<< For instance, there is no reason why the crises
envisioned by Marx could not occur under MS.
Instead of accumulation driven by individuals,
you have it driven by groups.
In the Schweickart model, new capital investment is financed by the state with funds raised from ana ssets tax (or rental fee, however you want to look at it) and distributed as grants by banks whose managers are remunerated according to the profitability of their investments. among other criteria. Capitals investment is therefore largely but not whol;ly planned. There may some crisis tendencies, but MS doesn't have to be perfect--just better than capitalism and more feasibe than central planning.
>If capital is
owned external to the enterprise, you have to
go some way to define the sort of ownership
Ownership is a bundle of rights. In the Schweickart model, workers have a right to the income produced by capital investments anda riht to alienate it, but a duty to maintain its value, because ultimate title vests in the government).
> that is implied and note the horrendous problem
of how capital is allocated and accumulated in
that setting. In this sense, "market socialism"
is a question masquerading as an answer.
>>
One to which smart people have given concentrated attention. I prefer Schweickart'[s solution; there are others.
--jks