My email's been down this weekend, so I've only just seen Robin Hahnel's reply to my post on Devine and Schweickart. I'm well aware that Pat Devine and Schweickart would characterize their models as being substantially opposed. I've read the RRPE articles referred to by Prof. Hahnel, and the books of both D and S, and I've chatted with Schweickart about the issue, who told me himself about his debate in Cuba with Devine. I STILL think that the differences aren't as great as are being made out. I am open to being persuaded otherwise by reference to substantive points of divergence, but I honestly haven't been able to see that many. From what I can see D proposes central planning of only a few key prices (while S in principle does not oppose all price controls); planning of investment (which S endorses, though with a less structured model of democratic participation than the model of 'negotiated coordination' which D articulates); and markets in many consumption goods. Both favour social ownership, a welfare state, standard forms of market regulation, and workers' self-management at the enterprise level. I guess the question I have is how much or how little of markets qualifies or bars one from being called a market socialist. Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
