Why did Tito's Market Socialism fail to deliver a strong economy?

Property rights still existed

And the fact that the earth revolves around the earth signifies more than the fact that the moon revolves around it. What of it?

Pic related from the german ideology is the autism I'm referring to. It's clear that Marx is referring to the coordination of distinct work, and that the dissolution of the division of labor means being able to do whatever kind of labor you want whenever you want. Clearly, that is not possible in an economy with productive responsibilities for all of society.

If by this you mean the coordination of economic activity through the power of private property and markets, then yes, I agree. I maintain, however that this is only possible through proper technological advances and that market socialism will serve as the most effective transition to such a state. If you mean what marx is suggesting in the excerpt, or even go so far to believe this is immediately viable, then just admit your utopianism.

You are simply speaking of the pressure to reinvest resources towards production, most notably through automation. I hardly see how that is a problem, and that's hardly the entire scope of management of production.

This is a gross oversimplification. There are many factors that lead to neo-liberalism and you ignore the other only at your own peril.

Consider it a plural your then.

Read again, I was not saying that the people in cooperatives are producing for their own use first, but rather that workers are the ones in charge of the market exchange instead of the capitalist or their appointee. You cannot deny that an actor in a market will not tend to act according to their self interest, that there will be differences in the actions of someone completely detached from a firm compared to the workers. You belittle the importance of the capitalist in the capitalist political economy, as if the billions in private wealth (NOT REINVESTED) put towards lobbying, advertising and other pet projects pushing a political ideology have no effect. This is verifiably false. youtube.com/watch?v=5tu32CCA_Ig&t=1s

But then what does this practically look like! You cannot deny Stalin, Trotsky and the Bolsheviks didn't believe they were creating socialism.

Surely you can't be so foolish as to think capitalism does not create a group of people who have a vested interest in its survival? That is, as a specific arrangement of economic activities as opposed to others. Perhaps it should be our job to eliminate those people (by eliminating the role of the capitalist) and create a situation where those in power benefit from an authentic transition away from capitalism. If this is not possible, then yes, violent overthrow will be necessary. But like you said, if capitalism and socialism are incompatible, then only a global revolution will be the solution. I doubt the immediate viability of that, especially if said revolution doesn't begin in the US.

Perhaps not, but it will not happen with only revolution. The Slave empires of old didn't dissolve in a single night, and there were long reforms done by the Kings that undermined the power of the feudal lords before the bourgeoisie took control.

You cannot deny that the Bolshevik and Maoist revolutions weren't authentic revolutions! That they were not a significant break and restructuring of politics, economics and society at large in the countries where they occurred. If these were not changes from the outside, I do not know what is.

markets

Good thread bump 7