“He was part of something called the 1st Workingman’s International. Not only “Marx|sts” but anarchists and Lassalleans and Proudhonists participated………”
Well one can have some sympathy for the Proudhon. But by your testimony we would have to be suspect of these Proudhonists:
” ………….. There was a consensus on what the term meant — it was about the power of working people realised in common ownership of the means of production and the abolition of the wages system. ”
You see this is ridiculous. Since Mises showed later that common ownership meant the end of the price system, and since prices bring 1. information 2. the capacity to act on that information and 3. The motivation to act on that information …… Then the abolishment of the prices system, (and wages system for good measure) means instant breakdown and famine. No question of that at all.
The structure of production must become two-step. Must (MUST) break down to two-step. Farmers and direct farmer-suppliers. The entire structure of production will break down to two-steps. Which is why the second time pure-communism was tried the attempt was made to murder the peasant-farmers up front. Since the first time it was the kulaks who wound up with all the snap, to the disfavour of the communist true-believers.
What we need to do is realise the bankster, monetary, and real estate dysfunction, that lead to intellectually honest people falling for this sort of jive. We all need to come clean about that. Not be diverted by these various ideologies promoted to distract from the main scandal.
Marx is far more valuable if you realise that his contribution is really SOCIOLOGICAL. His economics, blaming economic liberty, is really an expose of how elites will operate if they are allowed to. His sociological analysis has been working a dream since 2008, and was probably valid as an insipid background deal all the time. But his technical economics is all wrong, though admittedly it has to SEEM right when we are living through this cess-pit of economic dysfunction that we see before us. We live in a sewer of resource misallocation and injustice masquerading as “free enterprise.”
Nothing about the price system stops us from having “market socialism” in infrastructure and money-production. Market socialism cannot be the whole system. But it can be part of the system without ill effect. That is not my preference, but from a technical economics point of view one has to concede to ones more intelligent opponents that this could very much work as long as it didn’t get too large as a proportion of the economy.
So if Professor Quiggin wanted to design a proposal for market-socialism in banking and infrastructure, though it wouldn’t be my first option, I’d have to concede that it would most likely work far better then what we have now, and that it wouldn’t destroy the entirety of the capitalism system, so long as that capitalism system, was based around sole traders as the core of its being.