by Summary:
Socialism vs Capitalism
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Socialism vs Capitalism
Topics:
Steve Keen considers the following as important:
This could be interesting, too:
Robert Vienneau writes Another Hayekian Triangle Not Supporting The Austrian School
Joel Eissenberg writes Access to medical care: right or privilege?
NewDealdemocrat writes Production turns more negative
Bill Haskell writes Lawler: Early Read on Existing Home Sales in October
| Socialism vs Capitalism |
What about the democratic worker co-op form of socialism? Were the workers own and control the means of production? They would still innovate like a capitalist. But would have better equality in the workforce.
Marxism asserts that unless the means of production are owned in common by the whole working class, the different firms or factions will compete with one another and normal capitalism will re-emerge.
Notice that in real life co-ops are extremely fragile and they usually either fail or abandon many of their values. Because they still exist within the context of the market.
My knowledge of Soviet history is limited, but my understanding is that they tried a more thorough workplace democracy in the beginning, but the impending fascist invasion pushed them toward more centralized military-style control for the sake of maximum productivity.
Many socialists see co-ops as a useful step toward more mature socialism, however, as long as they are situated in a larger framework. Farm co-ops are important in China and the DPRK, and I believe Yugoslavia had many cooperative firms in its market socialist system.
"No innovation under socialism." Yikes wasn't expecting this kind of rudimentary anticommunist trope from Steve.