Market Socialism vs Social Democracy | Krystal Kyle & Friends Podcast

[@Andrew-ku5mn]

Im from germany and from the american perspective we are a social democracy. The professor really hits the nail on the head, private business is clawing at everything it can, privatizing industrys where possible like our rail network or hospitals for example. Most importantly inequality is still a horrendous issue and with that comes political influence. Ordinary people are losing this battle while financial intrests are winning it. What I am trying to say is social democracy might be better than free maket capitalism but you need to at some point overcome the private ownership of the means of production or the scale will start to tip the other way again. Also this energy crisis makes me fucking worried but thats besides the point.

[@armingleiner5292]

Why would you be worried? Just put on a jacket when it gets colder. It is no big deal especially with our recent mild winters.

[@isaac827]

I am from Australia, and we would be considered a mixture of social democracy and capitalism. It is undeniable from my perspective the negative impacts things like the health industry having a private capitalist component have here, but I wouldn't entirely trust our governments to control even critical/essential requirements. Social democracy is the only feasible option I see, even that depends on our elected officials to prioritise the needs of the people over their political donors and private corporations (something that is an issue here). The concentration of power in either private individuals or government are both equally bad, it scares me how much market (or any other type of socialism or communism) depends on the integrity of the people in control, which in my humble opinion is the downfall of every system and something that is unavoidable due to human nature. There will always be people that want to exploit the system for their own gain and they will always find their way into positions that allow them to do it.

[@palehorse7377]

Socialism seeks to make everyone equal.... equally working poor.

[@haleybrown2836]

Having worked more than a decade in Europe, three countries, seeing the abuse of labor here I am definitely not an acolyte of US's Free Market economy. We are going backwards in the US instead forwards. Koch industries is a prime example of elite abuse. Rather than using their monies for humanitarian endeavors they try to shape the US into a 19th century economy - no regulations, no labor rights, etc. My fervent hope, let this system implode because the current course makes civil strive highly probable.

[@haleybrown2836]

@@armingleiner5292 That depends entirely where you are living at in Europe, just putting on another jacket will not do.

[@felixdevilliers1]

I lived in England while Harold Wilson was in power and it was relatively speaking a good experience medical treatment including dentists were free, telephone and railways were nationalized. When Thatcher took over and privatized the phone service was bad and so were the railways

[@MutualistSoc]

Social Democracy = Retains Capitalism Market Socialism "Free enterprise Socialism" = No Capitalism. Capitalism and Free Enterprise are not the same thing. Free enterprise is the exchange of goods. Capitalism is who owns the profits from the exchange. Capitalism: The Capitalist owner owns the profits form the exchange. Socialism: The workers own the profits from the exchange.

[@superpancakeman8227]

It is incorrect to say that Social Democracy is "just" capitalism with a welfare state. If your objective is to criticize it then fair enough, but that's like saying that "libertarianism is when pedophilia"; it is not exactly a useful description of the system we are talking about. Under that description even the United States would count as a social democracy, seeing as though most of us are rightly dissatisfied with it, it does still spend most of its budget on social welfare (it is the discretionary budget that is hugely for war, but we would be talking about the total budget here). It's not very intuitive because Social Democrats were literally reformist Marxists during their glory days, and merely viewed capitalism as a necessary evil to be transitioned away from while productive forces developed, and as such would steer the ship towards an eventual socialism while in the meantime using the state to sort of "force trickle down economics" (my attempt at explaining) rather than just hoping it would happen by itself, like the neolibs advocated for. Looking up social democracy in wikipedia will clearly show its socialist history, but in the end social democratic parties ended up being up being infiltrated and subsumed by "third way" social democrats, which are the "nicer capitalism" style of SocDems that most leftists are familiar with nowadays. So when people say "Norway isn't socialist; it's capitalist", while it is clearly technically correct, it is also a *massive* lie of omission that cedes way too much credit to capitalism, because the reason that Scandinavia is so successful nowadays is literally because they were ruled for (idk like) 40 years by Social Democratic parties that really were operated by Marxists. They used Marx and typical communist imagery like hammers and red banners in their political material. I would highly encourage everyone to read about Olof Palme to see what kind of politician Social Democratic parties used to be led by. Even Lenin himself at one point was a Social Democrat, because at the time social democracy was a communist thing. He clearly opted for less reformist methods later in life obviously. So nowadays while it is true that most social democratic parties and leaders are capitalists; their *legacy and achievements* at the heights of their power were made by Socialists. A lot of the constituencies of these parties are still composed of people that are socialistic in nature, and the spirit of the original point of social democracy lives on in the people that now call themselves "Democratic Socialists" which for our purposes here is basically just a modern rebrand of the old Social Democrats. Now clearly, there are criticisms to be had of them and I don't think you need my help there. My point is, the great legacy of social democracy should not be so readily ceded to capitalists. The reason people in a lot of the "first world" enjoy so many of the benefits we look towards implementing in the rest of the world today is because they were achieved by Social(ist) Democrats through either as direct rule or as compromise by capitalists. If the old SocDems were like the modern SocDems, then Scandinavia would not be a model that people would seek to emulate, they would most likely just be an even shittier version of the United States. The Norwegian government owns the majority of their stock market, owns their oil, and uses the profits from selling that oil to fund the biggest public wealth fund in the world (over a *trillion* dollars) that is then used to fund things like public pensions. This is *not* something capitalists would ever do, which is why you don't see anything like this in any country that didn't have a strong socialist influence in governance for decades. I am not necessarily advocating for it as "the one true way for leftists", I just think erasing the history is not only bad, but actively gives capitalists great PR for things they never did and would never do. (This was originally a response to another comment but I figured I might as well post it by itself)

[@Ryan-093]

Your points are compelling

[@GardenStateNJ27]

Great explanation. Social democracy is talked down upon by some on the left (MLS/MLMS) and some on the right. Both of which weaponized social democracy. Social democracy is indeed a socialist ideology and always will be, no matter how many times MLs call it “social fascism” or how many times neo fascists mock it, and/or liberals try to claim it as their own.

[@venusianblivet9518]

Market socialism, (ie socialism with markets) is extremely broad and includes everything from the anarchist, free market mutualism to the authoritarian, centralised Titoism. I do think most market socialists are democratic socialists, and this system would probably politically look like social democracy in a lot of ways.

[@thethree60five]

Correct. A multitude of feedback loops to slow the eventual and create a usable cycle of capitalist economy are needed to control the eventual progression of the Pareto Principle, which is a base negative outcome of capitalism, if unchecked. Utilization of labour unions, co-ops, gov regulation and still strategic support of industry players can create a less abusive system that doesn't funnell all wealth to the top, by and for the will of the people, democratically.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Market socialism is an oxymoron.

[@boomboomskidskid]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 it's not tho

[@OatmealGrillBlazer]

don't forget libertarian socialism

[@venusianblivet9518]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Okay let’s just call it market anti capitalism then, happy?

[@godonlyknows13]

Above all, it is important to understand that the problem is capitalism. Private Capitalism specifically. And that private Capitalism will always seek more profit and more power and to strip away any worker protection you may gain. Capitalism is the enemy. Edit: to be clear, I’m arguing that there should be no private capitalism in society. It should be removed completely.

[@supersaiyanzero386]

I agree partly but the structure always produces the same results in time, look into systems theory and the sociological iceberg and stuff, the disease must be fully cut out, there is no other way at this point in human history. by the time activism advances to a point where it can make a structural difference we will be on an even less habitable planet Earth. I agree fully that capitalism is the enemy of sustainability.

[@godonlyknows13]

@@supersaiyanzero386 Yeah, any Capitalism can easily give way to more capitalism. There can be no room for any private Capitalism in society.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

But what in Capitalism makes you so upset about it??

[@markzuckergecko621]

Capitalism just means you get to keep what you earn, nothing more and nothing less. All of the problems that leftists cry about are actually problems with government corruption, not capitalism. And you're the ones who vote for bigger government. Can't fix stupid.

[@godonlyknows13]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Capitalism is an exploitative system that is unstable, unsustainable, and creates income inequality. Under capitalism, people’s needs are regularly ignored because it is not “profitable” to meet them. And when it is deemed profitable to meet the needs, they are met only after paying a price set by the owning class. While the owning class typically has no issue meeting their own needs, the working class often does as a result of this commodification of need. This creates a system by which those who do not have enough money have a much harder time merely surviving. Life for those at the bottom of the economic hierarchy under capitalism is often extremely brutal. And any attempt by the government to lessen that burden for those at the bottom is often met with resistance by the owning class. And I haven’t even gotten started on imperialism yet, which is very often just capitalistic empire building. (At risk of oversimplifying) Questions? Comments? Anything i said need clarification?

[@ranchpanda7932]

This feels like the kind of convo Vaush would have liked to be a part of lol

[@BlueDirt_ProAggressive]

He would say it is all social constructs.

[@rgzhaffie]

Vaush is such an ignoramus, he could DEFINITELY use an injection from Vivek! (Maybe starting by reading his book, "The Class Matrix".)

[@johnnylopan4085]

Why? No one talked about child rape being permissible here.

[@BlueDirt_ProAggressive]

@@johnnylopan4085 wow where did you hear that?

[@johnnylopan4085]

@@BlueDirt_ProAggressive Vaush literally defends possession of CP. Vaush has said that adults and children can have sexual relationships that are positive for the children. You know what we call it when an adult engages in sex with minors? It's called rape. This is the same man that attacks all examples of socialism throughout history, claims to be a Marxist bur gatekeeps communism with utopian idealism. Something Marx despised a 150 years ago

[@ArturoSubutex]

I don't see why people working in co-ops would compete so hard against each other as to end up self-exploiting. In democracies, you don't see ballot initiatives to lower the minimum wage -- in fact, quite the opposite. The only context in which you could potentially see that happening would be if the economic situation was so dire that it would be the only way to save the day. But even so, most people prefer other solutions -- such as just leaving. And we have factual evidence to bear this out. We don't have to just imagine, there are co-ops that exist within capitalism, and studies have been made. All other things being equal, people tend to pay themselves up to twice as much as in capitalist companies. The reason for this is quite straightforward: for a capitalist who owns a company, exploiting the workers is just a win across the board. You just sit there, tell them to work more for the same pay, and you make more money. Sure, you might have to weather their discontent, but if you're in that position, you're probably very used to that, and good at it. Whereas if you're a worker in a worker-owned company, self-exploiting comes at a cost, to state the obvious. If you collectively decide to, say, work more for the same pay, it means less rest, less time with your friends and family or for your hobbies -- all that for no gain. This isn't something that many people would be likely to spontaneously vote in favor of. Sure, you sometimes see small business owners do that, but precisely because they're the owners. At the end of the day, the chips fall in their pockets and if their business grows and they end up selling it, they'll take all the money. Workers in co-ops don't have that kind of incentive to exploit themselves. The only scenario in which they might potentially do it could be an insanely dire economic situation and/or if they love their company so much because they're deeply convinced that it's a force for good. In both cases, why shouldn't it be their call? The same could also happen in a capitalist or planned socialist system anyway. Finally, sure, Chibber's right that co-ops would create new antagonisms. But any system has antagonisms - one could even say that any system can be defined by a handful of its core structural antagonisms (maybe even just 1) -, therefore any non-dictatorial systemic change is going to create new antagonisms. The whole point of systemic change is not to get rid of all antagonisms, but to have one side win the current dominant antagonism and have the antagonisms within that side become the new dominant antagonisms. Like with the American Revolution, you went from an antagonism on whether or not the American colonies should remain colonies to an antagonism on the right balance between the powers of the Federal Government and those of the States. With the victory of the North in the Civil War you went from an antagonism on whether or not slavery should continue to exist to an antagonism on whether or not African Americans should be allowed to vote and go to the same schools as White Americans. Sadly, in this case, the wrong side managed to stalemate progress for a hundred years, but progress ended up winning, leading to new antagonisms on police violence or reparations for instance. Surely, in all cases, the victory of one side wasn't the end of all antagonisms, it was the death of an antagonistic system and the birth of a new one.

[@cogito919]

The unfortunate thing with socialism in practice is that it would require some experimentation; statistical modeling can only go so far without empirical testing. But poorly run experiments can cost jobs and prices, which would incentivize the electorate, not to mention the political opposition, to discourage further experimentation and optimization, and perhaps encourage defaulting to privatization. In a nutshell, we need more data but data can cost livelihoods.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

socialism is unstable. market socialism is an oxymoron.

[@6idangle]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 it’s not an oxymoron at all, there is a Marxist debate about this among socialists. Markets are not inherently capitalist and I’d argue that capitalism doesn’t function off equally fair competing market actor. Markets are universal and the socialism part is just transferring ownership of those same market structures into worker hands. It’s never been tried other than for brief moments in Spain, and Ukraine, and Yugoslavia (Yugoslavia was really more state planned and the policies resembled Gorbachev failed reforms) There is no reason why we couldn’t successfully turn over workers equity other than the fact that the wealthy benefit from stock and equity in businesses. There would of course be issues of making that transition, how do we deal with investment, how do we, transition stock holder equity into worker hands? It would have to be slow and deliberate.

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

​@@reasonerenlightened2456How is socializing the market an oxymoron.

[@anmolt3840051]

Social democracy - Capitalism with extensive welfare Market Socialism - Socialism that has had to adapt to a unipolar Capitalist global economic system. Basically Socialism minus a planned economy

[@bbrahbboul2748]

Thank you Kyle . People needs to get familiarized with definitions and opinions under social democracies or democratic socialism. There are so many options and experiments that can be done , especially in a federal system where every single state can have its own version of economy.

[@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3]

Social democracy is basically the offshoot of sellout, pro-imperialist socialists of the 2nd International. They supported WWI, were social-chauvinists, supported socialism on paper, but always made various excuses why they didn't support any socialist societies or movements at the time (basically, the AOCs of the 20th century). Over time, especially after the Bolshevik revolution, the social democrats became even more right-wing and eventually just settled on supporting capitalism and imperialism, but giving the people some free stuff along the way to placate them. Nowadays most social democrats are just full-on neoliberals. So modern-day social democrats are not socialists. Market socialism is the idea of having an actual socialist economy, but with a market sector. This is a contradiction though, because socialism is inherently anti-market. So what it usually ends up meaning, is that most industries are co-ops or something like that, and they all compete with each other to make profits, but each firm is supposedly governed by its employees. A better name for it would be co-operative capitalism, as it used to be called before people started pretending it was socialism. The only real example of it is Yugoslavia, and various grifters on the internet fantasizing about it. -An ML perspective.

[@-Zevin-]

Best Socialism: Fully Automated luxury Gay Space Communism.

[@Inquiringmind0]

Why gay?

[@Drkon6]

Literally The Culture series by Iain M Banks

[@OatmealGrillBlazer]

based

[@OatmealGrillBlazer]

@@Inquiringmind0 it's a reference to a TV show

[@jl8942]

Market Socialism=economics Social Democracy=governance

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

It's that simple, but most Americans & Canadians will make 4 hour long KZbin videos or write 500,000 word comments on Facebook about "muh markets" & "the invisible hand" & "human nature" & a bunch of other metaphysical garbage that doesn't even answer the most basic, intrinsic thing about economies _or_ governments.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Market socialism is an oxymoron.

[@bryson8918]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 no it's not. Market socialism is a type of economic system involving the public, cooperative, or social ownership of the means of production in the framework of a market economy, or one that contains a mix of worker-owned, nationalized, and privately owned enterprises. Markets existed far before capitalism.

[@xenoblad]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 depends on what you mean by socialism. Socialism isn't exactly a stable term. Even among MLs you have varying ideas of what just the "transitory period" is supposed to even mean.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

​@@bryson8918 Markets lead to extreme concentration of wealth. That would be the end of your socialism. One co-op will rule them all, particularly the few individuals at the top of the co-op.

[@taikamiya8214]

Social Democracy is just capitalism with a welfare state, market socialism is a traditional libertarian goal of establishing an economic system in which all firms are collectively controlled by workers, and those firms sell their products on a free market.

[@aprescoup]

Yes, but what happens to the driver of capitalist production and reproduction. the competitive-spirit informed drive for profit in these collectively owned-and-operated firms?

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

@@aprescoupthere is no competition or drive for anything except corporate subsidies & state-enforced corporatism. There is no free market under capitalism anymore, that crap ran its course & evolved in the 1700s.

[@superpancakeman8227]

It is incorrect to say that Social Democracy is "just" capitalism with a welfare state. If your objective is to criticize it then fair enough, but that's like saying that "libertarianism is when pedophilia"; it is not exactly a useful description of the system we are talking about. Under that description even the United States would count as a social democracy, seeing as though most of us are rightly dissatisfied with it, it does still spend most of its budget on social welfare (it is the discretionary budget that is hugely for war, but we would be talking about the total budget here). It's not very intuitive because Social Democrats were literally reformist Marxists during their glory days, and merely viewed capitalism as a necessary evil to be transitioned away from while productive forces developed, and as such would steer the ship towards an eventual socialism while in the meantime using the state to sort of "force trickle down economics" (my attempt at explaining) rather than just hoping it would happen by itself, like the neolibs advocated for. Looking up social democracy in wikipedia will clearly show its socialist history, but in the end social democratic parties ended up being up being infiltrated and subsumed by "third way" social democrats, which are the "nicer capitalism" style of SocDems that most leftists are familiar with nowadays. So when people say "Norway isn't socialist; it's capitalist", while it is clearly technically correct, it is also a *massive* lie of omission that cedes way too much credit to capitalism, because the reason that Scandinavia is so successful nowadays is literally because they were ruled for (idk like) 40 years by Social Democratic parties that really were operated by Marxists. They used Marx and typical communist imagery like hammers and red banners in their political material. I would highly encourage everyone to read about Olof Palme to see what kind of politician Social Democratic parties used to be led by. Even Lenin himself at one point was a Social Democrat, because at the time social democracy was a communist thing. He clearly opted for less reformist methods later in life obviously. So nowadays while it is true that most social democratic parties and leaders are capitalists; their *legacy and achievements* at the heights of their power were made by Socialists. A lot of the constituencies of these parties are still composed of people that are socialistic in nature, and the spirit of the original point of social democracy lives on in the people that now call themselves "Democratic Socialists" which for our purposes here is basically just a modern rebrand of the old Social Democrats. Now clearly, there are criticisms to be had of them and I don't think you need my help there. My point is, the great legacy of social democracy should not be so readily ceded to capitalists. The reason people in a lot of the "first world" enjoy so many of the benefits we look towards implementing in the rest of the world today is because they were achieved by Social(ist) Democrats through either as direct rule or as compromise by capitalists. If the old SocDems were like the modern SocDems, then Scandinavia would not be a model that people would seek to emulate, they would most likely just be an even shittier version of the United States. The Norwegian government owns the majority of their stock market, owns their oil, and uses the profits from selling that oil to fund the biggest public wealth fund in the world (over a *trillion* dollars) that is then used to fund things like public pensions. This is *not* something capitalists would ever do, which is why you don't see anything like this in any country that didn't have a strong socialist influence in governance for decades.

[@venusianblivet9518]

Not all forms of market socialism advocate for a free market system, though some do

[@aprescoup]

@@superpancakeman8227 "My point is, the great legacy of social democracy should not be so readily ceded to capitalists" The "great legacy" of social democracy is post modernism of the Schwabian "you'll own nothing and be happy" sort, currently popular and residing inside say the German "Traffic Light" coalition, Olaf Scholtz on top. The question you should ask yourself is whether so little as Scandinavian "SocDem" has moved leftward towards socialism/communism or rightward towards capitalist rentier neo-feudalism since its post WWII heydays. And so, if the later is true then your entire comment is bunk.

[@calebeyl141]

I think a good start would be giving ownership corporations to the workers.

[@ivanfinley2510]

Social Democracy < Market Socialism < Based Socialism. Long Live Socialism

[@ItsAllCulturalMarxism]

Socialism for thee not for me. Guaranteed

[@25taylorkw]

Based on the research the best economic performed countries with the highest average income and the lowest poverty rates are countries that have a capitalist market economy with at least the bare minimum amount of common sense regulations while using the tax dollars from private businesses and private individuals to fund a strong social safety net. To be specific on the strong social safety nets, logically the US would only need three social safety net programs. The first social safety net program could be either a basic livable income system or a more expanded Earned Income Tax Credit where the safety net program is only available to people in poverty to provide a livable income ( or something close to a livable income ), but the people in poverty would have to have a job and work in order to receive the basic livable income / Earned Income Tax Credit. The second social safety net program would be a reconstructed Social Security program where senior citizens and people that have disabilities would receive a monthly livable income unconditionally. I don't think I need to say anything more about that. The third social safety net program would be a public health insurance program that would give universal health coverage for every citizen in the US to cover a decent amount of basic healthcare needs. This universal healthcare system could be a single-payer health insurance form of universal healthcare like what Canada and Taiwan has, or this universal healthcare system would be more like a two-tier form of universal healthcare system like what Australia and Singapore has.

[@ivanfinley2510]

@@ItsAllCulturalMarxism Can we just agree that the destruction of the bourgeoisie and worker control are central matters of paramount importance?

[@ItsAllCulturalMarxism]

@@ivanfinley2510 No. I read the history of where these ideas have taken place. Want no part of it. Some examples USSR, China, Cambodia, Cuba and Venezuela to name a few. Mass killings/starvation of millions of ppl and internment camps... No thank you.

[@Drkon6]

@@ItsAllCulturalMarxism I actually want to live in the society I advocate for, so no, socialism for me too.

[@infinitedonuts]

Market socialism is the GOAT 🐐 💪

[@aprescoup]

As long as you ignore profit and competition....the essential drivers of mindless capitalism.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

Market socialism is an oxymoron.

[@AndrewLaReal]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 you know markets aren't exclusive to capitalism right ?

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

​@@AndrewLaReal You do know that markets lead to the inevitable extreme concentration of wealth, right? Once someone has the control of the wealth it is just a matter of time before they make the rules of governance.

[@AndrewLaReal]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 that's kind of the point. Cooperatives reduce the possibility of that

[@katharinavonheydekampf]

love both of you. that's some solid information for people who genuinely wanna understand

[@MutualistSoc]

Clearly many people in the comments don't understand Market Socialism and where it's worked.

[@alexandercaruso2889]

Where is our boy Vaush???

[@anzumazaki7798]

Vowsh rad

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

Probably j*rking off to *Ukraine Claimed 200 square feet of territory!* headlines or wasting his time debating the 10,000th neo-fash libertarian who licks corporate boots that he'll debate this year 🙄 Really starting to get the feeling that Vaush is practically required to waste his time on streams because his core audience are unable to process new information, & viewer counts must drop significantly if he doesn't engage using 3-4 of the same exact topics constantly.

[@Inquiringmind0]

Uugghh. One of the most repulsive people I have ever encountered.

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

@@Inquiringmind0I can't imagine encountering him would be anything but awkward, he doesn't strike me as the type of person who would know exactly how to react to being approached in public by a parasocial.

[@Chris47368]

@@Inquiringmind0 he is maybe one of the more hated figures by even within the left - I still love watching his content!

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

Richard Wolff uses Mondragon corporation collection of coops that compete in market capitalism and has done so for decades

[@bbrahbboul2748]

Private ownership of means of production should be totally eliminated except of course personal property like real estate homes cars and so on , but also no state ownership at all with some exceptions . Everything should be owned by the labor. And ther many ways to do it coopups , unions, collectivism, and nonprofit organizations.and even churches And so on .

[@donaldf.switlick3690]

Capitalism in the mass-production of goods; Socialism in social services and utilities.

[@Ianpact]

Thank you, Vivek Chibber, Krystal and Kyle.

[@taikamiya8214]

"The gap in wealth between labor and capital is much less under social democracy" Not true... capitalists in social democracies export labor to the global south and extract wealth from there. Capitalism requires an oppressed underclass to sustain itself, and therefore countries like Denmark sustains itself by exporting that underclass to the global south. There's a reason why Denmark exports 90% of it's economy, compared to the USA at 12%. The USA keeps it's oppressed underclass at home.

[@Khalkara]

You didn't refute the quote. There can still be an underclass at home in Denmark, but the wealth gap between a Danish worker and a Danish owner is lesser than the gap between a Danish owner and a Chinese worker.

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

Yeah, socdems always forget to mention this fact -- a fact that makes Bernie simps & AOC stans lash out violently & call you a "closet republican" when you mention it. Like, yeah, I'm a Republican -- if you mean an Irish Socialist Republican 😂

[@peterroberts4415]

Some jobs are not worth as much as others. Hopefully more of these jobs get automated and we continue to do more efficient jobs

[@MartianManHunter7]

@@Khalkara A alot of these Nordic states actually have the most inequality.

[@trappedinamerica7740]

@@MartianManHunter7 oh you are trying to say because they have more billionaires they have more inequality but inequality isn’t simply the difference in one’s bank account to another’s. It also has to do with how difficult it is to obtain necessities such as food, housing and medical care and all those things are more difficult to obtain and hold on to in the United States than those countries

[@patrickomalley575]

Great vid. Keep this content up

[@markuspfeifer8473]

You’re discussing planning in an outright ridiculous manner. First of all, „Soviet style central planning“ was merely some dirigism directed at capitalist corporations ever since the „new economic policies“. It’s similar to what the Chinese do or what western countries are doing when they tell car corporations that they can’t produce fossile fuel based cars anymore in a few years. It’s by far not as scary and different than you make it sound (buying into corporate talking points). That being said, communists actually do want to achieve a moneyless society, which raises the question how to organize the economy if not through a market. This will of course involve planning mechanisms - just like corporations are planning right now without anyone complaining. The important questions are: 1. what is being planned? And 2. who is doing the planning? For the first question, we have to distinguish between goods of which you have an abundance and scarce goods. Planning the production and distribution of abundant goods is almost trivial: have the distribution points order as much as they expect to be picked up by people - just like we’re doing now. Since there’s an abundance, the producers don’t have to prioritize orders in any way and can just deliver in the order the orders were received. When it comes to scarce goods, one should distribute by need. A working example of this is health care in many European countries, where minor injuries have to wait, while people with life threatening injuries go first. I don’t see any reason why we should distribute anything by any other standard (e.g. „merit“ which is a bullshit concept, and if you’re worried if people would still show up for work if it’s all the same, keep in mind that in a society without poverty [which all on the left should aim for, even moderate soc dems], the primary incentive for people to work is actually social recognition and meaning). So the question becomes: who determines how much I need a new smart phone or computer? Which is exactly question 2! To me, the only legitimate format for that would be elected people representing both the producers and the customers. Money should be taken out of the equation, because otherwise, we end up with the capitalist answer „those who are willing to pay Mist have the biggest need“ (which is bs). To me, it would be important to have those elections as fine grained as possible. If you vote a single parliament that decides on everything, you end up having to compare apples to oranges: x are better on ecological regulations, y are better on foreign relations, z are best when it comes to infrastructure planning and so on. Whoever you vote, you’ll end up with people who are competent on very few things and have no idea about anything else. It would be far better if the people could appoint whoever we find competent to each major topic where we need planning and regulations. Those councils would be complemented by mass organizations that any group of people can freely form as long as they have internal democracy. We have organizations like this now, but I imagine their character would change if money and power were taken out of the equation.

[@genreartwithjb5095]

Market Socialism all day every day. Capitalism has stayed past its expiration date.

[@liamcdm3689]

Don't think I've ever clicked so fast on a YT video before 😅😅

[@godonlyknows13]

omg same haha

[@alisherafat9126]

Kyle. I hope you would talk about situation in Iran

[@mohamedMustafa-yn4uc]

I hope they can overthrow the whole theocratic system completely.

[@FazeParticles]

@@mohamedMustafa-yn4uc And reinstate the Shah. No democracy for them please.

[@ZachTheRantingGuy]

Social democracy for the win! Long live the Nordic countries and the Nordic model. Saying this as a lefty American from Massachusetts USA.

[@Corvaire]

Professor knows his stuff. Kudo's finding this guest. ;O)-

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

not really. socialism is unstable. market socialism is an oxymoron.

[@anshuraj4277]

Market economy is only way to organize society

[@christophersnedeker]

Ancient bronze age societies were mainly top down economies.

[@mikestaub]

I think we might be able to keep the capitalist system intact as is with a "minimum equity" law that forces C-corps to allocate X% of the firm to employees. Just make everyone a capitalist, as the main social issues arise when corporations can drive wages down and asset prices higher via Fed policy.

[@AmericanJobsFactory]

I think the people just need to be represented on the board of directors as represented owners.

[@connorpeppermint8635]

Is this like the 49.9% "ownership" that truck companies do?

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

On what grounds do you demand to be represented?

[@AmericanJobsFactory]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 On the grounds of having ownership in the company. Employees should be represented as a partner in business.

[@AmericanJobsFactory]

@@connorpeppermint8635 I was thinking more like at least 25% that shows their intrests and being represented. That would be real collective bargening.

[@christophersnedeker]

No reason we can't do both.

[@jaybee9269]

“They weren’t total disasters.” High praise, indeed.

[@gregscott989]

The problem with cooperative ownership is that it can take forever to get anything done. For example....did you ever sit on a church committee? And very often the consensus is a very inefficient solution that can waste enormous amounts of money on consultants. Yet authoritarians can do exactly the same thing... I don't really know the answer.

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

A church committee isn’t a workplace. Studies show efficiency in worker coops. Look up Italy’s Emilia-Romagna

[@bombocrusty4251]

​@@blackflagsnroses6013 yeah I feel like when people throw out hypotheticals about how "nothing would get done!" or "the workers would just increase their wage by 100000000000% and they would go bankrupt" they forget co-ops are a real thing that exist right now in fairness we have yet to see an economy run entirely on worker co-ops that aren't entirely beholden to the government, so that could be different, but I have yet to see a convincing argument as to *why* it would be different outside of folksy "common sense" arguments

[@conmereth]

I couldn't help but notice this exact argument could be used against the idea of democracy in general. Why waste time with elections and debates when you could have one person at the top making all those decisions for us? Most people don't think about it this way but cooperative ownership represents an extention of democracy into the workplace while private ownership is simply workplace authoritarianism. With that in mind if we want democracy rather than authoritarianism at the highest level of society, the government, then why wouldn't we want democracy in our everyday lives at the workplace? If we accept authoritarianism in our everyday lives then what does that say about our commitment to democracy?

[@bombocrusty4251]

@@conmereth also a very good point

[@dbzguru32]

And Trump supporters genuinely think neoliberalism is further left than either of these two.

[@Acanthophis]

Trump supporters genuinely think?!

[@aprescoup]

No they don't. Democrats tho, given that all of them - proudly leftist - are gung-ho on board of neoliberalism, with a neoconservative foreign policy twist, must think that.

[@aprescoup]

@@Acanthophis About as much as partisan Obama(bots) and Bernie(bro) supporters. Glad to have helped. ;)

[@anti-classist]

Market socialism is just socialism... People acting like socialism would have no market is ignorant as fuck... State socialism even had markets...

[@4brigger]

not that I'm complaining but does Krystal's fashion sense have like, any chill? lol

[@iwontgiveyoumyinformation8895]

that was a good teaser! im gonna listen to the whole thing now

[@AllHaiLKINGTIsHeRe3]

The biggest "tripwire" for market socialism is the market aspect. Imagine a co-op that manufactures weapons. Their inherent interest is to make profits, so they now have an incentive to lobby for war. That's no different than capitalism. A co-op pharmaceutical company still has an incentive to drive up prices and avoid regulation. Yes, their workers in theory would not be exploited, but it still has all the problems of a capitalist market economy and it's still not sustainable. Centrally-planned economies were very successful despite the conventional wisdom that these people regurgitate. The Soviet Union went from one of the poorest countries on Earth to a major superpower, doubling the life expectancy, inventing the space industry, fastest industrialization in history, etc. Show me any capitalist or "social market anarcho-co-op whatever" that has achieved anything on that level. People just lie about this stuff and it's so sad.

[@christophersnedeker]

I agree but I think market socialism would be a good transition stage.

[@Matt_of_the_mountains]

What about the Mondragon Co-op in Spain? World's largest worker co-op with its own university and has been holding off capitalism since 1959.

[@interestedperson7073]

Mondragon has, unfortunately, had to resort to capitalist practices via having two tiers of workers. Worker/owners who get all the benefits we know and love about Mondragon and just workers who are the traditional proletariat.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@interestedperson7073 like the citizens of Rome and the slaves of Rome.

[@flaviusaetius5701]

Basically Cuba vs Finland

[@sevagh4872]

at 10:00 I think the professor is speaking for his generation, but Gen z would be much less resistant to expressing their preferences for sex toys or other 'taboo' things in a planned economy. For us, it's much more normalized, and by the time we're in power, we will be able to see a shift towards social democracy or market socialism, where self-expression is key

[@tonioshea9870]

Cutest couple. Great content.

[@KanderUdon]

What an interesting topic!

[@r8chlletters]

Please add the name of guests in the title…

[@Rob_Cary]

All you have to do to promote social democracy in a positive light is simply describe what it is. Imagine the people that do all the work in the country being the moneymakers instead of the slobs watching from their offices. Wild!

[@captainpawpawchannel]

This is not the definition of social democracy, social democracy is moderate capitalism, and it is stll capitalism, while socialism is ownership of the means of production (which you're talking about), everybody should want socialism, even right wing, it makes much more sense than capitalism, but mass media will always demonize socialism.

[@nikita-dh5je]

I always thought that Bernie Sanders should have labeled himself as a Social Democrat, not a Democratic Socialist. He is not really a socialist, and it hurt him politically, he is not Stalin or Castro, just FDR.

[@markzuckergecko621]

@@captainpawpawchannel could be that whole mass genocide thing that socialism always causes. That kinda turns people off.

[@captainpawpawchannel]

@@markzuckergecko621 what genocide are you talking about? Nazis were not socialists. And USSR or China neither: there were authoritarian regimes and state economies, whereas socialism is democracy and shared ownership of the means of production by cooperatives and public services. The only socialist thing of USSR were the public services, but do you know that all the western countries have public services (and also cooperatives)? Yes, big news, we rare partially living in socialism and it works (much better than capitalism)

[@MartianManHunter7]

@@captainpawpawchannel The workers don't own the means of production, but it's the state that owns it in a socialist state.

[@edwardanderson1053]

Benign anarchist mutualism is the freest economic system, similar to indigenous tribal economies, centralization leads to oligarchs and dictators in almost every case.

[@peterroberts4415]

A weak system creates a power vacuum that would allow strong militaries to take over. You'd all be speaking Chinese if you adopted that model. Anarchism can't work for that reason

[@johnnylopan4085]

Dictatorship is literally a democratic position.

[@mohammedraheef1415]

You show me a failed communist nation and I’ll show you colonial oppression and sanction and imperialism

[@synchronium24]

So you admit the Soviet Union was communist?

[@Drkon6]

@@synchronium24 It was a variant of state socialism, not communism. Communism hasn't existed ever, socialism has.

[@markzuckergecko621]

It's always someone else's fault when socialism fails.

[@gottagowork]

​@@Drkon6 Well, some argue that communism existed in North America. Then white men appeared. But yeah, human greed will always be in the way of getting to that communist Utopia.

[@chrishakala528]

@@Drkon6 Technically, communism has existed, but only in small hunter gatherer societies. Communism falls apart once the population is large enough that it needs some kind of resource distribution system.

[@FeralWorker]

Democratic planning completely missing from this conversation.

[@VossH2O]

Isn't the definition of what market socialism is from the guest pretty much what China does?

[@venusianblivet9518]

China has a class based economy where the majority of workers have no say in how their workplace is run, it’s not market socialism because it’s not socialism

[@jeffsmith9420]

A C+ analysis at best which ignores describing the underlying economic structures that actually dictate the economy.

[@mikebailey1284]

Corporate democracy vs social democracy , sounds more direct

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

There are many ways to this. From coops to employee stock ownership

[@CjExpendable27]

Side note: Krystal looks amazing holy cow

[@charlottehammond8975]

Yes. Bonus points: no shoulders are showing so i can send this to my mother without enduring the "journalism is not a night club" rant. winning

[@bbjj3805]

Biggest trip wire is brain drain

[@kvalvagnes]

To think marked socialism is going to work is just nonsense. Social democracy works now very well - can be adjusted more or less - but the voters are in control.

[@habl844]

The voters would have more control under democratic variants of market socialism

[@TheAnticorporatist]

It’s probably a good thing that I’m not friends with Krystal and Kyle IRL; I’d be too tempted to get them 1 set of awesome, fluffy towels in a neutral color monogrammed “KK” and just see what happens.

[@kdot9929]

Krystal Ball you have a Econ degree? Did you simply listen to your professor and just go through your classes like a good girl you never challenged or got in a yelling match with your professors about different Market systems? You’re 40 why’s this a conversation now?

[@jamesgreene8076]

Compassionate capitalism

[@MidwestBen101]

what’s the professors name?

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

The way to start is not only converting (a lot of) transport, housing, education and health care out of for profit status but also *legitimizing* coops and employee ownership. Make the latter preferred in law and taxes.

[@craigbrowning9448]

Who is being interviewed here?

[@TheLuiscelaya]

Guys, you’re talking about the wrong thing. It’s all about MAGACommunism now

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

Ah, yes, MAGA Communism, where corporations still own everything & minorities are still oppressed & workers still eat $hit & die. How does it differ from capitalism exactly? 😆

[@gottagowork]

Huh? MAGA is fascist, not communist. Wtf?

[@Yellowgary]

Market socialism was debunked by Ludwig von mises literally nearly 100 years ago. Social democracy

[@uncomfortabletruth3831]

Not that anyone will care but I don’t see how any market socialist system could ever be implemented. Who would either decide when to invest capital in something or not? What limits production and consumption? And if I do all the work starting a company, does this mean I can’t expand it or I have to give up an equal stake to anyone I hire? Also how do you convince people who now have stocks to share than with the general public and how would you get the 3/4 vote to ratify the constitution and amend the 4th? You guys who are for socialism are dreamers. I am sorry and I admit fully I went down your rabbit hole, suggest you stick with social democracy and hope people start to See the discord-stractuon.

[@Inquiringmind0]

We can experiment with different combinations. We can nationalize 65-70% of large industry, big pharma, big tech, energy sector etc. We can have central planing with a market sector, some of which will be small private businesses and large companies run as democratic co-ops. The government would be a democracy where we vote on direct initiatives and our representatives in the party implement those as laws. We would have a cap on income (maximum income/wealth) say at about $15 million. This would significantly reduce income inequality, and prevent a small group of people from having too much power to influence our government. We would eliminate poverty by providing housing to everyone, snap benefits (food card) to everyone, so that everyone would have a minimum allowance for food. We would implement a Universal Basic Dividend. Unlike UBI which is based on taxing the working class, UBD would be based on a collective ownership of resources. Everyone would get a monthly dividend because they would have a share in our nations wealth. This would give everyone true freedom and the ability to pursue happiness. There would be a federal jobs guarantee where everyone would have a job with a living wage if they want one. Lastly we would have to move away from imperialism. Imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism. You can't be a socialist without being an anti-imperialist. This system would be an American 21st century style socialism. Based on American values of freedom of speech, freedom to privacy etc. It would still fundamentally be based on the Bill of Rights and the constitution. Socialism with American characteristics. It can work. It can be done. We just have to have the will to organize the working class to overthrow the corporate state and we will get it done. Are we so devoid of imagination that we can't imagine doing better than free market capitalism? Food for thought.

[@rgzhaffie]

Always great hearing from Vivek Chibber!

[@adamcornell1186]

I support market socialism in the short term, but I think eventually the transition to some sort of planned economy is needed to truly end the real problem which is profit at all costs. Compared to the old Soviet model we have many more technologies today that can help a planned economy be far more responsive to people's wants and needs.

[@programking655]

There is no form of planned economy that can work, you need prices and markets in order to achieve an efficient allocation of resources. This is basic economics.

[@ganaed9954]

Get him

[@blackflagsnroses6013]

“Under the law of association, transmission of wealth does not apply to the instruments of labour, so cannot become a cause of inequality. [...] We are socialists [...] under universal association, ownership of the land and of the instruments of labour is social ownership. [...] We want the mines, canals, railways handed over to democratically organised workers' associations. [...] We want these associations to be models for agriculture, industry and trade, the pioneering core of that vast federation of companies and societies, joined together in the common bond of the democratic and social Republic.” - Pierre J Proudhon “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.” - John Stuart Mill

[@spectrephantom607]

Vaush should have been in convo

[@docsmith9915]

Look at Solvay in Europe!!

[@BlueDirt_ProAggressive]

Is that most of the list? Housing, highways, utilities, healthcare, Media??? prisons, war. How much should govt control of these? Own the bldgs, make the workers gov employees, both ?? Is there a greater good qualifier that govt should control it with, or set the standards that industry must follow.

[@semperterra3235]

I think that America's Capitalist model is so firmly entrenched that it will be very hard to introduce any innovations regardless of how modest they are, and change will only happen when it is unavoidable, if it happens at all.

[@burninghard]

Absolutely. When you see how everbody on the right reacts to Bidens milquetoast policy approaches to doing anything remotely changing the status quo it´s pretty hard to still have hope in change.

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

That's what Lenin thought, too. Both for the U.S. & for Russia. He was right. Of course the people of Russia didn't have a digital surveillance state & a globe-spanning military with laser satellites & nuclear f*cking missiles to deal with, or police with automatic rifles & RPGs & tanks. They had the smallest scale versions of those things, & they dealt with them with pitchforks & lever action rifles & clubs & torches. The people of the United States aren't just going to have to fight the police & the military to begin midwifing socialism into the nation, they're going to be fighting *each other* as well because so many have been brainwashed to defend a status quo that doesn't benefit them. We have so many conservative bootlickers & white supremacists here 😑

[@markzuckergecko621]

It's almost like people like living in the most prosperous nation in the history of civilization.

[@burninghard]

@@markzuckergecko621 Prosperous for who?

[@et734]

I disagree with the part against Co-Ops: he doesn’t consider the transformation that IS worker democracy

[@BPJonida]

Coming from a Eastern European country and having first hand experience in former Yugoslavia, this sounds terrifying

[@jamiedoe6822]

They can’t idiot proof the discussion for you.

[@tomcruisenukedmyaccount5388]

Facts! Never trust the far left. "Socialism" is not necessary (automation may change that). It's a power grab by a creepy, talky political cult.

[@johnnylopan4085]

And yet most people that lived through the Soviet union want to return to it.

[@firstwavenegativity6379]

@@johnnylopan4085 In Russia, where living conditions didn't improve after the fall of the USSR, that's true. In all the other former countries of the Soviet Union though, not so much

[@johnnylopan4085]

@@firstwavenegativity6379 People in the Ukraine and Crimea disagree. Chechnya disagree

[@hudson2441]

With modern computer modeling you could probably design a working centrally planned economy with an accurate production.

[@Ryan-093]

AI isn't just taking jobs, it's now planning the whole economy. Humans are literally obsolete. 😐

[@Ar1AnX1x]

I'm sure a lot of people don't even know there's such a thing as 'market socialism' I mean I didn't know until like 6 months ago, people should read Marx's work, he was an economist and a philosopher and a sociologist, man was a genius, the ultimate goal of socialism is true freedom, a society can never be truly free unless the wealth is redistributed fairly and people have the money to be free.

[@ItsAllCulturalMarxism]

Problem with Socialism is human nature

[@supersaiyanzero386]

​@@ItsAllCulturalMarxism problem with education is people who don't understand pre Neolithic revolution behavior and where all of our aberrant behaviors started and why. you are a fool.

[@chairdolfsitler8673]

@@ItsAllCulturalMarxism I would argue that our “human nature” has been shaped by the economic system we live in. If you look at ancient societies humans naturally banded together in order to benefit each other. You should read ‘Why Socialism’ by Albert Einstein he basically debunks the human nature argument

[@Matthew.E.Kelly.]

@@ItsAllCulturalMarxismI've read that 1,000,000 times written by 1,000,000 different people & still cannot make it make sense. "Human nature" is not a fixed condition. "Human nature" is not a monolith. "Human nature" is different everywhere you go because material conditions are different everywhere, according to environment & climate & infrastructure & social conditioning & too many other factors to count. Material conditions over-ride both instinct & desire, & human _will_ is capable of over-riding all three. "The problem with socialism is human nature" means *nothing* because every single individual human is different from the next & every single collective gathering of humans is different from every other one. Stop trying to be Jordan Peterson.

[@Khalkara]

@@ItsAllCulturalMarxism There is nothing about human nature that conflicts with socialism. Every person who thinks "human nature" is a stone wall counter-point is a dumbf*ck.

[@apratimdas7652]

Market socialism doesn't answer question of imperialism which is the Highest form of capitalism

[@Inquiringmind0]

Can't be a socialist without being an anti-imperialist.

[@maxricemusic656]

Yup this convo is silly without mentioning internationalism. Confining the solutions to our problems in the nation state is non-sense.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Best reason not to have a command economy, inefficiency in distributing sex toys.

[@adamcornell1186]

I am 100% pro state produced Karl Marx body pillows.

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

socialism is unstable. market socialism is an oxymoron.

[@adamcornell1186]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 if socialism is unstable, capitalism is in a loony bin with a straight jacket.

[@firstwavenegativity6379]

And in distributing everything else, but that especially

[@burninghard]

First thing you would need to socialize is energy production. Otherwise we are fucked and that normally leads to fascism anyways.

[@Ford8484]

Is there any updates on trump selling top secret nuclear codes ?

[@patrickmenard5940]

How do you have this conversation without mentioning China or Vietnam even once? They are the closest to market socialism we have now and they are thriving compared to peer nations.

[@charisma-hornum-fries]

I thought Vietnam was communist

[@patrickmenard5940]

@@charisma-hornum-fries Vietnam is led by the communist party so it is easier to call them a communist country as shorthand, but they themselves say they haven’t even achieved socialism yet. They decided to open up to capital so they could escape sanctions but they maintained firm control of the land and natural resources, and have numerous protections for their citizens. Socialism is a process that takes time especially when the capitalist west is so trigger happy with sanctions and interventions. If you want to know more about Vietnam I highly recommend you check out Luna Oi’s channel.

[@user-wl2xl5hm7k]

Can all in left-YT please start educating people about both: (1) the difference between right-authoritarian vs. right-libertarian; & (2) the difference between left-authoritarian vs left-libertarian? It’s long overdue. People aren’t cattle or sheep: They will understand if we educate them. Though we need to educate (& learn) about all the nuance.

[@connorpeppermint8635]

Can you stop copying and pasting this it's so fking lazy

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

People are cattle or sheep

[@venusianblivet9518]

It’s bad political strategy to teach people on the left about right libertarianism, what if they start to agree with it?

[@JMANE187]

@@venusianblivet9518 so? Nothing wrong with it maybe there are some great ideas the world is divided between left and right its better to unite not take out your enemy, make the world a better place for all

[@venusianblivet9518]

@@JMANE187 Maybe there are, it’s just the people who already have marketed themselves as one side or the other likely won’t be the ones to explore those ideas

[@ped200014]

Take the wealth of the top 100 billionaires and their tax burden and spread it out over 40 years to all the population. About 3.5 trillion dollars. That equals about $8,500 per person after taxes, over 4 decades of working. $212 a year to every worker.

[@bananaman1069]

Great vid

[@issaciams]

Kyle looked so uncomfortable during that sex toy joke. 😆

[@5aed]

Kyle I think it's time to discuss the protest in Iran. #suggestion

[@jimmyfall9302]

Why? We need to fix our own issues before worrying about you guys. Sorry.

[@5aed]

@@jimmyfall9302 Sorry to bother!

[@princejellyfish3945]

@@jimmyfall9302 not enough space in your brain to even acknowledge it?

[@firstwavenegativity6379]

@@jimmyfall9302 Because global cooperation is the name of the game these days, you can try to resist it all you want, but you're just fighting against the tide

[@benruby5269]

Not saying everything currently is perfect but isn't GDP and tax revenue very important for nations staying strong so for one, they can protect themselves and weaker nations from psychopath leaders of other nations? Way I look at it whatever leads to higher tax revenue will allow more funds for programs that help people while still being able to afford important things like military superiority. Oh and a higher tax rate doesn't necessarily mean higher tax revenue. Anyone who doesn't understand this would do well for the world to learn why this is fact.

[@KKMcK1]

As they said in "Jaws" when dealing with the giant shark: "We're gonna need a bigger boat!"

[@pedrogouveia5630]

Obvious opinion. “What are the examples of best market socialism systems ? Professor: Ahh .. Jugoslavia 😂😂. “ Literally running from the obvious good examples as Scandinavian countries and then saying nobody is absolutely right of any system, unless if it is a capitalism system. Why nobody accepts there’s good examples of market socialism countries ?

[@christianbarrett3040]

Wish they would have discussed how any attempt at socialism has been met with capitalist violence and sabotage. Also a failure to address that by maintaining markets under market socialism, you are keeping some of the worst aspects of capitalism including a profit motive, the win lose nature of competition and the tendency for monopoly, waste of resources through parallel development, etc etc. He did partially touch on the idea of self oppression as a result of markets, but it hardly encompasses everything.

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

Can you help me understand how a worker coop would be a monopoly?

[@christianbarrett3040]

@@encouraginglyauthentic43 First we need to make something clear, monopoly under a market system is different from monopoly under a socialist or communist system. The main difference here is the profit motive which is the basis of the competition which eventually leads to monopoly. When you compete based on profits you only have a few moves you can make to increase profits, these moves are reducing cost of labor through lay offs, wage reduction, or benefit reduction;, increasing prices to increase the profit margin, and finding another method of cost cutting such as improper disposal of waste so long as the fines are cheaper than the cost of proper disposal. Under a socialist or communist system, not counting niche variants like market socialism that maintain markets, the profit motive is not a driving force but instead need is. As such you don't suffer the negative aspects of the competition. With this in mind a coop still functions under markets and as such is still subject to the competitions that give birth to monopolies and the profit motive that is the basis for which these competitions are judged. The very nature of a competition means that there will be a winner and a loser, and under capitalism the winner takes from the loser resulting in growth for the winner. Eventually that winner becomes too large to lose and you end up with a monopoly.

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

@@christianbarrett3040 I see, but couldn't coops cooperate with each other? One could potentially switch the goods they create to work with the other.

[@christianbarrett3040]

@@encouraginglyauthentic43 not exactly. Co-ops are just a way of trying to run a business with socialist principles in a capitalist system. What you are describing is more akin to full seizure of the means of production and the democratic control of economic systems, ie full socialism or communism. A socialist system, outside of something like market socialism, would not waste resources on competition and instead operates the means of production in accordance with democratic will.

[@encouraginglyauthentic43]

@@christianbarrett3040 Seizure of the means of production is not socialism, that is authoritarianism. A worker coop can only be capitalist, if they higher employees who can't be members. Market socialism is a type of socialism, so excluding it out of the conversation doesn't open up discussion.

[@seculair2996]

Remember Kyle said: You are objectively wrong if you like fall and you should be ashamed of yourself.

[@sjrm]

Love that point! Golden content from Kyle! 🤣🤣🤣

[@henryburton6529]

I have this exact debate in my mind. I’d like to see market socialism tried in practice first. Never gonna happen

[@GhostOnTheHalfShell]

I would search on Richard Wolff and Mondragon corporation which is an alliance of coops. It’s been in business for decades competing successfully in the larger capitalist environment

[@avinashtyagi2]

Publix bish

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

socialism is unstable. market socialism is an oxymoron.

[@avinashtyagi2]

@@reasonerenlightened2456 Neither statement is accurate

[@reasonerenlightened2456]

@@avinashtyagi2 If you believe that then you have some catching up to do.

[@deeznutz7064]

So market socialism is basically communism with a stock market and none of the leninists central planning. Interesting. I like social democracy better because worker cooperatives and private corporations will only be on their best behavior when they're competing with each other

[@Ryan-093]

Central planning is basically an obsolete way of thinking at this point. It is simply not necessary to produce the desired outcomes for workers and the economy. There are other options that also have much fewer risks too. At this point, corporations not owned by the state are always going to exist in the world from now on. We just have to decide in what form they are going to exist and how power is split among owners, workers, and government. I would like to see more happening in the direction of direct worker power, because we have mountains of evidence that owners and politicians are the literally the worst people.

[@fidgeysrii4888]

BASED