Can we have a civil, thoughtful discussion on this?

The standard answer tends to be "Market Socialism"....whatever that means.

I am curious as to what Kode would suggest.

 

Hayek's theories on this are essentially sensible-sounding ideas about assumptions. There is no hard, inescapable proof that I know of. And his theories were challenged by the general equilibrium theory by Dickinson and Lange.

In his day, socialism was seen as government control of the economy and carried out by centralized government managers of businesses. That failed and has been abandoned. In the new decentralized, distributed model the question of distribution will be managed very similarly to the way it is under capitalism, both of which rely on decentralized decision-making based on more local data.

 

"Market Socialism is an economic system in which the means of production are owned either by the state or by the workers in each company (meaning in general that "profits" in each company are distributed between them: profit sharing) and the production is not centrally planned but mediated through the market."

Interesting that this definition says "either by the state or by the workers in each company". If the former, then the economic calculation problem still exists. If the latter, then it essentially capitalism (means of production owned by individuals).

 

No it is not "essentially capitalism". All our discussions and you still haven't learned what makes socialism socialism? Sheeeeesh.

 

Hard proof? It is self evident truth. How is it that you know what someone in China needs? What mechanism allows for that? A vast network of individuals using pricing, Supply and Demand. Without information there is no market equilibrium.

So Market Socialism then? Can we just call that what it is - Capitalism with multiple owners?

 

If the business is owned not by the state but by private individuals, then that is capitalism. Mean of production privately owned.

 

Unless he is trying to classify what is today known as a Co-operative as Socialism?

 

In which case anyone could be a socialist if they wished. Aren't free markets and property rights cool?

 

Indeed they are!

 

Like Longshot, you show you don't know what socialism is and the difference with capitalism. All you both know is "certralized, government planning dictating to slave workers", right? That's your "socialism", right?

 

Thank you for confirming what I said: you don't know what socialism is.

 

Socialism is defined as public ownership of the means of production. That is what Socialism IS. I don't have a version of it, you don't...nobody does. It has entirely to do with who owns what...by definition.

 

-which is why there may easily be a gradual transformation from capitalism to socialism without you capitalists even knowing what's happening.

 

Now - In your so called "Market Socialism" does the public own each of these "decentralized industries"....or do the individual groups of workers?

 

More precisely, WORKER ownership and control of the means of production.

 

Public ownership of the means of production.

 

Is it though? That is still private ownership...you just made the ownership group a bit bigger.

 

So groups of workers (individuals) would share ownership of a business? They would own (have a property right) in the assets of the business? Sounds like one particular business model in a market-based economy.

 

Or smaller, as it would seem to preclude non-worker owners.

 

"Market Socialism"? Call it whatever name suits you.

In 21st century socialism the workers will own and manage everything relating to their place of work and their product. I know there are many details to work out but that is the direction it's going: Worker Self-Directed Enterprises - WSDEs.

 

So socialism is essentially a business model?

 

Lots to be worked out. Ton's of risk in business...do they all go broke together when it fails or are those costs "Socialized"? Where does the start up capital come from? If everyone is a "boss" how do you settle disputes? Do you just vote other owners off the Island and strip their equity? Do they get "golden parachutes"?

I am obviously being a bit sarcastic...but you are really just describing Capitalism and trying to "stick it to the man" by making everyone an owner.

 

Then you won't be troubled by more co-ops springing up.

 

Why didn't your OP just say that you thought people should start more co-ops? Once you bring up the S word, people tend to react negatively. However, simply saying that you think a co-op is your preferred business model, should evoke yawns.

 

But forming a worker-controlled co-op is not as simple as forming a traditional corporation, otherwise states would not have to create new laws to incentivize it. Bills have just recently been presented by the Rhode Island House and Senate to address this:

https://www.thenews.coop/116659/sec...courage-worker-co-operatives-in-rhode-island/

http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText/BillText17/HouseText17/H6001.htm

http://webserver.rilin.state.ri.us/BillText17/SenateText17/S0676.htm