Sabri,
I concur with Justin that the NCE version of market socialism is
just as flawed as NCE itself and therefore of little use as a model
for a real economy, in particular a socialist real economy. I would
disagree with Justin that there is no role for planning. Obviously,
for instance, the provision of a state wide system of electricity
generation and distribution can not be efficiently done without a
degree of central planning and regulation. This has been
adequately demonstrated in California, Alberta, and New Zealand.
Infrastructure by its very nature, size and externalities must be
planned. Nor do I agree with his proposition that there be no
capital market. The abolition of a managed capital market was one
of the major problems that eventually brought down the Yugoslav
system of self-managed socialism. However, I do agree that a
capital market does not imply private ownership but is compatible
with self-managed market socialism.
Justin recommends David Shweickart and I too like his book
_Against Capitalism_. However, I think a much fuller treatment
which deals with all the things that Stiglitz criticizes is found in
Branko Horvat's _The Political Economy of Socialism_ (M.E.
Sharpe, 1982). It also has the advantage of having been written by
someone with extensive experience in designing and implementing
a successful (for a time) market socialist system.
On the other hand, the idea that somehow we can forget the
nation state and organize a world system that we can revolutionize
is just about as off-the-wall utopianism as I can imagine. Perhaps
you can solve your own personal economic problems by selling
them the Brooklyn Bridge?
Paul Phillips,
Economics,
University of Manitoba
Date sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:00:11 -0700 (PDT)
From: Sabri Oncu <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: [PEN-L:10133] Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> --- Louis Proyect <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I don't know about Chase-Dunn and 'market socialism'. In this 1999 article
> > on "Globalization: a World Systems Perspective", he calls for soft-pedaling
> > opposition to WTO and throwing one's support behind a 'global state'
> > whatever its class character.
>
> This is pretty much what Boswell and Chase-Dunn suggest in "The Spiral of
> Capitalism and Socialism" as well. I am not at all comfortable with the
> strategy they are suggesting to the global movements, as, for example, it
> involves supporting the EU and the like and then somehow democratizing them
> later. I am not claiming that their strategy suggestions have no merits since
> they suggest, for example, going beyond coordinating existing unions at the
> global level and organizing the unorganized workers and the unemployed, both in
> the core and the periphery. However, calling their approach neo-Bernsteinism
> seems to be a fair assesment.
>
> On the other hand, Louis, I don't know how realistic it is to expect in these
> days that the working class can be armed to smash the structures of capitalism,
> whether they are at the national or global level, either. In the not so near
> future, maybe. But any such attempt now in my country would find the Turkish
> Army, which is immersed in imperialism up to their ears, ready to smash them
> and it is highly unlikely that the army will side with the revolutionaries any
> time soon. Obviously, this is just one example.
>
> However, my problem is that my people and I are suffering badly and we need
> some remedy soon.
>
> To put it differently, I am puzzled and I am sure I am not alone.
>
> A very sad period with many of unknowns and uncertainties we all are going
> through I would say.
>
> Anyway!
>
> I asked my original questions because I don't know much about the existing
> market socialist models and am interested in hearing from market socialists
> and their opponents their reasons for and against.
>
> Best
> Sabri
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
> http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
>
