[Keynes]

I'm a market socialist,what are my fellow socialists views on market socialism and are there any others here?

The actual system I follow is economic democracy: http://orion.it.luc.edu/~dschwei/economicdemocracy.htm

[Eauz]

It is a form of making socialist economics more "cute". Only the abolition of the wages system itself would end exploitation. No reform of the market could possibly remove the antagonism at the heart of capitalism.

[Keynes]

It is a form of making socialist economics more "cute". Only the abolition of the wages system itself would end exploitation. No reform of the market could possibly remove the antagonism at the heart of capitalism.

That doesn't make much sense,
Capitalism is about the capitalists owning the means of production and workers using the means of production to produce goods that are owned by the capitalist,the worker then recieves a wage amounting to only a percentage of the value he creates.

All this is eliminated in this system,what exploitation are you talking about?

This system even removes socialist exploitation,i.e that workers can recieve the same remuneration for producing produce of differing quality and that requires different effort.

[Ombrageux]

That doesn't make much sense

Keynes - Socialism about ending "exploitation" (however arbitrarily it is defined) not improving anyone's material well-being.

[Eauz]

yearns for the impossible: commodities without capital, capital without exploitation, money without speculation. In short, Utopia

Keynes - Socialism about ending "exploitation" (however arbitrarily it is defined) not improving anyone's material well-being.

In fact, socialism, is about ending exploitation, and providing a society of opportunity. Might you find me a study or something which backs up what you just wrote?

[Keynes]

Keynes - Socialism about ending "exploitation" (however arbitrarily it is defined) not improving anyone's material well-being.

Exactly,market socialism aims to end exploitation through ownership of capital.
Where is the other exploitation?

[Ombrageux]

In fact, socialism, is about ending exploitation, and providing a society of opportunity. Might you find me a study or something which backs up what you just wrote?

How about the socialist obsession with ending private property and capital, even if and when it does increase the material well-being of working people.

I use the word "socialist" here excluding a number of social democratic parties (German Social Dems, French Socialists, British Labour).

[Eauz]

It is rediculous to believe that Market Socialism means a "proleterian democratic regime", which the mass of production implements socialist style economy within the economic ideology of commodity production, while at the same time, accumulation of capital is somehow kept in check?

If the working class succeed in taking political power, it would be in their own interest to eliminate the exploitation, in the form of capital. This does not mean that the market would instantly be eliminated instantly, as it would take time. Markest inevitably create inequalities throughout society. In addition, accumulation of capital, and commodity production are signs of themselves from which bougeois ideology exists. With the existance of private labour and markets, brings about bourgeois consciousness. Moving towards socialism is not about getting used to the market system and commodity production. It is grounds for a return to Bourgeois style society.

In reality, those who support Market Socialism, have mainly forgotten the meaning of socialism, as they attempt to seperate themselves from State Capitalism (USSR) ofthe past, which they view some how as "socialist".

[Eauz]

How about the socialist obsession with ending private property and capital, even if and when it does increase the material well-being of working people.

No need to include "State Capitalism" into your argument against socialism. Nevertheless, I will not deny that forms of socialism have not provided certain "materials" of the society, you have neglected that even Western societies have lacked in providing certain services to their own people, such as health care that all can access, no matter their social status in society. Labour laws are often weak. Education is a business, no longer an institution in educating people to benefit the society, as one must be financially well off to do so. In addition, complaints about "human rights" are heard often, whenever the Bourgeois doesn't like a society which won't 'open up', yet only part of the human rights bill is followed, much of the economic/social rights are of no interest to the Bourgeois society.

Socialism has in fact in the past, attempted to provide benefits and opportunities for its people in the economic/social rights category, while providing opportunities. It is important though, to learn from the past, and improve on the socialist system of economy, without bringing about reforms to capitalism, which will inevitably restore the capitalist system, by covering up the "bad parts", to make and image of a "nicer capitalism".

[Ombrageux]

I'm not saying socialist regimes didn't care (always) about the well-being of workers. I'm saying the well-being of workers is often totally unrelated to the banal question of total nationalization and collectivization. (the only ways of destroying property/capital)

[Keynes]

I'm not saying socialist regimes didn't care (always) about the well-being of workers. I'm saying the well-being of workers is often totally unrelated to the banal question of total nationalization and collectivization. (the only ways of destroying property/capital)

Why would we want to destroy capital and property?

How are you planning to produce things without capital?

And Market socialism offers a system that might actually work as opposed to planned economies.
They were dismal failures and often state capitalist nightmares.

[Theodore]

Socialism doesn't advocate the destruction of capital (which can only be done with baseball bats and the like), just its nationalisation/socialisation.

And as for market socialism... it doesn't work, it doesn't even last long enough to have a chance to work in most cases.

[Keynes]

And as for market socialism... it doesn't work, it doesn't even last long enough to have a chance to work in most cases.

Really?
Have you ever heard of Co-operatives?

And how about Yugoslavia under Tito,they had the highest growth in the world 1952-60 and the best standards of living in the eastern bloc.
They had high growth up till 1980.

[Theodore]

And how about Yugoslavia under Tito,they had the highest growth in the world 1952-60 and the best standards of living in the eastern bloc.

You do realise I live in former Yugoslavia?

Tito's system was far too close to capitalism, IMO. Much of that high standard of living came from foreign aid and credits.

[Keynes]

You do realise I live in former Yugoslavia?

Tito's system was far too close to capitalism, IMO. Much of that high standard of living came from foreign aid and credits.

They still had great growth and a good standard of living.
How about co-ops? Are you gonna tell me they are always failures?

[Eauz]

I'm saying the well-being of workers is often totally unrelated to the banal question of total nationalization and collectivization.

Considering that real wages has fallen to their lowest level in recorded history, and an increase in productivity, it doesn't help your argument that some how, the friendly capitalist society has some "care" for workers. When you factor in inflation, we start to see this decline in real wages.


For example, if the nominal wage of a worker rises by 2% and there is 3% inflation, what we actually have here, is that the workers real wage has dropped by 1%. What does all this add up to? This means that the value of goods and services the worker could afford went down by 1%. (In fact, taking an example from modern day, the real wage did in fact decrease in 2005. The median weekly earnings actually increased from 638 - 651 and increase of about 3.16%, however, during the same year, with inflation, which was 3.4%, the $651 in 2005 actually ended up being worth less, $631. All this time, while corporate profit has been at its highest.

So, it's nice to talk about how "wonderful" material improvement has come to our lives, but the reality is that when we end up destroying 2.5 Million manufacturing jobs here, and replace them with McJobs, which don't pay much in the first place to sustain one person. It's amazing what jobs people will take, in order to just survive. If you call that "improvement" then fine, whatever floats your boat.

Why would we want to destroy capital and property?

Capital, is what aids the process of inequality in a society, in terms of opportunities and lifestyle. Property is a tool used to protect the interest of the Bourgeois class and Capital. People did at one time exist without having "personal property", it was not until capitalism, which we started to see private property for the commons.

How are you planning to produce things without capital?

By replacing it with a labour token system, which one cannot gain surplus or horde capital.

And Market socialism offers a system that might actually work as opposed to planned economies.
They were dismal failures and often state capitalist nightmares.

Someone hasn't read Towards a new Socialism

You do realise I live in former Yugoslavia?

Then why does your location say "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" ?

[Ombrageux]

Considering that real wages has fallen to their lowest level in recorded history, and an increase in productivity, it doesn't help your argument that some how, the friendly capitalist society has some "care" for workers. When you factor in inflation, we start to see this decline in real wages.

That's America... what's more if you are concerned about that you should be worried about wage redistribution, progressive taxation welfare and healthcare. In no way does the communist demand for total nationalization and collectivization come into the picture.

[Theodore]

Then why does your location say "Democratic People's Republic of Korea" ?

Because of this.

[Sans Salvador]

I am not a fan of market socialism, but Eauz's criticisms are without merit. The social relation of capital is simply the "double freedom" of labor, the separation of free laborers from hte means of production. It is this basic relation which causes, in fact necessitates, the forms of manifestation of capital such as fragmentation and competition, technical progress and accumulation of capital, and value (contrary to certain arguments that value arises from commodity production per se, one of Marx's discussions of value in fact makes this error) and commodity production. However, it is not immediately obvious that this works in reverse...that any of these things other than value would necessitate the creation of capital.

It is also not obvious that market socialism would even lead to competition. It is bourgeois economics, not Marxian political economy (although certainly, certain Marxists like the "monopoly capital" school have grafted bourgeois theories of competition onto Marxian political economy) in which competition is a function of there being a number of private firms acting in an uncoordinated manner.

On the other hand, the inefficiency of markets is not simply a result of class domination. Additionally, even without the imperative of accumulation people are not going to become angels so there would be other problems with markets.

[Eauz]

That's America...

You'd have an argument here, if America was the only "Liberal capitalist" society, which had inflation.

what's more if you are concerned about that you should be worried about wage redistribution, progressive taxation welfare and healthcare.

Much of this is no longer useful in our society. Health care, at least in Canada, has been moving slowly towards the privatised zones of society. Mostly what our health care provides, is a visit to the doctor, everything else is paid through private insurance companies. Taxation is obviously there, but what is being done with the Taxes, is not always benefitial to society. We sit here, crying about social services being underfunded, but each year, nothing is done about it. At one time, these programs were of importance, but the Bourgeois ideology cannot last forever with high social spending, as it needs to create a profit. Yes, they are willing to put up with a period of social spending, if it will result in benefiting them in the future. What we see here, is the bourgeois society running the country, just like a company. Downsizing...

I'll reply to you, Sans Salvador when I have more free time...