To libertarian socialists of any flavour.
How do you reconcile the lack of consumers' choice in a planned economy with liberty? No matter how decentralized and directly democratic everything is built in the end the individual has to be content with what the majority decides to produce and can't just get their products from someone else.
This is pretty much the only point I agree with market fetishists on, but I feel like it is rather essential.
Other urls found in this thread:
...
consensus democracy
Shit
Markets are just the easy way to achieve some form of economic consensus. This has pragmatic appeal, but easy isn't always best; technically, an absolute dictatorship is the simplest form of government, but no one sane wants that.
Presumably, people would have some way to vote on what gets produced and modern technology will be used to track production regularly.
Markets for negligible goods will also be acceptable, like entertainment media.
What the fuck am I reading?
So you have no problem with market monopolies? Because that's effectively what happens with a planned economy.
I bet you think capitalism equals markets, too.
In the end the individual has to be content with what the producer decides to produce. It's true in any economy and I'm puzzled as to why you think privately-owned companies somehow give you more choice.
i agree with this thread
you all should be libertarian nationalists. its a real thing; i swear
Even if there were no markets, couldn't an entirely democratic and planned economy choose to produce something like the top 50 or 100 or whatever most popular variants of certain products?
Why can't the majority decide to provide choice for themselves and everyone else?
A non-market economy cannot be evaluated by market economic rules.
Market socalism is a meme. Co-ops require the workers to cut their own wages, extend their work hours etc and must sooner or later dissolve or turn into privately owned enterprises. Market socialism also doesn't solve the main problems of capitalism, namely the contradictions between mode of production and distribution, capitalism's centralizing tendencies and anarchy of production. It doesn't eliminate alienation or unemployment either.
The producers want to sell their shit and in that sense they do of course cater to the majority to a certain extent. Never the less niche products exist and I don't see those being produced if production decisions are made based on majority vote, let alone by a vanguard party.
Centrally planned economies always fail. Libertarian socialism would be libertarian. Therefore, no central planning. I don't understand what you're asking.
Would monopoly be a thing in a non profit driven market?
Or at least, would a harmful monopoly be a thing?
Source.
Source.
If all of production is directed uniformly, whether it be top-down or bottom-up, that is effectively the same situation as one company being the sole producer of all goods aka a market monopoly.
The only difference is that unlike in a company there's ideally some sort of democratic input into the decision of what goods are being produced. But this does not solve the problem of the individual being forced to go with whatever the majority decides.
...
Common sense. In order to be competitive you have to cut wages and extend work hours if necessary. If you want a more detailed explanation, Rosa Luxemburg makes a good point regarding this in Social Reform or Revolution.
You know what else a meme? Marxism.
God damn it, you're literally no different than Austrian School believers.
This still doesn't make sense because monopolies are only a relevant insofar as supply and demand are implicit through the "invisible hand". When production is subject to arbitrary demands by consumers instead of the owner assuming what should be done, centralization is a matter of efficiency, not division of private property.
Democracy does not mean winner-take-all, there is no reason we cannot proportion production to demand.
Could have said that from the start.
How about you read the rest of my post or the books I referenzed.
Wew
referenced*
Looks like you've been drinking the capitalist kool-aid, comrade.
Most people wouldn't give a fuck what kind of product they have as long as it just works. This applies to electronics, cars, appliances, etc.
However, when it comes to food there would be a lot of variety because humans need a varied diet for a balances and healthy lifestyle. Furthermore, people have different tastes so there would be different kinds of food. This also applies to clothing because again people have different styles and that might be reflected in clothing.
So, while everyone might have the same phone or computer, we wouldn't be walking around in grey overalls eating mush and gruel.
Do you not have an imagination outside of the capitalist narrative? Besides, today's choice is an illusion of choice because most of the shit we eat is a slightly different combination of corn and coloring.
This.
...
Just… what?
...
Don't you see how having a planned economy without any competition equates to a market monopoly and leads to the same problems?
Market socialism and coops on a small scale still run into the problems I mentioned earlier. Allowing private property in a limited frame always runs risk to lead to the restoration of capitalism like it happened in the USSR and China.
wew
also since resources would be collectivised = greater consumer choice you don't have to pay the owners of the resources to get what you want. If you don't like what's currently available you can (a) make it yourself if you have the skills and (b) request it from someone else that does. Libertarian socialism is based around free association, after all.
You can still have a consumer goods market without any exchange in means of production, dude. As long as firms are bound to plans and not capital accumulation they won't function as private property. Also jesus christ this board needs a market socialist purge ASAP. If we're going to accept anti-communists as comrades we may as well let suckdems in as well.
No.
How would price-fixing be a problem when you have no markets and industry is in direct democratic control?
What?
It's more about the fact that monopolists can produce literal horseshit and get away with it because there is no alternative.
Should have put an "and" in there. Coops are shit, so is private property.
My whole problem is that I don't buy into the meme that is market socialism.
Market socialism is a thing, just so you know.
What people would sit down, have a vote and conclude that they should eat horseshit out of a can? Who would voluntarily do that?
k m8
where is >>591357?
RIP sticky thread that i dont even remember
So what about niches? You think one needs a market to have niches?
...
What does? Market competition? Elected management? Voluntary choice? Market regulations are still possible under market socialism if this ever gets to be a problem.
This does not follow from the previous.
Hell yes it does, it gets rid of exploitation.
I don't see this as a bad thing. Since MarkSoc enterprises are worker owned and democratic, monopolies are not nearly as threatening as in capitalism. It seems to me like the smoothest way to transition to some more "hard" version of socialism if necessary.
It sure as hell reduces it.
Unemployment exists by design in capitalism to suppress wages. Higher "wages" = more consumption = more production = more employees.