Market Socialism Vs. Parecon 5 (Michael Albert)

A light debate/explanation between David Schweickart and Michael Albert on the topic of market socialism and participatory economics at the US Social Forum.

Category:

News & Politics

Tags:

• US
• Social
• Forum
• USSF
• 2007
• Anarchism
• Parecon
• Participatory
• Economics
• Collectivism
• Socialism
• Market
• debate
• democracy

[mellamosean]

@TheWALOS

yea, wasn't sure if some economist made up something called a socialist free market...you never know lol

[TheWALOS]

@mellamosean

That sir, is a typo. No idea why I would say such a thing. Socialism and free markets are mutually exclusive, because socialism requires some form of regulation and public directive, and a market isn't free if it's being coerced.

[mellamosean]

@TheWALOS

"I personally think that Schweickart's idea is far more practical and far more viable considering the population is educated enough to treat the SOCIALIST FREE MARKET with care. Like, minimizing externalities, boycotting institutions that are ecologically damaging, etc."

I took the term from you... but I guess socialist system or market would have worked better.

[TheWALOS]

@mellamosean

Also, what in the hell is a socialist free market?

[TheWALOS]

@phwaap

Parecon is a joke. If you eliminate market competition, technological/medical innovation slows to a crawl. What Michael is suggesting is handicapping the entire planet simply because he doesn't like capitalism.

[TheWALOS]

@mellamosean

slime*

Socialist systems tend to redistribute surplus wealth, and substantially raise the overall purchasing power of the middle class. This means that more people could afford to boycott more firms and invest their dollar-votes elsewhere. Right now, like I said, Wal-mart has an unprecedented monopoly on cheap goods, in a lot of cases, this leaves the poor and middle class virtually dependent on them.

[mellamosean]

@TheWALOS

So tell me, what is an institution or corporation or company that would be boycotted in a socialist free market that cannot be boycotted in our current system?

[TheWALOS]

@mellamosean

Personally, I think factory-farmed insects are probably the best way to go. Humans require the nutrition from animal protein, and unless we want the entire planet taking B12 supplements and eating copious amounts of green smile and algae, I think meat is here to stay. Sure, we could figure out better ways to do it, but most people simply don't have enough money to sway the market in any direction other than the one laid out. It's been that way since the 1970s.

[mellamosean]

@TheWALOS

Eating meat, especially factory farm meat, indirectly causes huge amounts of environmental damage, and of course it's very poor treatment of the animals. People could boycott factory meat if they wanted to. Nobody needs to buy meat. People give their business to companies that cause harm, despite having alternatives, all the time. Creating change demands sacrifice. Until the majority of people start choosing less harmful alternatives, I'm not convinced people care enough.

[TheWALOS]

@mellamosean

Ummm, most of the time we can't. With 80% of first world populations in the middle-class, and not having sufficient purchasing power to invest dollar-votes elsewhere, often times we're literally forced to invest in companies we know are harmful. It's called having a monopoly. Wal-mart has a monopoly on cheap goods, and as such a lot of people are utterly dependent on Wal-mart's products. The fuel industry is an oligopoly, and if we didn't invest in them the economy would die.