Post-Lange Market Socialism - Required Reading for Today's S

[antieverything]

http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker...er/postlang.htm (http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/postlang.htm)

This is an excellent comparison of modern socialist theories...if you don't have the patience to sift through 25 pages describing economic systems then I suggest reading one section at a time.

This is highly recommended for people who still cling to simplistic interpretations of out-dated economic theories, anyone looking to further their understanding of economics, or even cappies who would like to educate themselves on what post-Marxist socialism looks like...or any of the numberous commies here who know even less about the subject.

[JoYKiLLaH]

i think ill read a page or 2 a day, then reflect, thanks man

[redstar2000]

Don't waste your time, JoYKiLLaH, the first three paragraphs give the game away.

The last sentence of the third papagraph: "All three proposals have in common the key principle that the publicly owned firms would operate, as a rule, according to a profit-maximization incentive within a competitive environment".

A REALLY wordy way of saying: we'll keep capitalism but we'll have some state-owned entities that operate JUST LIKE corporations. Market "socialism"? Why not call it BOURGEOIS "socialism"? Why not just call it crap, because that's what it is! :cool:

(Edited by redstar2000 at 3:32 am on Dec. 8, 2002)

[antieverything]

Don't thank me, thank James A. Yunker from West Illinois University.

[antieverything]

I think that you should actually try reading the article before you go off like that...believe me, I felt that way at first but what it refers to as "profit maximization" really means efficiency maximization...

Each of the proposals are very different but all of them focus on decentralized (to different degrees), democratic economies in the perfect balance with the realities of economics.

Just try reading it...and if you don't agree with it, post your own economic summary of your view of socialism.

[redstar2000]

:o I tried, AE, I really tried to read it, but the writing is so BAD! :o

I don't have my blueprints to hand at the moment and my fingers are getting tired...but perhaps I'll start a thread sometime soon on how a communist economy COULD function.

But my straight-forward objection to the various versions of "market socialism" that I've seen so far is: NO SYSTEM THAT PERMITS THE EXPLOITATION OF WORKERS TO CONTINUE IS ACCEPTABLE IN ANY FORM AS AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

The reason is that revolution is HARD and it is DANGEROUS---not a drop of blood is worth shedding to end up with NO real change.

As for the possibilities of such schemes being passed by a bourgeois parliament (like the U.S. Congress)...the College of Cardinals will elect a Jewish Pope before THAT happens! :cool:

[JoYKiLLaH]

ok i sent off with what u said, and red first few pages, and as comrade redstar2000 stated, its shit

[antieverything]

I don't think you understand where this is coming from.

Capitalism is thriving. It creates massive amounts of wealth, more wealth and a higher standard of living than a command economy ever will. That still doesn't mean it is just.

If you would care to read the essay you could see that these social theories are set up in a way to produce MORE wealth than the capitalist system AND redistribute it equitably. The future age of superabundance (provided we keep our population in check and environment in one piece) doesn't have to come on the exploitation of the workers. It can come from a new socialist, democratic economic model. This isn't a system that tries to create wealth from thin air, it produces it by keeping up efficiency and distributing the wealth equitably.

The word "profit" is misleading...profit in this case is actually a measure of efficiency, and also remember that when a worker-controlled industry is profitable, it doesn't come on the backs of the workers, it raises the wages of the workers. In this case, the profit doesn't really exist, it is instead an analysis of certain economic feasability factors.

Remember that this is also talking about instituting this nation-wide, therefore you don't run into the problems of the mixed economy. You get the best of a command and market economy.

On your comment on the democratic feasability, the essay brings that into account and also gives some interesting insight into the ultra-conservative capitalist mentality being counterproductive even for the capitalist himself. Just do a work search for "Power Elite".

Thanks for your time.

(Edited by antieverything at 11:36 pm on Dec. 7, 2002)

[antieverything]

I'd also like to point out that I don't agree with EVERYTHING proposed in the essay, I support a system like the one proposed but not as similar to capitalism. The market environment is good but the ideas for management could be much more democratic--instead of a company manager, an elected board of directors and below them another group of representatives. I guess you could say that I have faith in the judgement of the worker--but we will have to actually educate children in such a system :)

Anyway, here is another interesting article by the same guy on the viability of "One World Union".

http://www.wiu.edu/users/miecon/wiu/yunker/wuhc1.htm



(Edited by antieverything at 4:51 am on Dec. 8, 2002)

[redstar2000]

"post your own economic summary of your view of socialism" -- antieverything.

Of course, that would be a massive project. But I took your advice, ae, and started a thread called "Free Market" and Communism--it's in the Theory Forum. It's not THE final answer...just a kind of sketch of what I think COULD work.

[antieverything]

Good stuff, Redstar, I don't agree with a lot of it but I'll wait to respond until after my Calculus final for which I am currently cramming...(grammar can be fun!)

On this topic, do you think that some semblance of a market economy and competition is needed in order to ensure efficiency and reduce the danger of shortages? I think that this is a neccessity, especially in the transition but also, the fully socialist state should continue in a form of 'economic federalism' to ensure a balance between worker, community, regional, and national control AND create a more efficiently functioning economy.

Remember, economics is not something we can just ignore...it is central to the socialist vision--without a strong economy with highly efficient production, socialism will fall either through economic trouble or a drop in standards of living leading to a popular 'capitalist counter-revolution'.

[redstar2000]

Calculus? Damn, I'm outgunned. :cheesy:

I would offer two considerations. First, "shortages" are INEVITABLE if that's what you PLAN for. The old communist regimes in the last century PLANNED for comsumer shortages and their plan WORKED. Consequently, I am unconvinced that some form of centralized economic planning is "doomed" to fail.

Secondly, I am not a worshipper at the altar of "efficiency". In fact, I think that if choices have to be made between "efficiency" and the human welfare of the working class, the latter MUST prevail. :cool:

[antieverything]

You forget that efficiency and the human welfare of the working class are intertwined.

If people decide to work 3 hours a day and divide up all of a municipalized corporation amungst themselves the economy will fall apart and things will get WORSE for the working class.

The only alternatives to this sort of system are sydicalism and authoritarianism. The first results in exploitation of markets by workers and the second results in...well, authoritarianism.