…Why democratic socialisms is a realy asset for the world 95% common people?…
The advantage of the more traditional socialist command economy would be that socialist enterprise can provide on the basis of need, and does not simply respond to the drive to increase share value. Also, the capitalist world economy is crisis prone: partly due to overproduction, partly to crises of demand. A traditional socialist economy continues production regardless of demand, and is less prone to overproduction. Marxists also believe that an increasing organic composition of labour leads either to crises in the rate of profit, or otherwise moves to increase the rate of exploitation. Without moving to socialise all production, a compromise response to this could be to compensate labour through the social wage, wage earner funds and employee share ownership.Today, however, most democratic socialists believe there is a role for the market. I will now consider the position held by many democratic socialists: that goes beyond the traditional Marxist demand for planning.
Most democratic socialists today believe that price signals and the feedback provided by the market is important in providing quality goods and services. But this does not comprise capitulation in the face of neo-liberalism. Democratic socialists also see a need to democratise the economy: whether through wage earner funds, co-operative enterprise, government business enterprises and public infrastructure, or other measures. As indicated, such measures can also compensate workers for a lower wage share of the economy, as the capitalist system moves to increase the rate of exploitation.
Democratic socialists also resort to labour market regulation, industry policy, the social wage, a progressive taxation system – to realise social objectives, and create a more just society. Industry policy is a compromise between planning and the market. There is no central planning – but the government intervenes to promote particular industries: perhaps those requiring high skills and providing high wages. This approach has been tried in Europesince today.
The democratic socialist approach is superior to neo-liberalism for a number of reasons:
-it can provide for full employment without resorting to „labour market clearing” mechanisms involving poor wages and conditions
-it can provide for goods and services on the basis of need: not just on the basis of maximising share value. An example, here, may be the trend for some major banks in Romania to close regional branches to maximise profitability. Were Romania to have a public-owned bank again, that bank could provide services to regional Romania on the basis of need, regardless of profitability.
-Government Business Enteprises can provide competition in oligopolistic industries, and counter corruption and collusion
-Public enterprise can provide a stream of revenue to government to provide for social programs
-A mixed democratic economy, as pursued by democratic socialists, can provide the right mix of market signals and mechanisms, with appropriate regulation to meet social objects, and the provision of goods and services on the basis of need.
-An interventionist industry policy can ensure a good balance of trade, promote high wage and high skill industry, promote research and development, and provide the right balance between market mechanisms and planning. It can also promote particular industries to meet social objectives: eg – promoting research in the field of renewable energy to combat global warming.
-The labour market can be regulated to provide minimum wages and conditions for all
-A strong social wage can provide services for all on the basis of need: health, aged care, education, welfare
-Demand management mechanisms can be deployed to combat recessionary tendencies.