Economic Calculation in a Socialist Society
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 сер 2024
- Let's assume socialist central planners have the best intentions. How will they decide what to produce, where to produce it, how to produce it, and for whom? These questions by Mises kicked off the "Socialist Calculation Debate". Learn more at misesvsmarx.aie...
The fact you guys have done all these videos's explaining the debate between socialism and capitalism is really really good, I see these video's educating a lot of people, very much needed!
This is done in very bad faith, it's one side explaing both sides of an argument.
And then comes Krugman and says "tax cuts never worked".
good joke
This video is fantastic and I would highly recommend it to anyone who has a friend, significant other, or even teenager that seems to be strongly against the capitalism/America and/or pro-socialism or even communism. The video really gets to the heart of the matter, and explains it very well. Hats off gentlemen!
I saw this in the Uk, our government fixed the price of hand sanitiser and within a day you couldn't buy hand sanitizer. I tried to explain why this was to my socialist friends, they didn't get it, maybe this video will help them understand, it seems really accessible!
Not sure what you are even talking about. The shortage was happening bc of covid and excess demand. Similar happened in countries that didn't do price control.
anedocte, China did the same and didn't have shortage of masks. On the other hand, there was mask shortage in HK without fixed price...
Thank you so much. I finally understand the economic calculation problem. I had never heard it explained so clearly.
I'd somemore research maybe Oskar R Lange, there were more than 2 sides in the argurmtn. And this video only deals with one side.
@@sjewitt22 The guy who advocated for markets in socialist economies. You really have to wonder, if he though that managers in centrally planned economies are so good at knowing what consumers want, then why did he advocate for markets at all
@@gregorykavivya875 I don't understand your point.
@@sjewitt22 if lange believed managers in centralized socialist economies had no problem getting information about what was being demanded, then he effectively believed there was no information problem in those economies. And if the information problem does not exist, why advocate for market socialism. Centralized marketless economies work fine, no so?
@@gregorykavivya875He said that managers don't know what consumers want. They can only know through prices.
You guys rock for making these vids!
Please make Russian subtitles.
The website is called mises vs. marx, but there is no marxist (or at least neo-keynesian) rebuttal to the arguments? It should be called just mises echo chamber, it would be more honest. Interesting video, nonetheless.
Gustavo Palamone what do you expect from the AIER
@@julianadams4399 I expect a more complete discussion
That's because sufficient rebuttals don't exist.
Fat Potatoe exactly, Socialism fails a priori. It is like their system wanted to distribute 100 apples between 200 people, and at the same time having everyone have at least one full apple.
Now they have the austrians pointing out it's impossible on a priori basis, and ask for them to have "sufficient rebuttal", lol. They just don't get it. They think you just need a better computer to calculate 100/200 and getting 1 as a result.
madwtube The calculation problem is an a priori analysis. All austrian economics is aprioristic, I doubt you think the argument is based on historical evidence alone, that would be susceptible to the "this time will work" socialist mantra.
But I'm more interested in what you mean by "primitive" do you mean bands of individuals surviving in nature? Or that if we were willing to lower our standard of living to bare survival, socialim would work? Or something else entirely...
I just subscribed, for I really like this channel! Thank you for these videos. :D
Something i rarely hear mentionning after hearing about ford in argentina is that in india there is at least 3 company that still produced old sewing machine like the one produced in 1890- 1900 in black with gold decoration. Exacthly the one that you could buy in an antique shop here.
Well done!
thanks for explaining it so well!
not even a minute in and the socialist bashing occurred, this is my kinda economics
Meanwhile, police, military, research, roads, all socialist economics. Lmao. Libertarians are idiots.
@@shawn8847 how?
@@Oliviahearts536 I put military and research. Lmao. Our military is bigger than the next 10 countries combined. That is not defense, that is empire building. Lol. Now research, every company uses government research because it is too expensive and too risky to wager money on something you may not use.
@@Oliviahearts536 just admit, you've never taken a basic economics course. LMAO!
@@yashvardhannegi5909 lol take an economics class.
Guy from Argentina here.
fascinating stuff!
This is so good. Sooo good.
The socialist calculation debate is important for any socialist to know and work on solving. It's a serious problem and there are and were various proposals that haven't been tried that aren't mentioned in this video, but the problem as von Mises framed it is well presented here. The makers of this video did a decent job of that. But the cheap move was to turn it into an argument against all government regulation of markets. (Regulation of any sort?! Seriously? Markets themselves can't function without rules in place.) That part is ideological hogwash and hardly related to the socialist calculation question. The aim of this kind of libertarian propaganda is to undermine support for the few democratically instituted laws that slightly reduce the profits of big capitalists in the interest of the broader public. That is obviously the real purpose of the video, as there is little immediate danger of a wholesale collectivization of the economy.
Why should anyone work on creating a system of universal slavery?
You'd have to tell us what prices are and we can go from there
This explains the great post-USSR titanium grill rush.
That guy never showed up to work. Oh dear. Amazing intellectual burn haha. Hats off to you guys.
this sounds like sarcasm but I personally enjoyed the burns
Thanks philosophy for your doing great tasks of this and you can doing more than this and thank.
Really good content here, AIER. Ben and Ed are wonderful.
Does the price mechanism take social costs into account when determining how to allocate resources? Ie, damage to the environment or human health?
IkilledPrince yeah people voted high taxes on gasoline into place for example
Damage to the environment can be internalised if that "environment" is someone's private property and hence has an appraised value which can be deducted from. The degree of human health is a preference of the humans in question. Those who would prioritise living in smog to earn higher wages in more dangerous working conditions prefer that to earning lower wages in safer conditions living in a smog-free rural county.
Nuclear energy can fix global warming. There. Stop screaming about it
Not at all. These are negative externalities. The market is blind to them.
@Spartan 506 Would it be profitable to burn down the Amazon, if that land was owned?
Il m'est assez difficile de prendre ces econmistes au serieux quand ceux ci evoque la grande "rareté" titanium. Titanium qui est moins rare que le cuivre, le nickel ou le cobalt et qui sert principalement (90-95%) a faire de la peinture/pigmentation blanche...
Please subtitles on portuguese(brazil) 😁
Eu recomendo que aprenda inglês. Vale cada segundo do seu tempo, a quantidade e qualidade do conteúdo ao seu dispor vai aumentar muito.
@@genericname8827 exato
To be fair, the Ford Falcon is a hell of a car.
Imagine not knowing about Market Socialism and the Difference between Private Property, Personal Property, Public Property, and Collective Property
We all know about unicorns, that doesn't mean they actually exist.
Private property is personal property there is no difference. Market socialism cannot and will not ever exist.
There is no such thing as collective property. If you do not have the right to possess, dispose of, consume/use, and give away or sell, then you do not own it.
When can I sell my share of national parks and stop paying taxes for them? When can I sell my share of the overly abundant F-16's in the Air Force and stop paying taxes on them?
If you can't give something away or sell it, you don't really own it.
@@roamingimperial8971 Market Socialism existed in Yugoslavia and failed miserably.
If you don't truly own something, then you cannot exchange it for something you value more at that time and place than the thing(s) you're trading.
If you cannot trade, you cannot calculate prices.
Therefore, you need private property, trade/competition, and a sound currency.
You will NEVER be able to do economic calculation in State Capitalism (Socialism). Not even with advanced AI and quantum computers.
To think you can centrally plan an inherently chaotic system requires an immense amount of hubris. Homeostatic externalities function far better.
Gee I wonder how ride sharing apps do it.
@@alexacosta2774 it’s a pseudo random algorithm that has limited parameters but can’t predict the outcome every time like Minecraft’s seed generation system but obviously exponentially smaller
Note: if you aren’t saying that planned economies are good then I’m sorry for implying anything
@akash B yeah but if Amazon fucks up famine doesn’t happen
@akash B that’s not exactly capitalism fault from what I know about it was state caused and the potato famine was in the 1800s and not the fault of capitalism in fact the potato famine has more in common with the Holodomor than a failing of capitalism and no the state doesn’t equal capitalist
@akash B no and he wasn’t responsible for the potato famine because it happened before he was born and the main things why I compared it to the Holodomor was that it was a state caused famine design to kill a large numbers of an ethnic group
three questions here:
-if socialism doesn't work, how do you explain the vast technological success in USSR? the first human being who left the planet earth for space (gagarine) was a communist, from a communist country.
- if socialism doesn't work, how do you explain that USSR was the second most powerful country on earth for 70 years with half of the planet under his control and his own nuclear weapons?
- if socialism doesn't work, how do you explain the objective success and prosperity of scandinavian countries nowadays?
Thanks!
Scandinavian countries are not socialist. They have a stable liberal social democracy. The 2 first points are good ones
@@jorgemachado5317 i give you that. but they have really, really high taxes that every classical liberal would reject. still, their system works very well.
@@nomos6508 Russia had just a façade of a powerful military, while in fact most of its citizens were brought to a slave-like conditions to fulfill this display of power. And if communist Russia was so good how do you explain that it literally collapsed?
Scandinavian countries aren't socialist at all. The ussr wasn't successful lol. They copied price patterns of capitalist societies unorder to exist. They were not prosperous. They used slave labor and millions died from mass starvation. They were imperialistic and stole natural resources to even survive before their inevitable collapse.
@@jorgemachado5317 Social Democracy is a branch of Marxist thought.
things like food, water, housing, energy etc have a relatively stable demand, right? So it shouldn't be that hard to predict how much you should produce, right?
Is good to know that everything that has existed ever was an impossibility before capitalism price system. I'm surprised humanity was capable to survive thousands of years before prices
You can of course allocate resources without prices. But in order to allocate them *effectively* (i.e. for the benefits of consumers), you need to know the preferences of the consumers. Market prices reveal these preferences, as they are set by consumers who are essentially voting with their money on what they find valueble.
@@N0N5T0P Gotcha. How economists can calculate "preferences"? Enlighten me, please
@@jorgemachado5317 It is impossible to "calculate preferences", and that is exactly why a planned economy is a bad idea, and a market economy is a good idea. In a market economy, noone needs to attempt to calculate any preferences. Consumers reveal their preferences by how much they are willing to pay for different goods and services. Different consumers have different preferences (the preferences are subjective), and when you allow them to trade amongst themselves, you allow them to allocate the resources in a manner which increases utility for the parties involved.
@@N0N5T0P
You: "But in order to allocate them effectively (i.e. for the benefits of consumers), you need to know the preferences of the consumers"
Also You: "It is impossible to "calculate preferences", and that is exactly why a planned economy is a bad idea, and a market economy is a good idea"
lol
@@jorgemachado5317 There is nothing contradictory between those statements.
To be fair the best is a regulated market, protected and insured from raw materials being exploited by non internal markets along with labour from being abused by low wages/salaries and high rent/ mortgages nevermind working conditions. But taxes also need keeping in check same for national debt while not leading to deprivation for people in the regions due to under investment and neglect.
All the things you are talking about distort the pricing signals that Mises spoke about, which causes a missalocation of resources. You missed the whole point of the video.
I like you guys a lot
great video!
no lol
It does NOT mean defacto the state!
If it doesnot mean the state, then it means communism, as communism is socialism minus the state.
Derp.
It does, since nothing proposed by socialism or communism can be directed without a state
@@thomasbardoux1692 1) not true, there is a whole faction called Anarcho-Communism, and Communism itself defines a goal of a stateless society
2) Capitalism requires a state as much as any other economic scheme. Look at African countries with weak courts that can’t enforce business contracts, weak security that can’t prevent warlords from running things, and weak social programs that don’t provide adequate education for folks to participate in economically productive activities.
While markets are not synonymous with Capitalism, and you can (and should) have markets with Socialism; governments are indeed critical to fostering an environment in which markets can exist and do so healthfully. One need look no further than the recent crypto debacles for proof, but even beyond that look at anthropology and see that markets don’t exist in a state of nature. All else removed, we organize around tribes & chiefs, not markets. We need governments for markets, and a whole lot more good stuff. We can also have socialistic non-state actors (such as employee owned businesses), which can even operate inside a market context, and be a Socialist country without it being “when gu’ment due stuff”.
@@theyoungkulaks3381 Communism is not just Socialism without the state. While a goal of Communism is a stateless society, there’s nothing about Communism that requires it to be stateless. If Socialism were just Communism with a state then one would expect Socialism to be a devoid of money as Communists, yet money is a fixture in Socialism. There differences are far more extensive and nuanced than “They’re the same except one doesn’t have a state.”.
Last guy was the best
Thatcher and Reagan, Loved the Austrian school economists, and working people have suffered relatively ever since.
Must be why so many working class people kept Thatcher in power lol.
@@GabrielNicho Statistics don't lie.
@@sjewitt22 Because Britain was such a great place before Thatcher right?
@@GabrielNicho Subjective question. working people certainly had more power, and the post war consensus is seen as Britain's greatest time by a lot of people. Plus it's when Growth was at it's highest.
I’m no communist by any means, but couldn’t the internet very well help with this issue, by placing orders and having a network with artificial prices, but no actual cash value, just a thought
Thats actually a really cool thought
who decides what those prices are, and how?
@@flaviusbelisarius7791 eexactly people don' realize you can't just pull prices out of the fucking ass, otherwise this wouldn't be a problem and more of a nuisance
"Actual cash value"? There is no such a thing as actual money vs ficticious money. If something is used as medium of exchange IT IS MONEY.
You're on the right track, but without transactions going through and cash changing hands the market wont work. To think like a truee commie, you have to leace markets behind. Consumers rate products. Central planning gathers data on demand for products when citizens ask the gov't for things. They know the supply already because they give worker co-ops their quotas and check up on them-they control supply. Together they can predict price. In addition, they can calculate intrinsic value using an improved version of Marx's labour theory of value. I have posted several walls of text as replies on newer comments, check it out. If the commie vocab confused you, I can rephrase. I literally have nothing better to do, thanks COVID. UA-cam hates links so ill post them seperately
There's an error in the first two minutes. Collective ownership doesn't mean abolishing markets, there's literally an economic philosophy called MARKET SOCIALISM.
Yeah and it isn Socialism
@@jibraan123100 Market socialism isnt better than Capitalism. Almost all problems in Capitlaist nations is because gov ernment break free market and capitalism rules and involve economy. Many socialist angry to socialist policies in capitalism but they dont know that. I used to be socialist too but come dude ...
@Spartan 506 The China stock market means the government doesn't own the means of production. Hence, they have a market economy, but with a communist one party rule political system.
@William Glass Homeless people want houses. Big Real Estate owns enough houses to house the homeless. There aren't enough jobs to go around, but there are plenty of resources to meet everybody's needs. Automation means that even if a lot of people don't work, everybody can live a comfortable life. Obviously, everybody should work, only socialism allows for full employment because the gov't can spin up jobs whenever it wants. Market allocation of resources neglects the needs of individuals.
You argue that going against market allocation would ruin the market's key feature of reflecting price and value. Can you elaborate?
Market socialism doesn’t work lmao end that Vaush subscription
AIER: The Internet does not exist.
1:05 Leonardo di caprio
3:57 Yeah no, Titanium is more expensive than steel but still reasonably cheap, material costs aren't the issue for something like a grill. Actually doing anything with it is the hard part, it's an exotic metal and many manufacturing processes do not work for it.
By contrast, steel is very easy to work with, especially austenitic alloys like the 300 series. Also, high-end steel alloys have gotten a lot better over time and the range of applications where titanium is better is steadily shrinking
Yeah no, "reasonably cheap" is irrelevant. Titanium is relatively expensive compared to 304 stainless steel (roughly twice as much) when comparing the two relative cost is paramount. Machining costs are part of the calculation, all overheads (especially material cost) need to be accounted for to predict profitability. Very few people would be willing to outlay over twice as much money for a negligible performance increase.
@@colinyoung3685 Just saying that material costs are a small part of making the grill. Titanium is expensive not just because of material costs but primarily due to the cost of doing anything with it, and of course better steel alloys are making it gradually more niche as time goes on.
@@BosonCollider Im no expert, but titanium is plentiful yes, but super hard to process, not just hard to work with. That's why refined titanium is expensive. Could be wrong, don't quote, grain of salt, etc etc
But regardless the point they made is somewhat still true. Titanium is not needed in a grill, it's overkill and has imo NO benefit AT ALL. It's a GRILL, not a tank. All it needs to withstand is angry dads kicking it over, and mediocre temperatures. It makes all the sense to go cheap. It's their argument that socialists wouldn't know any better andd would just use titanium is flawed.
Von Mises is old, dead, and outdadted. His ideas had merit in the 1920s, before socialism rose. He didn't know any better. Austrian Schoolers nowadays are still preaching his ideas as fact though. Lemme make my case, feel free to disagree.
The argument assumes that a market is necessary. Because the military using up all the titanium creates scarcity, and the grill makers have to consider its weird properties, the cost-benefit analysis will run short. The cost is the key, the cost comes from the market and without it cannot exist a cost-benefit analysis.
Let's rephrase cost as value. Price is the cost to acquire, but also value of a product. Sometimes price differs from value, but that's from market inefficiencies (I think, i got a c in econ lmao). A socialist can determine value of tungsten using methods listed below. Therefore, because they are not "flying blind" they can substitute price/cost for calculated value from the planning comittee.
I mentioned this in another comment, but the crux of the flying blind argument is von Mises' claim that central socialist planning can't calculate value as good as the market can by attributing a price. This was true in 1920 because Soviets were headless chickens. I enumerate solutions to the economic calculation problem below, copied from a reply to a newer comment. This is not exhaustive, other comrades have other solutions.
{---------------------}
1 Polling data. With modern technology and statistical analysis, a planning committee can very easily measure demand for a product. By simply polling consumers, monitoring usage and satisfaction with products etc, a planning committee can gather enough data to predict consumer demand. Because the planning committee controls output and distribution of resources, they have access to supply data as well.
2 Limited markets. This is a very controversial idea, I disagree with it, but market socialists believe that a market of sorts can exist without threatening socialist ideas so long as it is monitored and controlled.
3 Raw compute power. Value can now be predicted programmatically, no AI required. Cockshott has done seminal work on this, proving it as early as 1993, so its not particularly demanding technology-wise.
I'm currrently reading up on the specifics so I'm not super well-versed, but in essence value can be quantified as total human labour required. Raw materials are defined by labour required to extract. The value of a manufactured product has to take into account the value of the land and capital used to produce it. The value of each piece of capital is probably made with other capital, as meat is made from a cow but also machinery,a cow is made in part with feed and feed is made in part with water, soil and sun. The machinery to grind the cow, the barn, all has to be taken into account. Computers make the task, however, trivial, so long as a planner can determine the proportion of value each piece of capital attributes to the product.
Value can be influenced by other factors, easily. Literally, the factors can be actual factors in a mathematical sense in the equation used to calculate value. One major argument for socialism is the *environment*. Capitalists don't giva shit about climate change, they just want profits, so they do the bare minimum, or even less with regards to environmentalism. But, we can say that using a diesel engine to produce something makes it's value higher than a more ecologically sane method. Thus, the higher value disincentives worker co-ops (socialist companies) from using those.
{---------------------}
There are objective mechanisms which led to the production of a product: development time, time in production, amount of and difficulty of labour, scarcity of materials used, et cetera. It requires rarer materials and is more intricate to produce, therefore with value assigned to those mechanisms we could arrive at an objective calculation as to why a watch should be priced higher than a sun dial. This would arrive at a more empirically sound price for a product than the market, which is effectively trial and error, and can be unnecessarily skewed by swelled market demand, artificial scarcity, monopolies and the inherent over-pricing of goods to generate profit.
I know this would all take mathematics to figure out and these people got into economics in the first place to avoid doing real math, but I'm sure someone a little brighter than them could figure it all out.
Without feedback each variable must be calculated within a vacuum (comparisons require a functioning market to preexist), even Terence Tao would perform no better than a crystal ball. Miscalculations in a free market provide a niche to fill provided all interactions are consensual.
@@colinyoung3685 These variables wouldn't exist in a vacuum, they exist relative to each other. There would be feedback to the extent that production would have to meet public demand, more bread is consumed than avacados for example so it would make sense to commit resources towards producing more bread. It wouldn't make sense to price bread higher due to public demand when objectively speaking nothing has changed about the process of making that bread besides the scarcity of its end product, but that discepencey is inherent to capitalism.
@@KonkeyVG There is no relative without the market having existed. If nothing has a designated value, comparing anything to it is still redundant.
Producing more bread is the function of current market forces again, how would you know more people prefer it to avocados from scratch? How do you adjust for novel food items? Values are subjective too, if I am gluten intolerant the production of bread would be of little value to me.
@@colinyoung3685 1. No society would begin "from scratch" without a previous capitalist nation or still existing capitalist nations for comparison. Most leftists including Marx argue capitalism is a necessary transitionary state before socialism, in part for this reason.
2. You can still measure public demand without a market economy. If the public takes bread from the supermarket at a faster rate than avacados, then produce more bread. This doesn't need competitors vying to sell the bread nor the bread priced at the highest possible price the public are willing to pay, the price can be fixed but if the commodity becomes scarce we produce more of the commodity. Allocate resources to meet the demand, rather than ration the commodity based on fluxuating price. An economy built around meeting public need rather than being built around generating profit.
@@KonkeyVG If the commodity became scarce and more of it was needed to be produced, where would these resources come from, ie, how would the producers know which *other* line of production to remove resources and labour from, in order to increase the supply?
Didn't Bettelheim already debunked ECP, lmao
Doesn't this ignore things like forced scarcity? Or preditory pricing and Oligopolies? Practices that reduce choice on things in order to artifically swell prices because of the percieved scarcity or otherwise limitted choices on essentials?
I understand the issues you talk about, but you ignore topics that cause real harm in the world right now which would make people question whether we should strive for something better than we have today.
I don't know if communism could work, I'd argue that aboslute scarcity of resources compaired against the relative uses in progressing society would be a good way of calculating value, but someone has probably already made that argument and been shot down. However saying that regulation is a dumb idea too even though some companies are litterally too big to fail kind of defeats itself as an idea, because it ignores the desire of people with enough resources to stifle competition to make themselves the only provider
Any situation like that could only happen on a very short time frame. The aftermath would be detrimental to the business as a whole. Consider Standard Oil, why was it a monopoly? It doesn’t follow that it was due to predatory pricing, because the price of oil was on a steady decline during the time of Standard Oil. It also doesn’t follow that artificial scarcity caused it, as the Texas Oil Boom happened within the lifetime of the company prompting federal intervention to ensure prices weren’t too low. Rockefeller knew what the result of price hikes and artificial scarcity would be. If he drove out every single competitor just to raise prices, more competitors would enter the marketplace as there is an opportunity for profit so long as they can produce oil cheaper. When these producers appear, consumers won’t make the same mistake again after being swindled by Standard Oil. They would instead purchase from businesses that they are confident will continue to deliver a consistent price. Knowing this, Rockefeller continued to make innovations in the industry, allowing him to produce consistently cheaper oil as a way to subvert competition. This was extremely beneficial to both Rockefeller and consumers. In the absence of government regulation, markets are allowed to regulate themselves by means of consumer choice.
@@nevershoutgraham2297 well said
Was Standard Oil a monopoly? I think Kolko has shown that it never controlled as much of the market as it's enemies claimed or Rockefeller would have liked.
I thought it was because of Edison and electricity that ate up a good percentage of Rockefeller standard oil for kerosene lamps that he started looking at petroleum refinement to sell to the emerging auto markets which is why it was broken into Exxon, Mobil and Chevron, etc. So he did hold a monopoly until something else got invented. The issues I'm seeing with monopolies today is the amount of clout these lobbyists hold in Washington. I keep thinking of all the inventions sitting in the patent office that could have helped stabilize prices when needed and grow the economy.
Prices are deteemined by needs. If something is considered a necessity by the workers, they shall produce that. Prices are not as necessary because the government can subsidize all( like in the USSR). That's mostly s luxury goods problem, but in regards to food, medicine and housing i don't think there would be' problems (as the USSR showed)
I'm not sure how the USSR showed anything of the sort...unless you believe the myths that there were no homeless people in the Soviet Union etc.
The guy at 3:20 is incorrect when talking about the market being the only way to discover the value of materials. Materials can be quantified by efficiency protocols. One protocol to quantify a materials scarcity level, another to quantify it's conduciveness in a given product, another to quantify it's regenerative cyclic rate, and another to quantify it's recycling efficiency. And we can through a direct democracy understand what materials need to be used in what type of product or project. None of which requires a market.
Pricing can be understood by natural law completely absent the market system. What the market fails to understand is maximizing ephemeralization and efficiency, ecological and social stability and pretty much anything that's actually important lol. The market's ability to actually defend itself through argumentation is over and it lost miserably and there's no coming back from it. Now it's just a bunch of rich people who can't argue their way out of a wet paper bag. Yeah some big brains they have when all this time they could have used the profits they generated to standardize automation which they could have done for years now. Self-maximization...more like self-destruction.
Basically, if you don't have maximal recycling efficiency by creating maximal standardization of components, you have market capitalism. Well we can do better than that now and there's no excuse. We do need prices, we can't justify it being connected to wage labor currency anymore. We don't need either a market nor do we need government for economic planning, we can have decentralized planning. Right now basically everyone's freedom is limited, their mobility is limited, their right to life is limited, their environmental conditions are limited and it's all because of our economic incentive structure.
Unlimited wants is a myth. Human nature is a myth in it's status quo understanding. We're creatures of great adaptation and malleability. Btw what I'm talking about is not Socialism or Communism. It's a scientific approach to economic efficiency.
Value is subjective. You require a market to determine the baseline for those things. Otherwise you're just deciding for people what they should value.
Lol no. Without market you can't decide the value. A metal could be in scarce but if it doesn't have much usage it won't be that expensive.
Meanwhile if another metal which is far more abundance has more market demand than its quantity it would have a higher value.
It's that simple.
@@gabbar51ngh We would still have a market structured catalog of products that have passed the efficiency protocols but currency for paying for the products would be only based upon what natural law can afford.
@@kyleeaton2717 I don't think you understand the point that value and price is quite Arbitrary and depends upon whatever the seller and buyer has agreed upon at the end of the day.
You say you aren't preaching socialism or Communism yet by killing the Market you pretty much are. Also no idea how direct democracy or any other form of governance could make a difference. You can Literally put a monarch over there and it wouldn't really make much difference as long as Economy isn't intervened too much by government whether it's by a monarch, dictatorship or direct democracy it would Prosper.
@@gabbar51ngh I don't think you see my argument. Price does not have to be subjective or arbitrary because it can have a completely objective frame of reference when understood by natural law and sustainability. Really the only way humanity is going to survive is by acquiescing to an objective economic framework because the one we live in now is highly unsustainable. The economic calculation problem was a problem a hundred years ago but no longer. So whether we approach solutions now or never we're going to hit a wall inevitably because we're not respecting natural law.
Except Oscar Lange won it.
Nope, Langer dont debunked mises
ECP has been debunked but the Lange-Learner model is not a great solution.
@@gregpaul2514 Who debunked it lol? I see you writing "debunked" a lot, but not a single reference to that mythical person that actually did it.
The idea that all forms of collective ownership *must* imply government ownership and control, as with a centrally planned/command economy, is simply not accurate. It's not true, even for a large society.
Hopefully people here are open-minded enough to seriously consider what I'm about to spend my time writing, in the spirit of free speech and open debate...
Government control is not essential to collective ownership of the means of production. There are forms of market socialism, in which workers themselves are granted collective ownership and control over the businesses that employ them. In other words, under market socialism, every business becomes a true worker cooperative, where the workers themselves elect their own management (one vote per person), decide on their own major business decisions, determine how much money to set aside for reinvestment into their own business, and earn a percentage of the profits divided up amongst themselves (which I imagine being divided up as a supplement to a base salary, rather than simply dividing up profits as the entirety of worker pay, but the option could still exist). All of this would be collective ownership, while still existing within a market system.
The result of this at the macroeconomic level would be that wealth inequality is dramatically reduced. There would be no capitalist class whatsoever. Therefore, the vast majority of capital in the system would be in a constant state of circulation. It would hardly ever be idle to any extreme degree. Consumers work and workers consume. Wealth does not trickle up or down. It is forever circulating like a giant water fountain, immediately reinvested back into the economy.
Obviously, the logistics of how business would be carried out are different compared to privately-owned businesses. For one, growing a business would cease to be a priority, because growth would lead to more workers, and more workers means more people to factor into the division of profits. Essentially, everyone makes about the same in pay as before. So, no one at the company is really benefiting from constant growth. This means that competition with other businesses would be at least partially reduced. You might even expect similar businesses to start freely sharing ideas with each other in order to improve each of their products, since neither one of them poses a direct threat to the other. Rather, they each stand to benefit from the other. So, some of the competition may actually become cooperation.
There would likely still be competition as well, but even then, it would work differently than it does in a capitalist market. Businesses would still rely on consumers, and so each business would still strive to produce the best quality products possible. However, without the profit motive of a handful of individuals at the top driving all innovation, innovation would not be primarily geared towards increasing profits. It would be primarily geared towards serving the needs of society. After all, the worker-consumers *themselves* are the ones making the decisions about what to produce. They are not merely following orders anymore. They know what the people in their society want and need, and so, whatever competition does continue to exist would not be the result of anything other than the best innovations for that society, produced with the greatest efficiency. The competition would never completely destroy the lives of people working at other businesses, and the people working at those businesses could simply learn to improve upon their own products by observing their competition. This could go on endlessly, back and forth. Friendly competition could actually supplement the cooperation also existing between similar businesses.
Not to mention, the incentive to provide the best quality product would be expected to increase across the board, simply because the workers are the ones making the profit. Their actions would have a direct impact on the success of their business, and they would feel much more personally invested in the quality of their labor as a result. In addition, the fact that they have a say in how they carry out their work would increase morale and willingness to do unpleasant, but necessary, tasks. Being told how and when to do something unpleasant will always breed apathy and resentment.
In just about every way imaginable, socialism is preferable to capitalism. No one wants to work for the private benefit of someone else, while they themselves struggle to make ends meet. The wealthy have far too much power and authority, and they are able to use it in ways that undermine and violate the freedom of others. They have absolute control over the corporate media, and they are capable of spending millions on political campaigns that suit their own political interests at the exclusion and detriment of the working class. The very fact that they accumulate wealth, getting richer and richer off of our labor and consumerism, necessitates the fact that everyone else is losing money. Money doesn't simply manifest in the pockets of billionaires. It is redistributed from somewhere else. People struggle, while corporate kings live in excess and luxury. They are tyrants. They should not exist.
Sounds ideal.
But this is a capitalist propaganda channel. Anyone who subscribes to it is already thoroughly convinced that freedom is all about letting the wealthy have exclusive dominion over all areas of life.
You might actually get further by calling market socialism "cooperative capitalism." Lol. Or by framing it as an unfortunate compromise that you're willing to accept, reluctantly. Make them feel like they're getting the better deal. They have no idea that it's already a thing. Most of them have never even read Locke or Smith.
Although your system does have interesting points, notably the idea that workers have a direct say in the company, wich coule indeed improvise to some productivity and morale, there are some pretty serious flaws
First of all, as you yourself pointed out,is that this system will pretty much lead to a pretty stagnant economy since the inventive to grow will be very low . They will also have surely very mild and timid strategies singe everything will have to be collectively debated, making any daring moves unlikely. Also, this will probably lead to mass unemployement because since companies do not make an extra profit by having an extra worker this would very easily mean that companies will not recruit. Also those worker based companies will probably become very family based and/or clanic, wich lead to a lot of unproductive nepotism and a problem with insiders and outsiders.
Another problem is salary equality. In such companies I assume that they will have equal salaries ? Then we have here the problem of price calculation. Will the simple worker be paid the same pay than the engineer? If not then the engineers will just probably regroup and make everyone else pay for the work they do and you will just end back with the same income inequalities as before
And who will invest in those companies if investment doesn't allow a bigger part in profits? The only way to be financed film just be to rely on borrowing from the banking sector
@@Lord-Pierre I don't think it would necessarily lead to a stagnant economy, even though growth for each business in particular would not be the main priority. The way I see it, there would probably be a limit to how large a company could grow, before it started to fail. At some point, there would simply be too many workers and not enough income from business to sustain growth. The businesses would have to stabilize profits in order to hire any more workers. Probably, they would not want to risk it, so they would stop growing after a certain point, leaving room for OTHER businesses to participate in the exchange of ideas and innovation. The growth would always have to be sustainable. Things as big as Amazon would likely (hopefully) not be possible. There would be nothing too big to fail.
What is the point of economic growth for a business, or for the national economy as a whole, if it is not sustainable? If it causes one class of people to gain insane amounts of power and influence over society, while everyone else is working for the wealthy simply so that they can pay their bills (also to the wealthy), things start to look very dystopian for the majority of people. What can workers do about it? Find work somewhere else, in exactly the same situation as before? People just don't make enough to start better businesses and compete against major corporate empires like Amazon, Microsoft, or Walmart. People would have to risk their entire life's savings in order to even try. Meanwhile, billionaires can just take a million dollars out of savings and open a business, easily. They can even buy up the competition. They can lobby the government for laws benefiting themselves and their business. They have a massive amount of power. It's not sustainable. They make all of the profits individually.
It's also pretty important to understand where economic growth is even coming from to begin with, because there is only so much money in existence at one time, and there are only so many resources available at one time as well. Supply is ultimately limited. Unless there is an infinite supply of either money or resources, then how can there be economic growth at all? Where is it coming from? It's not "coming from" anywhere, as if it is emerging into existence out of nothing. It is just being displaced from somewhere else. I don't see how economic growth could really exist without international trade or hiring cheap foreign labor. That's clearly why North Korea cannot grow, but China can. North Korea is protectionist (like the Soviet Union was), while China is not. China is willing to trade with other countries. They get rich doing so. North Korea can barely feed its own people. No doubt, that is why they have started to let tourists into certain areas. They are desperate for the economic growth that can only come from somewhere else. Someone has to lose value in order for someone else to profit. China is aware of this. They are trying to get involved with Africa now, to exploit its resources, as Europe and America has done for so many centuries.
International trade can still exist, meaning that our economy would not stagnate, but likely grow, given that our prices would be fair, according to what working consumers in America found reasonably profitable and affordable. People would prefer American products because of the quality and the price. Products would not be cheaply made by the government, but by happy workers/consumers who set fair prices, not looking to get filthy rich, but to provide for consumers and make a reasonable living.
That doesn't mean that they would all make equal wages/salaries. A neurosurgeon does more difficult work than a nurse. You could pay the neurosurgeon a higher base salary, while still giving an equal percentage of profits (what's left over, which would normally go to the individual business owner) to both the neurosurgeon and the nurse. So that both have more incentive to do good work, while still paying what is appropriate for the job. However, there are some businesses where diversification of labor may not be neccessary. In which case, they might decide for themselves not to have wages, but to divide profits evenly.
Again, in this system, the workers would be able to collectively decide how much of the profits are reinvested into the business as well. If they have base wages, then they could decide to put some profits aside, just in case there is a difficult time for the business in the future. So, they would not go bankrupt. It's probably more efficient to do that.
Also, the workers could hire the use of capital, such as from investors, rather than capital hiring labor. They might democratically agree to sell non-voting stock to investors, for example. The investors could trade stocks no differently than now. They just would not be able to make decisions on behalf of the workers (who are in charge of their own labor). If investors do not like the direction of the business, then they simply sell the stock. They do not get a say in the decisions being made, just because they are wealthier than the workers due to trading stocks. That doesn't imply that they are more qualified than the workers to decide what the workers do. They could maybe suggest something. But the most important thing in the market is worker autonomy, because workers ARE consumers. They would know best. The point is to provide for society, not to grow the business for the profit of a handful of investors.
@@Soleilune1995 There's nothing stopping workers from trying that right now. No revolution needed for a co-op. Free market allows for that, and if it works, it works.
The pilgrims had collective ownership. They were starving to death and many died off before switching to private property. You are free to form your own collective experiment. It won't end well.
Oscar Lange a market socialist, did a great response.
You just explained why you would need markets in a capitalist system. You never debunked the problem of economic calculation in relation to socialism.
The argument that you can't efficiently allocate factors of production without a market has been debunked. Kantorovich and his followers solved this problem more than 70 years ago by using linear optimization methods. You can find some of their papers online, and summaries of them right here on youtube. Now, Mises was writing a few years before Kantorovich, so he might be excused for getting this wrong. But the fact that people today are still putting forth this argument is, in my opinion, somewhat dishonest.
Yep, Kantorovich did so well that the Soviet Union wasn't forced to liberalize in the 80s and then didn't collapse. He is a hero of the people.
@@GabrielNicho I like your attempt at being funny with irony.
Anyway, Mises presented a theoretical problem of socialism, and Kantorovich solved it. This is a matter of fact. Trying to disprove a conclusion of economic theory by appealing to some historical episode (such as what happened in the Soviet Union) is to misunderstand the distinction between theory and history.
@@berntengdahl1519 Yes, but that's not what you said. "The argument that you can't efficiently allocate factors of production without a market has been debunked. "
That's what you said. And no, it has not been debunked. Mises (and Hayeks) arguments were more expansive than that. The very fact that the Soviet economy (as did any other command economy), failed, is proof that they were right. Lange is also thrown up often as a "debunker", but in the end, they used Langes system, and it didn't work.
@@GabrielNicho I think you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. (It might be due to my own lack of English skills or whatever).
Mises made the argument that you can't efficiently allocate factors of production without a market. Specifically, he said that you need money as a common unit of measurement to compare costs, and you don't have that without markets. When he's making this argument, he's talking about economic theory. He's not presenting an argument that can be proved or disproved by empirical observation. Mises himself often stressed this point. Now, Kantorovich showed that you don't need a common unit of measurement, you can do calculation in kind. So, in this particular regard Mises was wrong. Again, IN THEORY. This is all I was saying. I'm not talking about "real economies", I'm talking about economic theory.
You brought up Hayek. He made another argument which, unlike that of Mises, has not been debunked. That's a separate topic.
Also, the Soviet Union did not fail in terms of economic growth. It grew faster than the West (but slower than Japan). In that sense, it was quite successful. It certainly failed in so far as there was widespread political oppression. Also, I suppose you can say that it failed because it collapsed after just 70 years. But all states emerge, develop and eventually collapse and we usually don't judge them as failures from that alone.
@@berntengdahl1519 Ehh, you said he proved Mises wrong, which he didn't, nor did Langes "solution" to the economic calculation problem stated by Mises solve the problem of the lack of markets. Mises has not been debunked, nor has Kantorovich shown to be right, I'm responding to this since you said that a planned economy is possible and that Kant. showed this. He did no such thing.
The Soviet Union only had large growth early because it was catching up. When you start from zero, growth always look more impressive.
Assumes de facto Government control? Erm, the WTF is a cooperative?
How does the workers suddenly get control of the factory?
@@kurokamei Revolution. That's what seizing the means of production is.
@@TheEasterBasket0432 Ergo - establishing new government that will control the factory.. Worker's council or whatever fancy word you can come up with is still a government.
And the "seizing" is from everyone (we all have our means of production - at least time and skill) to the hands of the government.. Not something anyone should want.
@@TheArakan94 the means of production is literally owned by the people.. the government is a tool used by the people. It won't dictate anything. It'll only do something when the people need it to do something...
And literally everybody doesn't own means of production, only capitalists own the means of production and the rest of the people are just Working Class People. Which then will take the capitalists private property and yse it to support themselfs.
@@TheEasterBasket0432 like it does right now, right? Government never represents everyone nor does it things according to some consensus. It always serves interests of selected people.
No. Literally everyone owns means of production. Your abilities and your time (also called human capital) are means of production. Or are you telling me that if I put you to the wilderness, you won't be able to produce anything? You will - basic weapon, basic shelter and some food. If you have the skill, you'll be even able to produce fire and therefore heat energy.
You own these means and in free market, you either willingly trade them (become employee) or use them yourself (become artisan) to make things, which then you own and can willingly trade. By your definition, everyone is capitalist.
In socialism, public seizes these means - along with buildings and tools - and then controls them. This means that you can no longer do whatever you want (you must do work that is determined by public) and you cannot own the fruits of your labor - they are distributed by the public. Public is always represented by government, because direct large-scale decision-making is impossible.
"Socialism works"
Ahh the flat earth mating call, here in the wild.
ahehe. But capitalism does?
@@-arche-7926 yup. Works great.
When have you seen Socialism work?
@@kurtjohansson1265 The paris commune, east cameroon, tschecoslovakia (very short, I know), chile... all crushed by western imperialism, mostly the USA.
@@-arche-7926 very nice.
Now, can you think of a time that things went off the rails?
@@kurtjohansson1265 tell me. Name some.
That is why market socialism is the way forward
🤣
@@Darren_S why is it funny
No such thing as "market socialism" if markets are allowed to remain open, then it's a market economy.
So lemme get this straight, you interview some followers of a lazy proto neo liberal capitalist about 'socialism' but not any socialist or Marxist economists like Richard Wolff or David Harvey?
"we need someone to explain Socialist economics objectively, so let's invite the guy who wrote a book called "why Socialism sucks" to explain it!"
And now some other guy is trying to argue that they're right just because you decided to point out how ridiculous that premise is.
"The truth hurts, therefore, if I hurt people, I must be telling the truth!"
@@deckie_ They explained the lack of Marxists. According to them, most Marxists refused to participate.
Anyway, socialism is bad.
@@daviokamoto2143 then they could've gotten a better speaker for the role, get a professor who is actually neutral or something.
But the organisation does have an open agenda, so I shouldn't be complaining really. This is within their right.
Dude even progressive left-wing economists who support welfare or keynesian economics stay away from Marxist bullshit.
Marxian Class analysis to surplus value isn't taken seriously in economics by literally any stream whether Austrian, neo classical, Keynesian or welfare.
Kinda idealistic approach, raw capitalism existed during the industrial revolution. That was true capitalism and its fierce face when it was no control. Every other current capitalist society is an evolution of that first seed. With its inherent problem of systemic economical crisis. Focusing on its strengths cant deny its weaknesses: i.e. unfair distribution of wealth and social differences etc. Great videos !
Socialism is also capitalism - it is a State Capitalism and its industries were wasteful, polluting, and used massive amounts of sIave labor in the USSR.
The "economical crisis" I presume is the boom/bust cycle, which happens when the feds manipulate the price of debt: interest rates.
Stop setting prices artificially and let the hivemind of the market economy do its calculating.
Also, inequality exists because some people are unequally good at solving the scarcity problem of others, which is why they get richer and more prosperous. Are you going to do more with that money than they? What qualifications do you have?
If you make about $32,000/year in the USA, you are in the top 1% of the world. Are you going to pay some voluntary taxes to the poorest nations to help them out?
Without pricing socialism was blind. But can AI make such a system possible? I think AI can never replace human values. What do you think?
No. Price is subjective to the consumer, I.e. you when you buy a product. Not a robot that decides it for you.
@@messiahshepherd9266 Exactly. I hate it when comrades say this, especially since its so simple. Rather than letting a market determine value, which is subject to manipulation of all kinds, and actively incentivises sellers to artificially inflate prices, let a modern planning committee do it. Yes, the Soviet planning wasn't great. I blame Marx for not writing enough about socialism, and instead shitting on capitalism all day. In the 1920s, nobody knew what the fuck was happening. The Soviets also had... other problems, and their planning suffered. But there is a way.
Solutions:
1 Polling data. With modern technology and statistical analysis, a planning committee can very easily measure demand for a product. By simply polling consumers, monitoring usage and satisfaction with products etc, a planning committee can gather enough data to predict consumer demand. Because the planning committee controls output and distribution of resources, they have access to supply data as well.
2 Limited markets. This is a very controversial idea, I disagree with it, but market socialists believe that a market of sorts can exist without threatening socialist ideas so long as it is monitored and controlled.
3 Raw compute power. Value can now be predicted programmatically, no AI required. Cockshott has done seminal work on this, proving it as early as 1993, so its not particularly demanding technology-wise.
I'm currrently reading up on the specifics so I'm not super well-versed, but in essence value can be quantified as total human labour required. Raw materials are defined by labour required to extract. The value of a manufactured product has to take into account the value of the land and capital used to produce it. The value of each piece of capital is probably made with other capital, as meat is made from a cow but also machinery,a cow is made in part with feed and feed is made in part with water, soil and sun. The machinery to grind the cow, the barn, all has to be taken into account. Computers make the task, however, trivial, so long as a planner can determine the proportion of value each piece of capital attributes to the product.
Value can be influenced by other factors, easily. Literally, the factors can be actual factors in a mathematical sense in the equation used to calculate value. One major argument for socialism is the *environment*. Capitalists don't giva shit about climate change, they just want profits, so they do the bare minimum, or even less with regards to environmentalism. But, we can say that using a diesel engine to produce something makes it's value higher than a more ecologically sane method. Thus, the higher value disincentives worker co-ops (socialist companies) from using those.
This is just an introduction, a lot of the work on this hasn't been done yet. Socialist research is not a very productive field atm. Hopefully, pioneering economists will help solve the problems the Soviet union had and we'll do better next time ;) Just god please no more socialist revolutions, there's no way to build a socialist government from scratch yet they always collapse. First create a blueprint for socialist society by slowly reforming, then we can start the spread. Hope this was informative, comrades!
@@KooShnoo I'm an Austrian economist, not a comrade.
@@messiahshepherd9266 ~~oh. So you worship von Mises the 20th Century Austrian, and I worship Marx, 20th century German. Potato potahto.~~ EDIT: yeah you're right it was a joke anyway
@@messiahshepherd9266 check out the song ancapistan by jreg EDIT: still a banger imo
But... what about Oskar Lange ?
His model failed as well - read Mises' book Socialism to find out why even price simulations with profit-maximizing managers would fail.
Fat Potatoe But his theories were responses to Mises’ criticism
@@lucrece4563 To which he responded in Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis. And those responses were sufficient to rebut their "socialist" scheme which had to readmit the functioning of a market anyway.
Read:
"Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship" by Huerta de Soto.
It's easy to call things bad but I haven't heard anything good in this video.
Too pro-freedom for you?
I hate this channel & the empty arguments that are in almost all of your UA-cam videos.
I now see this channel as bad as Prager U.
You need to hear the counter arguments, to EVERY one of the points, that are made on this channel.
@danintheoutback1:
Thank you!
WHERE are those counterarguments? I watched a lot of leftist and socialist channels and none of them ever mentions those discussion topics.
Nevertheless, the socialist USSR had been one of the most influential countries of the world. That means there's not that bad about economic calculation under socialism. There's another system which can substite the economic calculation.
Yet when people travelled there, they described it like stepping back in time. No range of goods and massive amount of day to day essentials were lacking. Mises is not saying that Socialism is completely and 'literally' economically impossible, but plainly demonstrates its complete inefficiency in allocating resources - and how market forces are superior.
@kabal , in many capitalist countries over the world there is poverty and lack of the primary resources such as pure water and food.
In the Soviet Union everyone had their OWN home, not a home which they rents.
And if you mention of the Western technologies, then you should remember that about 20% of planes that time were made in the USSR, and this is only one example of many like this.
What an odd dependence
@@WhataDubHead many capitalist countries over the world there is poverty and lack of the primary resources such as pure water and food.
In the Soviet Union everyone had their OWN home, not a home which they rents.
And if you mention of the Western technologies, then you should remember that about 20% of planes that time were made in the USSR, and this is only one example of many like this.
@@trahobaskarabas8042 The Soviet Union had a terrible standard of living and had 30 million people killed in gulags. You really want to pretend socialism wasn't a catastrophe in the USSR? If socialism is so desirable, then why do they need walls to keep people in and capitalist countries need walls to keep people out.
@@razerfish I have a couple of questions for you, would you like to answer?
What is gulag, what did you mean by "gulag" and what is the difference?
Can you prove that the USSR had a terrible standard of living? I remind that terribleness is absolutely relative thing, so what did you compare living standards in the USSR to? To today's normal standard of living or what? And which exactly standards did you mean, because they had been changing a lot, and not only in the USSR, becuse under socialism living standards are stabler than under capitalism.
The capitalist countries would build walls too, wouldn't they?
You guys clearly haven't seen the Islamic financial system. How do you think a bunch of Bedouin Arabs became the superpowers of the 7th century world? The richest of the rich? Up until they lost their roots and were overthrown by the western world, they were economically the richest and thriving economy of all times.
The islamic financial system has all the good elements of a capitalistic, socialist and a communist economy, without the negative aspects. This system does not accept any interest/usury as that is what destroys economies. The poor get wealthier with this system. The wealthy remain wealthy. It's a win-win. U should study it if you're interested.
No. Have you considered, oil? Oil makes money. So you see, in conclusion, it's the oil. Norway? Trillions. How? Oil.
Eeeks socialism failed economic model. Dunno how I got to this video....
'cos you're looking for a solution to the damage that capitalism has caused? Yar, socialism failed as implemented, so let's find something old and overlooked "the commons"
@@CasparMacRae What damage did capitailsm cause?
you can determine value other than using prices. this is a false dichotomy
@@paulmiller985 lol, yeah how?
Through the, "Value of Work?"
No, economic calculation is impossible without prices. It is possible without wage labor currency and the exchange system but materials do need to be quantified which is what pricing does. Real pricing is what Natural Law can afford.
Sure. If you had absolute control, you could substitute your valuations for the market, but the outcome would be economic ruin and poverty.
This annoys me because I agree with what they’re saying, but they’re being disingenuous with word choice and so I feel compelled to clarify. Which, again, is annoying.
They are inappropriately conflating central planning with Socialism. I also hate central planning. The thing is, there is plenty of central planning within capitalism that they never address. Corporations centrally plan everyday. Let’s expand this thought process of markets and price signals to include internal operations of companies.
Second, given centrally planned and Socialism are not the same, it is totally viable to have private property, markets, and prices in Socialism. It’s literally called Market Socialism.
social markets are a thing, market socialism does not exist
Socialism requires a centrally planned economy.
Corporations being centrally planned is entirely different from an entire economy and state being centrally planned.
@@roamingimperial8971 how I understand it, this is the difference between socialism and communism
@@efanjohnson8207 it’s a little more than that. In socialism the capitalist would become a fellow worker and own the means of production with the rest of the other workers, it allows for a state to exist and landlords would not exist, where as communism requires a social revolution where the proletariat overthrows the bourgeois and may(most if not all the time) also kill the bourgeois and even the counter revolutionist(workers who don’t agree the revolution).
@@roamingimperial8971 well it’s not entirely different, but okay. Also, Socialism does not require central planning. Checkout Market Socialism.
Capitalism & Socialism are claims of microeconomics, not macroeconomics. Terms like markets and central planning ARE claims of macroeconomics, but are independent of Capitalism & Socialism.
Capitalism = subset of people own the enterprise
Socialism = all workers own the enterprise
Markets = relationships between enterprises are organized by price signals
Central Planning = relationship between enterprises it determined by a central committee
Guess they never heard of market socialism? You can have worker ownership of the Means of Production while also having a market system. I can't believe it took 2 seconds to debunk this...
You can't have "worker ownership" while having a free market. I can't believe it took 1.5 seconds to debunk your debunking. When you can just assert things this debunking business is super easy.
@@shlockofgod well good job you can't read, maybe you need some quality public education to get your reading comprehension up. I never said anything about "free market", I said worker ownership is compatible with a market system. And even under your hypothetical "free market", worker ownership is still compatible with that too.
@@DogsOnAcid The video is talking a bout a free market. Any socialist workers ownership would not be part of that market.
@@shlockofgod So under a free market it's impossible for workers to form a cooperative? Why?
@@DogsOnAcid A cooperative in socialist sense, no.
Would AI not make the inherent flaws of people in planning irrelevant
Not AI just regualar computing lol. It's not even all that complicated, von Mises is super outdated. Even the Soviets kinda got a half decent system with bureaucratic planning, with simple computing it's easy. Check out Cockshott.
There is no AI.
The problem isn't that you can't calculate those stuff, but that you don't have any information about people's interests. Calculation is no problem - even in 1970s in Chile during Allende's presidency there were such technologies, but system still didn't work. Guess why? Because of what Friedrich A. von Hayek called "the pretense of knowledge".
@@dgsf9444 You can measure people's interest with demand. The more demand there is for a good, the higher the target should be when calculating the plan and vice versa the lower the demand the lower the production target. Allende's Cybersyn was interrupted by the CIA committing horrible crimes against humanity, as they are wont to do. I'm not super well-read on it, but I think it would have eventually been able to manage the economy.
@@KooShnoo How would you figure out the demand?
These are so painfully patronizing.
I love these fascist youtube channels. Good times.
Fascism is a subset of socialism.
nustada it isn’t, socialism is just the collective ownership over the means of production, fascism is ultranationalism
@@tomio8072 Socialism is state ownership of the means of production. Fascism is when the state controls the means of production. The only real difference paperwork. Your distinction doesn't make sense, every socialist country was also nationalistic. By your definition, the USSR was fascist, not socialist.
Eg, if the hospital is ran by the state, it is socialistic. If a hospital is "privately owned" but told how to operate how much they can charge, that is fascistic.
nustada if that was the case revolutionary Catalonia would not be socialist, George Orwell wouldn’t have been a socialist, and Rojava would not be directed by socialists either.
@@tomio8072 Catalonia was socialistic They took ownership of all the factories of any significant, they stole the land then redistributed its use as they saw fit, they stole buildings such as churches... As far as nationalism goes, there has been a Catalan nationalist movement that goes back to the 19th century.
The revolutionaries catatonia were not socialistic at first. were communists and syndicalists but as soon as they got the ring of power they exposed their hypocrisy by joining with PSUC whom they attacked before the revolution. Almost immediately after the state was formed the anarchists were displaced by Marxist communists (statist socialists). Which wasn't odd considering the revolution was backed by the soviet union: A proxy war.
neoclassical economists believes that they're scientists lmao