can you repeat the question

Simple. I'm just interested in seeing how many here think markets are compatible with their vision of a Socialist society.

What if I think market socialism is a good intermediary stage like the NEP?

Commodities are just goods.

You are essentially asking if socialism is compatible with physical objects.

Diferent user then here.

I am a market socialist. Fuck central planning completely.

pic related


AHA! Commodities are goods FOR HUMAN USE.

All Communists are proponents of an intermediary stage, the new system does not just spring up overnight. However, if your plan for bringing it about amounts to some defeatist nonsense like "wait for the robots" then you might as well select yea.


Dog food is a commodity.

Why would anyone abandon markets for central planning, the real intermediary stage is shooting all central planning fascists.

This wouldn't be central planning. Plans would be made locally and then related to labour federations, who would just co-ordinate production across the country. If you go full localization of everything, then how do you avoid he development of a market between individual communities?

I voted yes assuming the question to ask whether or not I was a primitivst. I think a market system is going to be essential for a socialist society in the beginning until we can start developing technology that will be able to do away with it entirely and usher us into C E N T R A L P L A N N I N G

regional areas of production, but still have light competition in these areas.

The only things I want centralized is health, edu, roads, courts, and defense

Central planning is being used by capitalist right now, it's just several competing centers. Look up Black Rock and their risk management system. We can use the same tech to centrally plan our economy in the future.

To avoid the crises of production, famines, inequalities, calculation inefficiencies, and enslavement of society to Capital inherent to economic anarchy in favor of conscious control.

I agree. Which is why proponents of the firm (centrally-planned organizations) like yourself will receive the most ruthless treatment available.

uh…. I hate to break this to you.

But then unless every community becomes self-sufficient you will have them start trading with each other, forming a market, which will inevitably benefit some communities at the expense of others and create richer and poorer areas.

It would be better to have labour federations or syndicates that are semi-independent of the national government and just carry out the plans relayed to them by the local planners. They wouldn't even need to be heavily centralized, they would just need a central body to process all the orders coming in from the planners.


Markets inevitably lead to commodity fetishism and socially necessary labor time.

Yes, to feed one's dog. So it is commodity. Some random tree is not a commodity until it is appropriated for human use.

But the period of the Soviet Union that suffered these problems on a major scale was the post-Stalin period when they started to transition to decentralized planning and more market-based options of running the economy. If anything the collapse of the revisionist period of the USSR disproves the proponents of decentralized planning and market socialism, their just too lacking in the history department to know it.

What the hell happened to Yugoslavia? I never hear mark socs talking about that.

we shouldn't look to the nep as a model for market socialism, even if it is a transition stage.

literally the point

Then regions will be adjusted on a pretty regular basis. The federal government will buy goods in bulk for emergency/redistribution purposes.

See I still see that as central planning. it's just down one notch from formal central planning.

Note, I also believe that AI central planning is fine but the AI would have to be several orders of magnitude smarter then a human.

My terminology there was an obvious jab at the well-known inefficiencies of the Soviet regime, I'm surprised that flew over your head.

It's unfortunate you refuse to acknowledge that bourgeois market societies are guilty of the same crimes committed by Bolshevism on a much, much larger scale. Perhaps you should just drop that flag in favor of a more honest one. I think this would suit you nicely.


was for

It was pretty based tbh. Tito did nothing wrong

I suppose it was better than straight up bourgeois capitalism, but let's not get carried away here.


Tito did nothing wrong!