Market Socialism

[bisclavret]

I am relatively new to socialist theories but reading a few writings about it made me realize that an IQ of 130 or more is not a requirement to ascertain that socialist ideas make perfect sense. My current readings have directed me to Jon Roemer and the market socialists who have singled out the hitherto, ambiguous but strategic explanation by Marxists of what happens to the system of allocation of resources after a successful revolution and at the same time offered an alternative that involved incorporating the potency of markets with socialist economics. I do not have the mathematical caliber though to fully appreciate or possibly dispute the market socialists' points. I am however interested about what this forum will have to say about them. :)

[bisclavret]

I am relatively new to socialist theories but reading a few writings about it made me realize that an IQ of 130 or more is not a requirement to ascertain that socialist ideas make perfect sense. My current readings have directed me to Jon Roemer and the market socialists who have singled out the hitherto, ambiguous but strategic explanation by Marxists of what happens to the system of allocation of resources after a successful revolution and at the same time offered an alternative that involved incorporating the potency of markets with socialist economics. I do not have the mathematical caliber though to fully appreciate or possibly dispute the market socialists' points. I am however interested about what this forum will have to say about them. :)

[bisclavret]

I am relatively new to socialist theories but reading a few writings about it made me realize that an IQ of 130 or more is not a requirement to ascertain that socialist ideas make perfect sense. My current readings have directed me to Jon Roemer and the market socialists who have singled out the hitherto, ambiguous but strategic explanation by Marxists of what happens to the system of allocation of resources after a successful revolution and at the same time offered an alternative that involved incorporating the potency of markets with socialist economics. I do not have the mathematical caliber though to fully appreciate or possibly dispute the market socialists' points. I am however interested about what this forum will have to say about them. :)

[nickdlc]

There have been disscussions about market socialism in the past and these links might help you out

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45581&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45581&hl=)
Market Socialism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083079914&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[nickdlc]

There have been disscussions about market socialism in the past and these links might help you out

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45581&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45581&hl=)
Market Socialism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083079914&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[nickdlc]

There have been disscussions about market socialism in the past and these links might help you out

http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php...topic=45581&hl= (http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=45581&hl=)
Market Socialism (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1083079914&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

[bisclavret]

Thanks for the link.. It was informative.

[bisclavret]

Thanks for the link.. It was informative.

[bisclavret]

Thanks for the link.. It was informative.

[More Fire for the People]

If we are speaking of ‘market socialism’ in terms of ‘socialistic’ enterprises, enterprises functioning as cooperatives that receive ‘market’ feedback, then we are speaking of faux-socialism.

For instance, in a hypothetical ‘market socialist’ society we would have Enterprise A, Enterprise B, and Enterprise C. Enterprise A focuses on the production and refinement of wool into cotton and linen. Enterprises B and C specialize in the production of coats.

To ensure production of coats Enterprises B and C must compete for both resources and customers. The competition for resources results in a higher demand of cotton. Enterprise A must increase its profits so that it may increase its ability to purchase efficient machines and abundant supplies of wool. To increase profits the cooperative must reduce its wages thus acquiring a surplus-value. This surplus-value is not redistributed to the community but rather remains a part of the enterprise.

The competition for customers causes similar events in Enterprises B and C. To increase the amount of customers the enterprises must lower their wages in order to lower the price of coats. Enterprise B may be out competed creating a monopoly for Enterprise C, which functions as a corporation with low wages for the lesser skilled labor and higher wages for the more skilled labor.

[More Fire for the People]

If we are speaking of ‘market socialism’ in terms of ‘socialistic’ enterprises, enterprises functioning as cooperatives that receive ‘market’ feedback, then we are speaking of faux-socialism.

For instance, in a hypothetical ‘market socialist’ society we would have Enterprise A, Enterprise B, and Enterprise C. Enterprise A focuses on the production and refinement of wool into cotton and linen. Enterprises B and C specialize in the production of coats.

To ensure production of coats Enterprises B and C must compete for both resources and customers. The competition for resources results in a higher demand of cotton. Enterprise A must increase its profits so that it may increase its ability to purchase efficient machines and abundant supplies of wool. To increase profits the cooperative must reduce its wages thus acquiring a surplus-value. This surplus-value is not redistributed to the community but rather remains a part of the enterprise.

The competition for customers causes similar events in Enterprises B and C. To increase the amount of customers the enterprises must lower their wages in order to lower the price of coats. Enterprise B may be out competed creating a monopoly for Enterprise C, which functions as a corporation with low wages for the lesser skilled labor and higher wages for the more skilled labor.

[More Fire for the People]

If we are speaking of ‘market socialism’ in terms of ‘socialistic’ enterprises, enterprises functioning as cooperatives that receive ‘market’ feedback, then we are speaking of faux-socialism.

For instance, in a hypothetical ‘market socialist’ society we would have Enterprise A, Enterprise B, and Enterprise C. Enterprise A focuses on the production and refinement of wool into cotton and linen. Enterprises B and C specialize in the production of coats.

To ensure production of coats Enterprises B and C must compete for both resources and customers. The competition for resources results in a higher demand of cotton. Enterprise A must increase its profits so that it may increase its ability to purchase efficient machines and abundant supplies of wool. To increase profits the cooperative must reduce its wages thus acquiring a surplus-value. This surplus-value is not redistributed to the community but rather remains a part of the enterprise.

The competition for customers causes similar events in Enterprises B and C. To increase the amount of customers the enterprises must lower their wages in order to lower the price of coats. Enterprise B may be out competed creating a monopoly for Enterprise C, which functions as a corporation with low wages for the lesser skilled labor and higher wages for the more skilled labor.

[barista.marxista]

If you're actually interested in market socialism, I'd recommend Equal Shares by John Roemer, though only with the hope it's ludicrousity would be apparent.

[barista.marxista]

If you're actually interested in market socialism, I'd recommend Equal Shares by John Roemer, though only with the hope it's ludicrousity would be apparent.

[barista.marxista]

If you're actually interested in market socialism, I'd recommend Equal Shares by John Roemer, though only with the hope it's ludicrousity would be apparent.

[Rawthentic]

I dont believe that market-socialism is socialist at all. The main element of socialism is that the workers own the means of productions, but are still subject to marekt forces and supply and demand - no freedom if you ask me

[Rawthentic]

I dont believe that market-socialism is socialist at all. The main element of socialism is that the workers own the means of productions, but are still subject to marekt forces and supply and demand - no freedom if you ask me

[Rawthentic]

I dont believe that market-socialism is socialist at all. The main element of socialism is that the workers own the means of productions, but are still subject to marekt forces and supply and demand - no freedom if you ask me

[apathy maybe]

You should also investigate individualist anarchism, which is a variant of anarchism that includes a market system for distribution of some wealth.

Socialism is I feel compatible with some forms of markets, we want people to be able to control what they produce do we not? Otherwise what is the difference between capitalism and x (where x is some "socialist" system where workers cannot control their labour)?

The thing to remember is that just because it has a market doesn't mean that it is capitalist. Capitalism has certain structures, rent, interest and others that do not exist in other market systems. It could also be argued that true capitalism could not work with out a regulatory state, which obviously would not exist in anarchism.

There are heaps of examples of markets that weren't capitalist going back through history.

[apathy maybe]

You should also investigate individualist anarchism, which is a variant of anarchism that includes a market system for distribution of some wealth.

Socialism is I feel compatible with some forms of markets, we want people to be able to control what they produce do we not? Otherwise what is the difference between capitalism and x (where x is some "socialist" system where workers cannot control their labour)?

The thing to remember is that just because it has a market doesn't mean that it is capitalist. Capitalism has certain structures, rent, interest and others that do not exist in other market systems. It could also be argued that true capitalism could not work with out a regulatory state, which obviously would not exist in anarchism.

There are heaps of examples of markets that weren't capitalist going back through history.

[apathy maybe]

You should also investigate individualist anarchism, which is a variant of anarchism that includes a market system for distribution of some wealth.

Socialism is I feel compatible with some forms of markets, we want people to be able to control what they produce do we not? Otherwise what is the difference between capitalism and x (where x is some "socialist" system where workers cannot control their labour)?

The thing to remember is that just because it has a market doesn't mean that it is capitalist. Capitalism has certain structures, rent, interest and others that do not exist in other market systems. It could also be argued that true capitalism could not work with out a regulatory state, which obviously would not exist in anarchism.

There are heaps of examples of markets that weren't capitalist going back through history.

[bisclavret]

There are heaps of examples of markets that weren't capitalist going back through history

Can you give specific examples of these markets?

Another question..Does a market socialist system inevitably lead to concentration of Surplus Value to a few 'favored' individuals or institutions? I mean with Roemer's version of market socialism, I personally think that this might be possible since the socialist part of his model has been relatively disempowered to just the stock market department. However with a model ala Oskar lange where both market and central planning board are present, can't the Surplus Value be checked by the central planning board and redistributed accordingly to the workers again after it reaches a certain theoretical and well-agreed upon threshhold Value?
Anyway, my apparent insistence that markets be retained after the success of the Revolution are a.)the so far evident success of a market economy compared to other economies(even command economy), in terms of large-scale bookkeeping.b.)the lack(at least to my knowledge) of a concrete economic system with detailed mechanisms offered by socialists after the success of the Revolution. Besides, after the prophesied and inevitable emergence of a socialist society, I think we would have a lot of backlog in terms of technology and categories and constructs from the capitalist society that "The accounting and control necessary for this ["the first phase of communist society," immediately following the overthrow of capitalism] have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations --- which any literate person can perform --- of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts." to quote Lenin in [I]state and revolution, is an assertion that I have personal misgivings to. I just think that it isn't that simple and we have to somehow retain a working system such as a market to do our bookkeeping and not readily scrap/abolish it.

[bisclavret]

There are heaps of examples of markets that weren't capitalist going back through history

Can you give specific examples of these markets?

Another question..Does a market socialist system inevitably lead to concentration of Surplus Value to a few 'favored' individuals or institutions? I mean with Roemer's version of market socialism, I personally think that this might be possible since the socialist part of his model has been relatively disempowered to just the stock market department. However with a model ala Oskar lange where both market and central planning board are present, can't the Surplus Value be checked by the central planning board and redistributed accordingly to the workers again after it reaches a certain theoretical and well-agreed upon threshhold Value?
Anyway, my apparent insistence that markets be retained after the success of the Revolution are a.)the so far evident success of a market economy compared to other economies(even command economy), in terms of large-scale bookkeeping.b.)the lack(at least to my knowledge) of a concrete economic system with detailed mechanisms offered by socialists after the success of the Revolution. Besides, after the prophesied and inevitable emergence of a socialist society, I think we would have a lot of backlog in terms of technology and categories and constructs from the capitalist society that "The accounting and control necessary for this ["the first phase of communist society," immediately following the overthrow of capitalism] have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations --- which any literate person can perform --- of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts." to quote Lenin in [I]state and revolution, is an assertion that I have personal misgivings to. I just think that it isn't that simple and we have to somehow retain a working system such as a market to do our bookkeeping and not readily scrap/abolish it.

[bisclavret]

There are heaps of examples of markets that weren't capitalist going back through history

Can you give specific examples of these markets?

Another question..Does a market socialist system inevitably lead to concentration of Surplus Value to a few 'favored' individuals or institutions? I mean with Roemer's version of market socialism, I personally think that this might be possible since the socialist part of his model has been relatively disempowered to just the stock market department. However with a model ala Oskar lange where both market and central planning board are present, can't the Surplus Value be checked by the central planning board and redistributed accordingly to the workers again after it reaches a certain theoretical and well-agreed upon threshhold Value?
Anyway, my apparent insistence that markets be retained after the success of the Revolution are a.)the so far evident success of a market economy compared to other economies(even command economy), in terms of large-scale bookkeeping.b.)the lack(at least to my knowledge) of a concrete economic system with detailed mechanisms offered by socialists after the success of the Revolution. Besides, after the prophesied and inevitable emergence of a socialist society, I think we would have a lot of backlog in terms of technology and categories and constructs from the capitalist society that "The accounting and control necessary for this ["the first phase of communist society," immediately following the overthrow of capitalism] have been simplified by capitalism to the utmost and reduced to the extraordinarily simple operations --- which any literate person can perform --- of supervising and recording, knowledge of the four rules of arithmetic, and issuing appropriate receipts." to quote Lenin in [I]state and revolution, is an assertion that I have personal misgivings to. I just think that it isn't that simple and we have to somehow retain a working system such as a market to do our bookkeeping and not readily scrap/abolish it.

[apathy maybe]

Markets were used to exchange goods back before money was invented (barter system). Since the invention of money, markets have been used virtually all over Europe and across the world. A market is basically an exchange. You have something I want, I have something you want, we exchange.

Money meant that it was easier to exchange things, because it could be exchanged for anything.

The ancient Romans and Greeks had markets, the English had markets during fedualism. The concept of exchange is an incredibly simple one.


Does a market socialist system inevitably lead to concentration of Surplus Value to a few 'favored' individuals or institutions? Maybe. Unlikely. Consider the system we have today. Any individual can accumulate as much "wealth" as they can. Once they die the can pass it onto whom ever they want. Wealth is thus concentrated.

In Individualist anarchism at least, this could not happen. Firstly inheritance (beyond small sentimental items) would not happen. Secondly the large concentration of wealth is not possible. This is because of the conception of property.

Property is what usage. If you are using something then you "own" it. But if you do not use it, then you cease to own it.

For example, you can farm a patch of land, but you lay claim to twice that amount. You can't do anything with half of the land you lay claim to, because you do not have the skills or the time or whatever. Someone else comes along and starts using that land, they "own" it now.
If you wanted to work the whole amount of land, you could not hire someone (at least in individualist anarchism), rather the two of you would go into partnership and both would then "own" the land.

The concept of usage in individualist anarchism is probably found in other examples of "market socialism", but I am not certain of this.



As to the rest of your post, search around for LTV and labour vouchers.
Have a look at http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=51078 anarchist economics and http://www.revolutionaryleft.com/index.php?showtopic=50428 LTV.

[Comrade-Z]

With market socialism, theoretically, it would be possible for certain individuals to accumulate more money than others. However, this disparity in wealth could only be spent on increased consumption of products. It would never, theoretically, translate into a priviledged position in society with regards to control over the means of production.

This is because, with market socialism, enterprises are supposed to remain democratic 100% of the time, no exceptions. Wage-labor is specifically denied. If three people are going to work together, they must have equal say in how their operations work, even if one person spends all his/her money on the startup capital for the operation--doing so would not give that person the "right" to hire others in a non-democratic wage-labor manner.

Whether a state would be required with market socialism or not is debatable. My guess would be, since there is private property, there would need to be some sort of state apparatus, even if it was an elected workers' council federation type of thing that could sort out property disputes between workers and dispatch democratic, recallable workers' militias to guard property.

I think, IF you still see the need for a transitional phase between capitalism and communism, then a workers' council type of market socialism (whether it uses money or labor-time-vouchers) is very much preferable to the Leninist vanguard despotism.

It is a tool in the proletariat's ideological arsenal come the time of revolution, if absolutely needed (kind of like the Paris Commune type of "state"--and similarly, it carries some risks of restoring capitalism), but I would prefer not to bother with it at all and advance to stateless communism as quickly as circumstances allow.

[rouchambeau]

Market socialism and other capitalisms cannot just be created out of the air. Various forms of capitalism arrise when they are needed. Fascism came when democracy could not manage capital in crisis. Democracy came when dictatorship was unable to run the economy. Either form of capitalism only comes when capital is ready for a particular one.

So you can either try to change the system from within and fight a useless and bourgeois struggle, or work to overthrow capitalism alltogether (and drop this silly market socialist nonsence).

[Rawthentic]

Nobody was advocating market socialism, its a theoretical topic worth discussing. Just because we discuss capitalism doesnt mean we are capitalists.

[rouchambeau]

I'm sorry. I was too aggressive. But it really seems silly to discuss something like this.