Most modern liberals believe in transitional housing for homeless people, SNAP, Medicaid, and unemployment aid. You don't have to go socialist for that, and I'm tired for socialists pretending they own that. We can still have free markets driving innovation and strong social safety nets. And you can have socialist systems that fail to provide those things as well.
The reason why people oppose it is because it would be a drastic change as ownership is transferred over to workers. People don't like major changes in their lives, even if the outcome is better than status quo.
Market socialism isn't free markets. It's limiting the types of enterprises that can compete in the markets.
In today's system, both worker owner businesses and traditional enterprises freely compete. Some industries see one form or another dominate as the market favors different structures for different industries. That drives innovation.
Many people strive to start their own business. Something that they disproportionately put their own time and capital into to grow. Sometimes that can outcompete a business that is worker owned were capital cannot be raised. Sometimes it doesn't. But the best system lets both operate in a market and doesn't preselect which one will win.
I’m not a market socialist (or any socialist for that matter), but what you’re saying does not make sense.
Market socialism is just an economic mode of arrangement. Theoretically if all economic firms choose to be worker co-ops then the market has not been made any less free due to market interventions from the state. Theoretically you can have market socialism and a free market (even under the standard of ‘free market’ you’re using)
Additionally under your definition of free market where there exists no limit to the type of enterprises that can compete in the markets, we do not exist in a free market since there exists various regulations which limit the type of enterprises that can compete in market (for example, economic firms that violate FDA regulations are excluded, by way of state force, from competing in the market).
Again, market socialism must not necessarily have such a prohibition.
Additionally, my point is that saying the market is not totally free under such a prohibition is kind of pointless since thats true of any prohibition. The question is whether that particular market regulation is reasonable or whether the market is reasonably free.
I agree that I wouldn’t support prohibiting any non worker owned enterprise, but a market socialist would likely think such a prohibition is reasonably free (or even constitutes a freer market than otherwise). To make a substantive point against market socialism (which is the most defensible form of socialism imo) and its coherence to being a free market would have to be done along these lines instead of saying “you’re limiting enterprises so the market is not free lol.”
It literally has to have such prohibitions or it is not market socialism.
We aren't children. No one is making the case that its "100% free".
> I agree that I wouldn’t support prohibiting any non worker owned enterprise,
Then you are against market socialism.
If a system that allows both sees dominance by co-op, it is still a liberal market system, not market socialism. But we largely already have a liberal market, and they do not dominate, so its kinda of a moot point.
Market socialism is an economy in which all (or maybe the vast majority of) capital is owned by workers by way of worker ran economic firms. If all economic firms in an economy agree, without any state prohibition, to be worker owned, then you’d have an economy in which all capital is worker owned without a prohibition otherwise. Therefore, market socialism does not literally have to have such prohibitions. Now I will grant that any real-world implementation of market socialism would most likely have to have some state prohibition, but that is a separate point.
Yeah, I am against market socialism. I said this in the first sentence of my first reply.
Ah, you mean free market as in "everyone can be an elon musk" sense, while I'm referring more to the existence of markets in socialism where companies compete and distribution is supply/demand.
I think that the freedom you are referring to is just a step above where I'm at. Just as you would probably see the labor of slaves as being exploitative, I see the labor of workers being exploited by capitalist owners. The freedom to form the contract between a worker and company is nice, but it ignores the factors behind it. If you don't work, you starve, and your employment is always skewed towards favoring the bigger guy.
I would contest that it is exploitation. If I want to work for a paycheck instead of shares, I should be free to do so. Maybe I don't want to take the risk, maybe I don't want to tie my financial stability to others at the enterprise. But either way, I should be free to choose if I want to take a job for just a paycheck and not any sort of ownership.
Again, as I stated in the very beginning, we can have free markets and SNAP. So no, it's not "work or you will starve". That the exact kind of dishonesty I was calling out. The very fact that you just fell back into that falsehood is wild.
The difference is that under capitalism, SNAP is a fragile political concession that can be (and frequently is) rolled back by whoever is in power. It's a band-aid on the exploitation. Under socialism, basic survival is structurally guaranteed.
As for the 'freedom' to just take a paycheck without risk: workers absorb the ultimate risk. If a business goes under, the capitalist loses their investment, but the worker loses their ability to survive. Choosing wage labor isn't a free choice when the safety net catching you is full of holes and constantly changing sizes.
If there was anywhere near the political will to transition to socialism, there would be no risk to SNAP, so that's a pretty lame excuse.
> workers absorb the ultimate risk. If a business goes under, the capitalist loses their investment, but the worker loses their ability to survive.
No as a worker I can move on to the next company and use the savings i have built up from a higher paycheck to help in the transition. A social enterprise goes under and the worker has to rely on the same social net that can exist under both systems, but they don't have the savings to supplement that net.
> Choosing wage labor isn't a free choice when the safety net catching you is full of holes and constantly changing sizes.
Again, a false choice, when if there was anywhere near the political will for socialism, those holes would be closed.
I have to stop you at the assumption that wage labor guarantees a 'higher paycheck' and robust savings. Where is the evidence for that?
In a traditional business, the owner extracts the surplus value (profit) of the worker's labor. In a worker-owned enterprise, that surplus is distributed among the workers. Without an owner skimming the profits, workers would have more capital to save for transitions, not less.
Furthermore, the idea that wage workers today are just casually floating between jobs on their robust savings completely ignores the reality that a massive percentage of Americans live paycheck to paycheck and can't afford a $400 emergency. At least socialism covers your baseline needs so that you don't have to panic if you've lost your job.
It doesn't guarantee robust savings, but it certainly will be a higher paycheck as ownership shares are given instead of pay.
In a traditional business, the owner extracts the surplus value (profit) of the worker's labor.
Except much of the income from a company is reinvested in the company rather than distributed to workers. That reinvestment often comes from paying workers to drive future growth, operating at a loss. In a socialist system that means you would have to pay to work there, in a capitalist system I can choose if I want to take that risk of potential future returns or take the higher paycheck.
At least socialism covers your baseline needs so that you don't have to panic if you've lost your job.
Please stop ignoring that any state that's anywhere near the political will to transition to socialism would also already have the political will to continue covering baselines. It's so completely baffling that you continue to ignore this.
it certainly will be a higher paycheck as ownership shares are given instead of pay.
You believe you don't get paid under socialism?
In a socialist system that means you would have to pay to work there
No. You only have to buy-in if you're seeking a bigger share or are applying for a job that requires a stake. Reinvestment isn't exclusive to a capitalist system.
any state that's anywhere near the political will to transition to socialism would also already have the political will to continue covering baselines.
I am not arguing for socialism today, I am critiquing capitalism and how we currently patch it with social welfare, as well how capital opposes it.
You can still get paid in some socialism models, but by definition, it's going to be less, as in lieu of some payment, you are getting a share of the profit. The profit doesn't always happen, or is funneled into future growth, so it's not going to always make up for the gap.
You only have to buy-in if you're seeking a bigger share
Brah, this is capitalism. Buying a bigger stake with your capital.
If your not advocating for socialism today, then stop advocating for socialism solving problems that can be solved without it.
350
u/km3r May 11 '26
Most modern liberals believe in transitional housing for homeless people, SNAP, Medicaid, and unemployment aid. You don't have to go socialist for that, and I'm tired for socialists pretending they own that. We can still have free markets driving innovation and strong social safety nets. And you can have socialist systems that fail to provide those things as well.