6 ms·

That term is an oxymoron.

by afsina 9y ago

dbingham 9y ago
I like the term precisely because it causes that double take moment that catches people's attention. It's not actually an oxymoron when you more carefully examine it. Socialism just dictates that the workers own the product of their work. A free market socialist economy would be one in which employees owned and democratically controlled businesses and in which it was illegal to sell equity in a business (the stock market simply wouldn't exist). It could be structured as "one employee one vote" or it could be structured so you earned equity and vote over time (perhaps in proportion to your salary). Capital financing in this economy would happen through bank loans (which wouldn't confer any kind of control), crowd sourcing, and through public means. This economy isn't centrally planned. The government doesn't own the businesses, the employees do. The government doesn't dictate how they operate, the employees do, democratically. You can still start your own business, and when you're the only employee, you call the shots -- it's only when you hire your first employee that you have to start sharing decision making in some way. It's free market, because there's still a free market for goods and services. Businesses still compete in a competitive market. It's a really, really interesting idea. When you dig into it, you find all kinds of fascinating and promising potential side effects of a society and economy shaped this way. For just one example, it would incentivize innovation and the finding of efficiencies even more powerfully than a capitalistic free market -- because the worker making the innovation would ultimately own and control the business benefiting and so would directly benefit. If a worker came up with a innovation that increased efficiency, that worker would then get a voice in whether the increased efficiency was turned into more wages or more free time. That's a huge incentive. Right now, there's no guarantee that any particular employee will benefit directly from their innovations, so many aren't incentivized to really try very hard at their jobs. There are many other possible effects of a society structured like this. Among them: - People who get more practice at operating democratically and would thus get better at it. - It might discourage growth after a point - because large democracies get unwieldy fast. - It would naturally resist the concentration of wealth and power because the system would more evenly spread the profits of business. - It would encourage businesses to stay in and be more respectful of the communities they operate in because the people who are calling the shots also live in those communities. - Similarly there might be less of a need for regulation around externalities (like the environment) because the folks calling the shots are the ones living in the communities in which the businesses operate and are directly effected by the externalities. But it's also an idea that's really hard for a lot of people in our current economy and society to wrap their heads around. The idea that "Free Market Capitalism" and "Totalitarian, Centrally Planned Communism" are the only two systems available is really heavily ingrained in most people. And the concept of a business that operates democratically is totally alien to most. We're just so used to hierarchical, authoritarian businesses that it's hard for many people to even imagine it could be another way.
milcron 9y ago
The most well-known socialist economies were central command economies, it is true. But "socialism" isn't synonymous with central command. It's supposed to mean the economy is controlled by the workers, rather than by capitalists/shareholders. In the USSR, the economy was controlled by the communist party on behalf of the workers. Under democratic socialism, enterprises are democratically managed by the people who work there.
- DrScump 9y ago
  ...on behalf of the workers That is debatable.
  - milcron 9y ago
    Ha, well. That's what they said they were doing. In practice it was much more of a plutocracy.
belorn 9y ago
This will just end up being a discussion about definitions, but lets dip into it. We can define a socialism government to be one that have the goal of having social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. We can define a free market to be one in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. Thus a Free Market Socialism would be socialism which achieve social ownership and democratic control of the means of production by having a government that prevents price-setting monopolies.
- int_19h 9y ago
  What do you mean by "social ownership"? The traditional definition of socialism is that it has public ownership of the means of production (i.e. shared by society as a whole). What you describe wouldn't achieve that, because, even with market regulations that prevent monopolization, means of production would still be privately owned - there'd just be more such private owners. But the basics of private ownership of the means of production - the ability to extract economic rent from them - wouldn't change, and that basic ability is what defines capitalism.
- afsina 9y ago
  Free markets allow monopolies. Actually it is the dream of all producers, but in practice they cannot live long. Reason there are monopolies or very high barriers to enter some industries is the state granted rights (eg. IP rights), regulations and restrictions. Also you are avoiding the actual "social" side of the Socialism. In Socialism, there is always a forced redistribution mechanism in the name of "exploitation of the labor class". Which makes the "free market" impossible.
  - belorn 9y ago
    monopolies and a free market is a oxymoron because at that point the monopoly has become a authority that intervene in the forces of supply and demand. Such authority can exist without government, and given enough capital and positioning it can be very stable. In history we can find examples of companies that through pure size and weight can solely influence the forces of supply and demand, with no need to get help from governments. The state can naturally also create monopolies. patents are explicit in this, granting an entity a "limited" timed monopoly. > there is always a forced redistribution mechanism And now we enter the definition of terms. Forced redistribution is mechanism, not a goal in itself. Historically there have been governments that have tried it, through to be honest there hasn't been a country that have not had events of forced redistribution, and if the book Debt - The First 5,000 Years is correct in the historical data, the elimination of debt through violence was a recurring event that happened in all cultures. Forced redistribution happens all the time in history when the ability to repay get too impossible low compared to the amount of money being owned.

That term is an oxymoron.

by afsina 9y ago

That term is an oxymoron.

I like the term precisely because it causes that double take moment that catches people's attention. It's not actually an oxymoron when you more carefully examine it. Socialism just dictates that the workers own the product of their work. A free market socialist economy would be one in which employees owned and democratically controlled businesses and in which it was illegal to sell equity in a business (the stock market simply wouldn't exist). It could be structured as "one employee one vote" or it could be structured so you earned equity and vote over time (perhaps in proportion to your salary). Capital financing in this economy would happen through bank loans (which wouldn't confer any kind of control), crowd sourcing, and through public means. This economy isn't centrally planned. The government doesn't own the businesses, the employees do. The government doesn't dictate how they operate, the employees do, democratically. You can still start your own business, and when you're the only employee, you call the shots -- it's only when you hire your first employee that you have to start sharing decision making in some way. It's free market, because there's still a free market for goods and services. Businesses still compete in a competitive market. It's a really, really interesting idea. When you dig into it, you find all kinds of fascinating and promising potential side effects of a society and economy shaped this way. For just one example, it would incentivize innovation and the finding of efficiencies even more powerfully than a capitalistic free market -- because the worker making the innovation would ultimately own and control the business benefiting and so would directly benefit. If a worker came up with a innovation that increased efficiency, that worker would then get a voice in whether the increased efficiency was turned into more wages or more free time. That's a huge incentive. Right now, there's no guarantee that any particular employee will benefit directly from their innovations, so many aren't incentivized to really try very hard at their jobs. There are many other possible effects of a society structured like this. Among them: - People who get more practice at operating democratically and would thus get better at it. - It might discourage growth after a point - because large democracies get unwieldy fast. - It would naturally resist the concentration of wealth and power because the system would more evenly spread the profits of business. - It would encourage businesses to stay in and be more respectful of the communities they operate in because the people who are calling the shots also live in those communities. - Similarly there might be less of a need for regulation around externalities (like the environment) because the folks calling the shots are the ones living in the communities in which the businesses operate and are directly effected by the externalities. But it's also an idea that's really hard for a lot of people in our current economy and society to wrap their heads around. The idea that "Free Market Capitalism" and "Totalitarian, Centrally Planned Communism" are the only two systems available is really heavily ingrained in most people. And the concept of a business that operates democratically is totally alien to most. We're just so used to hierarchical, authoritarian businesses that it's hard for many people to even imagine it could be another way.

milcron 9y ago

The most well-known socialist economies were central command economies, it is true. But "socialism" isn't synonymous with central command. It's supposed to mean the economy is controlled by the workers, rather than by capitalists/shareholders. In the USSR, the economy was controlled by the communist party on behalf of the workers. Under democratic socialism, enterprises are democratically managed by the people who work there.

DrScump 9y ago
...on behalf of the workers That is debatable.
- milcron 9y ago
  Ha, well. That's what they said they were doing. In practice it was much more of a plutocracy.

belorn 9y ago

This will just end up being a discussion about definitions, but lets dip into it. We can define a socialism government to be one that have the goal of having social ownership and democratic control of the means of production. We can define a free market to be one in which the laws and forces of supply and demand are free from any intervention by a government, price-setting monopoly, or other authority. Thus a Free Market Socialism would be socialism which achieve social ownership and democratic control of the means of production by having a government that prevents price-setting monopolies.

int_19h 9y ago
What do you mean by "social ownership"? The traditional definition of socialism is that it has public ownership of the means of production (i.e. shared by society as a whole). What you describe wouldn't achieve that, because, even with market regulations that prevent monopolization, means of production would still be privately owned - there'd just be more such private owners. But the basics of private ownership of the means of production - the ability to extract economic rent from them - wouldn't change, and that basic ability is what defines capitalism.
afsina 9y ago
Free markets allow monopolies. Actually it is the dream of all producers, but in practice they cannot live long. Reason there are monopolies or very high barriers to enter some industries is the state granted rights (eg. IP rights), regulations and restrictions. Also you are avoiding the actual "social" side of the Socialism. In Socialism, there is always a forced redistribution mechanism in the name of "exploitation of the labor class". Which makes the "free market" impossible.
- belorn 9y ago
  monopolies and a free market is a oxymoron because at that point the monopoly has become a authority that intervene in the forces of supply and demand. Such authority can exist without government, and given enough capital and positioning it can be very stable. In history we can find examples of companies that through pure size and weight can solely influence the forces of supply and demand, with no need to get help from governments. The state can naturally also create monopolies. patents are explicit in this, granting an entity a "limited" timed monopoly. > there is always a forced redistribution mechanism And now we enter the definition of terms. Forced redistribution is mechanism, not a goal in itself. Historically there have been governments that have tried it, through to be honest there hasn't been a country that have not had events of forced redistribution, and if the book Debt - The First 5,000 Years is correct in the historical data, the elimination of debt through violence was a recurring event that happened in all cultures. Forced redistribution happens all the time in history when the ability to repay get too impossible low compared to the amount of money being owned.