The book is very interesting, but I don't think "market socialism" makes much sense. Capitalism has always been based on an unending need for growth. How can this need for growth exist in a society that runs on something like renewable energy, something which is contradictory to the entire idea of consumption?
If I am using a resource like coal or oil to power my electricity or automobile,then I am constantly consuming it, and I am in constant need for more of it, thus it is a never ending cycle of consumption..
However, the sun is always there. if I make a one time purchase of a solar panel then aside from repairs my consumption for electricity is done. As more and more people in the world obtain solar panels there is less and less consumption occurring and therefore less ability for capitalism to expand, something which it simply has to do in order to keep functioning.
Additionally, if history has taught us anything it's that so long as the ruling class is allowed to exist in any form they will always strike back against any gains made by the masses. We need a classless society or nothing.
The book is very interesting, but I don't think "market socialism" makes much sense. Capitalism has always been based on an unending need for growth. How can this need for growth exist in a society that runs on something like renewable energy, something which is contradictory to the entire idea of consumption?
If I am using a resource like coal or oil to power my electricity or automobile,then I am constantly consuming it, and I am in constant need for more of it, thus it is a never ending cycle of consumption..
However, the sun is always there. if I make a one time purchase of a solar panel then aside from repairs my consumption for electricity is done. As more and more people in the world obtain solar panels there is less and less consumption occurring and therefore less ability for capitalism to expand, something which it simply has to do in order to keep functioning.
I'm not so sure. Water is "always there" too, but companies still manage to make a fortune out of it. With solar, things like maintenance and repairs (and built-in obsolescence), upgrades (solar technology isn't static as it is; I'd guess development could be expected to increase as solar becomes more widespread), installation and removal and so on all provide potential sources for profit and growth.
Compare to free software, Linux etc. - yes the software's free, you can use, edit, change and share it to your heart's content; doesn't change the fact that it's a massive industry dominated by some of the biggest companies in the game.
True true. Though water is not a commodity that is nearly as valuable as oil/coal (globally, obviously on a local level there are areas where this is not the case). There are countries whose enitre economy runs on oil, cant say the same for water. Yes one could expect companies to charge exorbitant fees on solar energy but the drop in consumption in switching from coal and oil to renewables would, over time, be massive.
I think I oversimplified when I said solar as it is not just solar that Klein is talking about. Technology such as geothermal heating is designed solely to decrease consumption.
But yes I could envision creative ways in which companies could be incentivized to base their market strategy around eco-friendly initiatives, however problems would arise constantly as concentrations of capital in eco-friendly companies would lead to those companies exercising power over the political system and then start rigging it in their own interests. Capitalism and democracy just dont mix
Edit: should also add that the eco-capitalist society that Klein envisions would go to great lengths to limit water consumption
Well I don't think trying alternative energy sources in a capitalist society will do a whole lot to eliminate capitalism itself, all one needs to do is look into the "green movement" that capitalism has created over the years to suck environmental activists away from militant tactics to see that. However, I don't think part of a transition out of capitalism should be setting up alternative energy sources and eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
I am familiar with Klein's work and I have the book you suggested. She is not really a "market socialist" or socialist of any stripe for that matter. Her politics revolve around communal autonomy rather then any kind of revolutionary program.
I think Klein makes it pretty clear here that she is what we might call a "market socialist".
She talks about a need to regulate financial institutions and invest heavily in the public sphere while making no mention about ending capitalism altogether
How is that not social-democracy? Market socialism is, as I understand it, used to refer to the idea of a society based on worker managed cooperatives competing in the market.
If I am using a resource like coal or oil to power my electricity or automobile,then I am constantly consuming it, and I am in constant need for more of it, thus it is a never ending cycle of consumption..
However, the sun is always there. if I make a one time purchase of a solar panel then aside from repairs my consumption for electricity is done. As more and more people in the world obtain solar panels there is less and less consumption occurring and therefore less ability for capitalism to expand, something which it simply has to do in order to keep functioning.
You're still consuming it. I'm not aware of any definition of consumption requiring you to be paying someone for it.
With the sun you are also constantly consuming it and in constant need for more of it, "thus it is a never ending cycle of consumption".
I'm pretty sure renewable energy won't help against capitalism at all.
How is that not social-democracy? Market socialism is, as I understand it, used to refer to the idea of a society based on worker managed cooperatives competing in the market.
Klein does advocate worker (and 'community') co-ops, and criticises the nationalised industry model of traditional social democracy. On the other hand she's also into small businesses. I'm not sure I'd call her a market socialist, maybe a localist social democrat? Or a mash up of the two.
Definitely in the market socialist camp are Kevin Carson's crowd: http://c4ss.org/
An excellent criticism of the market per se (i.e. not just capitalist markets but 'socialist markets' (sic) too) is John O'Neill's The Market. It's pretty expensive though, apart from the odd ex library copy that comes up. I'm not sure if there's pdfs online so might be an IRL library job.
An excellent criticism of the market per se (i.e. not just capitalist markets but 'socialist markets' (sic) too) is John O'Neill's The Market. It's pretty expensive though, apart from the odd ex library copy that comes up. I'm not sure if there's pdfs online so might be an IRL library job.
O'Neill - The Market http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=9B2C61AC8487C3A8FE99811A9769CD51
Market socialism is, as I understand it, used to refer to the idea of a society based on worker managed cooperatives competing in the market.
Market socialism has been used to describe a great many notions -- from the state mimicing markets in Lange and Taylor (ignore as it is basically replacing the fictional Walrasian auctioneer with a real one, the state bureaucracy) to actual, genuine forms of market socialism (namely, worker-run co-operatives on a market).
One of the first, genuine, market socialists was Proudhon and his theory of mutualism (and, no, he did not advocate "labour-notes" as Marx claimed).
The most famous advocate of markets and socialism (he was not that in favour of co-operatives, though), was Alec Nove -- see his The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited for a good introduction to the issues. also see "Markets and Socialism" in New Left Review I/161, January-February 1987, pp. 98-104.
However, David Schweickart is the most consistent advocate of co-operatives in a market -- his books Against Capitalism and After Capitalism are worth reading. He calls his ideas "economic democracy" (Proudhon called his "industrial democracy").
Others have used the term -- Socialism After Hayek by Theodore A. Burczak (my review); Economic Democracy: The Working-Class Alternative to Capitalism by Allan Engler (my review) and Democracy at work: A cure for capitalism by Richard Wolff (my review).
I would also recomment Economics and Utopia: Why the Learning Economy Is Not the End of History by Geoffrey M. Hodgson -- he used to be a Trotskyist before realising the problems with central planning. Also see his The Democratic Economy: A New Look at Planning, Markets and Power.
The market socialists are right insofar as capitalism is defined by wage-labour rather than "the market" and they are right to point to the dangers and problems of central planning. The Trotskyist critiques of market socialism basically do not understand the problem (the same can be said of Parecon supporters -- as can be seen from this exchange).
Renewable energy rquires capital - solar panels etc and the land to put them on.
In places humanity has had huge dams for years, originaly promising 'electricity too cheap to measure' and our needs have increased.
Just because humanity can create a plentiful source of something from nature doesn't mean it won't be monetised. Like food, water, sitting on the beach...
Iirc Klein’s argument is that the economics of solar PV (close to zero marginal cost, peak output at the time conventional power makes peak profit) lends itself to distributed generation and community ownership rather than the centralised model.
I'd try Naomi Klein's "this
I'd try Naomi Klein's "this changes everything" http://libcom.org/library/changes-everything-naomi-klein.
The book is very interesting, but I don't think "market socialism" makes much sense. Capitalism has always been based on an unending need for growth. How can this need for growth exist in a society that runs on something like renewable energy, something which is contradictory to the entire idea of consumption?
If I am using a resource like coal or oil to power my electricity or automobile,then I am constantly consuming it, and I am in constant need for more of it, thus it is a never ending cycle of consumption..
However, the sun is always there. if I make a one time purchase of a solar panel then aside from repairs my consumption for electricity is done. As more and more people in the world obtain solar panels there is less and less consumption occurring and therefore less ability for capitalism to expand, something which it simply has to do in order to keep functioning.
Additionally, if history has taught us anything it's that so long as the ruling class is allowed to exist in any form they will always strike back against any gains made by the masses. We need a classless society or nothing.
Soapy wrote: The book is very
Soapy
I'm not so sure. Water is "always there" too, but companies still manage to make a fortune out of it. With solar, things like maintenance and repairs (and built-in obsolescence), upgrades (solar technology isn't static as it is; I'd guess development could be expected to increase as solar becomes more widespread), installation and removal and so on all provide potential sources for profit and growth.
Compare to free software, Linux etc. - yes the software's free, you can use, edit, change and share it to your heart's content; doesn't change the fact that it's a massive industry dominated by some of the biggest companies in the game.
True true. Though water is
True true. Though water is not a commodity that is nearly as valuable as oil/coal (globally, obviously on a local level there are areas where this is not the case). There are countries whose enitre economy runs on oil, cant say the same for water. Yes one could expect companies to charge exorbitant fees on solar energy but the drop in consumption in switching from coal and oil to renewables would, over time, be massive.
I think I oversimplified when I said solar as it is not just solar that Klein is talking about. Technology such as geothermal heating is designed solely to decrease consumption.
But yes I could envision creative ways in which companies could be incentivized to base their market strategy around eco-friendly initiatives, however problems would arise constantly as concentrations of capital in eco-friendly companies would lead to those companies exercising power over the political system and then start rigging it in their own interests. Capitalism and democracy just dont mix
Edit: should also add that the eco-capitalist society that Klein envisions would go to great lengths to limit water consumption
Well I don't think trying
Well I don't think trying alternative energy sources in a capitalist society will do a whole lot to eliminate capitalism itself, all one needs to do is look into the "green movement" that capitalism has created over the years to suck environmental activists away from militant tactics to see that. However, I don't think part of a transition out of capitalism should be setting up alternative energy sources and eliminating the use of fossil fuels.
I am familiar with Klein's work and I have the book you suggested. She is not really a "market socialist" or socialist of any stripe for that matter. Her politics revolve around communal autonomy rather then any kind of revolutionary program.
dsc, Agree first sentence and
dsc,
Agree first sentence and last sentence but second - do you really mean 'don't' or 'do'??
I think Klein makes it pretty
I think Klein makes it pretty clear here that she is what we might call a "market socialist".
She talks about a need to regulate financial institutions and invest heavily in the public sphere while making no mention about ending capitalism altogether
How is that not
How is that not social-democracy? Market socialism is, as I understand it, used to refer to the idea of a society based on worker managed cooperatives competing in the market.
Theres no real difference but
Theres no real difference but Klein and many others like her claim to be socialist i think
Soapy wrote: If I am using a
Soapy
You're still consuming it. I'm not aware of any definition of consumption requiring you to be paying someone for it.
With the sun you are also constantly consuming it and in constant need for more of it, "thus it is a never ending cycle of consumption".
I'm pretty sure renewable energy won't help against capitalism at all.
Dennis Robert Pike wrote: How
Dennis Robert Pike
Klein does advocate worker (and 'community') co-ops, and criticises the nationalised industry model of traditional social democracy. On the other hand she's also into small businesses. I'm not sure I'd call her a market socialist, maybe a localist social democrat? Or a mash up of the two.
Definitely in the market socialist camp are Kevin Carson's crowd: http://c4ss.org/
An excellent criticism of the market per se (i.e. not just capitalist markets but 'socialist markets' (sic) too) is John O'Neill's The Market. It's pretty expensive though, apart from the odd ex library copy that comes up. I'm not sure if there's pdfs online so might be an IRL library job.
Joseph Kay wrote: An
Joseph Kay
O'Neill - The Market http://gen.lib.rus.ec/book/index.php?md5=9B2C61AC8487C3A8FE99811A9769CD51
meant "do", typo
meant "do", typo
Dennis Robert Pike
Dennis Robert Pike
Market socialism has been used to describe a great many notions -- from the state mimicing markets in Lange and Taylor (ignore as it is basically replacing the fictional Walrasian auctioneer with a real one, the state bureaucracy) to actual, genuine forms of market socialism (namely, worker-run co-operatives on a market).
One of the first, genuine, market socialists was Proudhon and his theory of mutualism (and, no, he did not advocate "labour-notes" as Marx claimed).
The most famous advocate of markets and socialism (he was not that in favour of co-operatives, though), was Alec Nove -- see his The Economics of Feasible Socialism Revisited for a good introduction to the issues. also see "Markets and Socialism" in New Left Review I/161, January-February 1987, pp. 98-104.
However, David Schweickart is the most consistent advocate of co-operatives in a market -- his books Against Capitalism and After Capitalism are worth reading. He calls his ideas "economic democracy" (Proudhon called his "industrial democracy").
Others have used the term -- Socialism After Hayek by Theodore A. Burczak (my review); Economic Democracy: The Working-Class Alternative to Capitalism by Allan Engler (my review) and Democracy at work: A cure for capitalism by Richard Wolff (my review).
I would also recomment Economics and Utopia: Why the Learning Economy Is Not the End of History by Geoffrey M. Hodgson -- he used to be a Trotskyist before realising the problems with central planning. Also see his The Democratic Economy: A New Look at Planning, Markets and Power.
The market socialists are right insofar as capitalism is defined by wage-labour rather than "the market" and they are right to point to the dangers and problems of central planning. The Trotskyist critiques of market socialism basically do not understand the problem (the same can be said of Parecon supporters -- as can be seen from this exchange).
Renewable energy rquires
Renewable energy rquires capital - solar panels etc and the land to put them on.
In places humanity has had huge dams for years, originaly promising 'electricity too cheap to measure' and our needs have increased.
Just because humanity can create a plentiful source of something from nature doesn't mean it won't be monetised. Like food, water, sitting on the beach...
Iirc Klein’s argument is that
Iirc Klein’s argument is that the economics of solar PV (close to zero marginal cost, peak output at the time conventional power makes peak profit) lends itself to distributed generation and community ownership rather than the centralised model.