of there chains , they where slaves for the state. Yes, but this was based on the material conditions of the pre-Revolution Russia! It was a feudal society; of course it would become capitalist!

There really wasn't too much of a difference between what happened there and what happened in capitalism. It wasn't even a dictatorship of the proletariat, as Lenin aptly noted it was a "dictatorship of the party"!

One of the initial tasks of a communist society is: implement as much technology as possible, and eliminate money.

Then we could begin having a classless society.

[Negro]

I think, that united to the "Command economy" it´s necesary a democratic government. For example: here in chile, while Allende was taking the "market economy" to a Commanded one, the workers organized their self in the "Cordones Industriales". ¿What they where? The "Cordones Industriales" (something like a "worker´s government in the factory") where rulled by the workers and the leftist ingeniers of the factory, and they prupose to the government "the best way to produce". In fact, en 1971 (when the cordones were stronger) chilean´s productions reached his higher point in history.

But then... what was the point?... Why it didn´t work? Because Allende stop attending the cordones demands, that´s why the cordones accussed him of "Socialismo desde arriba y no socialismo desde abajo".

For that reasons, is that i stronglly believe that the command economy must by rulled by the workers and the ingeniers in the proletarian democracy. We want a society "with" market and not a "market society".

Saludos Revolucionarios.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 03:52 AM

Market "socialism" is simply capitalism with red flags for sale! Quite frankly, the proletariat deserve freedom from slavery...not new chains!

But in my opinion, Command economy in the soviet union etc was another form of exploitation....

Well what do you think "Market Socialism" really means? ....a "market" is a Capitalist concept and therefore "Market Socialism" (for it to be a "Market") must operate on the same principles as a "Capitalist Market".

And with a "Market", there is of course exploitation (the extraction of Surplus Value). Often this happens when new workers join factories, these new workers generally don't get the same perks as the old workers. Therefore (through the extraction of Surplus Value from the new workers) the old workers become Capitalists.

[ComradeRed]

Therefore (through the extraction of Surplus Value from the new workers) the old workers become Capitalists. I don't know if they could be considered "capitalists", but most certainly petit bourgeois.

They have no capital, but they have more surplus value than the ave-r-age worker at the factory.

Curious...would this make workers petit bourgeois? Most certainly not capitalists (they don't own capital!), but they wouldn't be proletarians. What would they be considered as?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 07:34 PM
Curious...would this make workers petit bourgeois? Most certainly not capitalists (they don't own capital!), but they wouldn't be proletarians. What would they be considered as?

I suppose over time (and through investments) some of the workers would become legitimate Capitalists (they might even buy the "Market Socialist" factory!) and the rest would just sink back into the working class.

Basically, if a country were "Market Socialist" it would, in my opinion, gradually evolve into normal Capitalism in a matter of decades. However, initial definitions as to the class of certain people may be difficult.

Perhaps everyone would be considered self-employed?

[MexAmLeft]

Well can we at least agree that a command economy is a work in progress, i mean the massive shortages of basic goods were one of the primary reasons for the disenchantment of people on eastern europe during the warsaw pact days.Also Soviet technology was just not good enough.How can a command economy be improved so shortages of stuff like food and toliet paper dont happen, and how can it be setup to keep up with capitalist technology.I mean the Yugo?I always wondered why the socialist countries, especially USSR couldnt produce a quality car.

[BattleOfTheCowshed]

Originally posted by [email protected] 28 2006, 08:49 PM
Well can we at least agree that a command economy is a work in progress, i mean the massive shortages of basic goods were one of the primary reasons for the disenchantment of people on eastern europe during the warsaw pact days.Also Soviet technology was just not good enough.How can a command economy be improved so shortages of stuff like food and toliet paper dont happen, and how can it be setup to keep up with capitalist technology.I mean the Yugo?I always wondered why the socialist countries, especially USSR couldnt produce a quality car.
Why is it an either-or thing? Market "Socialism" and Command Economies both suck, they are both hierarchical economic systems where workers are exploited. The rule of the working class is the way to go. Also, about Soviet tech: can you imagine if all of the resources poured into funding the Soviet military were to have been used for other things to actually help people, how advanced they could have been? Of course a state, a new class, the bourgeoisie all have no interest in doing this, its up to the working class to do it ourselves, yo.

[MexAmLeft]

Originally posted by BattleOfTheCowshed+Jan 28 2006, 10:24 PM--> (BattleOfTheCowshed @ Jan 28 2006, 10:24 PM)
[email protected] 28 2006, 08:49 PM

Why is it an either-or thing? Market "Socialism" and Command Economies both suck, they are both hierarchical economic systems where workers are exploited. The rule of the working class is the way to go. Also, about Soviet tech: can you imagine if all of the resources poured into funding the Soviet military were to have been used for other things to actually help people, how advanced they could have been? Of course a state, a new class, the bourgeoisie all have no interest in doing this, its up to the working class to do it ourselves, yo. [/b]
Yeah i really agree with what u said about the soviets spending way too much money on the military i beleive that was their biggest downfall trying to keep up with the US defense

[Technocrates]

Market economics can be a success if it is applied right. As for China, it has been a failure due to their poor administration of working conditions laws.

[ComradeRed]

How can you assert that?

There is no reason why something that has used wage slavery would just give it up in a certain trial. Capitalism is designed for there to be wage slaves; how would things be sold otherwise?

Well, if we abolished wage slavery, that would be socialism. But we would also end the market system. Where does "market socialism" fit into this picture?

It can't!

[obliterate_the_state]

I'm new here but I came across the site somehow through a search for anarchist sci-fi.

I don't have a problem with communism, fundamentally. If that's what people end up organising as I don't give a fuck.

I think communists and non-market socialists look over the very valid points made by some capitalists. I believe in autonomy and that I am in control of my life and should be the only one in control of my life. This is why I hate bosses. This means that my time, my labor, my effort, and my skills should belong to me also. I don't believe in capitalists that are one person, or capitalists that are an entire community- my labor and my time are mine and communism can be a form of capitalism if it is enforced.

Supply and demand also, for instance, is a very easy way for a community to reach its needs and is another valuable part of the market.

I think there are many things that need to change in the transition of a capitalist market and a socialist one. Restaurants and other leeches of the needs of the already extorted working class should be forgotten and workers should not have to eat shit because they have no time to cook for themselves.

I also see the positivity of cooperative organizing in other aspects of life. That is the thing. I may say I'm for a market- but in the end I'll be living every aspect of my life cooperatively just because it is in my best interest. So in the end, market socialism is probably just non-market socialism anyways- just not enforced.

Just my two cents.

[Soheran]

A vaguely market socialist model for consumer goods, to maximize efficiency and consumer choice, is probably a good idea. Supply and demand for luxury items can be a pretty effective mechanism.

Even a highly democratic command economy would be incapable of fully comprehending the will of the public as far as the goods it wants goes, because of the sheer diversity of tastes and the inevitable bureaucratization that would occur in the system.

The important thing, the aspect that would keep any such model from degenerating into capitalism, is empowering the working class into democratic control of the economy. With a greater equality of resources, putting luxury items on the market may be a very effective part of exactly that.


I think communists and non-market socialists look over the very valid points made by some capitalists. I believe in autonomy and that I am in control of my life and should be the only one in control of my life. This is why I hate bosses. This means that my time, my labor, my effort, and my skills should belong to me also. I don't believe in capitalists that are one person, or capitalists that are an entire community- my labor and my time are mine and communism can be a form of capitalism if it is enforced.

I do not see why this vision is incompatible with either socialism or communism. The only economic freedom denied by those systems is the freedom to economically exploit other people.

[obliterate_the_state]

I do not see why this vision is incompatible with either socialism or communism. The only economic freedom denied by those systems is the freedom to economically exploit other people.

In communism, as I understand it, everything that is produced is used as it is seen fit. If I'm not right about this please explain to me. I want what I labor to produce to belong to me. I don't want to have to rely on the trust that my fellow man will do his part.

I want to be able to watch out for myself. I want to exchange among those who also look out for themselves. If I am not allowed to do what I want, when it doesn't exploit others, then your system does not respect the fact that people have different opinions and ideas about how their lives should be run. Any system that does not respect the individual must react with institutions and becomes an institution in and of itself. If communism is how things should be it will play out on its own when the state is smashed and capitalism is abolished.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Soheran+--> (Soheran)A vaguely market socialist model for consumer goods, to maximize efficiency and consumer choice, is probably a good idea. Supply and demand for luxury items can be a pretty effective mechanism.[/b]

Well some system to keep track of what goods people like, how much will required etc. Is not a bad idea.

However, a "Market" doesn't do that, it tells you what goods people can afford, not which goods they like.


obliterate_the_state
I want to exchange among those who also look out for themselves.

Communism as the society of million small Capitalists! :o

I think Marx himself got into somewhat of a muddle on this one (can't remember which text). However this is not how a Communist society would function.

There would be no exchange of goods, rather the economy would be a gift economy.

[obliterate_the_state]

Well some system to keep track of what goods people like, how much will required etc. Is not a bad idea.

However, a "Market" doesn't do that, it tells you what goods people can afford, not which goods they like.

What a market tells you is the value and desirability of the labor exchanged in comparison to the exchange's labor value and desirability. I don't see why it's not fair for me to say "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" instead of just going to scratch your back, hoping in return that mine will be scratched. What if it is not returned even though I wanted it to be? What if they didn't mind receiving but didn't want to give? Markets are just ways to assure people that what they have done is rewarded by things they want or need. The only inequalities are the monopolies on land, people, banking, etc.




Communism as the society of million small Capitalists!

I think Marx himself got into somewhat of a muddle on this one (can't remember which text). However this is not how a Communist society would function.

There would be no exchange of goods, rather the economy would be a gift economy.

The only difference between a gift economy and a market economy is that in individualism/mutualism/market socialism markets have gifts exchanged for gifts of equal value at the same time. It's just assurance and it makes sure that noone is free loading. I'm not against communist communities at all. I think it's very plausable that some people may function better that way.

[Soheran]

Well some system to keep track of what goods people like, how much will required etc. Is not a bad idea.

However, a "Market" doesn't do that, it tells you what goods people can afford, not which goods they like.

It tells you both. Inequality of wealth does distort markets from the "meet human needs" objective, which is why essential goods should not be put on the market and why a just distribution of wealth must be part of any decent market socialist model.

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by obliterate_the_state+--> (obliterate_the_state)What if they didn't mind receiving but didn't want to give?[/b]

In a Communist society the stereotypical lazy person would be a subject of scorn, social exclusion etc.

However, we wouldn't let the poor bastard starve. They'd still have access to the communities goods, though they'd likely fall to the bottom on the rare items list.


Originally posted by [email protected]
It's just assurance and it makes sure that noone is free loading.

Maybe.

However what it also does is re-create class society and Capitalism. I'd take a few free loaders over that any day.


Soheran
Inequality of wealth does distort markets from the "meet human needs" objective....

No it doesn't tell you "both".

A "Market" has no way of really telling you what people actually want. I doubt a "Socialist Market" based on Capitalist functions (wages, exchange, etc.) would do that much better.

[Soheran]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 30 2006, 04:43 AM
No it doesn't tell you "both".

A "Market" has no way of really telling you what people actually want. I doubt a "Socialist Market" based on Capitalist functions (wages, exchange, etc.) would do that much better.
So you are claiming that people buy what they do not really want? Or that people will buy things they do not want instead of things they do? Why, exactly?

It is true that affordability is a factor as well, but it is not the only aspect, and as I already pointed out in a serious socialist market it would be less of a factor than it is now. Furthermore, as long as scarcity exists, affordability has to be taken into consideration. If everyone wants huge mansions, and thus the it is decided to build huge mansions, how will it pay for them if no one can afford to buy? Are the workers who built them supposed to starve?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Originally posted by Soheran+--> (Soheran)So you are claiming that people buy what they do not really want? Or that people will buy things they do not want instead of things they do? Why, exactly?[/b]

"Why"? ....do I really need to tell you that most people simply can't afford what they want?


Soheran
Furthermore, as long as scarcity exists....

Which is why a Communist society can only happen when there is "material abundance".

[Soheran]

"Why"? ....do I really need to tell you that most people simply can't afford what they want?

Of course. The product has to be considered in its totality - not merely what Marx would call its "use-value", but also the cost of the item. It was in that complete sense that I was referring to "wanting" a good, not in the limited sense of mere desire for a certain good or service.


Which is why a Communist society can only happen when there is "material abundance".

No. Scarcity is only eliminated when the abundance of goods and services is greater than people's desire for goods and services - that is, never, at least not in a material world. Not even after the revolution will society have the resources to give everyone every comfort and luxury desired.

[obliterate_the_state]

In a Communist society the stereotypical lazy person would be a subject of scorn, social exclusion etc.

However, we wouldn't let the poor bastard starve. They'd still have access to the communities goods, though they'd likely fall to the bottom on the rare items list.

Sounds hierarchical to me. Why do they deserve access to these things if they are capable of helping in the production of these things but don't?


Maybe.

However what it also does is re-create class society and Capitalism. I'd take a few free loaders over that any day.

I see no reason it creates capitalism. Capitalism means employment by another as well as a market, a market alone does not cinstitute capitalism. Cooperatives are not capitalistic.

I think you really need to look at this again. You're worried about class due to markets, but you don't mind class based on effort in a communist gifty economy? Either way it's based on effort. Markets just make sure people are accountable.




No it doesn't tell you "both".

A "Market" has no way of really telling you what people actually want. I doubt a "Socialist Market" based on Capitalist functions (wages, exchange, etc.) would do that much better.

The problem with wages is that there is someone giving them even though you deserve the entire income. Cooperatives let you keep whatever you make that doesn't have to go back into the coop for repairs, utilities, etc. There is no extortion because everyone is their own boss and the entire things is based on mutual aid.



"Why"? ....do I really need to tell you that most people simply can't afford what they want?

But this is due to capitalism and the state- not markets. The boss takes your earnings, your landlord relying on the state for its protection of land monopoly takes the rest. People can't afford what they need, much less what they want. The capitalists use this opportunity to produce cheaper things which means cheaper labor costs thus putting the workers into even more debt buying the non-nutritious food that McDonalds sells them when they are too lazy from being over worked to cook for their family.