What's so wrong with Markets?

[Nusocialist]

I'm a market socialist, I personally feel that markets for commodities are fine,with socialist co-ops providing services.(and democratic investment capital allocation.)

What's with so many socialists still going on about central-planning it's ineffficient and it centralizes in power in the hand's of few.

[Nusocialist]

I should re-iterate I mean commodities markets, Labour and capital markets are not good.

[rouchambeau]

I should re-iterate I mean commodities markets, Labour and capital markets are not good.
There's no real difference. It's still commodification of labor.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

The main problem as i understand it anyway, is that the economy needs to be a workers economy to allow for no exploitation.

Using markets makes gives the consumer rather than the producer the power.

And as it is workers labor power, their time that is given up in order to create the products, they should dictate what things are produced, not the consumer.

[Redmau5]

"Market Socialism" is an oxymoronical term. Obviously, many people have different definitions of what socialism actually entails. I would argue however that while there is still exploitation of man by man, "true" socialism cannot exist. And while there are markets, exploitation will continue to exist.

[Nusocialist]

The main problem as i understand it anyway, is that the economy needs to be a workers economy to allow for no exploitation.
But in the market socialism I follow the workers co-op's would divide the profits democratically.


Using markets makes gives the consumer rather than the producer the power.
Firstly I'm not sure it does,price equalibrium is obtained through supply and demand
And secondly the consumers should have some power,they're the ones who are to use the product,what's the point in producing unwanted products?

And as it is workers labor power, their time that is given up in order to create the products, they should dictate what things are produced, not the consumer.
How are they gonna do that?
By inefficient central-planning?Where power is also centralized.
They should decide what's to be produced by buying other's goods.

[Nusocialist]

"Market Socialism" is an oxymoronical term. Obviously, many people have different definitions of what socialism actually entails. I would argue however that while there is still exploitation of man by man, "true" socialism cannot exist. And while there are markets, exploitation will continue to exist.
Socialism means the worker's own and control the means of production.
I don't think market socialism is against the teachings of Marx,
perhaps it's against Leninism,but that's not particularly important to me,I want to get away from centrally planned dictatorships.

[MrDoom]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:32 PM
What's with so many socialists still going on about central-planning it's ineffficient and it centralizes in power in the hand's of few.
What about decentral planning? Quite a few of us here are for local planning and self-government.

[apathy maybe]

Socialism is too a large degree about the producer. The labourer owning their own labour.

Markets, while an integral part of capitalism, do not imply capitalism. Capitalism has many features, such as property ownership, rent, interest, labour market, that are not needed to have a market.

Markets work by exchange, I have x, you have y, we swap. That is basically a market.

I have written before about individualist anarchists and their conception of the market, unfortunately it is in the CC, and I cannot see it. Basically individualist anarchists reject capitalism, reject property ownership, beyond a useage type "ownership", reject those aspects of capitalism that are not essential to the market, and introduce other clarifications.

Individualist anarchists do not believe in someone being able to "hire" someone else, people work as equal partners or not at all. If you cannot work a piece of land on your own (for example), then you lose "ownership" of the part you cannot work, unless you take on a partner and the two of you can work it.

To distribute goods, individualist anarchists use a market based system. Some would have a type of money, others would use barter. Because the producer is the one "selling" the product, they are getting the full value, and are thus not being exploited.

There are problems with this of course. One is that there is nothing stopping a person from buying the goods from a producer and then selling them further away for a profit. However, in an individualist anarchist system, once they accumulated a certain amount the would not be able to use it, and thus they would not continue to own it.

The market system in this instance, encourages people to work, but removes most of the inequalities that are possible in capitalism. Not having wealth accumulation or inheritance means that most people start from a reasonably level playing field.

This is not a complete overview of the individualist anarchist approach to markets or even individualist anarchism as a whole, but it is a start.



(I do believe some markets systems are compatible with socialism, but I do not advocate market socialism as such. I advocate "adjective free anarchism", if it is anarchism and it works, then I'll probably take it (excluding certain irrational systems).)

[Nusocialist]

What about decentral planning? Quite a few of us here are for local planning and self-government.
That would remove the centralizing of power so would be better,but it wouldn't be as efficient.

[Umoja]

Any government control over workers is coercive.

I agree with Apathy Maybe.

[Demogorgon]

If you have a centrally planned economy, you effectively place the planner in the position the capitalist holds today. In practivce it isn't a workers ecnomy at all. It's just an inefficient capitalist one.

The problem with markets on the other hand isn't their own existence but rather the way the capitalists exploit them. Labour and capital markets are such examples of exploitation as are the markets for goods and services as they exist today.

Hpwever they don't need to be, if there is no capitalist exploitation, markets for good and services cease to be problematic, they simply become the way in which socialists exchange goods and services.

Also it is simply more practical. While central planning works for certain things (and where it works I would use it. It is desperately inefficient for other things.

Good article:

http://homepages.luc.edu/~dschwei/democracy.htm

[Phugebrins]

" If you have a centrally planned economy, you effectively place the planner in the position the capitalist holds today."
What if plans are built and approved democratically?

[Umoja]

The problem with democratic governments, is it still removes people's ability to 'not associate' themselves with the government. Democratically run corporations allow people the choice not to involve themselves.

[liberationjunky]

As long as the market stays completely democratic and this 'centralized group" doesn't have any coercion I don't see a problem with it. Although, as the past shows power corrupts and this would be alot of control and trust to let a group have.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

And secondly the consumers should have some power,they're the ones who are to use the product,what's the point in producing unwanted products?

Consumers are workers and workers are consumers. In socialism Workers both produce and consume.

However, their time is used during the production process not the consumption process. This is where consumer choice should be in a workers state.

Workers councils, working inconjunction with different state institutions, can plan what the products the workers want to make & use.

For example, whats the point of everyone having a lawnmower? the market might mean that workers need to prodce 1000 lawnmowers when only 100 are needed. This means the workers are either working more than they have to or overproducing lawnmowers, which could me time producing other goods.


If you have a centrally planned economy, you effectively place the planner in the position the capitalist holds today. In practivce it isn't a workers ecnomy at all. It's just an inefficient capitalist one.

The "planner" is the workers collectively making descisions about what they need. The "planner" does not own the proprty, does not exstract profits. And, there are no capitalism relations, so how exactly is it a capitalist economy?

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 1 2006, 05:37 PM
The "planner" is the workers collectively making descisions about what they need. The "planner" does not own the proprty, does not exstract profits. And, there are no capitalism relations, so how exactly is it a capitalist economy?
Because the planner will in practice be the state. No other body has the co-ordinating power to plan a large scale economy. and based on the Soviet example they will in practice be the de facto owners of industry. Rather than have a series of capitalist firms as you have now, you will have a single state owned monopoly, which really isn't a massive improvement.

Certainly you could say that rather than have planning committies, we will all vote on what to do, what we want and what we are willing to produce. The problem here is that even in a small economy there are billions of decisions needing to be made every year. What are we going to do? Spend all our time voting? Delegate some back to this undemocratic central planning commitee or ultimately give in and let the market decide some things?

Rather than get into this mess isn''t it best to simply let co-operatives trade on a free and fair market rather than tie ourselves in knots and end up producing too much of things we don't need and not enough of things we do, which always seems to happen when we try this.

A lot of socialists have an inherant distrust of markets, believing they are part of capitalism. But they aren't. Markets are a politically neutral tool. Capitalists use them for prfiteering but socialists can use them to achieve our goals.

Remember one of the major goals of socialism is to bring control of production into the hands of the workers and allow them to enjoy the fruits of their own labours. it isn't to tell them what they may or may not produce and it certainly isn't to allocate goods towards people giving them no choice in what they will have.

[RedKnight]

Indivisualist anarchists, like Proudhon, believe in an economic system called "mutualism" (http://hxxp://www.mutualist.org/) There is also a variety of socialism(notice i said socialism, not Communism), called market socialism (http://hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism) I personaly perfer council communism (http://hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_communism) But I am not necessarily opposed to market based socialism either. Whatever system is most mutualy beneficial, and meets the needs of the masses, is the one which I support. What the Peoples's Republic of China practises however, I'd best describe as being corporatist (http://hxxp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatism) in nature.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

Because the planner will in practice be the state.

Yes, a workers state, made up of elected workers.


and based on the Soviet example they will in practice be the de facto owners of industry.

If by "they" you mean workers, then yes they will be the owners.


What are we going to do? Spend all our time voting?

Well the US state, plans its military expendature. It has no market at all. The military equiptment produced is planned production. Just not democratically done.

Contracts are sold by the state to companies, who do the work.

A workers state, could give the "contract" to an organisation/council which is democratically run by workers.

IF the US can plan its military, we can plan the rest of our ecnomy. It just will take a while to become effiecent, like any economy starting out.

[Demogorgon]

The US can certainly plan it's military, that is true. But that is because the military, along with such things as healthcare, education etc are proven to be much better planned than provided for by market.

Of coursethey succeed because you can anticipate what is going to be required and provide for it. Most other indistries are not like that.

I am not sure how you intend for us to democratically make all these billions of decisions as a whole, and I am not sure how you intend to plan for the unforceable.

I suspect that such a situation would rapidly become undemocratic as it simply wouldn't be possible to make all the votes necessary.

Also as I say, inevitably poor choices in production would be made, it is the classic problem of the planned economy that demand and supply will completely fail to match. We will have ridiculous excesses of some products and terrible shortages of others. Also generally speaking, the quality of products will be lower.

If you want to keep an economy democratic and efficient the only solution I can see is a series of democratic co-operatives trading on a free and above all fair market along side government run industries where planning is more effective.

The trouble with economics is there is no one size fits all solution for everything and trying to impose what works in one industry on another is a recipe for disaster. And of course an economy is in constant motion and continually changing. A government currently has to base what it does on economic predictions for the future yet still it frequently gets it wrong. How is it supposed to get it right if it has to control everything in the economy?

Bare in mind as well that no matter how much you plan an economy people will still want to choose what goods they have. Demand will continue to be a factor. And effectively markets will continue to function in a restricted sort of manner. And of course you will end up with a huge black market springing up.

[Enragé]

But in the market socialism I follow the workers co-op's would divide the profits democratically

err yea

some co-ops earn more money than others
thus vast inequality ensues
some co-ops are competed off the market, they become co-op-less
thus fucked

[Nusocialist]

some co-ops earn more money than others
thus vast inequality ensues
some co-ops are competed off the market, they become co-op-less
thus fucked
Firslty there'd be what's today considered "liberal" market regulation.

Secondly the co-op's that make more would generally have more worker's to split the profits with and vica versa.

And thirdly it's just the price to pay for efficiency,we could have a soviet style economy and then we'd be able to have equal shares of poverty.

Btw this is a great system to implement,because it can be put into practise much easier than the others,there's much less need for a violent revolution,simply start worker's co-op's,then a market socialist party and try to get elected.
I doubt it would work in the US,but it might here in europe.

[Redmau5]

we could have a soviet style economy and then we'd be able to have equal shares of poverty.

Or you could actually do some studying and learn something about communism, not the Soviet Union. Do you honestly believe anyone, apart from a few nutcases, views the old Eastern Bloc as the ideal society?

This market socialism still won't end exploitation of workers. It just sounds like an apologist form of capitalism.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 06:11 PM

we could have a soviet style economy and then we'd be able to have equal shares of poverty.

Or you could actually do some studying and learn something about communism, not the Soviet Union. Do you honestly believe anyone, apart from a few nutcases, views the old Eastern Bloc as the ideal society?

This market socialism still won't end exploitation of workers. It just sounds like an apologist form of capitalism.
It's hardly an apolgist form of capitalism. Markets are certaily not a capitalist invention after all. They existed long before capitalism and like it or not they will still be there afterwards. Capitalism is property owners exploiting workers, socialism is doing away with that and giving workers control over their own work and the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours. There is no need to render an ecoonomy inefficient in the process of doing this.

[bloody_capitalist_sham]

It's hardly an apologist form of capitalism. Markets are certainly not a capitalist invention after all. They existed long before capitalism and like it or not they will still be there afterwards. Capitalism is property owners exploiting workers; socialism is doing away with that and giving workers control over their own work and the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours. There is no need to render an economy inefficient in the process of doing this.

Well it looks like that, because markets will turn socialism back to a class society.

As the market will determine the price of a commodity, and each group of workers will make different commodities, then there will be a difference (in price) between what the workers receive. This is because not all commodities will be the same price, despite how easy/hard/quick/slow the commodity was to produce, which will mean that some workers will get less wages than others despite all workers producing useful commodities and spending equal amounts labour time on its production.

The workers can also exploit each other via the market, because they can choose to produce less, thereby raising the price of their own commodity, in an attempt to receive a higher profit exchange for their labour time.

If you produce 100 bikes, a month, and sell them on the market for £50, and this allows each worker to receive £1000 a month, working 5 hours a day.

Or you could produce 75 bikes a month, sell them on the market for £100, earn £1500 a month and work 4 hours a day.

All in all, a society based on competition (which markets promote, but are not necessarily efficient) will mean groups of workers exploiting each other through the market.

[Sa'd al-Bari]

Here’s something that I’ve found rather interesting. In all of the countries that have undergone the Socialist transition phase they’ve had several modes of production existing side by side with one being dominant. There is a certain necessity to having this before production according to social need is materially feasible.

Even in countries such as the U.S.S.R. and the PRC when they were at the furthest progression of socialist transition production was still heavily reliant on commodity categories, credit and other such market aspects. It was because of these aspects that the seeds of worker exploitation and the reversal of socialist transition remained. This is even tied into the retention of the state as a mediation of class antagonisms. The removal of commodity categories is a primary front that needs to be crossed in order to move the state from such a mediation and have it focus on fulfilling socialist need.

Your ideology sounds nice and all to the untrained eye, but it’s inherent contradictions and the possibility for capitalism to become the dominant mode of production and usurp socialist progress makes it unfeasible. I also don’t see where this is ultimately supposed to go. It sounds like you want freeze up at a certain point of socialist progression and just kind of freeze things at that point. Doesn’t work.

[Nusocialist]

It's hardly an apolgist form of capitalism. Markets are certaily not a capitalist invention after all. They existed long before capitalism and like it or not they will still be there afterwards. Capitalism is property owners exploiting workers, socialism is doing away with that and giving workers control over their own work and the right to enjoy the fruits of their labours. There is no need to render an ecoonomy inefficient in the process of doing this.
I couldn't of put it better myself.

[Nusocialist]

As the market will determine the price of a commodity, and each group of workers will make different commodities, then there will be a difference (in price) between what the workers receive. This is because not all commodities will be the same price, despite how easy/hard/quick/slow the commodity was to produce, which will mean that some workers will get less wages than others despite all workers producing useful commodities and spending equal amounts labour time on its production.
Wait,wait....wait I reject the LVT, to me labour should not just be measured in time,that's absurd.
Labour is all different,some is more important to people,some is of higher quality or effort it's not all homogenous.
The only to work out trully what it's worth is through supply and demand of commidites and then democratically sharing profit.

The workers can also exploit each other via the market, because they can choose to produce less, thereby raising the price of their own commodity, in an attempt to receive a higher profit exchange for their labour time.

If you produce 100 bikes, a month, and sell them on the market for £50, and this allows each worker to receive £1000 a month, working 5 hours a day.

Or you could produce 75 bikes a month, sell them on the market for £100, earn £1500 a month and work 4 hours a day.
Firstly the I would favour modern "liberal" style regulations,and secondly they'd be competition.

All in all, a society based on competition (which markets promote, but are not necessarily efficient) will mean groups of workers exploiting each other through the market.
They're not exploiting each,competition and regulations will keep the prices down.
And goods markets are far more efficient than any other alternative tried,particulalry in a large state.

[bezdomni]

The problem with "market socialism" is that whole "market" business.

It's just capitalism with a human face.

Not to mention the absurdity of market "economics". :P

[Nusocialist]

The problem with "market socialism" is that whole "market" business.

It's just capitalism with a human face.
What's capitalism got to do with markets?
Capitalism is about the reltionship between the owners of the means of production and the workers,it's about wage-labour.

Not to mention the absurdity of market "economics".
What absurdity?
What about the absudity of centrally planned economies?

[apathy maybe]

As has been said, markets are not inherently capitalistic. They existed before capitalism. Capitalism is a market system however. Capitalism has certain features that are not found in socialistic market systems. Inheritance, , rent, interest are three things that would not exist in any socialistic system. All three enable a person to gain without working. Another feature of capitalism that would not exist in any socialist system unlimited accumulation of wealth.

Markets don't need any of these features to exist. As I said above, a market system says, I have x, you have y, I want y, you want x, we swap. It could be argued that any system of reciprocation is a market system, I do x for you, you do y for me.



Originally posted by NewKindOfSoldier+--> (NewKindOfSoldier)some co-ops earn more money than others
thus vast inequality ensues
some co-ops are competed off the market, they become co-op-less
thus fucked[/b]Not necessarily. If you remove the ability for unlimited accumulation and replace it with a "if you don't use it, you lose it" system of 'property' then vast inequality does not ensure. And if the co-op cannot compete, oh well, the members can join a different co-op or (and this is my favourite) go and join the communists down the road. I see a system of communism and some form of market socialism interacting. (All anarchistic of course.)



Originally posted by [email protected]
Well it looks like that, because markets will turn socialism back to a class society. No! Because essential features of capitalism will not be present! There will be no labour market, no form of gaining 'wealth' without working (such as rent or interest), the people who produce an item will gain the full value of it. There maybe discrepancies in the amount of 'property' that different people have in this sort of system, but without inheritance these do not exist beyond one generation. Not only this, because of the "use it or lose it" principle, if you do not use an item (or land or whatever) you cease to "own" it, these discrepancies can never get very large.

While there maybe a market, what you have to understand is that the conception of property is radically different to a capitalist conception. In socialism everything "belongs" to the community, but in different systems different ways of allocating the resources apply. You might have exclusive use of an item and thus "own" it, but it is not the same as "owning" an item in capitalism.



SovietPants
The problem with "market socialism" is that whole "market" business.

It's just capitalism with a human face.

Not to mention the absurdity of market "economics".NO! Capitalism has features that not all markets have! Such as being able to 'earn' without doing any work (rent, interest and inheritance). Capitalism has a capitalist class that does not work, but rather takes a profit from the work of others. Socialism would not have anything like this! The USSR was not socialist, the wealth differentials were too large, and those in the party exploited those who actually did the work.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by [email protected] 2 2006, 10:07 PM
Well it looks like that, because markets will turn socialism back to a class society.

As the market will determine the price of a commodity, and each group of workers will make different commodities, then there will be a difference (in price) between what the workers receive. This is because not all commodities will be the same price, despite how easy/hard/quick/slow the commodity was to produce, which will mean that some workers will get less wages than others despite all workers producing useful commodities and spending equal amounts labour time on its production.

The workers can also exploit each other via the market, because they can choose to produce less, thereby raising the price of their own commodity, in an attempt to receive a higher profit exchange for their labour time.

If you produce 100 bikes, a month, and sell them on the market for £50, and this allows each worker to receive £1000 a month, working 5 hours a day.

Or you could produce 75 bikes a month, sell them on the market for £100, earn £1500 a month and work 4 hours a day.

All in all, a society based on competition (which markets promote, but are not necessarily efficient) will mean groups of workers exploiting each other through the market.
In actual fact, the scenario you lay out is less likely to occur under a market system than a planned system, precisely because competition prevents it fropm happening. If somebody tries to seel a product above the market equiilibrium price somebody else can just sell the same product cheaper.

The reason that doesn't always happen under capitalism is down to the fact that certain capitalists hold too much power and effectively have monopolist power to set their own prices. However if you don't have capitalists and monopolies you don't have that problem.

Rememer as well, all a market is, is an exchange of goods and services between different people, nothing more sinister than that. A lot of the problems you attribute to markets are actually problems of capitalism.

[Nusocialist]

Without commidities markets how are you supposed to define the wants and desires of society and then supply them?
The ways I can see,are either central planning which is inefficient and often leads to corruption and the centralizing of power.
Or decentralized planning which is also likely to be inefficient.

[Phugebrins]

"However if you don't have capitalists and monopolies you don't have that problem."
Monopolies do not come exclusively from capitalism. Many monopolies are entirely natural and unavoidable. If worker-owned industries are accountable only through the ebb and flow of supply and demand, extortion is inevitable.

[The Grey Blur]

Wait,wait....wait I reject the LVT, to me labour should not just be measured in time,that's absurd.
Workers are paid by their time though


Labour is all different,some is more important to people,some is of higher quality or effort
Yet it has the same net worth - no?

I'm not an expert on the technical economic side of Marxism but I was reading Engel's thesis on Wage Labour last night ;)


And goods markets are far more efficient than any other alternative tried
But that's the point isn't it? - No one's tried Communism yet

[bezdomni]

Sodding hell, "market socialism" is bourgeois economics trying to be revolutionary, but failing.

The absurdity of market (ie: bourgeois) economics is its failure to actually explain anything in the economy. Actual Marxist economics, however, explains the relationship between labor and capital and the development of the world political economy very well with the LTV.

It is basically a question of if the LTV is right or not. I see no reason why the LTV should be considered false, nor do I see any reason why bourgeois economics (supply and demand bollocks) should be taken seriously, therefore I maintain that the LTV is true and bourgeois market economics is false.

You ask about a "centrally planned economy". Where the fuck did you pick up your economics terminology? A high school economics textbook?

When the means of production are democratically owned by the workers, production and such is all "planned" by what people need and what people can produce. It is not planned by some "council of elders" that are completely out of touch with reality, but by the masses who actually participate in production and consumption. Or do you not understand the Marxist concept of "from each, according to their ability; to each, according to their need"?

[Nusocialist]

Yet it has the same net worth - no?
No they don't .
If I great a rubbish widget and you create a good one they don't have the same net worth.

[Nusocialist]

When the means of production are democratically owned by the workers, production and such is all "planned" by what people need and what people can produce. It is not planned by some "council of elders" that are completely out of touch with reality, but by the masses who actually participate in production and consumption. Or do you not understand the Marxist concept of "from each, according to their ability; to each, according to their need"?
I understand it perfectly,(I should say I'm not a Marxist.),but if two workers are paid the same,for creating varying qualities of products,is that fair.
And don't you realise how hopelessly inefficient that scenario is,how are the masses meant to decide what they want,and any given time.

It is basically a question of if the LTV is right or not. I see no reason why the LTV should be considered false, nor do I see any reason why bourgeois economics (supply and demand bollocks) should be taken seriously, therefore I maintain that the LTV is true and bourgeois market economics is false.
The LVT is wrong and it's right,
The value of a product is measured in the labour taken to create it,but that labour itself cannot be measured simply in time,it must be measured in effort and quality as well.(at least.)
Therefore one good that takes 5 hours to create is not the same as another,if the effort and quality differs and the only way to judge their worth is by commidites markets,where the worker's democratically divide the profit.

[AlexJohnson]

Originally posted by [email protected] 31 2006, 12:32 PM
I'm a market socialist, I personally feel that markets for commodities are fine,with socialist co-ops providing services.(and democratic investment capital allocation.)

What's with so many socialists still going on about central-planning it's ineffficient and it centralizes in power in the hand's of few.
Central Planning isn't necessarily inefficient, the USSR did become the worlds 2nd largest economic powerhouse.

[bezdomni]

The LVT is wrong and it's right,
The value of a product is measured in the labour taken to create it,but that labour itself cannot be measured simply in time,it must be measured in effort and quality as well.(at least.)
Therefore one good that takes 5 hours to create is not the same as another,if the effort and quality differs and the only way to judge their worth is by commidites markets,where the worker's democratically divide the profit.

I think you missed the part where Marx said "socially necessary labor".

I'd find the quote from Wage, Labor and Capital that negates your assertion, but I don't have that book with me right now and I don't feel like going through the MIA.

Even under capitalism, factories that use primitive methods of production either go out of business or have to revolutionize themselves and update to the newer faster methods. Inefficency costs money.

[gilhyle]

The theoretical debate about market socialism will prove historically redundant. This is not a theoretical question but one to be decided in practice, as it will be in due course. the issue is the extent to which a society is ABLE to surpass the market in a sustainable way, not whether its a good idea to do so.

Its a no-brainer that its better not to have a market, if you can actually overcome the material conditions that make the market appropriate. the market is a crude,but efficient method for the allocation of resouces.

If you no longer need efficiency in the allocation of surplus (because of the surplus you have) or you can consciously plan without loosing efficiency (unlikely) then you can surpass the market. When you do, that is a great victory for man kind - a victory of conscious self-control over the blind forces of nature reflected in human social organisation.

but that will not happen overnight - except at the cost of violently imposing a planned economy. its something that must be appraoched over years, struggled for.

[Nusocialist]

Central Planning isn't necessarily inefficient, the USSR did become the worlds 2nd largest economic powerhouse.
And most people lived in poverty.

[Umoja]

Central Planning replaces one King for another.

Workers are the individuals to be liberated, and I only think a decentralized market without a capitalist class is capable of doing that.

[peaccenicked]

There is loads of problems with the politics of transition from the market to socialism. Lets take the production of specialised goods such as harps or violins. I dont think everyone wants one of everything but all want shelter food clothing. If we could abolish scarcity of all goods all the better, but then who is to determine demand.

I believe that demand will be part of the democratic content of socialism in its early stages and it will be democracy that will determine 'lifes prime want.'.ie labour. This why I believe communism is conditioned as a stable form with a super abundance of goods. Under such a condition markets will only be temporary, and lottery based with exception perhaps of special needs, when it comes to new and improved products, until a new super abundance is achieved. A winning lottery ticket will act as money at the moment of exchange, till such a time. This is ultimately the resolution to the riddle in chapter one of Capital.

Since the bodily form of each single commodity is one particular equivalent form amongst numberless others, we have, on the whole, nothing but fragmentary equivalent forms, each excluding the others. In the same way, also, the special, concrete, useful kind of labour embodied in each particular equivalent, is presented only as a particular kind of labour, and therefore not as an exhaustive representative of human labour generally. The latter, indeed, gains adequate manifestation in the totality of its manifold, particular, concrete forms. But, in that case, its expression in an infinite series is ever incomplete and deficient in unity.
Commodities have twofold character of use and exchange. Exchange is only ever necessitated by scarcity. Scarcity itself was born in primitive times and only the development of the forces of production to a very high level could condition a communist society. Modern capitalism has given us an idea of what is possible, and even the poor in the richer countries above the poverty line can sustain much better lifestyles than previous generations. If human resources were geared for needs of the majority and not the profits of a few, how much less wasteful the world economy would be, socialists would not be socialists if the answer was not plenty. Plenty less wasteful.

The passing of commodities into purely use value goods,( I dare say we could exchange presents now and again but it would hardly be exchange from a basis of scarcity) will be the economic direction of the revolution., demand might trip us up now and again. Scarcity slow our progress down. Measurement itself will institute bureaucracy. This I think is the crucial matter for socialists we must convince the working class as it is rising that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance, and that means that class war will be continued by a war against bureaucracy which can only be won by a centrally planned and democratic war on scarcity.

Getting rid of the Capitalist fetter on the development of our productive forces would be problematic but if the people themselves are vigilante in understanding the nature of the obstacles that need defeated, Freedom itself will finally be fully realised for all.

"What is wrong with markets? "is the wrong way of posing the question. The question that concerns socialists is when shall scarcity be overcome and the market of exchange made redundant . ..........Arise ye prisoners of starvation..and scarcity.

[Marsella]

The LVT is wrong and it's right,
The value of a product is measured in the labour taken to create it,but that labour itself cannot be measured simply in time,it must be measured in effort and quality as well.(at least.)
Therefore one good that takes 5 hours to create is not the same as another,if the effort and quality differs and the only way to judge their worth is by commidites markets,where the worker's democratically divide the profit.

Soviet Pants already explained this but I thought I'd try to make it clearer.

As you've said the value of a product is measured is measured by the duration of labour in it. This can be measured.

Marx uses the term 'homogeneous' (having uniform composition) labour. Its the average amount of time to create the commodity or the socially necessary amount of time.

If for example, you found a diamond beside the road it wouldn't mean that the diamond would be worthless because it took you virtually no labour to find. This is because on average diamonds are expensive to procure.

Its explained much better here (http://www.revleft.com/index.php?showtopic=46656)

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Nusocialist+August 31, 2006 04:31 pm--> (Nusocialist @ August 31, 2006 04:31 pm) I'm a market socialist, I personally feel that markets for commodities are fine,with socialist co-ops providing services.(and democratic investment capital allocation.) [/b]
I'm afraid you are very mistaken. Exploitation doesn't happen just within companies; exploitative relationships exist between companies as well. Merely replacing capitalist companies with worker-owned co-ops would change very little, and here's why:

Imagine a car company within the present capitalist system. The owners buy raw materials and hire workers to produce cars. The cars produced by the workers become the property of the owners and the workers receive payment which is less than the value of their labour. The workers are exploited.

Now imagine a "market socialist" or syndicalist system in which all companies are in fact co-ops owned by their workers. Now, suppose co-op A buys raw materials and offers a contract to co-op B; the contract says that co-op B will use A's raw materials to produce cars, the cars will become the property of co-op A and co-op B will receive some payment in return. This is exactly the same situation as that in the capitalist system described above. Co-op A exploits co-op B just as private company owners exploit their workers. You might as well call co-op A the boss and call co-op B the worker.

Whenever capital and natural resources can be the exclusive property of some people - whether those people are individual businessmen or co-ops - property can be used to exploit and oppress others. The only way to abolish exploitation is to ensure that all workers collectively control all means of production - rather than having some workers control some means of production and other workers control other means of production. Collective property must not be divided between separate groups of workers.

The reason why markets are anti-socialist and inherently exploitative is because markets are based on the principle that productive property is divided - some means of production are under the exclusive control of group A and other means of production are under the exclusive control of group B.


Nusocialist
What's with so many socialists still going on about central-planning it's ineffficient and it centralizes in power in the hand's of few.
First of all, planning need not be centralized. Second, central planning has been VERY efficient historically, delivering some of the fastest economic growth rates in recorded history.

Also, it is completely wrong to say that markets are about consumers and planning is about producers. In an oligopolistic market (which is to say, in the majority of real-life markets) producers have more power than consumers. On the other hand, in a planned economy, it is very much possible (and I would say necessary) to draw up plans based on consumer preferences.

[Lynx]

Gilhyle and peacceniked have raised an important point:
Why assume scarcity?

[RGacky3]

Markets will always exist, but as Socialism develops it will become less and less like a Market, as property becomes more and more collective, and less and less personal, Markets become less and less important. In the begining when Industry is taken over by workers, you'll probably need Markets, to trade comodities amung equals, but as property becomes more communal production and distribution will be less and less about trade, and more simply production and distribution. I don't think Markets are the only way to do it, but it is a good way to find out what is distributed and to make sure no one is left behind, but I also think markets is an means not an ends, the best way to go is to eventually not need Markets, and rather run the economy on mutual aid and free production and distribution.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I can't answer on behalf of anarchists, but markets would not allow "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" to became tangible if we're to settle for "market" socialism. The image of a bunch of co-ops is a nice one, and maybe that's what will happen in the short-term, but it's definately not my final goal.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The major flaw with the Soviet model wasn't that it was planned, but that the workers and consumers didn't have much of a say in production. What better way than democracy and self-autonomy to decide what people want? Resources can be handled intelligently instead of being passed out to the highest/quickest buyer.

Mind you the main reason the Soviet Union collapsed was because of the social consequences of an open government, not the economy. The USSR was the second largest economy in the world and had a smaller debt than America.

How is this market to work? What is to stop someone from handing the money down to their children? What is to stop people working in one industry from making millions and thus spoiling the market?

[Tatarin]

How is this market to work? What is to stop someone from handing the money down to their children? What is to stop people working in one industry from making millions and thus spoiling the market?

And what is to stop corruption? Such a system would sooner rather than later lead back to capitalism.

[RGacky3]

It would only lead back to Capitalism if Capital and Land become Private Property, and if Labor goes back on the Market, the Capital, Labor and Commodities Market, are different things.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23, 2007 01:18 am
It would only lead back to Capitalism if Capital and Land become Private Property, and if Labor goes back on the Market, the Capital, Labor and Commodities Market, are different things.
As I pointed out in my previous post, any system which allows some groups of people to have exclusive control over land and capital - no matter if those groups of people are called boards of directors or workers' co-ops - will inevitably lead to exploitation, since those people who control more means of production will be able to exploit those who control less.

The only way to eliminate exploitation is to ensure that all means of production are the property of all people. This excludes the possibility of independent co-ops competing in a market.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 23, 2007 05:31 am
The only way to eliminate exploitation is to ensure that all means of production are the property of all people. This excludes the possibility of independent co-ops competing in a market.
I agree with you. However a more radical example of market socialism than is found here (if you could call it market socialism) does call for the abolition of private property, but allows that each body of workers self manages their own production and has access to certain resources subject to the conditions laid down by the COmmunity. The market bit is they continue to trade their end products.

One would hardly call it an end solution, but it is surely worth discussion as a transitional programme.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+October 23, 2007 11:39 am--> (Demogorgon @ October 23, 2007 11:39 am) I agree with you. However a more radical example of market socialism than is found here (if you could call it market socialism) does call for the abolition of private property, but allows that each body of workers self manages their own production and has access to certain resources subject to the conditions laid down by the community. [/b]
Sounds feasible, but the question then becomes, what is the difference between "conditions laid down by the community" and an economic plan? After all, that is what a democratic economic plan is - a list of conditions and requirements passed from the community (or its representatives) to the specific groups of workers performing specific kinds of work with means of production owned by the community.

Of course, some plans may be very strict, requiring specific production targets from workers, while other plans may be very loose, requiring only that workers follow certain basic procedures or provide at least a minimum quantity of a certain good. Some plans may assign managers to workplaces, while other plans may let workers manage themselves. There is a lot of room for diversity in economic planning. But I think there can be no question that some kind of economic plan drafted through a democratic process is absolutely necessary for socialism.


Demogorgon
The market bit is they continue to trade their end products.

One would hardly call it an end solution, but it is surely worth discussion as a transitional programme.
Well, some kind of trading will occur under any form of socialism (remember that socialism itself is a transition phase before communism). It is an open question whether this should be competitive trading (i.e. the workers who make a product can decide that product's price on the market) or whether prices should be determined as part of the economic plan.

I tend to favour the second option, because in a profitless economy I don't see any incentive or reason for price competition, and because a worker-run workplace wouldn't function the same way a capitalist firm does - for example, they wouldn't need to buy natural resources or invest in capital.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

A collective market would still have the same problems a capitalist market suffers from: recession, inflated demand, competition, unemployment.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 23, 2007 06:14 pm
Sounds feasible, but the question then becomes, what is the difference between "conditions laid down by the community" and an economic plan? After all, that is what a democratic economic plan is - a list of conditions and requirements passed from the community (or its representatives) to the specific groups of workers performing specific kinds of work with means of production owned by the community.

Of course, some plans may be very strict, requiring specific production targets from workers, while other plans may be very loose, requiring only that workers follow certain basic procedures or provide at least a minimum quantity of a certain good. Some plans may assign managers to workplaces, while other plans may let workers manage themselves. There is a lot of room for diversity in economic planning. But I think there can be no question that some kind of economic plan drafted through a democratic process is absolutely necessary for socialism.


Yes quite. The question of course is what exactly constitutes an economic plan. The defnition you give here that conditions laid down by the Community would be a plan is very interesting because it ties in perfectly with the notion from Joseph Stiglitz that the Capitalist market is in reality simply a planned model as well. With the planning mostly being done in boardrooms and for the benefit of the bosses of course. If a market itself is simply a form of planning, it follows that we should be selecting the form of planning best suited to achieve what is best for us, the workers. I am quite influenced by the model David Schweickart suggests, that itself can be called market socialism, that the more central form of planning is best used for allocating resources to different regions, that Community planning is then used to divy up the resources between this and that as required and elected workers bodies then deal with the actual using of the resources and organising the making of products.

I think your point about the strictnes of the plan is quite correct, because I would argue that in the case of very necessary things, Community planning needs to involve appointing the managers and dictating exactly what is to be done, whereas for other matters, it can be much more deneral terms that are laid down.
Well, some kind of trading will occur under any form of socialism (remember that socialism itself is a transition phase before communism). It is an open question whether this should be competitive trading (i.e. the workers who make a product can decide that product's price on the market) or whether prices should be determined as part of the economic plan.

I tend to favour the second option, because in a profitless economy I don't see any incentive or reason for price competition, and because a worker-run workplace wouldn't function the same way a capitalist firm does - for example, they wouldn't need to buy natural resources or invest in capital.I think actually there is a place for both. For the "core" things we need like education, healthcare and that sort of thing the simple setting of a price at the planning stage is pretty much essential, and indeed the final price to the user should be nothing with all costs met by the Community already.

For other goods I think it is healthy for workers to set a price on the market while we are in a transitional stage, because price competition will encourage workers to use their resources efficiently. And efficient use is important during the transitonal period. Indeed I would argue a large part of the reason that the Soviet Union was unable to finish transitioning so to speak was because it had a tendency towards being too wasteful.

The danger of course is that despite the fact this is certainly not a market in the capitalsit sense that it could pick up the same bad habits. Particularly oligopoly. However there is a lesser risk of that than one might fear because oligopoly firms are particularly bad firms to be employed by. THey are great for the owners, but not very good for the workers. Under worker self management, workers are very unlikely to be willing to expand in such a manner and of course with proper community control it should be preventable.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by Demogorgon+October 23, 2007 09:59 pm--> (Demogorgon @ October 23, 2007 09:59 pm) Yes quite. The question of course is what exactly constitutes an economic plan. The defnition you give here that conditions laid down by the Community would be a plan is very interesting because it ties in perfectly with the notion from Joseph Stiglitz that the Capitalist market is in reality simply a planned model as well. With the planning mostly being done in boardrooms and for the benefit of the bosses of course. If a market itself is simply a form of planning, it follows that we should be selecting the form of planning best suited to achieve what is best for us, the workers. [/b]
Well, I define an economic plan as any set of economic decisions made by an entity (such as a community, but possibly also a bureaucratic state as in the USSR) who has sole ownership and control of all natural resources and capital in a given area.

In other words, in order for economic planning to exist (at least under my definition) a single entity has to control all the means of production in a given area. This means that market capitalism is not a system of economic planning, because there are multiple bosses as opposed to one single boss with all the power.

Still, just like slavery would not be significantly improved if you gave slaves the right to choose their master (while remaining slaves), so capitalist exploitation is not justified by the existence of multiple bosses.


Originally posted by Demogorgon+--> (Demogorgon)I am quite influenced by the model David Schweickart suggests, that itself can be called market socialism, that the more central form of planning is best used for allocating resources to different regions, that Community planning is then used to divy up the resources between this and that as required and elected workers bodies then deal with the actual using of the resources and organising the making of products.[/b]
It sounds like a good idea. It is also very important to ensure that information flows from the bottom up, as opposed to top-down as in the USSR.

In other words, people at the grassroots or community level should decide what goods they need, and then come up with a list of inputs (resources, capital, labour) necessary to produce those goods. They should then forward this list to the central planners. The task of the central planners should not be to set goals. This is where the Soviet Union went wrong. Goals must be set by local communities. The task of the central planners should be to harmonize the conflicting goals of different communities and distribute resources and capital as best as possible to meet the requests of the communities.


[email protected]
I think your point about the strictnes of the plan is quite correct, because I would argue that in the case of very necessary things, Community planning needs to involve appointing the managers and dictating exactly what is to be done, whereas for other matters, it can be much more deneral terms that are laid down.
I completely agree. Some industries require strict planning, while in other areas there should be more room for decision at the workplace level. The two extreme cases are, I think, heavy industry and art. Heavy industry, due to its large economies of scale, can benefit from very strict planning. Art, on the other hand, due to its highly individual and subjective nature, can hardly be planned at all. The only thing a plan should contain with regards to art is the quantity of resources that are to be dedicated to a specific artistic pursuit. Those resources should then be handed over to an artists' guild, who should be able to use them however it sees fit.


Demogorgon
I think actually there is a place for both. For the "core" things we need like education, healthcare and that sort of thing the simple setting of a price at the planning stage is pretty much essential, and indeed the final price to the user should be nothing with all costs met by the Community already.

For other goods I think it is healthy for workers to set a price on the market while we are in a transitional stage, because price competition will encourage workers to use their resources efficiently. And efficient use is important during the transitonal period. Indeed I would argue a large part of the reason that the Soviet Union was unable to finish transitioning so to speak was because it had a tendency towards being too wasteful.
Ah, but the reason why price competition happens at all in a capitalist market is because business owners can get higher profits by changing prices (up or down, depending on the situation). In socialism, there are no profits, therefore there is no incentive to ever change prices. So how could price competition exist?

Besides, socialist money wouldn't work in exactly the same way as capitalist money. In capitalism, a firm needs money to invest in new means of production and grow. In socialism, means of production are not for sale, and a "firm" (or co-op) receives its means of production directly from the state (or community) in accordance with the economic plan. Efficiency is ensured not through the profit motive, but through democratic control of the economy. That is to say, the community will be able to hold a workplace or co-op responsible if it is wasting resources.

[Demogorgon]

Originally posted by Edric [email protected] 24, 2007 12:58 am
Ah, but the reason why price competition happens at all in a capitalist market is because business owners can get higher profits by changing prices (up or down, depending on the situation). In socialism, there are no profits, therefore there is no incentive to ever change prices. So how could price competition exist?

Besides, socialist money wouldn't work in exactly the same way as capitalist money. In capitalism, a firm needs money to invest in new means of production and grow. In socialism, means of production are not for sale, and a "firm" (or co-op) receives its means of production directly from the state (or community) in accordance with the economic plan. Efficiency is ensured not through the profit motive, but through democratic control of the economy. That is to say, the community will be able to hold a workplace or co-op responsible if it is wasting resources.
I agree with everything else you say, so I will just adress this one. As I understand it, Socialist money works best when it is a reflection of Labour put into production. Not a million miles away from a mutualist idea of money I suppose.

Of course a price will largely be based on the amount of labour time socially necessary so when we have a given amount of technology, the average social time it takes to make goods with it will be reflected in the price according to the LTV.

If we accept this a market is likely to set the price of a product at this level (providing the distortions of capitalism have already been done away with). That gves a two-fold incentive for efficiency. Firstly a co-op is not going to want to be less efficient than average because that would mean the workers will be getting a lower return for their work than they would otherwise get (all proceeds are shared fairly). Secondly it gives them an incentive to be more efficient than average because they might be able to get a higher return than would normally be epected for the work they put in. And if they are all doing that it will lead to greater efficiency acros the economy as a whole and allow the Community to free up resources for other things.

Of course I don't want to overstate the benefits here. Firstly it won't work for everything as I have already indicated. Secondly it might go wrong if the Community does not have other means by which to ensure co-ops are not wasting resources and so on. But it does make for a good way to help encourage efficiency and also (ad this is part of the appeal) cuts down on the amount of time required to make sure these co-ops are efficient, because they will become more self-regulating in that regard.

[blackstone]

Originally posted by [email protected] 03, 2006 07:05 am
Without commidities markets how are you supposed to define the wants and desires of society and then supply them?

Easy. The social plan for society first must be articulated to cover the whole economy because economies are integrated. A decision in one place will have ripple effects elsewhere. For example, a decrease in production of steel will inversely effect the production of cars, bikes, buildings and all other products that have steel inputs. To accomplish this a dual structure of governance for society is needed. This post revolutionary society will be based on both workplace organizations and assemblies of residential or community organizations.

In a decentralized economy utilizing participatory planning, worker and consumer or neighborhood councils negotiate and revise their proposals for what they intend to produce and consume. Through this system of requests, proposals, rejections and amendments, a social plan is constructed for the whole economy due to each neighborhood's plan being aggregated into the plan for the whole county, state, region and so on.

It it through these proposals from neighborhood councils' consumption plans in which we can gauge the wants and desires of society.

Cheers

[Ol' Dirty]

There's nothing 'wrong' with it, it's just not a socialist concept.