Regardless of how you feel about market socialism...

Do point out where production for use is more important to socialism than workers ownership of the means.

PRAXIS
R
A
X
I
S

*teleports behind u*
*lights up cigar*
Nada personale, nino.

Copypasta of autism is still autism.

insurgentnotes.com/2013/10/yugoslav-self-management-capitalism-under-the-red-banner/

That's not how it works.

Do point out how they're not both fundamentally necessary.

...

Because the exchange of goods is not inherently exploitative, but the private ownership of the means of production is.
In a market system in which the means of production are democratically controlled by the workers, the surplus value is returned to the workers, thus improving their lives.
In a capitalist system, the surplus value is delivered to an investor or owner who does not work.

In a planned economy with democratically controlled means of production, the surplus value is delivered directly to the workers and thus enriches all.
In a planned economy with privately held means of production, the workers are forced to produce surplus use value which is delivered to those who control the means of production.

This you see that it's not market+privatization or planning+democratization, there is also the possibility of market+democratization and planning+privatization. The former is market socialism, the latter is state capitalism.

So you see, the method of valuation (use value vs exchange value) is not the defining feature of socialism, the relation to ownership is.

Actually, the most successful socialist leader to date is by far José María Arizmendiarrieta Madariaga.

Definitely /ourguy/. Tito was always focused on reality instead of theory.

Comrade, your answer is completely correct in respect to the material conditions of the time, i.e doing the best job you can in your situation. But it is not socialism.

Although there is nothing wrong with markets in and of themselves, they are simply tools to allow exchange to occur - fine. But what is contained implicitly in this exchange are commodities which are sold on the basis of their exchange value. If there exists commodity production for exchange value in any form make no mistake the law of value is present. If the law of value is present - you have capitalism.

In order to escape or rise above this you cannot have present in your economy any of the accompanying factors of production for exchange, or you will insidiously bring along all the underlying contradictions of capitalism.

co-ops is socialism

Marx.

By that logic anyone can claim this title.

No, Lenin.

Anyways: insurgentnotes.com/2013/10/yugoslav-self-management-capitalism-under-the-red-banner/.

What do I care about who owns the MoP if the Law of Value, and therefore capitalism, is just perpetuated by the workers?

"Socialism is just workers ownership" is a horrible meme, that has to die out.

I dunno, I love Papa Josep: but does he ride a horse while smoking a pipe through a ski mask?

I think you should read up on the socialist calculation debate some more. I get that you're taking the position of Kantorovich and Neurath - which is fine - but to say that the position of Kautsky isn't actually socialism is dangerously sectarian and wrong.

I'm being a bit pedantic but for me socialism should be the stars above, the edge of the horizon etc.

A distinctly different mode of production that is not just a substitution of our current format. I didn't go into enough detail but I think at the very least we should have production for use. If there is production for use…why do u need a market to allocate resources?

I understand if you mean say a transitionary period, like directly post-capitalism. That's fine and I have no problems with markets initially in order to build the productive forces that are sufficiently advanced to facilitate the complete transfer to production for use.

But for market socialism to be the definitive understanding of 'socialism' makes me a bit sad to be honest, is that really all you want? Is that all you could hope to achieve? seems a bit defeatist to me comrade

The problem then becomes a practical one. In order for a society to produce for use, its production must be planned. For a planned society to not suffer either massive shortages or massive overproduction, the decision makers must have access to all information involved in said economy.

In short, the planners must be omniscient.

This requires either a tremendous bureaucracy which is disconnected from the people's control, or it requires every single worker to at once know what each other worker is doing.

Since the latter is impossible, the former becomes inescapable, and thus by imposing a bureaucracy with such incredible power and so little Democratic input, you reestablish a class divide - not between capitalist investor and worker, but between bureaucrats and workers.

This isn't strictly true. If I am not mistaken, Yugoslavia, during its brief period of decentralized planning, had stable growth and a general lack of shortages and labor problems. When market reforms were implemented (very poorly, I'll add), unemployment skyrocketed (hence the widespread Yugoslav guest workers), tensions went up with them, and the Yugoslav economy began to tank. There are reasons Tito took the gigantic amount of funds from the IMF, Soviets and yanks that he did, and the failed implementation of markets is one of them, if I recall correctly.

Why did he implement markets in the first place if decentralized planning worked so well?

The problem here is that they still linked employment with subsistence. In any successful market economy, socialist or otherwise, you must either accept unemployment and scarcity as a reality or you must provide for a significant social safety net in the form of a universal basic income.

Thus unemployment is no longer a problem, but a condition which allows for the worker to explore other options for being productive towards societal goals.

This.
After implementation of markets, the GDP per capita of Yugoslavia became the highest of all socialist states, as did quality of life. And they both remained at the top right up until the Im 'em austerity regime forced collapse.

We don't use chalkboards and note pads anymore comrade, why do you think that a planned economy is is too difficult besides the 'not enough information' nonsense. We have supercomputers that are able to model the universe, and technology increases every day. You think that the entire production process cannot be automated and listed/tracked in direct time?

Automating the bureaucracy and reducing the number of people it requires does not eliminate the class divide that it creates. In fact, it amplifies the concentration effect that we already see in capitalism.
So in effect what is created is not FALC, as you would wish, but fully automated capitalism. Unless the workers somehow have Democratic control over the planning computers, which brings us back to the original problem of omniscience.

Oh man what makes you think these planners would be evil? There is no exchange value created in this economy, you cannot feasibly quantify use-value so how does primitive accumulation occur?

There is no hoarding of wealth in this economy are you serious? I haven't even spoken about how this economy will be managed/organised what makes you think democratic control over the planning computers is impossible?

Where does this bureaucracy ideas come from? Can you prove that this type of economy will only be possible with a bureaucracy?

I'm honestly so confused there is so much assumptions from you :/

DELET THIS

Is there an example of a planned economy ever being democratically controlled at the level of a nation-state?