Herewith my comments on market socialism, as described by Justin. I'll number his substantial points and then comment on them individually and collectively (but briefly). Tahir
1. in my market socialism anyone can decide to work at any cooperative taht will have her, or for the government if she can get the job. And the conditions of production will be decided by the workers themselves under democratic self-management.
Tahir: What if no co-op will have her? Does she have the right to work there? In which case I could only imagine that the government has to step in to force the co-op to do so? Workers decide at the enterprise, oops sorry, co-op level or at the level of the society as a whole? BTW is the society as a whole a nation, or have we abolished them by that time? If the answers to some of these questions are yes, then we have something that doesn't look too different to the "state-socialist" experiments that we have already seen.
2. And so will enterprises under MS have to compete for labor.
Tahir: Why will they compete? Are they 'for profit' enterprises? BTW who sets up a co-op, oops sorry, enterprise, in the first place? Some clever individual? A group of like-minded friends? Having set it up is it they who decide who else can join? What if the government decides it doesn't like that sort of co-op, for example a co-op of prostitutes? Can they shut it down? If so why should they have that power?
3. There is no ruling class. Everyone able to work is a worker and has the same relation to the means of production. All are also owners. There are no employees (except for state employees). Some people are elected officials, but that doesn't make them a class.
Tahir: Wow it looks like all the dummies get the state jobs and the really clever ones become the 'owners'! And as for elected officials, well I guess they will just be elected from all those who couldn't grab a piece of ownership of an enterprise.
How can an owner of the means of production and a state employee have the same relation to the means of production? What on earth can relation to the means of production mean in this context?
3. In my model, everyone has a right to a job; if you can't find a place at a coop, the govt has to create a job for you; if you can't work, you get a decent subsidy or welfare payment.
Tahir: Looks rather familiar, this bit. Wonder where I've heard it before? (Scratch scratch)
4. The managers will probably be elected, if the coops decide on that form of management. I'd extend First AMendment protectiosn to the workplace--all enterprises would be technically owned by the govt anyway, so First AMendment protections would be extended even under our current law.
Tahir: Who would want to stand for election as a manager and why? Would you get more pay? Do you get a piece of the profits, or what? If not either of these, what's to stop all the most capable managers from saying thanks but no thanks? If either of these does apply, then how would you stop appropriating classes from emerging, i.e. on the part of those who've pocketed a piece of the profits? And then in this market society would there be stock exchanges and the like to invest those profits on? If not, why not?
5. Fortunately, there's no such body thathas monopoly economic power. The legfislature would decide the broad outlines of economic priorities; investment decisions would be made by a state bank, and production and managenent decisions would be made by the enterprise.
Tahir: There's been much talk about incentives leading up to this. Where are the incentives? This just looks like a giant state apparatus that decides on all economic activity. How does the individual get any sort of fulfillment out of this whole state-orchestrated work machine, in which his or her role is simply to be in a 'co-op', producing away according to state determined priorities, decisions, etc. This looks like a combination of the worst of both present capitalism and recent "state socialism".
Where does money come into all this? Can some people get a lot of it and others not? If so, how does the society not corrupt into something like we have now?