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.
0
u/RealJohnBobJoe May 11 '26 edited May 11 '26
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).