Mutualism / Market socialism - Info + Opinions?

[Trystan]

So, market socialism / mutualism. I've seen it described as "free market anti-capitalism". What exactly does it entail? Cooperatives?

Is the free market socialism a better way to run an economy than through planning? No? Why? Yes - why? What?

So yeah. Give me some feedback on this one.

[Os Cangaceiros]

Have you read these threads from the Anarchist group?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/free-market-anarchism-t88314/index.html
http://www.revleft.com/vb/reject-market-anarchists-t89359/index.html

There's quite a bit of info in those threads and elsewhere about what you're talking about.

In addition, I'd recommend going to http://mutualist.org/, which is Kevin Carson's website, and http://praxeology.net/anarcres.htm, which has a wealth of information about the primary influences of "free market anti-capitalism", like Thomas Hodgskin.

[swirling_vortex]

I've certainly favored the idea of a "semi-free market" over a completely free one or a centrally planned one. The issue with central planning is that as an economy grows, it produces more unique goods. That means there are much more inputs to keep track of. Some people say that the Soviet Union could have survived if they adopted the use of computers in their planning, but we'll never know for sure. The Soviet Union certainly had plenty of resources to be economically independent and an economic leader, but the government didn't put those resources to good use, so things like food simply rotted away.

On the other hand (as we all know), an entirely free market is just as toxic. Rather than underproduction, you have overproduction. So now you have resources being utilized too fast for the technology to be a replacement when they deplete. Profit becomes the ultimate motive over people and the environment, so everything is done in the short-term. To me, that's an extremely short-sighted goal.

In order to abolish markets, we'd all have to adopt Marx's philosophy of each according to his need". But I'd seriously doubt we'll ever reach that. Why? Simply because we are selfish, greedy creatures. That's why markets exist in the first place. I partake in this too by trading in the stock market, which allows me to better myself off. So having a government that moves somewhat with market forces and allows for profit, yet also achieves a goal of economic justice and equality would be the best balance of an economy, IMO.

[JimmyJazz]

The original idea behind market socialism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lange_Model)

I am not sure how closely that model matches what was done in Yugoslavia, but I do know that Yugoslavia under Tito was considered market socialist, so you might want to read up on that economy as well.

[swirling_vortex]

According to the almighty Wikipedia, they were chugging along at a good rate until the oil crisis and Regan's hatred for anything that didn't go step in step with US policy. In other words, once Yugoslavia started adopting Western economic policies, the people weren't in control of their economy anymore.

[mikelepore]

To best understand the controversy about "central planning" versus "market socialism", each person should ponder the fact that one industry has to supply another industry. How should the metal produced at an ore refinery end up being a raw material for a plant that uses that metal during manufacturing? How should the wood produced by the logging industry end up being a raw material for a furniture factory? This is the main controversy. Personally, I argue in favor of these allocations being performed by direct transfers among departments of a common network, with no financial transactions. Some other people would prefer that an industry should buy its resources by spending the revenues it has taken in by selling products. That's what this argument is mainly about. The topic is frequently so confused that the people arguing about it haven't even stated this primary point of their disagreement.