u/Few_Government_6401

 Social democracy can be summarized as a redistributive welfare state. Capitalists and individuals with significantly greater wealth still exist but a substantial portion of this wealth and income is redistributed to lower-income groups in forms such as healthcare, education and social assistance with the aim of promoting greater equity.

In market socialism on the other hand capitalists do not exist. Workplaces are managed by workers themselves and workers share in the profits (if any) of the enterprise they manage, in proportion to their individual contribution or effort. However, this is not ownership in the sense of shareholding, and profit-sharing ends when one leaves the enterprise. Markets for goods and services still exist, as they do in social democracy.

The problem is not the existence of profit itself, but how it is distributed. Profit measures how much consumers (and every worker is also a consumer) value a particular good or service. Additionally, pricing prevents the excess or shortage of goods and services. However, the fundamental flaw within the capitalist system is that the actual value-added created by workers far exceeds their wages, and this surplus value (profit) is withheld from them. Even capital goods and machinery are ultimately acquired through the exchange of commodities previously produced by labor; hence, capital itself is merely a factor generated by accumulated labor. To completely eradicate exploitation, there must be establish a just system where the markets for goods and services continue to function, but workers within cooperatives receive the full, unalienated value of their individual labor contribution.

Businesses should be managed democratically by their workers on the basis of one worker, one vote. With modern technology, smartphones, and the internet, this is far more feasible and efficient than ever before. Unlike top-down managers, workers possess much better local and industry-specific knowledge of the production process. Every worker should receive the full share of the cooperative's profits according to their individual effort, with workers collectively receiving 100% of the profits. Wage labor and exploitation should therefore be abolished.

This is not shareholding, and no one would own shares indefinitely. Once a worker leaves the cooperative, their entitlement to profit distributions would end as well. Workers would not have to pay to join a workplace or to obtain access to capital.The financing of new enterprises would instead come from very low-interest loans provided by publicly owned banks operated by workers themselves. Within this framework, the bank workers and would be held directly and personally accountable for the recovery and performance of these low-interest loans, ensuring rigorous credit assessment and financial discipline without top-down bureaucratic inertia.

(However, sectors such as housing, electricity, water, natural gas, internet, telephone, healthcare, and education should remain under state control and be subsidized. These are essential goods and services, and leaving them to market forces can encourage rent-seeking behavior and the extraction of monopoly profits at the public's expense.For instance in the housing sector highly subsidized monthly fee calculated solely to cover the actual construction, maintenance, and repair costs of the buildings. By completely eliminating land rent and above-cost profit margins from real estate housing becomes permanently affordable.Similarly, essential public utilities like electricity, water, gas, internet, and telecommunications must operate strictly on a non-profit basis. Rather than allowing these monopolies to extract private surplus value, prices should be restricted to covering infrastructure and operational costs, while being further offset by state subsidies to prioritize consumer welfare over corporate profits.)

The problem is not the existence of profit itself, but how it is distributed. Profit measures how much consumers (and every worker is also a consumer) value a particular good or service.Additionally pricing prevents excess or shortage of goods and services.However, it can create problems in the long run(environmental pollution,planned obsolescence,monopolization) which should, of course, be addressed through regulation. In a market socialist system without concentrated private wealth and private lobbying, the state would be able to deal with such issues much more effectively and quickly.For example robust antitrust legislation can help prevent the formation of monopolies.

Businesses should be managed democratically by their workers on the basis of one worker, one vote. With modern technology, smartphones, and the internet, this is far more feasible and efficient than ever before. Unlike top-down managers, workers possess much better local and industry-specific knowledge of the production process. Every worker should receive the full share of the cooperative's profits according to their individual effort with workers collectively receiving 100% of the profits. Wage labor should therefore be abolished.

This is not shareholding, and no one would own shares indefinitely. Once a worker leaves the cooperative, their entitlement to profit distributions would end as well. Workers would not have to pay to join a workplace or to obtain access to capital. The financing of new enterprises would instead come from very low-interest loans provided by publicly owned banks operated by workers themselves.

However, sectors such as housing, electricity, water, natural gas, internet,telephone,healthcare,education should remain under state control and be subsidized. These are essential goods and services, and leaving them to market forces can encourage rent-seeking behavior and the extraction of monopoly profits at the public's expense.

According to modern mainstream economic theory, capital, labor, land, and similar inputs are considered factors of production and each is rewarded according to the marginal contribution it makes to output. From this perspective workers' wages are regarded as fully consistent with their contribution to production.

However I believe there is a problem with this theory. Physical and financial capital themselves (setting land aside for the moment) are also created through labor. In technical terms, a portion of the output produced by workers is exchanged for depreciation, since part of current production is used to maintain and replace the existing capital stock.

For instance, suppose a business owner initially invests $5,000 in physical capital. If, after ten years, the value of that capital increases to $100,000, the resulting $95,000 surplus can be interpreted as value that has not been consumed but instead has been retained and accumulated within the production process. From this perspective, capital accumulation reflects a postponement of current consumption in favor of expanding future productive capacity.

Of course a business initially begins with capital provided by the entrepreneur. However, according to studies this initial investment constitutes only a very small fraction of the average existing stock of capital* Most of the capital currently employed in production has been accumulated and reproduced over time through the productive process itself.

To expand the theory further some modern critical theorists argue that is why capital owners do not take risks because the capital is not technically created by them.This part is interesting.

According to modern mainstream economic theory, capital, labor, land, and similar inputs are considered factors of production and each is rewarded according to the marginal contribution it makes to output. From this perspective workers' wages are regarded as fully consistent with their contribution to production.

However I believe there is a problem with this theory. Physical and financial capital themselves (setting land aside for the moment) are also created through labor. In technical terms, a portion of the output produced by workers is exchanged for depreciation, since part of current production is used to maintain and replace the existing capital stock.

Of course a business initially begins with capital provided by the entrepreneur. However, according to studies this initial investment constitutes only a very small fraction of the average existing stock of capital* Most of the capital currently employed in production has been accumulated and reproduced over time through the productive process itself.

To expand the theory further some modern critical theorists argue that is why capital owners do not take risks because the capital is not technically created by them.This part is interesting but not exactly my idea.

Kapitalizmin eleştirisinde genellikle işçilerin ücretlerinin aslında ürettiklerinin tamamı olarak ödenmediği ve büyük bir kısmının artı-değer olarak sermayedar kişilere gittiği söylenir?Peki ya bu oransal olarak ne kadar ciddi?Sizin görüşleriniz neler?

Birçok anaakım iktisat görüşüne göre sermayenin(kar faiz kira) dağıtılabilir gelir içerisindeki payı aslında pek yüksek değildir.Genellikle 3'te birlik(%33) bir paydan bahsedilir.Mesela şirketlerde sadece sermayedarların aldığı temettüler açısından bakarsak işçilerin toplam aldıkları toplam ücretten daha düşük olma eğilimindedir aslında.

Ancak eleştirel iktisada göre modern dünyada sermayedarların geliri finansallaşmış ve görünmezdir. Çünkü şirketin piyasa değeri artınca aslında realize olmamış görünmez bir gelir kazanılıyor ve bununla bankadan teminat gösterip düşük faizli kredi çekebiliyorlar.Yine bu görüşe göre net kâr ve şirketin ödediği(enflasyondan arındırılmış) faizin işçilerin toplam ücretleriyle karşılaştırılması daha makuldur çünkü kâr payı dağıtılmasa bile piyasa değeri şeklinde birikir az önce bahsedildiği gibi.Eğer bu şekilde ölçüm yapılırsa artı değer oranları çok daha yüksek çıkabilir.

Birkaç gündür borsalardaki finansal raporlar üzerine biraz kafayı yordum arkadaşlar.Tüm dünyada geçerli olan bir şey bu.Malları ve hizmetleri işçiler üretir ama üretilen değerin tamamı maaş olarak geri dönmez. Önemli bir kısmı kâr veya faiz olarak başka şekillere bürünür.(mesela 50.000 tl maaş vardır ama +100.000 tl işçi başına artı değer vardır) Siz bu konuda ne düşünüyorsunuz?Bazıları bunu ahlaki olmadığını bazılarıysa ekonomik büyümenin kapitalizmin girişimcilere teşviğiyle mümkün olduğunu söylüyor.

Hi everyone. How do I solve the problem with the title? I've shared a lot of content on various subreddits for 3 weeks but haven't gained anything.