Imo the free market will always be more effective than state planning. Also under a syndicalist economy syndicates mostly work with eachother than against eachother. Im personally an Anarcho Syndicalist, I belive that whats good for the syndicates translates into direct benefit for the workers and by extension society as a whole.
The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you’re interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there’s no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.
I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely sympathetic to the theory behind it. What changed my mind was adopting a more Marxian understanding of economics and studying the history of AES structures more intimately. I don’t expect you to change your mind just because I said that, but I do think that it’s worth considering if you think competition and markets are good at all stages of society, or instead have their role in historical production and eventually Public Ownership might make more sense.
Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I’ll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!
Imo the free market will always be more effective than state planning. Also under a syndicalist economy syndicates mostly work with eachother than against eachother. Im personally an Anarcho Syndicalist, I belive that whats good for the syndicates translates into direct benefit for the workers and by extension society as a whole.
The problem with markets is that they naturally centralize, in order to combat the Tendency for the Rate of Profit to Fall. Competition forces entities to lower production costs, which trends towards lower prices and in competitive markets, lower rates of profit. In early phases, markets do a great job of building up new industry, but eventually as these markets centralize and monopolize, it makes more sense to Publicly Own and Centrally Plan IMO as the infrastructure for planning already is developed by the markets themselves. Why Public Property? is a great essay on the subject if you’re interested (and would rather not dig into Capital just yet). Essentially, there’s no real way to maintain the early period where competition is effective, so it makes more sense to collectivize, democratize, and plan the economy gradually along a common plan as markets develop.
I actually used to consider myself an Anarcho-Syndicalist, I am definitely sympathetic to the theory behind it. What changed my mind was adopting a more Marxian understanding of economics and studying the history of AES structures more intimately. I don’t expect you to change your mind just because I said that, but I do think that it’s worth considering if you think competition and markets are good at all stages of society, or instead have their role in historical production and eventually Public Ownership might make more sense.
Food for thought.
I will look into your sources, they seem interesting
Thank you! If you ever want to ask any questions about Marxism-Leninism, I’ll do my best to answer! Or, if you want to check out some new reading, I made an introductory Marxist-Leninist reading list. Thanks for talking!