A socialist alternative to a vcommand economy

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
So am I. I was saying that society does have control over it, but through individuals. "Society" has no collective rights, individuals do.

This isn't a communism vs. capitalism thread. I was responding to Boshco whom supports worker capitalism of some form.

[Spiffor]

I myself am ambivalent when it comes to market socialism.

Odin's views of market socialism is actually very close to libertarianism, the difference being that shareholders aren't the seat of power anymore, but the workers are. Yet, the extreme form of market socialism Odin advocates bears as much iniquity and oppression as any dire form of libertarianism, simply because nothing will prevent dominating companies to abuse the others, just like today.

Besides, workers can be as self-serving as capitalists. A company providing a public service can abuse just the same, whether its power stems from the shareholders or the workers. The power cuts in California would have happened just the same if Enron was a co-op.

OTOH, I am against a complete planification of the economic system, like Che seems to advocate, because I fear it kills individual imagination, and individual propension at raising efficiency (as in: producing more or better products for as many resources).


In fact, I think a balanced socialist system has to:
- ban shareholder-owned companies (duh)
- allow independent and competing co-ops in every aspect of the economy that is not vital for the economy.
- have a strongly regulated market with independant co-ops in vital sectors where competition has been shown as sustainable (food comes to mind)
- publicly own all companies that provide the basic needs of the economy (electricity, transportation...)
- allow some income variability, but offset it with a generous welfare system.

[Dinner]

The problem with co-ops is many (most?) of them are non-profits. This works well for the first generation of products but where does the money come from for the next generation of products? They only solution is to hold onto profits so you can reinvest them into the business but then you are accumulating profits just like the evil capitalists.

[Az]

A fusion is possible. Older industries are built on a government basis, while new ones get a government investment, and are run by enterprising individuals, that also get royalties from the invention. After a period of time, and industry passes on to the "general" sector.

-Incomes will vary as much as by 10-15 times. I think that this is fair.

-The education system will be prepared to create the specialists needed for the planned economy, with a surplus. surplus trained proffesionals will work in lower skill jobs in the same field.

-Welfare shall be minimal, but education and healthcare should be free.

As the soviet experience has shown, you can trust people, but not too much. Particularly, a harsh outside auditing mechanism, that never existed in the SU, must be imposed.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The problem with co-ops is many (most?) of them are non-profits. This works well for the first generation of products but where does the money come from for the next generation of products? They only solution is to hold onto profits so you can reinvest them into the business but then you are accumulating profits just like the evil capitalists.

Communists critisize profits because they are exploitive. As long as the workers own the means of production there is no exploitation. 'Profits' can fairly be reinvested or distributed outside of a class system.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Azazel
-Incomes will vary as much as by 10-15 times. I think that this is fair.

Why? You can motivate someone to do something if you buy them lunch as long as there is no one else to give them more. You don't have to pay them huge amounts of money.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by Spiffor

- allow some income variability, but offset it with a generous welfare system.

Welfare sucks.

[DinoDoc]

Get a job then.

[Imran Siddiqui]

- ban shareholder-owned companies (duh)

I see this in all these socialist plans, but I wonder if it has been thought out at all. A lot of companies use shares to get others to invest in their company and provide money so that the company can get off the ground. Without shareholder-owned companies this will not happen. It'll be very difficult to get people to invest in companies if the main reason to lure them is gone. Then how does investment take place? If investment can't take place how do you get the items that only big companies can make (like computer parts, etc).

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Oerdin
The problem with co-ops is many (most?) of them are non-profits. This works well for the first generation of products but where does the money come from for the next generation of products? They only solution is to hold onto profits so you can reinvest them into the business but then you are accumulating profits just like the evil capitalists.

Not quite. In capitalism, profits are partly kept for further investment, and partly given to shareholders. In socialism, profits (as in: the money the company gets for selling the products at higher prices than production costs) will partly be kept for further investment, and partly be used to raise wages / employ more people.

I don't see why a co-op couldn't be growth-oriented. Sure, many workers will want all the excess money in their pockets, but so do the shareholders. In both cases, it is up to the reasonable people to promote moderation. Or if moderation doesn't win, it should be up to the law.

[Kuciwalker]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Spiffor
Odin's views of market socialism is actually very close to libertarianism, the difference being that shareholders aren't the seat of power anymore, but the workers are.[/q]

Nope, it's that only the workers are allowed to be shareholders. A libertarian would allow anyone to be a shareholder.

Yet, the extreme form of market socialism Odin advocates bears as much iniquity and oppression as any dire form of libertarianism, simply because nothing will prevent dominating companies to abuse the others, just like today.

I find it amusing that you describe liberatarianism as "oppression"

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

- ban shareholder-owned companies (duh)

I see this in all these socialist plans, but I wonder if it has been thought out at all. A lot of companies use shares to get others to invest in their company and provide money so that the company can get off the ground. Without shareholder-owned companies this will not happen. It'll be very difficult to get people to invest in companies if the main reason to lure them is gone. Then how does investment take place? If investment can't take place how do you get the items that only big companies can make (like computer parts, etc).

Banks.
I am personally a big proponent of State-owned investment banks, which provide cheap loans upon estimating the business model.

Besides, those companies that require huge capital to begin may be directly started by the State, if they are of vital interest to the economy. A computer part factory could definitely fit this bill, if import was a problem.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
I find it amusing that you describe liberatarianism as "oppression"

Libertarianism = the triumph of the strong over the weak. I can't see how it isn't synonymous of oppression. The only way to miss this obvious, is to believe that only a State can oppress.

[Kuciwalker]

If people cannot coerce others, how can there be oppression?

[Imran Siddiqui]

I am personally a big proponent of State-owned investment banks, which provide cheap loans upon estimating the business model.

We already have a massive number of banks. They obviously aren't enough. They may decide the business is dumb, but a Venture Capitalist pumps money into it, and it doesn't look so dumb after all.

Besides, those companies that require huge capital to begin may be directly started by the State, if they are of vital interest to the economy. A computer part factory could definitely fit this bill, if import was a problem.

A state owned computer graphics card? I'd definetly buy the private alternative . Also, if you are going to go into little things like that most of the economy would be state run and semi-planned, which is what you wanted to avoid.