I've been trying to figure out what to label myself, and when I debate ideas in other subs, many say I'm a market socialist, though I don't think so. Overall this is what I ideally want:

• State Socialist Capitalism: In this system, citizens own shares in state-owned enterprises (SOEs) that provide essential services (like healthcare) and distribute profits as dividends within a market economy
• Cooperative Capitalism: All businesses are collectively owned by workers or communities through ESOPs or co-ops (See: Mondragon Corporation, Publix Super Markets). Founders can own more shares and retain great wealth (Publix produced a billionaire family), but workers still set things related to them (like wages). O, it can one-vote-one-share
• Donut (Circular) Model:  Businesses must adopt a circular mode, in order to reduce environmental impact. Circular models = the use of renewable energy, recycling, designing products to last longer (see: Patagonia) * This is to prevent overproduction and endless growth
• Private (residential property) exists, not personal property

I know none of this would ever happen just as I want it to, but I wanted to share this for reference. For the record I don't consider myself one, but I can't help but ask considering how many ppl have told me I am.

This was sparked by a conversation i had on r/mutualism a few days ago. I'd love your guys thoughts.

So a pretty common socialist critique of capitalism is the idea of "technological unemployment".

Because, if you think about it, the fact that new technologies that reduce the cost of production is a problem is like... insane.

Why would it be a bad thing that stuff can be produced with fewer resources/labor-time? But, because those technologies are owned by the capitalist, what ends up happening is that people get laid off and profits go up.

I think the obvious problem is that the technology is owned by the capitalists rather than the workers actually using it.

I'd like to imagine a market socialist world, where these technological gains are owned directly by the workers using them. I'd imagine whatever worker/cooperative comes up with that technological can yield a temporary rent. Basically, you can produce an item and sell it for the same price, but with a lower labor cost. This means that you now have the choice between working the same amount and consuming more (because the cost is lower and price is the same, if you put up the same labor-cost you get more output, and more output * same price = more income for you) or you can work less and consume the same amount as before. That's the "reward" for innovation/introducing new technology.

But I think it's important to state that the above state of affairs cannot/will not last forever. This is because, competitors will eventually figure out what you're doing and adopt that innovation themselves right? And when they do that, the general market price falls. Now, in some ways that's a good thing. Because it means that workers in other sectors of the economy now can consume more for the same labor contribution because the product is now cheaper. But the downside is that the workers in our new cheaper sector are going to have less income if the boost in demand from the lower price is insufficient to account for the now lower price. In effect, the gains of productivity are unevenly distributed, the innovators temporarily benefit, but then lose out while workers outside the sector gain.

And, to a certain extent, this makes sense, because the alternative is the price remains constant and the workers outside the sector need to work more than necessary to consume a certain amount of produce right?

In a very real sense, if the price of the product falls and the boost in demand is insufficient to recoup the losses, the demand for their labor has fallen.

Now, it's not like these workers will starve or anything, wages must be sufficient to cover the cost of living/opportunity cost of producing directly for your own use.

But, it does mean that income could be lower. Now, the obvious answer to this, to me, is to take a portion of the cost-savings the other workers have and reinvest that in the workers in this sector so they can either reallocate their labor towards direct production for their own use or to meet the demands of fellow displaced workers.

This could be done through mutual job training/support societies that would form a sort of safety net for any transitionary periods workers may face.

But ultimately, I do think that any socialist society would need to reckon with this. What do you do when the need for a certain kind of labor is reduced? Well, if you were an all-knowing planner, what would you do? Well, you would be able to reduce the labor-time of other laborers right? And that's obviously good. But that's going to reduce the overall level of production, and if you need to meet the demand for the workers in that now cheaper sector, it makes sense to reallocate that now freed up labor-time to other sectors to directly account for that reduced production and thereby increase production to meet the demand of the now freed up workers. That seems to be rational to me, and it's a similar result to the market dynamic.

However I'd like your thoughts, what do you think would be a rational socialist response to a decrease in demand for a particular kind of labor given technological change?

I mean, why not just a capitalist system where the state intervenes to the economy in order to stimulate/reinforce the effective demand in various ways, instead of market socialism?

Why do you think a socialist market model could lead to a balance between agreggate demand and supply while a keynesian/social democrat capitalist model not?

I understand the argument from a social and political perspective. I just want an answer from a political economy perspective

View Poll

I've been playing with some ideas about consumer welfare within libertarian or anarchist anti-capitalist markets.

Within anti-capitalist markets circles i often see reputation systems and rating systems used as a way of ensuring quality assurance and consumer welfare. And that's a fair point.

I have a couple of ideas beyond simply rating systems, I wanted your guys thoughts/opinions.

One of the interesting ideas I had was a sort of guild system used for accreditation or basic regulations (think like doctors and stuff). The accreditation would be funded by membership contributions, and consumer advocates groups and cooperatives could co-manage the basic accreditation standards and regulation needs. The membership fees would be partially paid for by consumers through a higher price for accredited goods so it's effectively shared between consumer and seller while also ensuring that the sellers aren't simply regulating themselves. Guilds that don't have consumer co-management or those whose producers have a lower overall reputation would be seen as less credible and simply regulating themselves.

Beyond simply rating and accreditation systems, I can also see elinor ostrom style management of common resources lime air or water as a way of environmental regulation. Basically, using public common resources would require engagement in said institutions.

So, in short, within freed market anti-capitalism i can see lots of ways of ensuring quality and accreditation. Consumer producer co-management of regulations and standards in membership fee funded guilds (sellers have an incentive to join due to higher demand for accredited members and potential rents to charge), ratings/reputation systems, and commons management strategies/institutions derived from the work of elinor ostrom

What do y'all think? You think that could work?

TL;DNR: Founding document of “capitalism” fully read, implies Proudhonian mutualism (though has its own errors).

Reading “Wealth of Nations,” we find Smith’s intention is to encourage competition between stockholders (capitalists, wholesale and retail sellers), and free choice among wage-earners between sellers, thus incentivizing lower prices to entice demand, eventually giving price reductions to the lowest possible levels. All of this was hoped by Smith to enable thrifty wage earners – he thought them so – to save their money and increase their wellbeing.

In book one, chapter eleven of “Wealth,” from Smith himself [!]: “The interest of the dealers [stockholders or capitalists] […] is always in some respects […] opposite to, that of the public […]. To widen the market may frequently be agreeable enough to the public; but to narrow the competition [between capitalists] must always be against it, and can serve only to enable the dealers, by raising their profits above what they naturally would be, to levy […] an absurd tax upon the rest of their fellow-citizens.”

(Everyone should read “Wealth of Nations” – but after Boswell’s “Life of Sam. Johnson,” for Smith’s circumstances, language, and opinions, e.g., the broad contempt for aristocrats and their “rents”; Johnson defends them only as a contrarian. Many, e.g., Milton Friedman, couldn’t read it – or misrepresented it knowing nobody would. Sometimes objectionable, there’s a fair bit of egalitarian “common sense” in it, too).

And, we can deduce mutualism from Smith’s conceit. If competition in stock reduces cost for consumers as a benefit, then absolute-maximum competition minimizes costs, for ultimate possible benefit. But maximum stock distribution occurs when everyone owns capital. And they then can also support themselves by the revenues of capital, not only labor.

This condition of ownership obtains, if all non-solo enterprises are organized as co-operatives. (Worryingly, Koch Inc., is privately owned – but its capital is not parceled in equal shares in one-to-one correspondence to its 120,000 employees – were it, they’d receive $1,041,623/year – therefore Koch is neither corporation, nor co-op).  Any reduction in revenue by such enterprises, is balanced by the stability from employees’ incentive to be conservative in the use of their sole – but also collective – capital. As competition, any “rival” co-ops in a market can challenge monopoly by lowering their prices. Even without a competitor, so long as workers are free to sell out of their own, to found a rival to a monopolist co-op’s inefficiencies at any time, only such inter-co-operative competition need be guaranteed to ensure consumer wellbeing. Those two collaborating to raise prices is disincentivised, as yet a third co-op could take market share from them at any time.

Corporations, using accumulated capital from shareholder’s investment to artificially depress prices and exterminate competition, then to raise prices monopolistically, as Smith abhorred, should certainly be eliminated, perhaps prior to the establishment of co-ops, so they and their good is encouraged.

As collective capital, certainly workplace democracy in co-ops is required. Conversely, corporations have either capital set aside to offset expected losses, or a venture fund (as with the first joint stock companies), so that capital is not distributed in a one-to-one correspondence of worker to a uniform tranche of capital; this implies corporations must be hierarchical, as will be detailed presently.

Now, a corporation is to eliminate competition, or in the original joint stock companies to raise funds for expansion into markets without competition. In the former case, per Smith himself this hurts the common good by artificially raising prices. In the latter case, it must be less responsive, so less efficient, than local businesses would be – or else has a bureaucracy, and acquires inefficiencies (and by the Iron Law of Oligarchy excludes workplace democracy) thereby. Or, if a foreign stock company “creates” a market – but then it diminishes local revenue resources, leading to inevitable reductions in local development. Therefore, corporations can never be the most efficient means of human development (vide also: Louis Brandeis’ “Other People’s Money”, passim).

Moreover, corporations and stock companies by definition do not parcel capital revenues only into equivalent shares given to each employee in one-to-one correspondence. Therefore, some employee must have more than another – and so, the ability to suborn the will of who has less (if only by buying up all the resources the latter needs, with reserve for one’s own needs), who in turn has no ability to ameliorate this condition, without directly aggressing against the better-resourced, which even libertarianism forbids. Therefore: corporations are inherently hierarchical, at least as greater capital-owner above lesser owner – and “ancap” as anti-authoritarian, yet permitting such capital hoarding and hierarchy, is thus definitely contradictory. Doubly so, since a monopolist, particularly of necessities, can deprive customers of their revenues at will, which plainly interferes with an individual’s property. “Ancap” permits corporate hierarchies that violate its own “non-aggression principle,” and violates its supposed anti-authoritarianism. “Ancap,” backhanded libertarianism, is a cruel, contradictory absurdity.

[This is part one. Part two will be on my user page, so as not to bother anyone. Probably no part two.]

I know that lobbying by corporations is considered by many as corruption. The forum's specific brand of socialistic ideology oftentimes uses worker co-operative corporations, along with associations of them, as a means of achieving social and economic justice. This gave me a thought.

Do you think that if, say, there were a co-operative movement with leftist/socialistic ideology that attained a significant amount of wealth, it would be reasonable to utilise some of the wealth to lobby a MarkSoc party or something along those lines?

Radical socialist programs that aimed to eradicate the private economy and abolish the commodity form at least had appeal outside considerations of efficiency. There was an attractive vision of a radically different kind of society attached to these programs. It feels like this is totally missing from the practical market socialist designs, which therefore face stiff competition -- if not complete overshadowing -- with a liberal-welfare-capitalist alternative that can claim feasibility and largely satisfy the primary remaining desiderata of efficiency and redistribution. I don't see the clamoring from workers for more democratic control over their workplaces. And I don't see how they can be made to care about greater democratic control given that -- in my opinion -- democracy is valued instrumentally by most people. Look at what passes for democracy in the western world outside work. Look at the authoritarianism the Chinese people accommodate so long as there's growth.

From the article

https://znetwork.org/znetarticle/we-need-a-united-class-not-a-united-left/

"The political left has a tendency to multiply through division. That’s nothing to mock or mourn. Anarchists have always made a distinction between so called affinity groups and class organizations. Affinity groups are small groups of friends or close anarchist comrades who hold roughly the same views. This is no basis for class organizing and that is not the intention either. Therefore, anarchists are in addition active in syndicalist unions or other popular movements (like tenants’ organizations, anti-war coalitions and environmental movements).

The myriad of leftist groups and publications today might serve as affinity groups – for education and analysis, for cultural events and a sense of community. But vehicles for class struggle they are not. If you want social change, then bond with your co-workers and neighbors; that’s where it begins. It is time that the entire left realizes what anarchists have always understood.

We need a united class, not a united left, to push the class struggle forward."

Hi, I am new to the sub. I guess I'm what some would call a georgist and distributist except I'm not religious at all. I overlap with many market socs on encouraging employee-owned firms, but I advocate a system where labor organizes locally and regionally to self-determine the level of democracy they have in the future.

It seems for a lot of market socialists workplace democracy is the main, almost the only, motivation for identifying as a market socialist. I don't really care much about democracy in the workplace, at least in the direct-democratic shop-floor manner that many market socialists, syndicalists and municipalists do. To me, its solely about eliminating private shareholders and making sure companies and industries are owned by workers and consumers but still have price signals to do so efficiently.

I amn't against some level of worker democracy, like electing boards that then select managers or run the business the way it needs to be, but the idea of constant meetings and consensus simply doesn't seem 1) desirable or 2) scalable to me and I don't actually think most workers care about it either, ownership stakes, whether as workers or consumers, might be important to them but I don't see many people really lining up to take votes on shop-floor matters.

I think a way to visualize this is that for me, an economy entirely dominated by consumer cooperatives, given that there's something like closed shop unionization and sectoral bargaining, seems just as desirable and perhaps even superior in some regards than an economy entirely dominated by worker cooperatives.

So, are there any others like me out there?

Mandate that all health insurance and pharmaceutical companies, as well as hospitals, operate as consumers cooperatives ideally with closed shop unionization. The government, rather than nationalizing healthcare, instead acts as a regulatory apparatus, that functions similarly to a retailers or purchasing cooperative, using state-power to ensure that the health industry is federalized and interconnected to lower costs of business.

Ideally, this entire system would function in essence as basically just decentralized universal healthcare, reducing prices internally and for consumers without the need for increasing taxation or centralizing everything under the government which isn't ideal.

Neo-Market Socialism is not really an ideology but more of a government system. The ideology is meant to safely replace a Capitalist nation, (say, USA) with a Socialist one. It is also meant to follow the constitution, with free and fair elections. Instead of turning the major companies into state property, we keep the brand name and the owner becomes (up to them) the boss, an exile till the next election, or among the working class. One reason we would want to do this is that communist nations (say China) rely on foreign capitalist companies, like the ones that have toys that say “MADE IN CHINA”. North Korea, a communist nation that has nothing to do with foreign companies or trade, is very corrupt. The working class also elects a new boss after retirement of the previous, someone who is kind to the workers, and is willing to work for it. If you are a large business owner and choose to continue running the company, you will be sworn into the Socialist Party of America. All of the wealth will go to growing the nation and it’s economy. Neo-Market Socialism also believes in the Gold Standard, stopping the mints and make the current money based off the federal gold reserve, because FDR’s The New Deal is kinda why the nation has tens of trillions of dollars in debt. There will be a financial adviser in every U.S. State (New England counts as one cause it’s small). The advisor will make sure all the companies working conditions are ok, and to make sure if the company is even doing something. Having that said, it would be a little difficult to replace it back to a Libertarian Capitalist Democracy, since so many people were sworn into the SPA. I hope you like it, let me know what I should add, and please give a better name for this Political Ideology Theory.

Where do you stand as market socialist?

Any reference to socialism (market or state-planned) includes a state controlled by the workers, since a stateless society as a short-term goal is anarchism. And since the sub is called "market_socialism" I expect those not to be here, but feel free to click "something entirely different".

The middle three options have an optional final step towards communism (a stateless moneyless society). Feel free to click it whether you believe in that or not.

I also do not specify whether worker coops under capitalism are an important factor towards revolution in the two revolutionary options. Feel free to click it either way.

View Poll

So this is a follow up to my previous https://www.reddit.com/r/Market_Socialism/comments/1e0hc5d/some_idess_ive_been_playing_with/ if anyone here is interested. I'm kinda just throwing my own thinking out into the void. Writing these posts helps me sort out my own thoughts, and plus it's nice to interact with market socialists and hopefully get some feedback on theory.

Anyways, I am still taken with the idea of socialized profit and fully believe that a market socialist society's goal would be the maximization of social profit, and therefore the minimization of costs of production.

Schumpeterian rents are rents that an innovator can charge according to economic theory. Basically, if you're an innovator, you reduce your costs but can continue charging at the market price. That means you can make a profit. This profit is temporary though as others will eventually adopt your innovation and the rent will be dissipated as market price falls (price above cost -> new market entrants -> greater supply -> shift in supply curve -> lower price)

Ok, so my original concern about schumpeterian rents was that there is an inherent anti-social incentive built in. Namely, if you can keep your innovation secret, you will be able to charge schumpeterian rents longer and make more money. Therefore, the incentive is towards keeping information secret rather than sharing it. And obviously, social profit is maximized more if innovations are more widely shared. That led to a somewhat overcomplicated idea which I laid out in the previous post.

But I'm starting to question that logic.

See, what I initially missed is that i was overly focused on the maintenance of rent, and not so much on how innovation spreads. Even today, it is not uncommon for people to collaborate to find ways to reduce their own costs. Innovation is itself often a collaborative enterprise. And so, if you, as an innovator, make a discovery, you can then share that discovery with others and in exchange they will share their own discoveries with you in the future when they make them. Sharing now means that you can receive information later. Pro-social behavior means that others help you out when you are seeking it.

Does this entirely undermine the anti-social incentive built into Schumpeterian rents? No, I don't necessarily think so. I mean trade secrets are a thing after all. But I question to what extent that's because of the broader anti-social structure of the markets of capitalism with the general tendency being towards private accumulation rather than reduction of costs. If everyone is out to get everyone else, then private accumulation is a good defensive strategy.

But if it's well known that you are keeping something secret that could benefit other people, it's not like other people won't react. They could cut you out of social services, impose social sanctions, refuse to trade/do business with you, etc. If you act anti-socially within a broader pro-social environment, it's possible to impose strong disincentives. I mean, hell, if you are acting anti-socially why would I share any innovations I come up with with you? I could cut you out of information sharing networks.

So I think my original idea of prizes was overcomplicated. Schumpeterian rents are not inherently bad so long as they are temporary. And i would expect that folks collaborating with one another and sharing information will be sufficient incentive, coupled with the threat of being socially isolated and kicked out of social support services, should be sufficient incentive to share innovations/information

And it's not like we can't still have an innovation industry. I think an interesting idea is the crowdfunded patronage of innovators. If individual communities know about a particularly creative guy, it makes sense to put him on a payroll and in exchange he will try and reduce the costs that the community faces. In fact, sharing could work as a way of advertising to patrons and saying "hey look at the kind of innovation i can do! If you kick me a few bucks, then I will help solve your problems too!"

Ultimately, I think my original view was too focused on the maintenance of rents rather than the broader social context. But i'd love your guys thoughts if you had any to share.

Thanks!

So I'm utterly taken with the idea of socialized profit.

See, imagine a market socialist economy. What we would expect is that market competition will tend to force prices to fall down to cost. If you charge above cost, new market entrants will come and undermine you driving down price. The reverse happens if price is below cost.

The long term trend is towards cost.

However, within a market individuals will seek to innovate. Why? Because by reducing their costs I can keep the price the same but since my costs are lower I can now yield a profit. This holds true until others adapt this innovation and prices neccessarily fall for the reasons I previously outlined. This idea is called a Schumpeterian rent https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schumpeterian_rent?wprov=sfla1

This temporary profit is what ultimately drives innovation within a market. And as this innovation is diffused, costs fall and therefore so does price with a nice reward for the initial innovator.

There are other factors though as well. See, if cost is the basis of price, then we would expect that goods that are inputs to other goods form a part of that price. A reduction in their cost leads to a general fall in prices.

This general reduction in price is called socialized profit and it is the natural outcome of market competition when left to its own devices and not distorted by capitalism.

And this is obviously a good thing.

I think that the bulk of goods are used as inputs for other goods so Schumpeterian rents are not needed for most innovation within a market socialist economy as reducing the price you pay (and therefore the quantity of labor needed for a specific output) may end up being sufficient motivation to innovate. The upside of this model is that you are incentivized to share your innovation as widely as possible so it is adopted more quickly and therefore the price drop happens sooner

I particularly like this idea and it fits quite well with the incentive structure of market socialism

However, Schumpeterian rents pose a problem here. Basically, the longer you keep your innovation a secret, the longer you can reap the rent. And therefore the more money you make. So instead of being incentivized to share information, you are incentivized to hide it.

Granted hiding that information is difficult in an economy where all is owned by all. But that anti-social incentive is still there.

I think I've come up with a solution though, and I'd like you all to provide some input on it.

See the ultimate goal of market socialism, to me, is to redirect human energy towards the maximization of social profit and thereby the minimization of costs.

What is done with that social profit is critical though.

I'd fully expect support services or transition services to be funded by it. Every hour not spent producing some good can be put towards supporting social services, or in leisure or whatever.

When less labor is needed for a given level of output, that means that labor that would otherwise be spent on producing can now be redirected towards other ends. Such as social services or leisure.

The mechanism for the investment of socialized profit is likely going to be some non profit social insurance/welfare cooperative. Basically, each member of the community pledges x hours of labor to the cooperative. If price levels fall, then x can rise.

So what it the social insurance cooperative basically said that it would pay half of the savings of its members for the year to whatever innovator creates those savings?

So like, say some innovator comes up with an idea to reduce wheat costs by half. The social insurance cooperative would pay 1/2 of 1/2 of the current wheat consumption of all its members for the yesr to this innovator and in exchange the innovator shares how their innovation works and how other can implement it. Then the insurance cooperative shares this information and various producers adopt it or risk losing out to competitors who do and thus we see an immediate drop in prices as everyone knows who the innovation works and how to implement it. Social profit is immediately maximized, all in exchange for a relatively small one time investment.

In effect it is a prize, and there is always enough money for the prize because the money comes from the savings of the members. And interestingly, it can help create am industry of innovation in and of itself as various inventors and creatives seek to capture invested social profit as a prize for themselves.

Does that make sense? So now there is a direct incentive to share that information. Sure our innovator could try and charge Schumpeterian rents. But then they risk expulsion from the social insurance cooperative or they may fear that others may reverse engineer their rent before they gain sufficient reward, whereas the cooperative guarantees a reward.

To me that solved that anti-social incentive inherent to Schumpeterian rents, but I'm curious as to what you all think.

Got any ideas to improve this?

So, by indirect (republican) I mean total codetermination, workers elect the board of directors who then run the company hierarchically by selecting managers, running training programs, and making larger financial decisions. These companies would still be profit-sharing, and cooperatives, just run by a system of republican democracy that is less cumbersome than a totally horizontal organizing principle.

We already see stuff like this happening in Mondragon, for instance, and it occurred mostly when they scaled up, the principle is the same as why most democracies aren't direct democracies. Size, diversity and lack of interest on large parts of the public (or in this case workers) make it unviable, and it hampers the more technical aspects of work that do require some level of training and authority. Small businesses can be run on horizontal models, like e.g, a coffee shop, but something large like steelworks, mining, telecommunications, and so on, simply couldn't be entirely horizontal.

I think a lot of self-identified market socialists over-estimate how many people want to be constantly electing managers or having to hold referendums for big decisions. It's better to elect delegates to manage the minutiae of business, on pain of being recalled if the board elected does a bad job of that.

Hello all!

So one book that has been pretty influential on my thinking is Kevin Carson's Studies in the Mutualist Political Economy. However, it's a fairly dense book and on my first read-through I didn't totally understand it all.

Now that I'm better acquainted with some more marxist concepts and the like, I wanted to revisit the book and see if I understood it better. So I did.

Specifically, what I was struggling with last time was Carson's theory of capital accumulation and the subsequent crisis of overaccumulation, which the state tried to remedy, which leads to a crisis of under-accumulation as well as a broader fiscal crisis of the state.

The best way to see if you understand something is to try and explain it to others, so here goes, if you notice an error please lmk as I hope to learn!

Alright, here goes.

Basically Carson is arguing that the state tends to subsidize capital accumulation. The exact mechanisms for this are outside the discussion of the post (but they consist of tucker's monopolies, regulatory capture and cartelization, transportation subsidies, underwriting costs, etc).

The basic point is that the state tends to subsidize capital accumulation and the centralization of capital. As capital becomes more centralized and accumulated, the costs of production (as felt by the producer capitalist) falls. This means that goods become cheaper, but in order to offset high fixed costs, the capitalist must produce a greater volume of goods. Accumulated capital tends to make labor more productive, so the more accumulated capital the less and less labor is needed to produce a given level of output.

This has a number of consequences. First, since capital is highly accumulated and therefore centralized, there are fewer investment outlets in the economy because fewer competitors can enter into the economy to compete with the big boys. Second, as less labor is needed for production of a given level of output, less labor is needed for that level of output. This means that the demand for labor (and therefore the number of consumers of said output) falls.

This presents a problem for the capitalist. In order to remain competitive they MUST accumulate, but at the same time, the more they accumulate the less labor they need.

Only if the growth rate of the economy is greater than the drop in demand for labor can the capitalist system continue to work, because only then is the demand for labor increasing faster than it falls due to accumulation.

But of course, more growth means more accumulation which further exacerbates our problem. In order to keep currently over-accumulated capital stocks profitable, the capitalist needs to accumulate more because if they don't then there is insufficient demand to run their capital at full capacity, thereby increasing unit costs and making produce unsellable.

At the same time, there aren't any other investment outlets for our subsidized capitalist to invest in to recover from lost profits in the accumulated sector, because small time competitors can't compete (due to state interference).

Ultimately this means the system is fundamentally unstable. You can try and fix it via taxation to support consumption, but in so doing you reduce the funds available for investment and thereby make the problem of over-accumulation worse because now you have under-accumulation.

The whole economy is balanced on a pin point and is a fundamentally unstable and impossible to navigate system.

Is this explanation of Carson's ideas on the instability of capitalism and its crisises more or less correct?

Thanks!

Guys I want to read Roemer's A future for socialism, but it has considerable mathematical economic jargon I heard. What are some key resources and principles to get the very specific amount of economic principles in the book well understood? Video resources will do wonders, simple books will help too. Or is the book self sufficient enough that I won't need to know more than absolute basic economics? Thanks.