Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively

W

Wilhelm Zenz

Verified User
Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively own the means of production while also using price systems to assist in the allocation of productive factors. This is what market socialists have been saying for a hundred years.

The case of Singapore is more than just a funny gotcha to use against right-wingers. It actually raises an interesting question about what it is people care about when it comes to “capitalism” and “socialism.” Is capitalism primarily about markets or private ownership? Relatedly, is socialism primarily about ending markets or promoting collective ownership? Often these things are bundled together, but they are logically and practically separable. Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively own the means of production while also using price systems to assist in the allocation of productive factors. This is what market socialists have been saying for a hundred years.

https://boingboing.net/2018/03/11/capitalist-ideal.html
 
if i wanted venzuela i would be ingonring singapore and norway or even france in the 1960s state driven economies that were very succesful
 
Wilhelm Zenz said:
if i wanted venzuela i would be ingonring singapore and norway or even france in the 1960s state driven economies that were very succesful
Click to expand...

Venezuela was damned by relying on a single product, oil. They could not control it's the price. So when it dove, so did their economy and all the programs they had initiated.
 
Wilhelm Zenz said:
Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively own the means of production while also using price systems to assist in the allocation of productive factors. This is what market socialists have been saying for a hundred years.

The case of Singapore is more than just a funny gotcha to use against right-wingers. It actually raises an interesting question about what it is people care about when it comes to “capitalism” and “socialism.” Is capitalism primarily about markets or private ownership? Relatedly, is socialism primarily about ending markets or promoting collective ownership? Often these things are bundled together, but they are logically and practically separable. Singapore (and Norway, among others) shows that it is quite possible to collectively own the means of production while also using price systems to assist in the allocation of productive factors. This is what market socialists have been saying for a hundred years.

https://boingboing.net/2018/03/11/capitalist-ideal.html
Click to expand...

From your link:

Singapore is a template for what China hopes to become: a state that uses surveillance, selective law enforcement, and claustrophobic control over individual behavior, in tandem with market systems, to create wealth and (above all else) stability -- perpetual rule for the people on top.
Click to expand...

Is that what you want?
 
Hello Nordberg,

Nordberg said:
Venezuela was damned by relying on a single product, oil. They could not control it's the price. So when it dove, so did their economy and all the programs they had initiated.
Click to expand...

They also get nearly all their power from one dam, and experienced a drought that lowered water levels too low to make power all the time.

And their government is really a borderline dictatorship, not really socialist.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top