Results 1 to 20 of 167
Is market socialism such a terrible idea?
I've recently been reading some of David Schweickart's stuff on economic democracy and market socialism and he does appear to offer a reasonable alternative to capitalism and centrally planned "communism".
He basically advocates taking the market from over from capitalism as a means allocating resources. Democratic firms operate for a profit so people buy and sell much like today. The difference being there is no capitalist class, and people receive a wage dependent on the profits of the firm.
There's also his idea that all these firms would pay a flat-assets tax, with the funds generated directed to a series of public banks that control investment. He calls this 'social control of investment', hence a level of planning would be involved in the system. The money would also go to local councils who can invest in healthcare, parks, schools etc.
He calls himself a Marxist and a Socialist.
Does Revleft think this is a workable alternative or indeed desirable one?
You're asking many different questions here...
Is it such such a bad idea? No, it comes from a good place in the psyche.
Is it a workable alternative? First we would have to ask if the ruling class would even allow it. Then we would have to wonder if and how long til it reverts to traditional capitalism.
Is it desirable? ... well... we couldn't know obviously. I think there is a chance, tho, that it could be a far more desirable alternative... or it could be far more horrendous, if the politics of the petite bourgeois are any example.
Save a species, have ginger babies!
"Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth." ~Albert Einstein
The market invariably sees the production of commodities as a means to profit, rather than strictly to satisfy the needs of the consumer. But, the main problem with market socialism is that one has to ask oneself what vestiges of the capitalism are meant to persist into the construction of this kind of socialism.
To wait until the toiling classes bring about a revolution on an international scale means that everybody should stand stock-still in expectation. That is nonsense.
V.I. Lenin, May 14, 1918.
... [T]he relations of production must necessarily conform with the character of the productive forces ...
I.V. Stalin, Economic Problems of Socialism in the U.S.S.R., 1951.
Fuck your markets. And you too.
My machine my machine,
Please bring my machine.
Markets, especially commodity markets (as would usually be the case under "market socialism") are chaotic systems where one resource is conserved; money, or it's equivalent, e,g, transferable labor tokens, just changes hands.
In a chaotic system wherein a given quantity is always conserved, this quantity will follow a gibbs-boltzmann distribution, which is a distribution where a small configuration space (i.e. "few people") will have the majority of the conserved quantity (i.e. money) in a very skewed-looking graph. This has been proven in the econophysical work of Victor Yakavenko, A. A. Dragulescu, and others.
In short, "markets" WILL always result in the formation of a class riding on the backs of a surplus generated by everyone else. Any market-like mechanisms in a socialist economy must have some major feature which causes them to no longer follow the above model, such as (among other things) labor tokens/credits which are non-transferable.
I'd also raise the question that given the material conditions for a non-market society are met, why construct a new market system if the need for remuneration disappears?
That is a more basic question, but in my opinion an important one where the differences between communists and market socialists lie.
Also Egyand, I am not too happy of you sporting a Sraffa avatar. Neo-Ricardians are not Ricardians, more like Neo-Physiocrats... :P
I don't think this is workable because the basic contradictions of capitalism remain, just the organization of the induvidual worksites is organized more democratically. This means that there would still be economic competition, there would still be economic crisis of overproduction, there would still be artificial shortages in productions, overproduction, and so on. The competitive and capital-concentrating tendencies would result in firms going out of business and unemployment; if firms were really run democratically, like co-ops today, there'd still be exploitation, it would just come in the form of people sacrificing more of their own time or voting to cut their own wages in order to keep up with market competition. There's still be a ton of energy and resources wasted in market competition and commodity quality and usefulness would still be secondary to profits.
In short just like the capitalism we know now, this would be an unstable system and I think within short order a more familiar capitalism would re-emerge. Of course all this is moot because this form of system would require a revolution anyway because the powerful would never willingly give up the current system and the only market-socialists I've ever come across in real life see an electoral road to market-socialism.
I'm for statist mutualism, society using the state to abolish all unearned incomes- employing someone else and making profits by his "surplus labour", rent, interest; abolish private property and instute personal possession based on labor theory of property, and institute occupancy & use principle for property in land.
Also, besides Market socialism there's Arket socialism.
can we restrict these people please they are not socialists
Neither are Leninists (and all their derivatives) - they're all state capitalist.
restrict all non-socialist
Last edited by fabian; 7th May 2012 at 13:34.
While I agree that Leninists are state capitalists at least they share the same end goal of a classless, stateless, moneyless society. They just have a different way to get there. You on the other hand want no such thing. You advocate a market system as your end goal, all you want is a nicer capitalism.
Is your name to do with the fabian society by any chance?
Even the ones opposed to state-capitalism and the USSR?
Someone with a screen-name of a famous society of champagne-socialists shouldn't throw around claims of other people not being real socialists.
Real socialists drink champagne Comrade Jimmie.
The Fabians however were the original 'state capitalists' - at least, that's the charge the SPGB levelled at them in 1908 or there abouts. The fabian society throughout the early 20th century embodied a belief in a paternalistic 'state socialism' that incidently was very popular with eugenicists and apologists for Stalinism.
Manic Impressive - I think you're being way too kind to the majority of 'Leninists', though if you include the Left Comms as Leninists (we do support that messy Russian Revolution business after all) then it's dificult to see how we're also state capitalists.
Unless by 'state capitalists' you mean 'everyone who doesn't think immediate communisation is possible'.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
That's communism. Market socialist aren't communist, we're socialist, - that's why we call ourselves socialists, not communist.
Actually, with the ancient roman philosopher Papirius Fabianus, but there are similarities between my views and view of some founding members of the Fabian Society.
There are Leninist opposed to state-capitalism and the USSR? Anyways, Lenin was fighting for capitalism:
"The economic development of Russia, as of the whole world, proceeds from feudalism to capitalism, and through large-scale, machine, capitalist production to socialism."
And what about this:
"Marxists have repeatedly spoken about the importance of the free mobilisation (i.e., the buying, selling and mortgaging) of peasant land. This real and, practical problem affords a striking illustration of the petty-bourgeois and even positively reactionary character of our Narodniks."
(both quotes are from Left-Wing Narodism and Marxism)
Almost all of the Market socialist accept the Labor theory of property (and bu that denying the legitimacy of all unearned incomes) and would thus never support any buying or selling of land, being that it is not the product of labour, and can only be owned under occupancy and use principle.
fabian, why are you in favor of retaining markets? Genuine interest.
Basically, I see the freed market as a mechanism against the free rider problem.
There is no free-rider problem. There's an exclusivist propertarian problem, but that's all.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
You don't need markets for that. Remuneration according to each' contribution within the context of a planned economy eliminates the free rider problem.
A communist society based on the idea that one has a right to consume according to needs from the total product, but that this right is based in the duty to contribute to the total product if you are able to contribute, also eliminates the free rider problem.
pew pew pew
Ascetics and virtue-oriented people would not slack in a gift economy society, but everyone else would one by one gradually work less and less and basically just obstruct the functioning of the society and parasitize on the hard-working people.
If that was pointed against the existence of personal possessions based on the Labor theory of property, that's like saying there's an exclusivist anti-rape problem. Everyone has a property in himself, and thus a right to life, bodily integrity and liberty, and from that follows the right to the full product of one's labor.
I don't see how planned economy would work without nationalization, and nationalization is a (state) capitalist, and thus an exploitative mechanism.
And would society enforce that?
[QUOTE=fabian;2439121]Ascetics and virtue-oriented people would not slack in a gift economy society, but everyone else would one by one gradually work less and less and basically just obstruct the functioning of the society and parasitize on the hard-working people.
...[quote]
If there are no hard working people that's hardly a problem is it? According to your therory none of us can be bothered to do anything other than live in shit. So if that's what we wanty to do that's what we do. Where's the problem?
No, really it isn't.
How much rubbish is that? You have the right to your body, you don't have the right to anything you make, that's ridiculous.
All products are social products, yoy yourself are a social product and therefore (according to your logic) we have the right to decide what happens to you. You're using our language, our internet, our electricity, our food, our philosophy... so either 'give it back' or admit that you're part of society and your philosophy is junk.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
