Doug:
>I'm not sure who the "we" is in your last sentence either. If "we" includes
>Latin American leftists and unionists, it seems that lots of them have
>accepted the fundamental terms of neoliberalism. But if the claims of the
>neoliberals bear little relation to actual experience, isn't it important
>to point that out? Isn't it also important to point out, in a time when The
>Market is revered and Planning is dismissed without a moment's
>consideration, that some kinds of planning can actually work? I know it's
>capitalist planning, I know it's historically contingent and all that, and
>I know all its corruption and destructiveness, but still...
Doug, it is a mistake to detach planning from the overall class structure
of a given society and try to make some kind of case for the merits of
socialism on that basis. The South Korean model does involve closing off
the country from imports, subsidizing native industries and utilizing a
master plan. But what's missing is social revolution. The Algerian
revolution made a similar sort of error. It assumed that the superficial
aspects of a planned economy could be used to promote economic progress
without challenging capitalist property relations. The sad state of Algeria
today is proof that it can't. What lies in store for South Korea in years
to come is anybody's guess. Only socialism can guarantee stable economic
growth for third world countries. I hate to sound like a Trotskyite, but I
think that its still true.
>
>Say, by some unforseen miracle, the world political environment changes,
>and some revolutionary or "progressive" regimes actually take power in some
>important countries. Say, for example, that Lula became president of
>Brazil, or the PCP toppled Fujimori. What do you adivse such regimes do?
There is every likelihood that in the short-term the economy will go
backwards because of imperialist blockade and warfare. The reason that the
economies fail is not because of some sort of inherent failure to obey the
Hayekian calculation factor, but because of global class relations at the
disadvantage of the peasants and workers. I have no idea what will work. I
do know what won't work and that is capitalism. Even if Chile's economy is
currently on the uptick, the long-term prognosis is misery for the
majority. Plus, ecological despoliation. In the final analysis, the problem
facing us is politics, not which economic theories can make socialism
feasible. That is why I have such little patience for the Albert-Hahnel or
David Schweickart tinkertoys.
Louis Proyect
