| Part ofa series on |
| Economic systems |
|---|
Major types |
By regional model |
Market socialism is a type ofeconomic system involvingsocial ownership of themeans of production within the framework of amarket economy. Various models for such a system exist, usually involvingcooperative enterprises and sometimes a mix that includespublic orprivate enterprises.[1][2] In contrast to the majority of historic self-describedsocialist economies, which have substituted some form ofeconomic planning for the market mechanism, market socialists wish to retain the use ofsupply and demand signals to guide the allocation ofcapital goods and the means of production.[3][4][5] Under such a system, depending on whether socially owned firms arestate-owned or operated asworker cooperatives, profits may variously be used to directly remunerate employees, accrue to society at large as the source ofpublic finance, or be distributed amongst the population in asocial dividend.[6]
Market socialism can be distinguished from the concept of themixed economy because most models of market socialism propose complete and self-regulating systems, unlike the mixed economy.[7] Whilesocial democracy aims to achieve greatereconomic stability and equality through policy measures such as taxes, subsidies, and social welfare programs, market socialism aims to achieve similar goals through changing patterns of enterprise ownership and management.[8]
Though the term "market socialism" only emerged in the 1920s during thesocialist calculation debate,[9] a number ofpre-Marx socialists, including theRicardian socialist economists andmutualist philosophers, conceived of socialism as a natural development of the market principles ofclassical economics, and proposed the creation of co-operative enterprises to compete in afree-market economy. The aim of such proposals was to eliminate exploitation by allowing individuals to receive thefull product of their labor, while removing the market-distorting effects of concentrating ownership and wealth in the hands of a small class ofprivate property owners.[10]
Although sometimes described as "market socialism",[11] theLange model is a form of market simulated planning where a central planning board allocates investment and capital goods by simulating factor market transactions, while markets allocate labor and consumer goods. The system was devised bysocialist economists who believed that a socialist economy could neither function on the basis ofcalculation in natural units nor through solving a system of simultaneous equations for economic coordination.[12][9]
Real-world attempts to create market socialist economies have only partially implemented the measures envisioned by its theorists, but the term has sometimes been used to describe the results of various attempts atliberalization in theEastern Bloc includingHungary's New Economic Mechanism, theeconomy of Yugoslavia, Sovietperestroika, and theeconomic reforms of China, as well asLenin'sNew Economic Policy.[13]
The key theoretical basis for market socialism is the negation of the underlying expropriation ofsurplus value present in othermodes of production. Socialist theories that favored the market date back to theRicardian socialists andanarchist economists, who advocated afree market combined withpublic ownership ormutual ownership of the means of production.
Proponents of early market socialism include the Ricardian socialist economists, the classical liberal philosopherJohn Stuart Mill and the anarchist philosopherPierre-Joseph Proudhon. These models of socialism entailed perfecting or improving themarket mechanism andfree price system by removing distortions caused byexploitation,private property andalienated labor.
This form of market socialism has been termed free-market socialism because it does not involve planners.[14][15]
Mill's earlyeconomic philosophy was one of capitalisticfree markets that he moved toward a more socialist bent, adding chapters to hisPrinciples of Political Economy in defence of a socialist outlook, and defending some socialist causes.[16] Within this revised work he also made the radical proposal that the whole wage system be abolished in favour of a co-operative wage system. Nonetheless, some of his views on the idea of flat taxation remained,[17] albeit altered in the third edition of thePrinciples of Political Economy to reflect a concern for differentiating restrictions onunearned incomes which he favoured; and those on earned incomes, which he did not favour.[18]
Mill'sPrinciples, first published in 1848, was one of the most widely read of all books on economics in the period.[19] AsAdam Smith'sWealth of Nations had during an earlier period, Mill'sPrinciples dominated economics teaching. In the case ofOxford University, it was the standard text until 1919, when it was replaced byAlfred Marshall'sPrinciples of Economics.
In later editions ofPrinciples of Political Economy, Mill would argue that "as far as economic theory was concerned, there is nothing in principle in economic theory that precludes an economic order based on socialist policies".[17][20]
Mill also promoted substituting capitalist businesses withworker cooperatives, writing:
The form of association, however, which if mankind continue to improve, must be expected in the end to predominate, is not that which can exist between a capitalist as chief, and work-people without a voice in the management, but the association of the labourers themselves on terms of equality, collectively owning the capital with which they carry on their operations and working under managers elected and removable by themselves.[21]
In his later thought, he advocated for acooperative economic order, an economy based on enterprises run by workers themselves in an open market, rather than the employment-wage relationship of capitalist companies.[22][23][24][25][26]
| Part ofa series on |
| Libertarian socialism |
|---|
 |
Variants
|
Pierre-Joseph Proudhon developed a theoretical system calledmutualism which attacks the legitimacy of existingproperty rights,subsidies,corporations,banking andrent.[27] Proudhon envisioned a decentralized market where people would enter the market with equal power, negatingwage slavery.[28] Proponents believe that cooperatives, credit unions and other forms of worker ownership would become viable without being subject to thestate. Market socialism has also been used to describe someindividualist anarchist works which argue that free markets help workers and weaken capitalists.[29][30]
For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, "[i]t is apparent [...] thatProudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to the Individualist Anarchism ofJosiah Warren andStephen Pearl Andrews. [...]William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form".[31] Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first Americananarchist,[32] and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833,The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published,[33] an enterprise for which he built his own printing press, cast his own type, and made his own printing plates.[33]
Warren was a follower ofRobert Owen and joined Owen's community atNew Harmony, Indiana. Josiah Warren termed the phrase "cost the limit of price", with "cost" here referring not to monetary price paid but the labor one exerted to produce an item.[34] Therefore, "[h]e proposed a system to pay people with certificates indicating how many hours of work they did. They could exchange the notes at local time stores for goods that took the same amount of time to produce".[32] He put his theories to the test by establishing an experimental "labor for labor store" called theCincinnati Time Store where trade was facilitated by notes backed by a promise to perform labor. The store proved successful and operated for three years after which it was closed so that Warren could pursue establishing colonies based onmutualism. These includedUtopia andModern Times. Warren said thatStephen Pearl Andrews'The Science of Society, published in 1852, was the most lucid and complete exposition of Warren's own theories.[35]
Later,Benjamin Tucker fused the economics of Warren and Proudhon and published these ideas inLiberty calling them "Anarchistic-Socialism".[36] Tucker said: "[T]he fact that one class of men are dependent for their living upon the sale of their labour, while another class of men are relieved of the necessity of labour by being legally privileged to sell something that is not labour. [...] And to such a state of things I am as much opposed as anyone. But the minute you remove privilege [...] every man will be a labourer exchanging with fellow-labourers. [...] What Anarchistic-Socialism aims to abolish is usury [...] it wants to deprive capital of its reward".[36] Americanindividualist anarchists such as Tucker saw themselves as economic market socialists and political individualists while arguing that their "anarchistic socialism" or "individual anarchism" was "consistentManchesterism".[37] Modernmarket anarchism is based on a revival of such market socialist theories.[38][39][40][41]
Beginning in the early 20th century,neoclassical economic theory provided the theoretical basis for more comprehensive models of market socialism. Early neoclassical models of socialism included a role for a central planning board (CPB) in setting prices equal tomarginal cost in order to achievePareto efficiency. Although these early models did not rely on conventional markets, they were labeled market socialist for their utilization of financial prices and calculation. Alternative outlines for market socialism involve models where socially owned enterprises or producer co-operatives operate withinfree markets under the criterion of profitability. In recent models proposed by American neoclassical economists, public ownership of the means of production is achieved through public ownership ofequity and social control of investment.
The earliest models of neoclassical socialism were developed byLéon Walras,Enrico Barone (1908)[42][43][44] andOskar R. Lange (c. 1936).[45] Lange andFred M. Taylor (1929)[46] proposed that central planning boards set prices through "trial and error", making adjustments as shortages and surpluses occurred rather than relying on afree price mechanism. If there were shortages, prices would be raised; if there were surpluses, prices would be lowered.[47] Raising the prices would encourage businesses to increase production, driven by their desire to increase their profits, and in doing so eliminate the shortage. Lowering the prices would encourage businesses to curtail production to prevent losses, which would eliminate the surplus. Therefore, it would be a simulation of the market mechanism, which Lange thought would be capable of effectively managing supply and demand.[48]
Although theLange–Lerner model was often labelled as market socialism, it is better described as market simulation because factor markets did not exist for the allocation of capital goods. The objective of the Lange–Lerner model was explicitly to replace markets with a non-market system of resource allocation.[49][50]
H. D. Dickinson published two articles proposing a form of market socialism, namely "Price Formation in a Socialist Community" (The Economic Journal 1933) and "The Problems of a Socialist Economy" (The Economic Journal 1934). Dickinson proposed a mathematical solution whereby the problems of a socialist economy could be solved by a central planning agency. The central agency would have the necessary statistics on the economy, as well as the capability of using statistics to direct production. The economy could be represented as a system of equations. Solution values for these equations could be used to price all goods at marginal cost and direct production. Hayek (1935) argued against the proposal to simulate markets with equations. Dickinson (1939) adopted the Lange-Taylor proposal to simulate markets through trial and error.
The Lange–Dickinson version of market socialism kept capital investment out of the market. Lange (1926 p65) insisted that a central planning board would have to setcapital accumulation rates arbitrarily. Lange and Dickinson saw potential problems with bureaucratization in market socialism. According to Dickinson, "the attempt to check irresponsibility will tie up managers of socialist enterprises with so much red tape and bureaucratic regulation that they will lose all initiative and independence" (Dickinson 1938, p. 214). InThe Economics of Control: Principles of Welfare Economics (1944), Abba Lerner admitted that capital investment would be politicized in market socialism.
Economists active in the former Yugoslavia, including Czech-bornJaroslav Vaněk and Croat-bornBranko Horvat, promoted a model of market socialism dubbed the Illyrian model, where firms were socially owned by their employees and structured aroundworkers' self-management, competing with each other in open and free markets.
American economists in the latter half of the 20th century developed models based such as coupon socialism (by theanalytical marxism economistJohn Roemer) andeconomic democracy (by the philosopherDavid Schweickart).
Pranab Bardhan andJohn Roemer proposed a form of market socialism where there was a stock market that distributed shares of the capital stock equally among citizens. In this stock market, there is no buying or selling of stocks that leads to negative externalities associated with a concentration of capital ownership. The Bardhan and Roemer model satisfied the main requirements of both socialism (workers own all the factors of production, not just labour) and market economies (prices determine efficient allocation of resources). New Zealand economist Steven O'Donnell expanded on the Bardhan and Roemer model and decomposed the capital function in a general equilibrium system to take account of entrepreneurial activity in market socialist economies. O'Donnell (2003) set up a model that could be used as a blueprint for transition economies and the results suggested that although market socialist models were inherently unstable in the long term, they would provide in the short term the economic infrastructure necessary for a successful transition from planned to market economies.[51]
In the early 21st century, theMarxian economistRichard D. Wolff refocused Marxian economics giving it a microfoundational focus. The core idea was that transition from capitalism to socialism required the reorganization of the enterprise from a top-down hierarchical capitalist model to a model where all key enterprise decisions (what, how, and where to produce and what to do with outputs) were made on a one-worker, one vote basis. Wolff called them workers self-directed enterprises (WSDEs). How they would interact with one another and with consumers was left open to democratic social decisions and could entail markets or planning, or likely mixtures of both.
Advocates of market socialism such asJaroslav Vaněk argue that genuinely free markets are not possible under conditions of private ownership of productive property. Instead, he contends that the class differences and inequalities in income and power that result from private ownership enable the interests of the dominant class to skew the market to their favor, either in the form of monopoly and market power, or by utilizing their wealth and resources to legislate government policies that benefit their specific business interests. Additionally, Vaněk states that workers in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises have stronger incentives to maximize productivity because they would receive a share of the profits (based on the overall performance of their enterprise) in addition to receiving their fixed wage or salary. The stronger incentives to maximize productivity that he conceives as possible in a socialist economy based on cooperative and self-managed enterprises might be accomplished in a free-market economy ifemployee-owned companies were the norm as envisioned by various thinkers includingLouis O. Kelso andJames S. Albus.[52]
Giacomo Corneo, Professor of Public Finance and Social Policy at the Free University of Berlin, espouses an "updated version of market socialism" where large firms would be publicly owned (though by no more than 51% share),[53] which would allow the government to distribute a social dividend, while the rest of the firms would be privately owned and subject to regulations to protect employees, consumers and environment.[54]
Matt Bruenig advocates for a version of market socialism he calls "funds socialism," which involvessovereign wealth funds acquiring shares of private enterprises to socialize ownership and control of firms.[55][56] Bruenig claims that this form of market socialism is similar to that advocated byYanis Varoufakis,Rudolf Meidner, andJohn Roemer.[56]
Another form of market socialism has been promoted by critics ofcentral planning and generally of neoclassicalgeneral equilibrium theory. The most notable of these economists wereAlec Nove andJános Kornai. In particular, in 1983 Nove proposed what he called "feasible socialism",[57] a mixed economy consisting of state-run enterprises, autonomous publicly owned firms, cooperatives and small-scale private enterprise operating in a market economy that included a role for macroeconomic planning.[58]
A number of market socialist elements have existed in various economies. Theeconomy ofYugoslavia was widely considered to have been a form of market-based socialism, based onsocially-owned cooperatives,workers' self-management, andmarket allocation of capital.[59] Some of the economic reforms introduced during thePrague Spring byAlexander Dubček, theleader ofCzechoslovakia, included elements of market socialism.[60]
Likewise,Vietnam'ssocialist-oriented market economy is self-described as market socialist. It has an extremely high prevalence of cooperatives, especially in agriculture and retail, with the continuedstate ownership of thecommanding heights of the economy.[61] Cooperative businesses in Vietnam are also incentivized and supported by the government, receiving many benefits that private companies do not.[62]
Peter Drucker described the United States system of regulated pension funds providing capital to financial markets as "pension fund socialism".[63]William H. Simon characterized pension fund socialism as "a form of market socialism", concluding that it was promising but perhaps with prospects more limited than those envisioned by its enthusiasts.[64]
Theeconomy ofCuba under the rule ofRaúl Castro has been described as attempting market socialist reforms.[65] Similarly, the economy ofLibya under Muammar Gaddafi could be described as a form of market socialism asMuammar Gaddafi'sThird International Theory shared many similarities withYugoslav self-management.[66][67]
Policies similar to the market socialist proposal of asocial dividend andbasic income scheme have been implemented on the basis of public ownership of natural resources in Alaska (Alaska Permanent Fund) and in Norway (theGovernment Pension Fund of Norway).[55]
After a decade of political, social and economic turmoil following theCultural Revolution,China began itsreform and opening-up in 1978 and formally amended its constitution in adopting thesocialist market economy as the country's economic system in 1993.[68]
The phrase market socialism has occasionally been used in reference to any attempt by aSoviet-type planned economy to introduce market elements into its economic system. In this sense, market socialism was first attempted during the 1920s in the Soviet Union as theNew Economic Policy (NEP) before being abandoned. Later, elements of market socialism were introduced in Hungary (nicknamedgoulash communism), Czechoslovakia (sloganized associalism with a human face), Yugoslavia (known asTitoism) in the 1970s and 1980s. The contemporaryeconomy of Belarus has been described as a market socialist system. TheSoviet Union attempted to introduce a market system with itsperestroika reforms underMikhail Gorbachev. During the later stages there was talk within top circles that the Soviet Union should move toward a market-based socialist system.
Historically, these kinds of market socialist systems attempt to retain state ownership of thecommanding heights of the economy such as heavy industry, energy and infrastructure while introducing decentralised decision making and giving local managers more freedom to make decisions and respond to market demands. Market socialist systems also allow private ownership andentrepreneurship in the service and other secondary economic sectors. Themarket is allowed to determine prices for consumer goods and agricultural products, and farmers are allowed to sell all or some of their products on the open market and keep some or all of the profit as an incentive to increase and improve production.
Both the Eastern European and Chinese socialist approaches to market reforms assume that a "market economy" is not necessarily a capitalist market economy, and that a socialist economy is not necessarily a planned economy.[69] This view draws support from Karl Marx's observations that markets existed under historical modes of production such as the Roman slave market economy and feudal markets.[69]
However, a market socialist system in the context of Marxism–Leninism, while not a strictplanned economy, in the sense of command economy, can still be characterized by a significant role ofeconomic planning, as in the case of China with itsfive-year plans.
The term market socialism has been used to refer to reformed economic systems inMarxist–Leninist states, most notably in reference to the contemporary economy of thePeople's Republic of China, where afree price system is used for the allocation of capital goods in both the state and private sectors. However, Chinese political and economic proponents of thesocialist market economy do not consider it to be a form of market socialism in the neoclassical sense[70] and many Western economists and political scientists question the degree to which this model constitutes a form of market socialism, often preferring to describe it asstate capitalism.[71]
Although similar in name, market socialism differs markedly from the socialist market economy andsocialist-oriented market economy models practiced in the contemporaryPeople's Republic of China andSocialist Republic of Vietnam, respectively. Officially these economic systems represent market economies that are in the long-term process of transition toward socialism.[72] Key differences between models of market socialism and the Chinese and Vietnamese models include the role of private investment in enterprises, the lack of a social dividend or basic income system to equitably distribute state profits among the population and the existence and role of financial markets in the Chinese model—markets which are absent in the market socialist literature.[71]
The Chinese experience withsocialism with Chinese characteristics is frequently referred to as a socialist market economy where thecommanding heights are state-owned, but a substantial portion of both the state and private sectors of economy are governed by market practices, including a stock exchange for trading equity and the utilization of indirect macroeconomic market mechanisms (i.e.fiscal,monetary andindustrial policies) to influence the economy in the same manner governments affect the economy in capitalist economies. The market is the arbitrator for most economic activity, with economic planning being relegated to macro-economic government indicative planning that does not encompass the microeconomic decision-making that is left to the individual organizations and state-owned enterprises. This model includes a significant amount of privately owned firms that operate as a business for profit, but only for consumer goods and services.[73]
In the Chinese system, directive planning based on mandatory output requirements and quotas were displaced by market mechanisms for most of the economy, including both the state and private sectors, although the government engages inindicative planning for large state enterprises.[73] In comparison with the Soviet-type planned economy, the Chinese socialist market model is based on thecorporatization of state institutions, transforming them into joint-stock companies. As of 2008, there were 150 state-owned corporations directly under the central government.[74] These state-owned corporations have been reformed and become increasingly dynamic and a major source of revenue for the state in 2008,[75][76] leading the economic recovery in 2009 during the wake of the global financial crises.[77]
This economic model is defended from aMarxist–Leninist perspective which states that a planned socialist economy can only emerge after first developing the basis for socialism through the establishment of a market economy and commodity-exchange economy; and that socialism would only emerge after this stage has exhausted its historical necessity and gradually transforms itself into socialism.[70] Proponents of this model argue that the economic system of the former Soviet Union and itssatellite states attempted to go from a natural economy to a planned economy by decree, without passing through the necessary market economy phase of development.[78]
Somesocial democrats anddemocratic socialists advocate forms of market socialism, some of which are based on self-management. Others advocate for a non-marketparticipatory economy based on decentralized economic planning.[79]
The French philosopherPierre-Joseph Proudhon is the first person to call himself ananarchist and considered among its most influential theorists. Proudhon is considered by many to be the "father of anarchism".[80] Proudhon became a member of theFrench Parliament after theFrench Revolution of 1848, whereon he referred to himself as afederalist.[81] Proudhon's best-known assertion is that "Property is theft!", contained in his first major workWhat Is Property?, published in 1840. The book's publication attracted the attention of the French authorities. It also attracted the scrutiny ofKarl Marx, who started a correspondence with Proudhon. The two influenced each other and met in Paris while Marx was exiled there. Their friendship finally ended when Marx responded to Proudhon'sThe Philosophy of Poverty with the provocatively titledThe Poverty of Philosophy. The dispute became one of the sources of the split between the anarchist andMarxist wings of theInternational Working Men's Association.Mutualism is ananarchist school of thought and market socialisteconomic theory that advocates asocialist society where each person possess ameans of production, either individually or collectively, with trade representing equivalent amounts of labor in thefree market.[82] Integral to the scheme was the establishment of a mutual-credit bank that would lend to producers at a minimal interest rate, just high enough to cover administration.[83] Mutualism is based on alabor theory of value which holds that when labor or its product is sold it ought to receive in exchange goods or services embodying "the amount of labor necessary to produce an article of exactly similar and equal utility".[84]
Mutualism originated from the writings of Proudhon. Mutualists oppose the idea of individuals receiving an income through loans, investments and rent as they believe these individuals are not laboring. Although opposed to this type of income, Proudhon expressed that he had never intended "to forbid or suppress, by sovereign decree, ground rent and interest on capital. I think that all these manifestations of human activity should remain free and voluntary for all: I ask for them no modifications, restrictions or suppressions, other than those which result naturally and of necessity from the universalization of the principle of reciprocity which I propose".[85] Insofar as they ensure the worker's right to the full product of their labor, mutualists supportmarkets orartificial markets andproperty in the product of labor. However, mutualists argue for conditional titles to land, whose ownership is legitimate only so long as it remains in use or occupation (which Proudhon calledpossession),[86] advocatingpersonal property in place ofprivate property.[87][88] However, some individualist anarchists such asBenjamin Tucker started calling possession asproperty orprivate property.[89][90][91]
Josiah Warren is widely regarded as the first Americananarchist[32] and the four-page weekly paper he edited during 1833,The Peaceful Revolutionist, was the first anarchist periodical published.[33] For American anarchist historian Eunice Minette Schuster, "[i]t is apparent [...] that Proudhonian Anarchism was to be found in the United States at least as early as 1848 and that it was not conscious of its affinity to theIndividualist Anarchism ofJosiah Warren andStephen Pearl Andrews. [...]William B. Greene presented this Proudhonian Mutualism in its purest and most systematic form".[92] Later, the American individualist anarchist Benjamin Tucker "was against both the state and capitalism, against both oppression and exploitation. While not against the market and property he was firmly against capitalism as it was, in his eyes, a state-supported monopoly of social capital (tools, machinery, etc.) which allows owners to exploit their employees, i.e., to avoid paying workers the full value of their labour. He thought that the "labouring classes are deprived of their earnings by usury in its three forms, interest, rent and profit". Therefore, "Liberty will abolish interest; it will abolish profit; it will abolish monopolistic rent; it will abolish taxation; it will abolish the exploitation of labour; it will abolish all means whereby any labourer can be deprived of any of his product". This stance puts him squarely in the libertarian socialist tradition and, unsurprisingly, Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist and considered his philosophy to be "[a]narchistic socialism".[93][94]
French individualist anarchistÉmile Armand shows clearly opposition to capitalism and centralized economies when he said that the individualist anarchist "inwardly he remains refractory – fatally refractory – morally, intellectually, economically (The capitalist economy and the directed economy, the speculators and the fabricators of single systems are equally repugnant to him.)".[95] He argued for a pluralistic economic logic when he said that "Here and there everything happening – here everyone receiving what they need, there each one getting whatever is needed according to their own capacity. Here,gift andbarter – one product for another; there, exchange – product for representative value. Here, the producer is the owner of the product, there, the product is put to the possession of the collectivity".[96] The Spanish individualist anarchistMiguel Giménez Igualada thought that "capitalism is an effect of government; the disappearance of government means capitalism falls from its pedestal vertiginously. [...] That which we call capitalism is not something else but a product of the State, within which the only thing that is being pushed forward is profit, good or badly acquired. And so to fight against capitalism is a pointless task, since be itState capitalism or Enterprise capitalism, as long as Government exists, exploiting capital will exist. The fight, but of consciousness, is against the State".[97] His view onclass division andtechnocracy are as follows "Since when no one works for another, the profiteer from wealth disappears, just as government will disappear when no one pays attention to those who learned four things at universities and from that fact they pretend to govern men. Big industrial enterprises will be transformed by men in big associations in which everyone will work and enjoy the product of their work. And from those easy as well as beautiful problems anarchism deals with and he who puts them in practice and lives them are anarchists. [...] The priority which without rest an anarchist must make is that in which no one has to exploit anyone, no man to no man, since that non-exploitation will lead to the limitation of property to individual needs".[98]
Market anarchism is a market socialist form ofindividualist anarchism,left-libertarianism andlibertarian socialism[99] associated with scholars such asKevin Carson,[100][101] Roderick T. Long,[102][103] Charles W. Johnson,[104] Brad Spangler,[105]Samuel Edward Konkin III,[106] Sheldon Richman,[107][108][109]Chris Matthew Sciabarra[110] andGary Chartier,[111] who stress the value of radicallyfree markets, termedfreed markets to distinguish them from the common conception which these libertarians believe to be riddled withcapitalist andstatist privileges.[112] Referred to as left-wing market anarchists[113] or market-oriented left-libertarians,[109] proponents of this approach strongly affirm theclassical liberal ideas of free markets andself-ownership while maintaining that taken to their logical conclusions these ideas supportanti-capitalist,anti-corporatist,anti-hierarchical,pro-labor positions in economics;anti-imperialism in foreign policy; and thoroughly liberal or radical views regarding socio-cultural issues.[114][115]
The genealogy of contemporary left-wing market anarchism, sometimes labelled market-oriented left-libertarianism,[116] overlaps to a significant degree with that ofSteiner–Vallentyne left-libertarianism as the roots of that tradition are sketched in the bookThe Origins of Left-Libertarianism.[117]Carson–Long-style left-libertarianism is rooted in 19th-centurymutualism and in the work of figures such asThomas Hodgskin,French Liberal School thinkers such asGustave de Molinari and theAmerican individualist anarchists Benjamin Tucker andLysander Spooner. While with notable exceptions market-oriented libertarians after Tucker tended to ally with the political right, relationships between those libertarians and theNew Left thrived in the 1960s, laying the groundwork for modern left-wing market anarchism.[118] Left-wing market anarchism identifies with left-libertarianism which names several related yet distinct approaches topolitics, society, culture and political and social theory, which stress bothindividual freedom andsocial justice.[119]
Unlikeright-libertarians, left-libertarians believe that neither claiming normixing one's labor withnatural resources is enough to generate fullprivate property rights[120][121] and maintain that natural resources (land, oil, gold and trees) ought to be held in someegalitarian manner, either unowned orowned collectively.[121] Those left-libertarians who support property do so under different property norms[122][123][124][125] and theories,[126][127][128] or under the condition that recompense is offered to thelocal orglobal community.[121]
Market abolitionists such asDavid McNally argue in the Marxist tradition that the logic of the market inherently produces inequitable outcomes and leads to unequal exchanges, arguing thatAdam Smith's moral intent and moral philosophy espousing equal exchange was undermined by the practice of the free market he championed—the development of themarket economy involved coercion, exploitation and violence that Smith's moral philosophy could not countenance. McNally criticizes market socialists for believing in the possibility of fair markets based on equal exchanges to be achieved by purging parasitical elements from the market economy such asprivate ownership of themeans of production, arguing that market socialism is an oxymoron whensocialism is defined as an end towage labour.[129]
....it is important to realize that the school of thinking calls itself "market socialism" is further divisible along three different lines: (1) whether its goal, market socialism, involves only worker-owned enterprises, or a mix of enterprises some worker-owned, some privately-owned, some nationalized, etc. (2) whether market socialism will eventually by followed by communism...
Market socialism is the general designation for a number of models of economic systems. On the one hand, the market mechanism is utilized to distribute economic output, to organize production and to allocate factor inputs. On the other hand, the economic surplus accrues to society at large rather than to a class of private (capitalist) owners, through some form of collective, public or social ownership of capital.
It is an economic system that combines social ownership of capital with market allocation of capital...The state owns the means of production, and returns accrue to society at large.
Social democracy achieves greater egalitarianism via ex post government taxes and subsidies, where market socialism does so via ex ante changes in patterns of enterprise ownership.
It was in the early 1920s that the expression 'market socialism' (marktsozialismus) became commonplace. A special term was considered necessary to distinguish those socialists prepared to accept some role for factor markets from the now mainstream socialists who were not.
[...] [B]y the 1820s, 'Smithian' apologists for industrial capitalism confronted 'Smithian' socialists in a vigorous, and often venomous, debate over political economy.
The first stage was marked by the realization by socialists that prices must be used for economic calculation under socialism; accounting in some kind of 'natural unit,' such as the amount of energy or labor commodities embodied, simply would not work. The second stage was characterized by the view that it would be possible to calculate the prices at which general equilibrium would be reached in a socialist economy by solving a complicated system of simultaneous equations [...]. The third stage was marked by the realization, by Lange and others, that markets would indeed be required to find the socialist equilibrium [...].
Mill, in contrast, advances a form of liberal democratic socialism for the enlargement of freedom as well as to realize social and distributive justice. He offers a powerful account of economic injustice and justice that is centered on his understanding of freedom and its conditions
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)Finally, there is the curious circumstance that Lange's system is widely hailed as a pioneering effort in the theory of market socialism, when it is demonstrably no such thing: even the name 'market socialism' predates Lange, and Lange's system is explicitly a proposal to replace the market with a non-market system.
Usually Oskar Lange is regarded as the originator of the concept of market socialism, in spite of the fact that he never spoke of market socialism and would not have been the first if he had. In fact, Lange's model involves only a partial market simulation for the trial-and-error iterative construction of a central plan, which belongs to the set of decentralization procedures in central planning.
...the federal shareholder should retain only 51 percent of their shares. Private ownership of the remaining 29% percent has a key role to play in creating an incentive structure that leads those firms to maximize profits.
The blueprint has private ownership in the means of production with respect to small- and medium-sized firms, because we think that individualism at the level of entrepreneurial initiatives is an important ingredient for economic dynamism. But all large firms would be in public ownership, and this would be the key difference with respect to today's economic system.
Some have endorsed the concept of market socialism, a postcapitalist economy that retains market competition but socializes the means of production, and in some versions, extends democracy to the workplace. Some holdout for a nonmarket, participatory economy. All democratic socialists agree on the need for a democratic alternative to capitalism.
The ownership [anarchists oppose] is basically that which is unearned [...] including such things as interest on loans and income from rent. This is contrasted with ownership rights in those goods either produced by the work of the owner or necessary for that work, for example his dwelling-house, land and tools. Proudhon initially refers to legitimate rights of ownership of these goods as 'possession,' and although in his latter work he calls this 'property,' the conceptual distinction remains the same.
Ironically, Proudhon did not mean literally what he said. His boldness of expression was intended for emphasis, and by 'property' he wished to be understood what he later called 'the sum of its abuses'. He was denouncing the property of the man who uses it to exploit the labour of others without any effort on his own part, property distinguished by interest and rent, by the impositions of the non-producer on the producer. Towards property regarded as 'possession' the right of a man to control his dwelling and the land and tools he needs to live, Proudhon had no hostility; indeed, he regarded it as the cornerstone of liberty, and his main criticism of the communists was that they wished to destroy it.
Tucker and Bakunin both shared Proudhon's opposition to private property (in the capitalist sense of the word), although Tucker confused this opposition (and possibly the casual reader) by talking about possession as 'property.'
This stance puts him squarely in the libertarian socialist tradition and, unsurprisingly, Tucker referred to himself many times as a socialist and considered his philosophy to be "Anarchistic socialism." For Tucker, capitalist society was exploitative and stopped the full development of all and so had to be replaced
The economic principles of Modern Socialism are a logical deduction from the principle laid down by Adam Smith in the early chapters of his "Wealth of Nations," – namely, that labor is the true measure of price...Half a century or more after Smith enunciated the principle above stated, Socialism picked it up where he had dropped it, and in following it to its logical conclusions, made it the basis of a new economic philosophy...This seems to have been done independently by three different men, of three different nationalities, in three different languages: Josiah Warren, an American; Pierre J. Proudhon, a Frenchman; Karl Marx, a German Jew...That the work of this interesting trio should have been done so nearly simultaneously would seem to indicate that Socialism was in the air, and that the time was ripe and the conditions favorable for the appearance of this new school of thought...So far as priority of time is concerned, the credit seems to belong to Warren, the American, – a fact which should be noted by the stump orators who are so fond of declaiming against Socialism as an imported article.
el capitalismo es sólo el efecto del gobierno; desaparecido el gobierno, el capitalismo cae de su pedestal vertiginosamente.... Lo que llamamos capitalismo no es otra cosa que el producto del Estado, dentro del cual lo único que se cultiva es la ganancia, bien o mal habida. Luchar, pues, contra el capitalismo es tarea inútil, porque sea Capitalismo de Estado o Capitalismo de Empresa, mientras el Gobierno exista, existirá el capital que explota. La lucha, pero de conciencias, es contra el Estado.[capitalism is only the effect of the government; once the government is gone, capitalism falls from its pedestal vertiginously.... What we call capitalism is nothing other than the product of the State, within which the only thing that is cultivated is profit , well or ill-gotten. Fighting, then, against capitalism is a useless task, because whether it is State Capitalism or Company Capitalism, as long as the Government exists, the capital that exploits will exist. The fight, but of conscience, is against the State. ]
¿La propiedad? ¡Bah! No es problema. Porque cuando nadie trabaje para nadie, el acaparador de la riqueza desaparece, como ha de desaparecer el gobierno cuando nadie haga caso a los que aprendieron cuatro cosas en las universidades y por ese sólo hecho pretenden gobernar a los hombres. Porque si en la tierra de los ciegos el tuerto es rey, en donde todos ven y juzgan y disciernen, el rey estorba. Y de lo que se trata es de que no haya reyes porque todos sean hombres. Las grandes empresas industriales las transformarán los hombres en grandes asociaciones donde todos trabajen y disfruten del producto de su trabajo. Y de esos tan sencillos como hermosos problemas trata el anarquismo y al que lo cumple y vive es al que se le llama anarquista...El hincapié que sin cansancio debe hacer el anarquista es el de que nadie debe explotar a nadie, ningún hombre a ningún hombre, porque esa no-explotación llevaría consigo la limitación de la propiedad a las necesidades individuales.[Property? Bah! It's not a problem. Because when no one works for anyone, the hoarder of wealth disappears, as the government must disappear when no one pays attention to those who learned four things in the universities and for that sole reason they claim to govern men. Because if in the land of the blind the one-eyed man is king, where everyone sees and judges and discerns, the king is in the way. And what is involved is that there are no kings because they are all men. large industrial companies will be transformed by men into large associations where everyone works and enjoys the product of their work. And anarchism deals with those problems that are as simple as they are beautiful and the one who complies with them and lives is the one who is called an anarchist... The emphasis that the anarchist must tirelessly make is that no one should exploit anyone, no man to no man, because that non-exploitation would entail the limitation of property to individual needs.]
Media related toMarket socialism at Wikimedia Commons
