Yet this is not true, as there is no such thing as buyers and sellers, but rather a network of traders. Today's seller is yesterday's buyer and had to negotiate to secure inputs. When inputs can not be secured by force, how can costs be externalized?
> They claim this contradicts the goal of
> "self-management," which they define as being able to participate in
> decisionmaking in roughly the proportion you're affected by it.
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participatory_economics#The_critique_of_markets>
I have seen many URLs, and have followed many of them. I am more interested in seeing somebody actually try to debate this without retreating into appeals to authority.
> (This may turn out to be empirically mistaken, but the logic seems
> reasonable to me. Also, real-world parecons may even feature so-called
> "black markets," as the society considers appropriate.)
> Personally, I expect an advanced industrial economy will require large
> amount of planning, no matter what. Ours certainly does. Therefore I
> don't expect that market economies are necessarily desirable.
No doubt planning is needed, planning and markets are not mutually exclusive. As I mentioned in a different thread, commons-based free-producers can find their equilibrium scale by interacting with the market. Capitalism, however, needs to maximize centralization and scale to facilitate the control of productive and distributive capacity and the appropriation of the product.
Once again, Capitalism is the practice of driving up the price of Capital by withholding it from labour, Socialism would make Capital available to labour at cost. Thus it is Capitalism that is undermined by markets and not Socialism.
Regards.
-- Dmytri Kleiner, robotnik Telekommunisten, Berlin.
dk at telekommunisten.net http://www.telekommunisten.net freenode/#telnik