Why Socialist Market Economies?

[BayCityProgressive]

This article is pretty good at explaining the inneficiencies of traditional marxist thought. Many socialists believed that countries would be able to jump one at a time from capitalism to socialism, even if the rest of the world did not.

http://www.pww.org/article/view/4276/1/186/

Demoralization with and alienation from the socialist cause grew uncontrollably; one manifestation was the growth of an underground economy to satisfy the demand for consumer products. Support for abandoning socialist development grew. The consumerist orientation grew particularly strong in Hungary, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the GDR, while in the USSR and other European countries the economic dislocations led to periodic shortages even of basic necessities and social services. The latter first became evident to me in the case of the Soviet Union in the mid-1970s when data on infant mortality (which had begun to rise) mysteriously vanished from its statistical yearbooks. During subsequent stays in the Soviet Union in the 1980s, I observed first-hand the shortage of meat products, for instance, and even items of clothing like socks and gloves, again stimulating the underground economy.

Some ask whether, if market forces come to dominate, this would not lead to periodic crises similar to those experienced in all capitalist countries. Possibly so, but probably less severe, since a socialist market economy is not completely unplanned. The state stimulates investments on the basis of its long-range goals of development. Considerable leverage is obtained through state control of the basic infrastructures, credit, and taxation policies. For example, the Chinese authorities have just warned auto manufacturers that the industry is threatened by possible overproduction and are enacting measures to curtail investments in this industry, such as raising the tax on the assembly of a car to equal the tax on production of the entire car. Moreover, speculative activities are greatly restricted, which is why the Asian financial crisis at the end of the 1990s did not hit China or Vietnam.

[Warpy]

1. Nobody but lunatics and ignoramuses

ever want pure, unregulated systems. The mixed systems of Europe do well. The mixed and heavily regulated systems in China and Vietnam are doing well.

The deregulated capitalism with no socialized safety net in the US is sending the country down the toilet.

The feudalist brand of Leninist Marxism in North Korea is doing very badly.

[BayCityProgressive]

2. agreed

Another thing vietnam is doing with the help of Sweden is creating housing and farming co-operatives and unions so that poor and middle clas speople can have safe, affordable, nonprofit housing and vote on what to do with the property collectively. Farmers are creating co-ops to deal with WTO entry, and the government invests 25% of GDP into social services. They have one of the highest literacy rates of the 3rd world..over 90% and basic health co-operatives in every town. By 2020 at the current rate...poverty will be eliminated. No one thought this was possible 20 years ago after 100 years of war. One major difference between them and just a regulated economy though the state is in control, not the companies. They can nationalize, tax, and spend at will to create their five year plans and guide the economy in a specific direction.

[pscot]

3. Pure capitalist economics

are killing the planet.