Wednesday, October 25, 2017

David Lane — Why market socialism is a viable alternative to neoliberalism

The key idea, according to British political scientists such as Julian Le Grand and David Miller, is that market socialism retains the market mechanism while socializing the ownership of capital. The thrust of this social-democratic approach is that markets not only promote efficiency but also freedom and democracy thus giving wide political appeal.
London School of Economics Blog
Why market socialism is a viable alternative to neoliberalism
David Lane | previously Professor of Sociology at Birmingham University and currently Emeritus Fellow of Emmanuel College, Cambridge University

7 comments:

Noah Way said...

The 'shortcomings' section pretty well sums up the feasibility of this idea.

Capitalism is the problem, not part of the solution.

andy blatchford said...

Neoliberalism is a type of market socialism.

Tom Hickey said...

Neoliberalism is a type of market socialism

Neoliberalism is a type of market "socialism" like "military Keynesianism," where the meaning of "socialism" and Keynesianism" shift.


Neoliberalism as market "socialism" capitalizes the gains and socializes the losses through state capture.

andy blatchford said...

Quite true Tom. But one of the ideas of neoliberalism is a share owning society (for British readers who remember it in the 80s of the BT sell off was the slogan 'tell Sid' Sid in the narrative was an ordinary working class stiff) if everyone owns shares then by definition it's socialism.

Tom Hickey said...

Right, Andy. This is argued in the US, too, where pension plans and retirement accounts (401k) supposedly share ownership of the means of production widely.

More BS.

The wealthy own the largest share of US capitalization (tautology), and even though smaller holders have some financial share at least, they have no real share (say) through voting their shares.

This is token ownership, like the percentage of US households owing their homes (irrespective of outstanding debt) as a criterion of "the ownership society" (G. W. Bush).

Socialism vs capitalism is about who controls "the commanding heights" of the economy.

Kaivey said...

Hardly any ordinary people own shares anymore, they sold them all and so the ruling elite own most of everything. The few shares that people did have was worth only about a few thousand, the elite had billions.

Bob Roddis said...

Tom Hickey wrote: Neoliberalism is a type of market "socialism" like "military Keynesianism," where the meaning of "socialism" and Keynesianism" shift.


Neoliberalism as market "socialism" capitalizes the gains and socializes the losses through state capture.


We agree on this.