Market socialism

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

Well in our society today values aren't determined just by supply and demand. They move around a certain price since their price also depend on how much work, machinery etc used in the production process.
By the way what do you mean by fixed?
Comradely

[Grave Disorder]

I mean held constant. How will it be done?

[csepel]

Originally posted by Grave Disorder
If there's no state who will stop the US from "liberating" you? And you still haven't answered my question. How are values to be fixed to ensure equality?
 About social needs being fulfilled by non-monetary means.... well yes, it's a nice thought, but equality and fraternity will go right out of the window if you're hungry enough to eat the neighbours' children. So how do you propose to get round this?

so you are talking about a workers' state non socialism. remeber this when discussing.
it is so obvious that such a state should defend itself from imperialism that it is not worth to discuss it.

as far as the social needs fulfilled without a price, well this is not so difficult to understand. even under capitalism, at least in the best period it is the case (the NHS services are generally free, etc:). the problem is: who pays for these services

[Grave Disorder]

So obvious it's not worth discussing... tell me, who will supply you all with weapons? Who will take command and co-ordinate efforts without a centralised structure?
 And how will values be fixed, or do you just not know? You can admit it rather than making constant attempts to change the subject you know.

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

So obvious it's not worth discussing... tell me, who will supply you all with weapons? Who will take command and co-ordinate efforts without a centralised structure?

Well that's the point there is going to be centralised planning, as far as I know you were the one talking against centralised planning. Of course the production has to be co-ordinated that's the whole point.

And how will values be fixed, or do you just not know? You can admit it rather than making constant attempts to change the subject you know.

Well values will be determined by: the amount of work and machines etc put into the production.
But like they did in Russia I guess one can decide that certain commodities have a low price because they are crucial to people food etc.
Also with centralised planning prices won't skyrocket since the planning does that there is enough for everyone.
Comradely

[csepel]

grave disorder, you lack not the abc, but the beginning of the a of how economy works in CAPITALISM, not in socialism.
only a very superficial person can think that "values are fixed by supply and demand". even the mainstream microeconomic manuals do not put that way the theory of prices.
if you really believe to this idiocy of demand and supply you cannot understand anything about not the future, but the way capitalism develops, its crisis and so on.
unless you dont grasp at least the fundamentals of marxist theory of value, it is absolutely useless to go further.

[Grave Disorder]

I never said that values were fixed *only* by supply and demand, just that it was a factor which would make government fixing of value difficult if not impossible. I am aware that the cost of labour plays a major role in the determination of value (and vice versa), otherwise I wouldn't have got on to this topic.
 Only a complete idiot would deny that a rare commodity carries higher prices than one which there is a glut of. So unless you are going to attempt to defend this ludicrous position I suggest you stop talking down to me.

[turnoviseous]

No one denies it, Grave Disorder. It is just that it is a mere secondary issue. Supply and demand, that is.

The main thing and a totally necessary point of theoretical departure when examing capitalist economy is that in capitalist economy sooner or later a price of a certain commodity will be beaten down to its value because of a competition between producers and every producer wants to sell more, so he needs to pull the price down and so must also others if they want to keep it up.

But the price won´t go down all the way, it will stick arround its value and will be once higher once lower, according to the supply & demand, which is then, a secondary issue.

And BTW, some prices in SU haven´t changed for 30-40 years, this is what we can´t say for any capitalist economy. The main thing here is that here (in planned economy) things are not produced for an unknown market forces.

On your question "how will prices be kept constant" I can only say that prices won´t necessarily be constant all the time for the rest of the time humanity lives after the proletarian revolution, but will change, accordingly to labour productivity, tho´.

comradely,

[antieverything]

To all of you who are saying GD is confused, you yourselves seem to be confused...or at least naive.

I haven't seen any evidence of where GD has declared himself to be a Syndicalist as some seem to be approaching him. He doesn't believe in a free market. He does, however, refuse to pull wool over his eyes and simply say that a purely centralized command economy can work. It can't. Everyone knows it can't...if they assert it can, they are fooling themselves. Sure, perhaps we could meet everyone's material needs but we sure as hell can't keep that sort of economy in place for long before all classes of people unite to protest the drop in living standards, in access to quality consumer goods.

What GD is saying is that prices, determined by a market, are the best way to keep a socialist economy from falling into the abyss of inefficiency. I assume that he believes that markets should set prices but also that said markets should be regulated to best serve the public interest.

From this point on I will simply speak for myself alone...I believe that central planning, no matter how democratic, cannot manage an entire economy by itself. Prices are inevitable...imagine an economy where the problem of scarcity is simply ignored; it would fall apart. NO form of economic planning other than a market (which I consider to be a sort of economic planning and in a market socialist economy made up of mostly worker-run enterprises to be the most decentralized form of economic planning possible) can determine the true value, as determined by supply and demand, of a good or service. Sure, somebody is always going to set the price of something but a central, state, or even local government is completely incapable of doing it well!

Let me give an example:

Say the central planners set the value of sprinkles at $5 a pound. The sprinkle factory is given a quota which is logically on par with the quota for ice-cream production. Unfortunately, the summer is abnormally cold and the demand for ice-cream drops...causing a proportional drop in the demand for sprinkles. This being a centralized system, the sprinkle producers can't just cut back production and they can't sell sprinkles for any other price than $5 a pound. Of course, consumers aren't buying and the sprinkle-factory is running on money it doesn't have...no wealth is being generated because no useful good or service is being produced...simply bags and bags of colored sugar. Because valuable resources are being put toward the production of something that is worthless (remember, something is worth only what someone is willing to pay for it, especially in a socialist economy where pretty much everyone is in the market at the same level--even for you Marxists, the value of all labor isn't uniform--it can be wasted and be worth nothing.) These are resources and labor hours that could better be spent on something else. That is wasted wealth...this is a socialist economy (presumably Marxist since this is an example of your proposed system) and thus everyone is poorer as a result. Sure, the factory workers are employed and feeling productive but wouldn't everyone be better off if the market wasn't so rigid?

Now, let's take a look at a market socialist economy. When the demand for spinkles drops, the producers can simply cut back production and lower the price of the excess supply. Because of the cut-back, the logical thing for they factory's elected management to do (and probably, it should be compelled to do this by a local or state government) is to...brace yourselves, kids...lay off workers!!!

"Holy shit!" you say, "this guy is a closet capitalist!"...and to that I say, hold on a minute and though you may not end up agreeing with me, you will hopefully end up respecting my interpretation of a socialist system...and see that socialist it is indeed.

I have a sincere believe that guaranteed employment for all able to work is the obligation that society has to each of its members, I don't believe that the foremost goal--that of improvement of the human condition--is not best served by the existance of a rigid labour market...yeah, I'm an American but, damn, "labour"...I love that spelling! "Colour"...er, anyway, to sum it up, I believe in "employment security" rather than "job security". When you can't be fired, the economy, and therefore the entire socialist society, tends to suffer as a result.

So, I guess I must now describe what happens to the workers who get canned? Do they get to take an extended vacation payed for by the state? Are they strewn aside like the dead hooker I used to have in my trunk (...damn drug dog searched my car the next day, too  :p )? Nah, the state provides for 'em by hookin' 'em 'up 'with...('this 'is 'sure 'fun!)...a job in which there is a demand for increased production...skin lotion, in this case due to the recent outbreak of monkey pox among the populace. (note: I realize I'm falling into the cappie habit of assuming that every market is well-functioning and everything always works out like in examples given by arrogant, libertarian economics professors...bear with me.) Obviously, full employment may not always be achieved in a market system...naturally, that is. We live in a world economy and some needed industrial part, usually imported from Puerta Viagra, may be in short supply due to a tropical storm in the area. The other suppliers of this part, probably in some capitalist hell-hole...say, China...may take advantage of this situation and raise prices. Often, the entire capitalist world goes through recession, and such events may happen on a large scale, hurting the prospects for full-employment here at home...wherever that may be. At that time, a new New Deal is in order...huge public works projects and the like.

Of course, in the event of world socialism, do not induce vomiting and consult a physician...er, I mean, this sort of thing won't happen so much and more aspects of a command system would be viable...but not in the world I woke up in today, or anything I can see existing the next couple centuries.

...on second read, this whole thing sounds a little harsh. I don't mean it to be that way, I'm just trying to add some humor...I appologize for preassuming your viewpoints.

...also, this being my first post, I'd like to give a shout out to all of my fellow former-Che-Lives-junkies!

I probably forgot something but it's late...

[Evan Roberts]

Antieverything,

A centralised planned economy is not incapable of changing to the different conditions. In fact, a planned economy is exactly what is needed to adapt to the changing climate.

In your example of ice creams you make out that a centralised economy can't cut production of the ice creams in time of little demand. Though you sugest no reason why this is so?

[turnoviseous]

Antieverything, you also can´t just move a cook to a possition of a worker in a nuclear plant when market forces want that. I am sure that we can agree that that would make a very big waste.

[Grave Disorder]

"In your example of ice creams you make out that a centralised economy can't cut production of the ice creams in time of little demand. Though you sugest no reason why this is so?"

 I will though. Think of the increase in response time when the adjustment has to be approved by overworked government bureaucrats. That's going to add at best several days of unneeded production and, at worst, several weeks or even months.

"Antieverything, you also can´t just move a cook to a possition of a worker in a nuclear plant when market forces want that. I am sure that we can agree that that would make a very big waste."

 No, but you *can* retrain him and then do that. Or find him another job as a cook nearby, or shift him into a temporary unskilled job until demand returns if it is expected to. Use your imagination.

[Evan Roberts]

"Think of the increase in response time when the adjustment has to be approved by overworked government bureaucrats. That's going to add at best several days of unneeded production and, at worst, several weeks or even months."

No, because under socialism the economy isn't run from a few bureaucrats from above, but by a workers democracy. If quick decisions need to be made, quick decisions will be made.

And as turnoviseous said, you would also have to weigh things up, sometimes it is worth having losses if it means not having to train a load of workers and make them do something other than a job that they probably liked doing. Of course, under a capitalist market, companies don't care about the actual workers.

Grave disorder, your visions of what socialism are like are totally false, I guess you look at the soviet union, where despite the increasingly beaurcratic nature, the planned economy took russia from a very backward country to an advanced country, And it certainly didn't do this without changes in the types of industries.

[Grave Disorder]

Ah, a Stalinist. Goodbye.

[T.K.A.-Denmark]

When has it become stalinist to defend the good aspects of the planned economy in Soviet:confused: