Talk:Market socialism

message: I have no article to add here, but I have one important point to make.  
I believe that this article, and every articles published here in Wikipedia for that matter, is well written and edited by accomplished scholars. However, names of contributors and editors are not mentioned. As a result, readers are reluctant to use Wikipedia as a serious and reliable reference.
I suggest that for every single article, Wikipedia prints both the names of the author and editor. Also, that their names be hyperlinked to a corresponding page that shows their background and expertise. This is to eliminate any remaining doubt about this Encyclopedia's scholarship and credibility.
More power to the principles behind the making of Wikipedia!
--hs
:Have a look at the "page history" link at the bottom of each article. It tells exactly who made which changes when. I don't think that there is a need for contributors to list their expertise. --snoyes 15:23, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dear Wikipedia 

message: This article has a lot of unreferenced statements, especially the speculation that Marx was a market socialist. That definitely looks to be original research. -- Cielomobile talk / contribs 06:34, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since no one has given any references to back up the speculation that Marx was a market socialist, I am going to go ahead and remove that claim from the article. --SirEditALot 14:36, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: It looks like 'market socialism' describes two opposing concepts: the first including mutualism, agorism, and some forms of syndicalism and collectivism, and the second including mixed economies like the NEP. Market-Socialism-1 is characterized by the absence of state subsidies, of monopolies, etc., with most workers either self-employed or cooperatively so. Market-Socialism-2 is characterized by the presence of state subsidies, state monopolies, and/or state-driven-redistribution plans, with most workers employed by hierarchical businesses. Do Market-Socialism-1 and Market-Socialism-2 have anything in common? I suggest retitling this article 'Market Socialism (Mixed Economy)' and adding a disambiguation page. Jacob Haller 19:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two Opposing Concepts 

message: I assume this is Oskar R. Lange? There were only two choices on the disambiguation page. I am not aware of how Lange's On the Economic Theory of Socialism (1936) predates Proudhon's General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century (1851). Admittedly these are two very different approaches ... Jacob Haller 04:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's him. Proudhon is not market socialism. Working Poor 04:31, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

text: You stated in that the means of production are owned individually in mutaulism which you claim is market socialism. How is that different from capitalism, since the means of production can be owned individually as well? Also you didn't give a source. Working Poor 04:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mutualism (economic theory) has historically been considered part of socialism. First, because many mutualists (including Proudhon, Greene, and Tucker) were active in the socialist movement; second, because mutualists favored workers' ownership of the means of production. Those working alone would own their tools as individuals; those working together would own their tools as a group. The opposition was between workers' ownership and boss ownership, not between collective ownership and individual ownership. Jacob Haller 05:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I still don't see how that is different from capitalism. In the U.S. are individually owned business and there are employee owned businesses who all share ownership in the business. No one would say the U.S. has a socialist economic system. In socialism there is social ownership meaning society as a whole would control the means of production, not small groups of collectively owned businesses that are not under social control. Working Poor 05:05, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Capitalists like to say that private ownership of the means of production is a sufficient condition for capitalism, and some partisans of communism like to conflate capitalism and commerce. But the original critique of capitalism was as a system where mere ownership of capital allowed individuals to command labor without laboring themselves. Worker control of the means of production does not necessarily mean collective control. It seems fairly arbitrary to write the Ricardian Socialists and mutualists out of the history. Libertatia 21:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Oscar Lange 

message: I have run across references to Ricardo, Hodgskin, et al. proposing socialist market systems in the 1830s. (Carson, SMPE, various places). Hodgeskin wrote The Natural and Artificial Right of Property Contrasted in 1832; Proudhon wrote What is Property? in 1840 and General Idea of the Revolution in the 19th Century in 1851.
So there were two interrelated socialist market systems (that of Ricardo, Hodgskin, et al., and that of Proudhon, Greene, et al.) by the middle of the 19th century; both were sharply critical of capitalism, both were committed to workers' liberation, and both were influential in the development of the other schools of socialism (including Marxism and [socialist] anarchism).
Within Marxism, NEP was 1921, before 1936. Jacob Haller 21:03, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's on first? 

message: This article seems curiously devoid of any mention of the results of various attempts to put market socialist theories into practice. Is there any objection to adding a more practical section attacking the problem of whether market socialism is something akin to phrenology or if there is some value in applying these theories? TMLutas (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  So does it work? 

message: Cooperative ownership is not public ownership, it is private.  Many marksoc systems proposed are based on cooperative ownership, which is not public, since a (producers´) cooperative is owned by the workers of the coop company.  I want to add the word "cooperatively" to the main definition of marksoc in the article.  Please, discuss.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.63.20.232 (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Socialism: public AND cooperative ownership 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Market socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20160214200513/http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html to http://www.againstallauthority.org/NativeAmericanAnarchism.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:33, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Market socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120204155505/http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf to http://libertarian-labyrinth.org/warren/1stAmAnarch.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110607083510/http://www.adb.org/Documents/Events/2004/PRC_Planning_System_Reform/chow1.pdf to http://www.adb.org/Documents/Events/2004/PRC_Planning_System_Reform/chow1.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711045431/https://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto031620081407384075 to http://us.ft.com/ftgateway/superpage.ft?news_id=fto031620081407384075
*Added archive https://archive.is/20110510102306/http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473 to http://bradspangler.com/blog/archives/473
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140722145233/http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/workers-of-the-world-unite to http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/tgif/workers-of-the-world-unite
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131029212045/http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sundstrom/Sundstrommanifesto.pdf to http://www.scu.edu/ethics/publications/submitted/sundstrom/Sundstrommanifesto.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121103160534/http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP%26PA.pdf to http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctymio/leftlibP%26PA.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:44, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Market socialism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110720024533/http://ufirc.ou.edu/publications/Enterprises%20of%20China.pdf to http://ufirc.ou.edu/publications/Enterprises%20of%20China.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120107013451/http://www.infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG5 to http://infoshop.org/page/AnarchistFAQSectionG5
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:16, 18 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello talk page,
I should caution first that I am the author of a version of what I loosely call 'market socialism', or 'Distributism'. I hope it is OK I write something here, just on the talk page ? The system I have developed does not seem to be covered (yet) by its main characteristics. Obviously I will not edit the main page, but perhaps there are people editing this page that find it interesting.
I think that economic general theory as currently thought is being superficial, because it is taught that *effort* creates market value (I will not go into the why of that here), which is correct. However the natural resources in their raw form are *not* the product of human effort. They do however constitute power points for those able to centralize their control. My conclusion is therefore that natural resources do not belong in a market, or at least not a market where ownership (as in total and ever lasting control) can move between people, and imply that some will own much or even everything while others own little or even nothing. The natural resources are the starting point of all work. It should therefore be available for all. However once the natural resources (loosely "the soil") has been distributed, you can (and I think should) have rental markets upon that bases, as well as swap markets. Thus the benefit of markets in natural resources is retained, without the downsides of creating a landless and therefore powerless under class, who will slowly degenerate in every way, and through their degeneration become beholden to a ruling class. They become a class of serfs and canon fodder, unable through their generational slavery to see a way out. This part of the system would be the economics for the individual.
I'll try to be brief: economics for the group (business, group production) should try to avoid getting bogged down under business dictators, without destroying the ability of people to enter the markets as individuals, or to contract labor, thus becoming a business dictator. It seems wise to me that when the business starter leaves, the business will - when large enough - be forced by law to become co-operatively owned by the workforce. Then above that is the generalized economics (for the whole Nation), and on that front I belief that we need to stop the effect of for-profit business finance which seems it is most profitable where labor is abused (see what creates wealth above: effort, work the slaves harder and you are competitive in the markets). Hence investment credit needs to be mostly chocked off. Although it will become difficult to be extremely rich and lazy in this system, I would think it also wise to have a quite high private wealth maximum, since we cannot allow one person to own everything (which would be an absolute King). Such a measure is an anti-monopoly / cartel law with teeth. Furthermore business size should mostly be kept below 2000 full time workers as well, to keep the market open and dynamic. This should be coupled with a high end democratic system, more reliable than Parliament. 
I worked it all out in a 673 pages thick English book, which is 100% free PDF and source, all in the public domain, so I absolutely care nothing for any sort of profit and only for spreading correct economic ideas. My website is called: market. socialism. nl I hope it is OK that I point to that here ? There is a rather large amount of detail involved, which is impossible to put here. This is only a very short introduction, and does not even get into the reform / revolutionary model attached to it, or other facets like software. I chose the name 'market socialism' because I was rather lost on how to describe it, and this seemed to come closest. Sometimes I think Distributism could be better, however that has its own problems like "do you want to distribute wealth" (no). There are problems with any name, and market-socialism more or less seems to contradict. I do not use "free market socialism" because it is needlessly complicated, and 'free market' carries connotations of international free trade zones, which is not what this is about. There is no central planning board in the system as I propose it, just a normal Government role with separation of powers.
One last point: the system described in the Torah (Jewish holy book) is broadly similar to the system as I describe it: free land for all, and strong control against for profit finance. Native Injuns of America also understand that land does not belong in a market system. In the past when there probably was trade in other items, but no farming yet, the land was presumably mostly open for all. Please don't be mad I write this here if it is not ok, thanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jos Boersema (talk • contribs) 16:30, 12 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Market Socialism with free soil by right 

message: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism#Marxism%E2%80%93Leninism There are no sources in this section, if we don't back up these claims they could be removed. --― TaltosKieronTalk 13:06, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zero Sources in this section