Please explain Market Socialism to me

Please explain Market Socialism to me.

Is it Revisionist or is it a good form of Socialism?

Other urls found in this thread:

socdem cowcake

market socialism = capitalism + worker co-ops - private property ownership

It is Revisionist if it pretends to be Marxist.

Compared to what? It's better than National "Socialism". But that's it.

According to Marxists it's regular Capitalism.

When owning shares of MoP stopped being private property?

There's a reason why market socialism is despised here.

Under market socialism, there's nothing stopping a doctor or a pharmaceutical company from charging an arm and a leg. Health care is a necessity. You can't choose to go bare on health care (someone please dig up that meme). So health care providers have all the fucking leverage to charge whatever they want. And this is the case in market socialism much like capitalism.

Meanwhile in a state socialist (or state capitalist depending on your interpretation) country like Fidel Castro's Cuba, there are price controls set on health care. Doctor, nurse and pharmacist salaries are capped. Prices on pharmaceutical drugs are capped. Limits are placed on how much you can make as a doctor, nurse, pharmacist, etc. For the greater good of society.

A lot of people say that the Cuba and USSR way of doing things is not the right way because of the challenges they faced. But Russia and Cuba were never rich countries to begin with. These countries can only go so far.

Yeah company shares can only be distributed to the workers in a market socialist system democratically. Only in capitalism can you own a piece of a company and not provide any labour. I own a Canadian mutual fund portfolio that includes TSX60 (major Canadian corps) and S&P500 (major US corps). Technically I own a very small portion of Corporate North America even though I am a NEET. lol. Only in capitalism can you have that kind of absurdity. There are porkies are out who are literally like billionaire/millionaire NEETs.

Ok fam

I see market socialism criticized as not being real socialism all the time here.

Where is that cheesy "co-ops are not real socialism" meme?

Markets are irrational. Markets are the reason why people pay millions of dollars to athletes who dunk a basketball and then grab their crotch and grunt "Muh Dik! Muh Dik!"

Say no more fam

That's not the point. Capitalist mode of production is when you get some income based on your ownership of MoP. You can also get paid for labour.

Example: if one coop owns very good equipment that doubles its productivity - and the other coop doesn't - then first coop is clearly profiting due to ownership of Capital. First coop workers aren't necessarily Capitalist - since they also work - but they also clearly get Capitalist income in addition to their labour income.

Therefore, it has to be common ownership. Public ownership. Everyone owns a share of every MoP.

Except that in market socialism, there are several possibilities of how to solve thqt situation, s central authority regulating such phenomenon for example, if one coops gets ahead, then the logical action is to provide similar technology to other coops

Like, read a book, your situqtion still holds the notions of private property

Employees are exploited by their boss.
Self-employed persons and co-op workers exploit themselves.

Markets distribute resources very inefficiently. People are willing to pay ungodly amounts of money for spectator sports. Yet we are told that we don't have enough money to improve our health care or public transportation system.

Fam, Market Socialism isn't AnCapism with coops, and markets being "not socialism" is far from an established consensus. Besides, no one is arguing that having everything be a coop or whatever is an end goal, the point is to use them to help transition into everything being common ownership. And as says, there's more to Market Socialism than muh coops.


Then we call it Central Planning and don't pretend that it is market.

Then we call it NEP - and still don't pretend that it is Socialism. Bolsheviks berated anyone who dared to call their economy Socialist in 1925 - it was Capitalist and any other definition was Revisionism.

He is talking about influence of markets. You are pulling apple in your free time. You aren't doing it for living.

When I think of self-employment as self-exploitation, I'm thinking more along the lines of a "race to the bottom". Your competitors are lowering their prices, you follow suit or go left behind. That sort of deal.

Who else but this tripfag

Yes humans do not pull apples from trees in order to eat, but to use as baseballs

Even if you have higher prices you can stay afloat if you know what you are doing, besides, just because bourgeois markets behave in certain way, doesnt mean markets in a social or anarchical environmemt behave the same

Troll harder.



Are you even trying?

central planning and market socialism are different, stop being stupid

Higher prices don't always mean the kiss of death. It depends. As a NEET I prefer to shop at the local convenience store or drug store at night rather than shop at Wal-Mart, Costco or a supermarket during the day. Because I don't like shopping in big, crowded stores with crowded parking lots, etc. I like the tranquility of going out to the convenience store at night. Apparently convenience/corner stores are pretty popular among millennials and it's not just me. Whereas big box stores are more of a baby boomer thing.

That's exactly my point.

Regulating market is no different from usual SocDem measures and only postpones inevitable rise of inequality. Your only option is to regulate things harder - which will inevitably turn into Central Planning.

Higher prices all other things being equal. You are adding additional clauses to change the premise. Of course higher price for different goods (service being part of the trade) is perfectly possible.

Yet your retarded ass claimed here that we should call it central planning

How come every single of your posts are fucking trash? Have you ever read a book about theory or do you just enjoy larping? You are one of the worst posters on this board

Yeah that's true. If one convenience store has a lower price on an item I want than the other, I go to the convenience store where it's cheaper. But since I don't want the hassle of shopping at Wal-Mart/Costco or a supermarket, I don't give a fuck how cheap the product is there. I just don't want to go there. Dragging myself to Wal-Mart is like pulling teeth.

Also another thing
And yet you were sperging 2-3 days ago about how central planning isnt a market

What is this "it" exactly? Central authority regulating everything? Yes. It is not market.

Because regulations of market that actually regulate market stop actual exchange going, by substituting it with Central Planning.

Please open books

If you regulate economy.

You strawmanned too far away from the topic.

Please, use your fucking head for a second.

It is perfectly possible for some economic processes to be Planned (voluntaristic), while for other - Market (exchange-based). The question is what processes dominate the economy.

If you can exercise control over economy - you have Planned economy.
If you can't do it and it is market that determines things - you have Market economy.

You can't have both simultaneously. Freedom of trade for every participant precludes centralized decision-making - and vice versa. Once you can actually regulate economy - it is no longer market economy.

Hahahahah, you are dumb as fuck

A planned economy means that an authority figures creates an artificial demand, a plan to follow, and engages in production and distribution according to it, while ignoring whatever "real" demand there might be, there can be private ownership of the MoP, for example during times of war, where a government plans how much of each commodity will be made in order to allocate the rest of the productive forces to the war machine, hence why "central planning" isnt by default socialism

"Control" over the economy is literally fucking meaningless, the US has control over their economy, doesnt mean they follow a centrally determined economic plan

It is, as you can create artificial markets, tje soviets toyed with this idea as a new method of centralized planning, following supply and demand curves meqns that you have a market, even if it is controlled by the state, which is why '"decentralized planning" is a meme

Read a book you dumb tankie lol

Democratic decision-making is also authority figure.

I.e. if workers of all the planet make a decision of what "plan to follow" and "create an artificial demand" for free medicine for everyone - this still fits your definition.

No, there couldn't be. Ownership of MoP exists in name only. For all intents and purposes (i.e. decision-making) it doesn't matter who owns what under Planned economy. Central authority decides everything.

Government essentially nationalizes industry - even if temporary.

That's not why. Socialism also requires Dictatorship of the Proletariat. Read Marx, will you.

No, it doesn't.

When did Revisionist ideas of Khrushchev-Brezhnev become Marxism?

And - no. Deciding to do something does not create an "artificial market".

Does somebody have a visualization of market socialism like pic related? And what other proposed alternatives to capitalism are there?

Yeah, I am well aware of this, which is why every form of planning is exploitative

Top kek, your whole post doesnt make any fucking sense, retard, if it doesnt matter who owns what, why do you care if the bourgeoisie owns private property?

And? This doesnt mean anything, a central authority can decide everything, plan the economy and still have private property

Top kek!

Not dictatorship of the party

Lel, how clueless

When did leninism and stalinism became marxism?

It is not that simple, peabrain
Deciaion making is irrelevant, what matters is the composition of the economy

A market economy means following supply and demand curves to allocate production, using exchange of commodities as signals, you can have a social market, the difference with the bourgeois market being the notion of private property

You can have a planned economy, and instead of prices, try to calculate the economy, the thing is you still are operating within the realm of supply and demand curves, and youmcan have private ownership of the MoP

Or you can have a command economy, where a centralized institution decides what to produces, without any economic signals other than the original plan, while this is a planned economy, not all planned economies follow the command method

Open a book anytime faggot

You literally don't understand the words you are using.

Please try harder tankiddie

But you are.

To solve just one of the market problems (caused by it's chaotic nature), you argued for having central authority that will be closely monitoring your economic activity and decide how much money you'll get - regardless of results of your actual work - and will decide what equipment you'll use.

To fight overproduction, this central authority will also have to direct economic activities - which means, enterprises will not even have the freedom to decide where they will be working.

What kind of power of denial does it take to pretend that it is still market?

This is just awful, buzzfeed tier ignorance

Do me a favor and read a book about economic planning - there are a few legit critisicisms of it out there but this is word salad. Pro-Tip: Don't read Proudhon or other outdated shit


I guess you wanna have more direct influence from the wants/needs/desires to what kind of means of production are produced, and direct all the industrial profit, merchant profit and rent towards worker consumer demand. So then the worker consumer demand and the wants, needs and desires form the producer effective demand.
Ofc, the state can serve as a conduit between the workers and the producer effective demand at that point, but you could abstract it down until you can't really call it a state power anymore I guess.
The money capital will move into the hands of the most successful producers ofc, but the profits they make are heavily limited because they cannot make money from just having the capital.
At least, that's what I think it would work like. But there is a good chance I am wrong and would invite anyone to correct me on that which I am wrong about.

Sure, here you go fam

My sides

And this isnt planned production, as you are not engaging in production according to a centrally decided plan lol

How stupid are you really are?

There is no need to fight overproduction lol, the philosophy of poverty strikes again!

What did the tankiddie mean by this?

Is being retarded a tankie prerequisite?

Retarded as fuck.

He means trees and shit I think.

He wanted a good visualization of Market Socialism

Good job conflating two different terms with each other you buffoon.

If supplies to make your product cost more than you can get paid for selling all products you make - then you have overproduction.

Explain what mechanism will you use to combat it under your "market economy".

What if money is removed from this ? And every factory gets what it wants (needs) with consideration to supply at this moment ?

For example, a village that has factory for umbrellas and wants a banana a day for every worker. They do not need banana for making an umbrella (as raw materials) but they need it for.something. Central planing then delivers them bananas because they want them. Central planning does not create artificial demand, it is used as means to provide what is need to who needs it. As a logistical service, if you wish

What did the tankiddie mean by this

Lol, lrn about cost of prodiction theory of value

Not sure what the question is, but if you remove exchange system (market) and replace it with some sort of central authority that rationally directs economy - you have Planned economy. If this central authority is DotP - then you have Socialism (as ML define it).

Yes. Planned economy. What was the question?

You are a degenerate shitposter. As is befitting of MarkSoc.

You remove money as incentive. Also, overproduction is really good if it could be stored for some time. For example, overproduction of steam locomotives is good if you can store them for some time. Cost of production of steam locomotive at the time was low, now is high. It would be prudent to have few steam locomotives in storage for use as a fun toy.

Perishable products are excellent.

Wew, tankiddie showing his true colors

gb2 >>>Holla Forums

The point of my question was that a mechanism that could manage inevitable cases of overproduction could hardly be considered market mechanism.

You suggest abolishing exchange value - which is 100% correct, but it also presupposes Central Planning - which proves my point: if you start actually regulating economy, you will end up with Planned economy.

Yes, planned economy.
If you take a look at definition of an plan- intention or decision about what one is going to do.
It is logical to have economy (economy definition - the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of the production and consumption of goods and services.)
You have to have a plan how to intention or decision what to do with wealth or resources. How are you going to accomplish something without plan ?

No, that was the answer.

Overproduction is not a problem if it can be stored. You can even employ people to build storage, work in there as curator or keeper of a cultural heritage….

Every economy is regulated. You got to have a plan to have an economy. It is only a question of how it is going to be regulated. At the moment there are few different systems…for example FED in US of A is regulating economy with money supply…All economies are planed. Because you have to have a plan to accomplish complicated tasks.

The crisis of overproduction doesnt exist without prices, because using the CPTV, the exchange value of a commodity is its cost to produce it

It's an expression for natural resources dummy

Biggest incentive is to produce something that could be used immediately but after all biological and psychological needs are satisfied then incentives start to shift.

We could use maslow for this. It is not a perfect example but you could understand how it work from it

Market Socialism without prices ?

you are meme tier
any talk of some "real" or "artificial" demand is demagoguery

but anyway, in the SU there was an end consumer market, so your bitching about arbitrarily imposed demand is already invalid
you can bitch about arbitrarily imposed supply but then you'll have to deduce from perfect competition to show that in a market economy supply is not arbitrarily imposed

I've heard so far three definitions for Market socialism. In your own words Define market socialism, the role of the government and the role of Corporations. I want to see what everyone THINKS free market socialism is

marcsoc = capitalism with coops and maybe some keynesian policies

You know, I was vaguely sympathetic but that raises a semi-good point.

Although my ad-hoc solution would be to just avoid pure market socialism and introduce the state. Social Democratic co-operatives are still capitalism, but good god would it have a beautiful bow on it.

How is market socialism any different from mixed economy?

(Not him, and not hugely educated on market socialism)
I'm going to guess that in a mixed economy you still have traditionally structured private enterprise, while under market socialism everything is either cooperative or state run.

People would just use something else as money. Money was a "natural" transition. You cannot just annihilate money. It's an easy way to get a rough idea about the object's worth so you can compare the price to others.

Socialism by definition requires the total abolition of markets.

I'm quite drawn to the idea that money exists due to uncertainty.
Under FALC uncertainty would largely be eliminated, and with it much of the need for money.

Actual Yugoslav here whose grandpa was a high ranking comrade, can post Yugo passports if anyone asks for proofs:
Let me tell you something about this whole commie business: it's bullshit. Grandpa was military, but ended up managing Zastava instead (it means "flag", these guys are heavy industry, car manufacturers, munitions, etc).
There is no fucking socialism, we were turbo capitalists led by engineers before Google, Facebook, Toshiba, General Motors, General Electric and all other fortune 500 companies were being led by engineers.

Grandpa obtained mechanical engineering degree because electrical was too hard and because you basically needed to have a technical degree to maintain higher comrade rank.
None of this bullshit existed. We had schools. Schools that turned people into engineers, doctors, officers. There was no welfare or handouts. Everyone worked. If you couldnt become a doctor, engineer, or an officer, you would still be good for nothing piss poor peasant or manual laborer, and no one would give a shit about your rights, because you had none because you were worthless net leech.

No, fuck that. We were simply Serb ruled, and Serbs never gave a shit about this crap. "Oh look, or broskies Ruskies have a new tzar, he calls himself something else tho, guess we too should copy his fancy new fashion".
No one gave a shit about marxist theories. It was all fashionable, that's it. We had real life practical problems and never concerned ourselves with zero proof theories, or theories that were not testable, or theories that had no predictive capabilities. We used money, we used ton of money, we were buying things, and we were selling things.

Keep those crack pot western theories away from us. We called ourselves комраде/друже because it was fashionable. We were independent, self oriented, self interested, we were not interested in a dictatorship of the unemployable rabble, or a dictatorship of foreign archdukes, or sultans, or what have you.
We let military officers and private sector industry engineers write most of our laws, because these guys werent cunts.
Everyone exploited himself.

capitalism - private property ownership = 0

Quick question: did you have any co-ops?

Market """"""""""""""""""socialism""""""""""""""""""" everyone.

yes you can. Money is just a piece of paper used on territory of some state. It has no more intrinsic value than paper (mass produced) with pictures on it. Only thing that gives it a value is the fact that is only legal tender in some state.

Us dollar was backed by silver (and gold). Than it had value in silver. Now it is paper. There is no problem with annihilating money. On the other hand, people would then use some other thing as storage of value or for trade purposes. for example, in jail they are using cigarettes as money.

But if everything is free than it is worth only materials and labour that is used in creation. Also, intellectual property.

The problem is that we live in finite world (at this moment). There is finite amount of everything on earth…water, air, gold…

For example if we would give everybody access to oil in amount they deem necessary and bugatti veyrons to use them as they please we would quite quickly come to end of supply of oil. There would be no oil rig workers. Everybody would be driving in their new bugatti veyrons and using oil. Also, there is finite amount of oil on earth. We could use automation for oil rigs but when all the oil is extracted there is no more oil. And where there is no more oil bugatti veyrons would stop. And then what ?

BTW if your answer is we build electric cars then capitalism is the answer. It is best system for constant expansion. It is designed for expansion. If it does expand constantly then it starts to break.

Thank you based Yugobro, Market """Socialists""", Wolff-worshipers and Mutualkiddies BTFO

If you guys really think that this is socialism go sit in a committee of a local registered co-operative for a month and tell me how you suddenly overcame alienation

Utterly false. What gives it value is that there is a stable demand for it, in the form of debts to the state such as tax or utility bills. There'd be no reason to bother with money if there weren't a law demanding I play in that cesspit.

I'm sure you've heard the term "day of reckoning" before. Historically, within a community, where trust and recourse are both strong, they have simply run informal tabs with one another, and reconciled and unwound their liabilities every few months or so on a day set aside for the purpose. So people don't actually need physical currency or other scrip to store value among themselves, just the ability to generate value on demand. Likewise, since trust and recourse are in short supply in prisons, currency is required to mediate exchanges.

The prospect of such an informal economy literally scares the shit out of high finance porky, who lives and dies by the monopoly rent due to that capture by formalization. That is one reason porky seeks to hypothecate all the things and dispossess the working class of their private means of production.

Interestingly. Would that be something like Jubilee in judaism ?

Jubilee deals largely with land, property, and property rights. According to Leviticus, slaves and prisoners would be freed, debts would be forgiven, and the mercies of God would be particularly manifest.

You are aware that most porkies are jews ? I find it particularity fitting calling them porky.

Do you even know what a porky is? A porky is a capitalist. Do you know what a capitalist is? Number of Jews in the world is less than half of half a percent. So even if every Jew was a porky, the math wouldn't check out. You think you are le epic master trole derailing this thread? But the thread was shit anyway.

Would you say that small shop owner is capitalist ? I would say he is…. You think he is porky ?

certainly. capitalist - a wealthy person who uses money to invest in trade and industry for profit in accordance with the principles of capitalism.

By that definition small shop owner which sells kiryana and earns 2 to 3 lacks ₹ per month is porky. He (or she) is wealthy in india. You think he (or she) is a porky ?

let us say for sake of discussion this is true

This is true becasue you think small shop owners who are capitalists are porky. I make a difference between big hollywood executives and small shop owners in india.

Guess you do not see it that way ?

First day on leftypol?

First day on internet. You wouldn’t believe my luck. There are hot MILFs in my neighbourhood and they all want to meet me

Can we ban this mutualist faggot so we can have threads where the word "market" is used without it being instantly spammed with coop shilling?

Market socialism aims to solve the hierarchical facet of traditional capitalist productive relations by democratizing the firm and introducing equal shareholding schemes. Despite only tackling a symptom and the traditional form of capitalism – its hierarchical origins springing from feudal class society and bourgeois revolutions and treating this as endemic to the existence of the law of value – it calls itself socialism because of the "socialism is law of value + democracy" meme which gained a little traction because of Trotskyist support of demsucc utopianism, explaining its surge in popularity as of late.

Through estranged, alienated labour, then, the worker produces the relationship to this labour of a man alien to labour and standing outside it. The relationship of the worker to labour creates the relation to it of the capitalist (or whatever one chooses to call the master of labour). Private property is thus the product, the result, the necessary consequence, of alienated labour, of the external relation of the worker to nature and to himself…

We also understand, therefore, that wages and private property are identical. Indeed, where the product, as the object of labour, pays for labour itself, there the wage is but a necessary consequence of labour's estrangement…

Indeed, even the equality of wages, as demanded by Proudhon, only transforms the relationship of the present-day worker to his labour into the relationship of all men to labour. Society would then be conceived as an abstract capitalist.
(t. Marx, first Economic Manuscripts of 1844)

Co-operatives and trade unions are totally incapable of transforming the capitalist mode of production…

The workers forming a co-operative in the field of production are thus faced with the contradictory necessity of governing themselves with the utmost absolutism. They are obliged to take toward themselves the role of capitalist entrepreneur—a contradiction that accounts for the usual failure of production co-operatives which either become pure capitalist enterprises.
(t. Rosa Luxemburg, Reform or Revolution, 1900)

Also read PDF related, which is an enthograpy of the Mondragón cooperative system, which is typically held to be the paradigmatic cooperative. The book conclusively shows that there's still class conflict in workers' cooperatives, which is merely masked by the form of the enterprise, which always resembled a more humane capitalism but especially today displays the post-modern type of authority Zizek speaks of. Mondragón also, as is expected of a capitalist firm, purchase and super-exploits third world labor incredibly hard without the enumeration it offers itself when it purchases in China, but also poorer/less developed national economies like Poland, also properly highlighting the fact that traditional capitalists as this comically evil figure that would be the only kind of people able of doing what they do with hierarchical ownership schemes of an Ltd. type form is completely unfounded and is born from an idealization of the capitalist as projecting his desire to exploit; and not simply him mechanization his function as manager of capital according to the material conditions he is presented with.

If you don't want an unoptimized mess with constant with chronic shortages and the ensuing day-to-day corruption that they foster, there must be either some sort of market, or an extremely comprehensive and mind-boggingly complex plan. You can guess which one is easiest.

Delicious asspain from planning retards

Again hating the fact that I'm sharing the ranks of tankies and other opportunists and utopians when critiquing market """"socialism"""", but especially on the subject of Yugoslav and its experiment: This piece annihilates not only Yugoslavia as functional while being "actually existing market socialism", but the general assumptions and standpoint of marksucc adherents. Market socialism is not just democratized, more ethical capitalism; it is a capitalism that is not even capable of being as competitive as traditional capitalist firms in any sector that isn't finance or retail, and even then things a very frequently iffy despite being more productive on average than Ltds..



Consider me confused. What ideological persuasion is yours then?

Then it's nothing, you retard

False dichotomy. Equivalent exchange (of which money is an abstraction) and private ownership of the MoP are two distinct concepts

Maybe he's a Marxist.

Socialism is by definition a transitory program, so yes it is Socialism.

I think the specific Yugoslav form of market socialism had very good aspects, like trade access and more democratic workplaces.

If you like Bukharin, you'll like the SFRY.


One could be "simply Marxist" only in 19th century.

20th century had several specific problems that had to be solved one way or another. Unless we have a wholly original thinker (which is unlikely) or someone who is not aware of the problems - he has to support one position or the other.

"Just Marxist" is an euphemism for someone who doesn't want to deal with reality or hides his true intentions. A demagogue.

Capitalism: Decentralized planning, private ownership of MoP, commodified labor
Titoist socialism: Decentralized planning, worker ownership of MoP, commodified labor
Soviet socialism: Centralized planning, social ownership of MoP, commodified labor

When owning shares of MoP stopped being private property?
When they become either personal property or collective property.

Read economics of feasible socialism by Alec Nove. Ignore the parts on exploitation tho.

I mean owning a share in your own workplace and un-alienating your labor is clearly qualitatively better than not.

Why are you so autistic?

Centralized planning exists in all of those. Also, while workers had control of cooperatives in yugoslavia, they did not have ownership.

I'm speaking of the dominant form of planning in each system.

Good post

NOPE. It had the value of a piece of paper that some banks might accept as a legit receipt one can exchange for a piece of silver.
Try getting some tribesman from Africa or even just a foreign state to understand the "value" behind your bank note. No silver bar, no actual value. It had no value in itself either, it was just as trust based as fiat money.

Underrated post

Heh, my first post here has 101 replies as of now. Either you guys are really into debating or got nothing better to do. Keep it and maybe we can find a common understanding and learn from it to better ourselves and our understanding of political ideology. Or maybe just fling shit at each other like a bunch of rabid apes. I'm happy either way. Please continue.

We marksuccs will provide aid to the planners everytime they start starving

It is. But it is not Socialism. It is Petit-Bourg at best.

Requires abolition of production for exchange - commodification. I.e. it need Planning.

No, it does not.

Well you got to find a way to estimate commoddities' prices. Markets do it in a chaotic but convergent way, which is to say, supply and demand curves. A planned economy could theoretically set better prices, except for the fact that it's far too complex a task with an absurd number of variables to consider. Which takes us to a very theoretical third method, the memetastic iterative computer network decentralized planning, which would be able to take in consideration far more complexities and variables than old planners could possibly cope with.