Market Socialism

Not to be confused with Capitalist Communism.

"There is but one mode by which man can possess in perpetuity all the happiness which his nature is capable of enjoying, - that is by the union and co-operation of all for the benefit of each."

Robert Owen

Market Socialism, clipped to MarkSoc, is an economically left-wing ideology that is unique as a leftist ideology in that it is one of the few that views markets as beneficial. Market Socialism was born in the 18th Century, when what would later be known as Classical Liberalism and Mutualism had their first lovechild, who was first written about in The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith.

MarkSoc wants widespread workers' self-management within the framework of a market economy. Each worker can either directly own their workplace or vote to elect their managers.

History

Market Socialism emerged as a response to classical liberalism, in fact, the most widely known Market-Socialist literature, the Principles of a Political Economy is a series of essays by John Stuart Mill as a direct response to the Wealth of Nations.

Cuba

Raúl Castro Thought

Raúl Castro, younger brother of Fidel Castro, emerged as a defining figure in Cuban politics during the late 20th and early 21st centuries, ultimately serving as President of Cuba from 2008 to 2018. Born into a politically active family in 1931, he participated in the Cuban Revolution alongside his brother and Che Guevara, embracing Guevarism and the revolutionary ideals of armed struggle, anti-imperialism, and social justice that shaped Cuba’s transition to a socialist state. His leadership reflected a blend of continuity and adaptation, balancing Marxism–Leninism with pragmatic approaches to governance, evident in policies that cautiously modernized aspects of the Cuban economy while maintaining party control.

Raúl Castro’s tenure exemplified authoritarian progressivism, as he pursued economic and administrative reforms to improve efficiency and international engagement, yet preserved centralized political authority. The Cuban leadership’s gerontocracy was particularly apparent under his watch, with older party elites holding key positions, reinforcing stability and continuity over generational renewal. His political approach displayed moderate Castroism, prioritizing pragmatic socialist reform over radical experimentation, while still emphasizing social authoritarianism to maintain state cohesion.

He also fostered Russophilia, cultivating diplomatic and economic ties with Russia, echoing Cuba’s Cold War alignment and ensuring external support against external pressures, especially from the United States. Castro’s brand of left-wing nationalism was evident in the continued prioritization of national sovereignty, anti-imperialism, and policies reinforcing Cuban identity. His leadership illustrates the balancing act of moderatism within a revolutionary framework: implementing reformist socialist policies without undermining the ideological foundations of the Cuban state, securing both domestic control and international strategic partnerships.

Miguel Diaz-Canel Thought

Miguel Díaz-Canel emerged as Cuba’s president in 2018, becoming the first leader outside the Castro family since the revolution. Born in 1960, he rose through the Communist Party ranks during the post-Cold War period, gaining experience in provincial administration and party organization. His early political formation reflects adherence to Marxism–Leninism and left-wing nationalism, maintaining continuity with revolutionary ideals while navigating the challenges of a globalized and post-Soviet world. Díaz-Canel’s governance exemplifies authoritarian progressivism, combining reformist socialist measures with tight political control, balancing modernization of the economy with preservation of the party’s monopoly on power.

Throughout his tenure, Díaz-Canel has projected strong anti-Americanism and broader anti-Western stances, framing U.S. sanctions and interventions as existential threats to Cuban sovereignty. These positions reinforce his social-authoritarianism and police statism, where security forces play a central role in maintaining order and enforcing state policy. His commitment to progressive national communism and socialism of the 21st century is visible in incremental reforms aimed at expanding private enterprise within a state-directed economy while retaining centralized oversight.

Díaz-Canel also emphasizes moderatism and pragmatism, navigating between ideological orthodoxy and economic necessity. He maintains Cuba’s traditional Russophilia, sustaining strategic partnerships with Russia as part of a multipolar foreign policy. In social and cultural realms, he promotes secularism while enforcing party-led policies, reflecting the Cuban model of combining revolutionary socialist ideals with centralized, adaptive governance. His leadership epitomizes Cuba’s contemporary attempt to reconcile illiberal democracy—limited political pluralism—with economic reform and international engagement.

USSR

Kosyginism/Kosygin Reform Model

The Kosygin Reform Model emerged under the leadership of Alexei Kosygin in the late 1960s and 1970s as a pragmatic attempt to modernize the Soviet economy while maintaining the core principles of Marxism–Leninism. Facing stagnation in industrial productivity and inefficiencies in central planning, Kosygin pushed for reforms that emphasized developed socialism tempered by moderatism, seeking to reconcile ideological orthodoxy with practical economic management. His approach combined incremental reform, administrative experimentation, and selective decentralization to improve performance without undermining party control.

The model reflected socialist reformism by granting enterprises greater autonomy in decision-making, allowing managers to respond to local supply and demand conditions while remaining accountable to state planning agencies. This pragmatic stance aimed to stimulate innovation and productivity, blending elements of market logic with state socialism. While some critics accused the reforms of introducing state capitalism, these measures were carefully framed as mechanisms to strengthen socialism rather than replace it, with the state retaining ultimate control over investment, pricing, and production priorities.

Kosygin also pursued a pro-detente foreign policy, particularly with China and the United States, demonstrating a practical orientation that prioritized stability and international economic engagement over ideological confrontation. Domestically, the reforms were cautious, reflecting Kosygin’s belief in pragmatism: incremental adjustments rather than sweeping transformations were necessary to maintain political legitimacy and avoid social upheaval. This approach distinguished his policies from both rigid Stalinist centralism and the radical decentralization favored by other reformist factions.

Functionally, the Kosygin model worked by introducing performance incentives for enterprises, modestly linking wages and production to output, and encouraging limited technological modernization—all within the framework of developed socialism. The reforms sought to balance efficiency and control, demonstrating how a socialist state could adapt to economic realities while preserving ideological consistency.

In essence, the Kosygin Reform Model illustrates a careful blend of state socialism, measured reform, and pragmatic governance, showing how leadership in a Marxist-Leninist context could pursue modernization without fundamentally altering the socialist structure of the state.

Goulash Communism/Kádárism

Goulash Communism, often associated with the leadership of János Kádár, represents a distinctive period in Hungarian socialism that blended Marxism–Leninism with pragmatic reforms to create a more moderate, consumer-oriented socialist state. Emerging after the suppression of the 1956 Hungarian Revolution, Kádár initially navigated between Nagyism, which advocated rapid national reforms, and Soviet demands, gradually establishing a model of socialist reformism that retained state control while allowing limited economic liberalization.

The model was characterized by agrarian socialism, integrating rural populations into the socialist project through collective farms while simultaneously improving living standards to stabilize social support for the state. Its anti-Stalinism and selective adoption of Khrushchevism principles reflected a conscious break from rigid authoritarianism, emphasizing pragmatism over ideological purism. While formally a stratocracy in its centralized state apparatus, Goulash Communism balanced top-down control with elements of participatory management, especially in economic and consumer policy.

Economically, the model embodied state socialism while incorporating reforms inspired by Titoism, including more flexible production targets, limited market mechanisms, and incentives for individual and cooperative enterprise. This fusion produced a hybrid system sometimes described as progressive communism, combining socialist ideals with policies designed to improve material well-being, such as increased availability of consumer goods, modest personal property rights, and controlled economic decentralization. Additionally, Kádár legalized homosexuality and stopped the persecution of gay people. Social imperialism manifested subtly in foreign policy, as Kádár helped Khrushchev overthrow Nagy and invaded Czechoslovakia, while cautiously pursuing economic and cultural interests in regional affairs.

Kádárism worked by prioritizing social stability and public compliance through incentives rather than coercion alone. Citizens were encouraged to participate in state-sanctioned cooperatives and work programs, while enjoying improvements in housing, education, and consumer goods—a stark contrast to the punitive measures characteristic of early Stalinist models. Moderatism underpinned policy choices: ideological rigidity was tempered by practical governance, making Hungary a “goulash” mix of central planning, limited market elements, and social welfare provisions.

In sum, Goulash Communism represents a nuanced synthesis of Marxism–Leninism, post-revolutionary pragmatism, and selective reformism. Its combination of controlled liberalization, agrarian integration, and stratocratic oversight illustrates how a socialist state could maintain political authority while easing social and economic tensions, offering a model of moderate, reform-oriented communism within the Eastern Bloc.

Illyrian model

Prominent economists in Yugoslavia, such as Jaroslav Vaněk and Branko Horvat, advocated for this type of Market Socialism. Workers would be the owners of their enterprises, and daily management would abide by the one worker, one vote principle. Profits from the worker co-ops will directly compensate the employees within. Each labor-managed firm will compete in open and free markets, and they may be able to form cooperative federations. It's possible to have a laissez-faire form of market socialism with this, similar to Mutualism.

Titoism/Self-governing socialism

Like the Illyrian model, workers' self-management was also implemented via worker councils. The difference was that government intervention in the economy was far-reaching. The workers didn't own the firms they worked in, or as the 1974 constitution put it, "...no one has rights of ownership over the social means of production..." Like many other Market Socialists, Titoism believed in a strong welfare state for the citizens.

Krenzism

Egon Krenz rose to prominence in the late 1980s as the final leader of the German Democratic Republic (GDR), succeeding Erich Honecker during a period of systemic crisis and mass public unrest. His career was deeply intertwined with Honeckerism, reflecting continuity with the GDR’s bureaucratic and socialist structures, yet Krenz projected a slightly reformist image, embracing moderatism within the context of Marxism-Leninism. He maintained the centralized party control characteristic of the Socialist Unity Party, emphasizing stability and institutional continuity, even as pressure from both domestic dissent and international events forced concessions.

Throughout his political life, Krenz frequently positioned himself as opposing systemic abuses, highlighting anti-corruption as a key rhetorical element, though in practice his administration struggled to dismantle entrenched bureaucratic privileges. His governance exhibited aspects of illiberal democracy, maintaining formal electoral processes while restricting meaningful opposition and preserving a socialist state apparatus. These tendencies aligned with broader Eastern Bloc models, reflecting a balance between nominal public participation and authoritarian oversight.

Krenz’s later historical legacy is marked by Ostalgie, a nostalgic view of the GDR, which frames him as a symbolic figure representing a familiar social and economic order prior to reunification. In this context, some reinterpretations link him to Red Putinism and Russophilia, highlighting ideological sympathy for strong centralized socialist governance and strategic alignment with Russian political models post-reunification. These connections also resonate with certain strands of socialism of the 21st century, which seek to combine state-managed economies with populist narratives and pragmatic geopolitical orientation.

Krenzism functions in practice as a blend of constrained reformism and socialist preservation. By integrating moderate Marxist-Leninist principles with selective responsiveness to public discontent, it attempted to sustain social and economic stability while signaling superficial adaptation. Its enduring relevance lies less in revolutionary change than in demonstrating how late-stage socialist states negotiated reform pressures, nostalgia, and evolving notions of centralized authority.

Ligachyovism

Yuri Ligachyov was a senior Soviet politician whose career spanned the final decades of the USSR, most prominently serving in the Politburo during the late 1980s under Mikhail Gorbachev. Initially a staunch proponent of Leninism and Marxism-Leninism, Ligachyov emphasized the preservation of socialist institutions and party orthodoxy while navigating the reforms of Perestroika and Glasnost. He became widely known for his cautious, often critical stance toward Gorbachev’s liberalizing initiatives, positioning himself against rapid economic and political liberalization particularly when he viewed reforms as undermining the stability of the Soviet state.

Throughout his career, Ligachyov advocated collective leadership, emphasizing consensus among party elites rather than concentrating authority in a single figure. This approach reinforced his commitment to maintaining institutional continuity while moderating radical reform impulses. Despite his conservative leanings, he also practiced a form of reformist socialism, supporting gradual adjustments to economic management and social policy rather than abrupt transformations. His moderation allowed him to bridge the ideological divide between hardliners and reformists, though it ultimately made him a target for both pro-reform and ultra-conservative factions.

Ligachyov’s opposition to Boris Yeltsin and the accelerating democratization of the late Soviet period underscores his anti-Yeltsinism, reflecting his broader goal of defending the Soviet system against what he perceived as destabilizing Western-style liberal democracy. By emphasizing continuity, ideological orthodoxy, and cautious adaptation, Ligachyov demonstrated how senior Soviet leaders attempted to manage the tension between systemic reform and preservation. His political legacy highlights the complexities of late-stage Soviet governance, illustrating the interplay of moderatism, party loyalty, and pragmatic reform within a collapsing authoritarian state.

Municipal Socialism

Municipal Socialism is a variant of Market Socialism that advocates the use of local government to further social and public ownership of utilities. It predominately hails from the UK, specifically in the city of Preston.

Rehn-Meidner Model

The Rehn-Meidner Model was developed in the early 1950s by Swedish economists Gösta Rehn and Rudolf Meidner as part of the Social Democratic strategy to combine full employment with price stability and equitable income distribution. Its origins lie in the context of post-war Sweden, where industrial growth and social welfare ambitions demanded a system that could sustain democratic socialism while remaining economically competitive. The model reflected the core principles of liberal socialism, emphasizing state coordination with market mechanisms rather than direct ownership of all production.

Central to the model was a commitment to the Keynesian school, using fiscal and monetary policy to maintain full employment. Simultaneously, the model integrated trade unionism as a mechanism to ensure that wage growth kept pace with productivity, thereby protecting workers’ purchasing power and promoting social equity. This partnership between unions, employers, and the state underpinned Sweden’s highly organized labor relations and reinforced the model’s broader goal of left-social democracy, blending social justice with market discipline.

The Rehn-Meidner system also introduced structural mechanisms such as the “wage solidarity” principle, which compressed wages across industries to encourage efficiency and mobility. Firms that could not compete under standardized wage levels were naturally phased out or forced to modernize, fostering productivity while preventing inflation. At the same time, generous welfare provisions ensured that social security, education, and retraining mitigated the human cost of labor mobility, aligning with democratic socialism objectives of reducing inequality without sacrificing growth.

Functionally, the model harmonized macroeconomic stability with progressive redistribution, using Keynesian interventions to stabilize demand and trade union coordination to institutionalize equitable wage growth. By embedding social goals into the operational mechanics of the economy, the Rehn-Meidner model demonstrated how a liberal socialist framework could achieve efficiency, fairness, and sustained industrial competitiveness within a capitalist system.

Ultimately, the Rehn-Meidner Model exemplifies a pragmatic integration of leftist economic thought with market-based mechanisms, showing how democratic socialist principles can shape policies that balance growth, equity, and labor participation.

Variants

Cooperativism/Co-Operatism/Cooperative Economics

Cooperativism, also known as co-operatism or cooperative economics, is an economic model built around collective ownership and democratic management of enterprises. Its roots trace back to early 19th-century reformers like Robert Owen, whose vision emphasized communal living, worker self-management, and social welfare. Cooperativism prioritizes the interests of members—workers, consumers, or both—over external investors, linking its philosophy closely with trade unionism, which historically sought to protect labor rights and collective bargaining power.

The practical mechanics of cooperative economics involve enterprises owned and governed by their members, who typically vote on major decisions, share profits equitably, and participate in workplace governance. This is a direct manifestation of workplace democracy, ensuring that operational choices reflect the collective will rather than top-down managerial edicts. Cooperatives often embed principles of universal welfarism, providing social support structures, fair wages, and benefits that align economic incentives with social well-being rather than pure profit maximization.

Cooperativism intersects with several political and ideological currents. Christian Democracy and Democratic Socialism embrace cooperative structures as vehicles for ethical economic management and social justice. Eco-Socialism incorporates environmental stewardship into cooperative production, ensuring that communal enterprises prioritize ecological sustainability. Left-Social Democracy and Liberal Socialism view cooperativism as a pragmatic tool to reduce inequality while maintaining a degree of market flexibility. Even strands of Reformist Marxism see cooperatives as transitional mechanisms toward broader socialist goals, leveraging participatory governance to challenge hierarchical capitalist structures.

Historically, cooperativism has been applied in contexts ranging from European worker-owned enterprises to the Mondragon Corporation in Spain, demonstrating its adaptability across industrial and cultural settings. The model works by aligning incentives of production with collective benefit: profits are reinvested or shared among members, while decision-making is decentralized. By embedding both social and economic accountability into enterprise governance, cooperativism attempts to resolve the tensions between efficiency, equity, and democratic participation.

In essence, cooperativism offers a framework for an economy in which ownership and authority are distributed among participants, integrating social welfare, labor rights, and participatory governance. Its adaptability across different political traditions—from Christian Democracy to Reformist Marxism—highlights its versatility as both a practical economic structure and a philosophical approach to social justice.

Employee Funds

The wage-earner fund was a Swedish proposal by Rudolf Meidner to transition from a social democratic economy to a market socialist one. Companies with more than 50 employees would have 20% of their profits taxed to allow the funds to buy up shares in the companies. Since the trade union representatives control those funds, collective employee ownership will be attained after two decades.

Lange–Lerner theorem

The Lange Model emerged in the aftermath of World War II as economists sought a way to reconcile socialist planning with the efficiency benefits of market mechanisms. Proposed by Oskar Lange, it aimed to demonstrate that a centrally planned economy could replicate the allocative efficiency of competitive markets without abandoning socialist ownership of production. The model was directly influenced by Marxism–Leninism, which provided the ideological foundation of public ownership, and drew upon empirical lessons from countries experimenting with central planning and market intervention.

Historically, the Lange Model arose in the context of cybernetic experiments, where early theorists envisioned using computational methods and price signals to coordinate production in socialist economies. Lange proposed that central planners could set prices for goods and adjust them iteratively based on shortages and surpluses, effectively simulating market equilibrium within a state-owned system. This concept directly reflected centrally-planned regulationism, where the state retains ownership and ultimate decision-making power but uses feedback from production and consumption to guide economic activity efficiently.

The practical application of the model is evident in postwar experiments in Eastern Europe and in adaptations of Titoism in Yugoslavia. In these systems, enterprises were socially owned, but managers had autonomy to make operational decisions, respond to consumer demand, and adjust production strategies. Central authorities would intervene primarily to set overarching targets, allocate investment, and adjust prices based on observed surpluses or deficits. This approach allowed for both macroeconomic coordination and local responsiveness, aligning with Lange’s theoretical aim of achieving efficiency without private ownership.

The Lange Model works by combining the allocative power of markets with state-directed objectives. Prices are treated as instruments for communicating scarcity and coordinating production, but ownership remains collective. By doing so, the system mitigates some of the inefficiencies and rigidities of traditional planned economies while maintaining the redistributive and social goals of socialism. It also anticipates modern computational approaches, where algorithms and data analytics could support planning on a much larger scale—a theoretical precursor to aspects of contemporary cybercommunism.

There would be a market for final goods, while the state uses a central planning board to allocate the means of production. The government will set prices for capital goods by trial and error until they reach the equilibrium between supply and demand. The workers would still democratically manage the state-owned enterprises, and there would be social dividends thanks to the socially owned capital and natural resources. Despite being called "market socialism" by its founders, Lange Model was more of a market-simulated planning or a semi-planned economy.

In essence, the Lange Model provides a blueprint for a socialist economy that seeks both efficiency and equity. By embedding iterative, market-like price adjustments within a framework of public ownership, it bridges the gap between strict Marxism–Leninism and practical economic administration, offering a middle path between command economies and laissez-faire markets. Its historical relevance is reinforced by its influence on Titoist decentralization, demonstrating how theory could inform a hybrid model of socially owned, yet dynamically responsive, economic systems.

State-Oriented Market Socialism

State-Oriented Market Socialism is an economic framework that seeks to integrate the goals of socialism—social equity, public ownership, and planned development—with the efficiency-enhancing mechanisms of markets. It emerged from the experiences of Marxism–Leninism in the mid-to-late 20th century, when rigidly centralized economies revealed inefficiencies in resource allocation, technological innovation, and responsiveness to consumer needs. The model preserves the state’s strategic authority over key sectors, industries, and investment while allowing limited private enterprise and competitive markets in non-strategic areas.

Historically, the approach developed from developed socialism, where economies like the Soviet Union and other Eastern Bloc countries recognized the need to balance ideological goals with practical performance. The state maintains control over critical planning—such as infrastructure, heavy industry, and national priorities—through a planned economy, but allows enterprises operational autonomy in day-to-day production, pricing, and investment decisions. This dual mechanism reflects a reformist socialism logic: incremental changes aimed at improving efficiency without abandoning socialist principles.

The model functions by creating a structured interaction between state directives and market signals. Enterprises operate in a competitive environment, yet the state sets production quotas, price floors or ceilings, and strategic investment priorities to meet social and national objectives. This allows the economy to benefit from the innovation and responsiveness that markets encourage while preventing outcomes that could exacerbate inequality or undermine strategic sectors. For example, under Yuri Andropov, the Soviet Union experimented with granting managers more decision-making authority while the state retained control over capital allocation. In China, bird cage economics illustrates the same principle: private enterprise (“the bird”) thrives but remains constrained by state regulation (“the cage”), ensuring that overall macroeconomic objectives are met.

Regional and ideological variations, such as national communism, further shaped how state-oriented market socialism operates. In practice, the state leverages its control over banking, taxation, and large industries to guide development, while allowing smaller or less strategic sectors to respond to consumer demand and market incentives. Planned economy tools—such as multi-year industrial plans or resource allocation directives—ensure alignment with long-term goals, while market mechanisms provide feedback loops that adjust production and investment efficiently. The model also incorporates elements of reformist socialism, meaning that it evolves through experimentation, policy recalibration, and selective liberalization.

The effectiveness of the model lies in its hybrid structure. It balances state socialism goals with pragmatic market signals, supporting equitable distribution, industrial modernization, and national strategic priorities. By combining Marxist–Leninist ideology with controlled market flexibility, state-oriented market socialism creates a system capable of sustaining social welfare, strategic growth, and economic dynamism, offering a middle path between rigid central planning and unfettered capitalism.

In essence, the model works by using the state to set overarching social and developmental goals, providing structure, investment, and regulation, while letting market mechanisms manage efficiency, innovation, and enterprise responsiveness. It is an adaptive framework that allows socialist principles to coexist with economic pragmatism.

Stock Socialism

A variant of socialism in which social ownership of the means of production and workplace democracy is achieved via worker ownership of stocks. One proponent of a similar system was Pranab Bardhan who conceptualised a form of socialism in which workers had equal share of stocks. There is another variant of this with the transition to a socialist economy and that stage.

Personality

MarkSoc is quite disdainful of other, more radical socialists, as well as capitalists. They look down on other leftist ideologies for preventing the beneficial aspects of markets from proliferating in a socialist system, as well as looking down on rightist ones for the perceived corruption and suffering in their systems.

MarkSoc thinks they are the ultimate ideology and insists on everyone reading 1000 pages of economic theory to prove their point. They sometimes get caught up in their own self-importance, but they truly care about trying to help the workers of the world.

How to Draw

Flag of Market Socialism

1. Draw a ball.
2. Fill the ball white.
3. Draw at the top a red hammer.
4. Below that, draw two red arrows crossing each other.
5. Below that, draw a red star.
6. Add the eyes, and you're done!

Color Name		HEX	RGB
	Red	#EC1D26	rgb(236, 29, 38)
	White	#FFFFFF	rgb(255, 255, 255)

Relationships

Friends

• Democratic Socialism - They're fellow socialists and supporters of cooperatives.
• Liberal Socialism - John Stuart Mill was you later on in his life!
• Mutualism - My more wacky influence.
• Libertarian Market Socialism - My freedom-loving descendent.
• Distributism - Pretty much on the same page, but they're a little more religious than I am.
• Titoism - My most successful form and an inspiration to many market socialists.
• Alter-Globalism - The global south shall not be exploited!
• Democracy - Worker cooperatives are great at providing you!
• Guild Socialism - Me but Medieval-inspired and organized along professional lines.
• Ricardian Socialism - You are somewhat strange (what do you mean by distortions?), but I agree that the economy should be dominated by associations of workers.
• Socialism of the 21st Century - Evo was based.
• Gift Economy - Without capitalism, such exchanges would likely become easier, as there would be nothing forcing people to want certain products over others.
• Abolitionism - Mill supported abolition, also I wish John Brown’s plan to free the slaves had actually worked.
• Kosyginism - If only you fully implemented the reforms.....
• National Communism - You often rely on me to maintain your “communism”.
• Technocracy - Gierek implemented you, and your early influence from socialist thinkers makes you a perfect match for me.

Frenemies

• Classical Liberalism - I also enjoy Smith's works, but markets don't need to be capitalist, hope you can realize that.
• Syndicalism - Workforce unionization and decentralized worker organizations? Based! Couldn’t you leave the market alone though?
• Marxism–Leninism - I fit the official definition of "Socialism" so don't call me a fake socialist! However, Raul Castro, Tito, Kádár, and Kosygin are based, and so artels and cooperatives of Stalin era, which were banned by Khrushchev.
• Social Liberalism - We share a lot of the same ideals, and we both like John Stuart Mill, but doesn't provide practical solutions.
• Capitalist Communism - We both borrow ideas from Capitalism and Communism, but you're just a contradictory mess.
• Dengism - I'm a bit split on you. You look just a confusing corporatist system of the manager, state capitalism and worker co-ops which are based. At least you have a market system. Xi's reforms further confirmed my thoughts.
• Anarcho-Syndicalism - I love your brother, but why do you want to get rid of the government?
• Yellow Socialism - Not a fan of corporatism, but at least you are technically a socialist.
• Fascism & Corporatism - A corporatist economy is not even close to what I advocate for, especially with the class collaboration that it requires. But at least Bombacci tried to implement me in the process of fascist socialization, and corporatism can be socialist.
• Leninism - You understand that cooperatives are a good way to transition into socialism, which is based, I also like the New Economic Policy, but your rejection of reform is something I wouldn't like, in fact, reform is ideal in achieving socialism.
• State Capitalism - Why does everyone call us similar? We are polar opposites! But the NEP was nice.
• Juche - I like some of your economic ideas, but the totalitarianism is cringe.
• State Socialism - We are both socialists, but you should lessen your authoritarian rhetoric. A planned economy is stagnant and your tendency to be overly centralized and overly bureaucratic in dealing with economics tends to hurt the working class more than it helps them. Although we sometimes overlap, mostly in Eastern Europe.
• Social Democracy - You're far from horrible in modern times, but I kinda miss when you were a lot closer to me rather than a friendlier version of him.
• Social Authoritarianism - You're sometimes too moderate economically even getting close to him; but Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces' Yugoslavia-like socialist self-management system was really based. Also, Raul Castro and Miguel Diaz-Canel are basically you.
• Nordic Model - Again, not bad, though I wish you followed through with Rudolf Meidner's ideas.
• Anarcho-Communism - My brother with the same problems as with him. You seem to hate the markets, although Makhno at least applied me in Ukraine.
• Gorbachevism - At least you tried to implement me in the USSR.
• Khrushchevism - Banning cooperatives in 1956 was the reason why the Soviet economy stagnated! (At least you supported Kadar)

Enemies

• Neoliberalism - This is what unfettered capitalism leads to.
• American Model - What can I say? You promote capitalism as a dogma, you blockaded Cuba for daring to disagree with your economic policies, and you are a dictatorship wrapped in the language of democracy.
• Libertarianism - "The freer the market, freer the people", I totally agree, but you misunderstood the quote.
• The Manager - No...NO!!!
• Pinochetism - Exclusivist organizations and oligarchy? In THIS land? I think not!
• Nazism - Just a centralized, racialist a**hole of an ideology.
• The Board of Directors - This is what he wants over the workers!
• Hoxhaism - Stop calling any socialist ideologies that stray even slightly from Marxism–Leninism revisionist!
• Austrian School - Thanks for the ECP, but your unregulated capitalism is horrific.
• Capitalism - Your markets are cool, but your bosses are not. We also both like Adam Smith but for VERY different reasons.
• Third Way - You're a kinder version of them with some of him too, but you still seem more exploitative.
• Anarcho-Capitalism - The free market means no capitalism.
• Corporatocracy - You put the statement "Capitalism is anti-market" truer than anyone else. Please ignore that Rifkin is the CEO.
• Objectivism - Free markets aren't about worshiping your boss or being greedy.
• Avaritionism - GET AWAY FROM ME, YOU GODDAMN RED MARKET LOVER!!

Further Information

Literature

• Principles of Political economy by John Stuart Mill
• Chapters on Socialism by John Stuart Mill
• On the Economic Theory of Socialism by Oskar Lange
• Market, State, and Community: Theoretical Foundations of Market Socialism by David Miller
• Why Market Socialism?: Voices from Dissent by Frank Roosevelt, David Belkin, and Robert L. Heilbroner
• The Theory of the Leisure Class by Thorstein Veblen
• After Capitalism by David Schweickart
• Democracy at Work: A Cure for Capitalism by Richard D. Wolff
• Private Government: How Employers Rule Our Lives (and Why We Don't Talk about It) by Elizabeth Anderson
• Zero marginal cost society by jeremy rifkin

Articles

• Fifty Years Ago, Sweden Charted a Path to Socialism By Troels Skadhauge

Online Communities

• r/Market_Socialism
• r/Supercapitalists

Wikipedia

• Market Socialism
• Market Socialist Economy
• Cooperative
• Laissez-Faire Socialism
• Employee funds
• Economy of SFRY
• Socialist self-management
• Lange Model
• Labor theory of value

People

• Yegor Ligachyov
• Alexei Kosygin
• Rudolf Meidner
• Erich Honecker
• Egon Krenz
• Ramiz Alia
• Louis Blanc
• Janos Kádár
• John Stuart Mill
• Branko Horvat
• Jaroslav Vaněk
• Josip Broz Tito
• Emiliano Zapata
• Richard D. Wolff
• John Brown
• Thorstein Veblen

Videos

• AskProfWolff: What is the difference between market socialism and centralized socialism? by Richard D. Wolff
• Can We Do It Ourselves? by Friatidningar
• Socialist Debate: Main Arguments by Adam G
• 8 Types of "Socialism" in 75 Minutes || Economic Systems Explained by LuckyBlackCat
• 8 Types of "Socialism" in 10 Minutes by LuckyBlackCat

Gallery

Portraits

• 
  Credit: Arksiane's drawing
• 
• File:MarkSoc.png
• 
• 

Comics and Artwork

• 
  "If leftist ideologies were RPG characters" by Roxxagon, Source
• 
  "Socialist Compass" by Spade
• 
• 
  Annoyed MarkSoc
•