[PEN-L:8660] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Funny that Doug and Harry both remarked on the strangeness of capitalism. I am discussing that subject just now in my latest project. I am off to the library to look at Polanyi's "Aristotle disovers the economy" again. If buying and selling is so natural, why are drugs, prostitution and child pornography illegal? Why can't I sell my children or buy a kidney? Besides, markets are not a lot of fun. I once started a book project, let's put the social back in socialism. We made a lot of mistakes back in the 60's, but it was sure better than this. geezerly, -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8661] progressive taxation
Peter Burns writes: The willingness of the population to accept highly progressive taxation is tied to the range and quality of public services which they receive in return. There's a lot of truth to that, especially in Western Europe back when social democracy ruled. But here in the US, if I am not mistaken, the big increases in the progressiveness of the tax system coincide with wars. When soldiers are "paying taxes" by risking their lives in battle, they have the clout to influence the powers that be to raise taxes on the wealthy back home. (The leaders actually put rhetoric about "equality of sacrifice" into practice if they worry about the "morale of the troops" or the possible rebelliousness of the returning troops after the war.) I think there's also some truth to the notion that the tax system stayed relatively progressive (compared to nowadays) partly due to the Cold War (and the need to avoid the kind of veteran rebellion that occurred after WW I). (This parallels the argument that the US did pretty well (compared to nowadays) on welfare-state and civil rights issues as long as our ruling elite was competing with the USSR on the world stage.) Absent a mass grassroots social movement of the sort that scares the rulers to give into social-democratic reforms, welfare state programs, and technocratic management, it sure looks like we need a war to stimulate greater equality. Gee, who should we bomb? ;-) in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:8666] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
In a recent post Doug Henwood mentioned the likes of "swaptions", "Butterflies" and a couple of other rare money species. Could you explain what these are? Bill Burgess Vancouver
[PEN-L:8667] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, ut
Robin, 'Fraid so. Actually in the old USSR they had labor markets. If someone wanted to quit a job and work somewhere else, they could, subject to restrictions on migration (the "Moscow Does Not Believe in Tears" syndrome). Only if people are assigned a job and can't quit, a la the PRC under Mao, does one not have a labor market to some degree. And, of course, there is outright slavery, although that is a "labor market" of a different kind. I guess what you are talking about is the "labor market" setting wages. But in the kind of worker-managed market socialism that a lot of us find attractive, wages are set by the workers in the enterprise themselves, subject to the prices they are getting for their output. As for your later post, I see nothing wrong with further equalization being carried out by some combination of progressive taxation and directed public spending. You cite Sweden with some dissatisfaction as not coming near enough to economic justice for you. What is your model then? To each according to his/her need? Absolute equality? Rawlsian maximin? I note that these are not equivalent to each other. BTW, if there is political support for any kind of more or less socialist solution, I see no reason why there would not also be support for such equalizing policies as progressive taxation and directed public spending. As for externalities, clearly there has to be some mechanism, possibly even a market one as in marketable permits, established or run outright by the state. I note that the historical record of the actually planned economies on externalities was downright awful. Arguably this was due to the lack of participatory input and perhaps your scheme would solve that unfortunate lacuna. Barkley Rosser On Sat, 15 Feb 1997 11:29:33 -0800 (PST) Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Barkley, are you going to use labor markets? If so, you will get highly unequal labor incomes that are also quite inequitable. Michael Jordan will get $20 million per year and a nursery school teacher will get $20 thousand. If you don't permit labor markets to determine labor income, they you will have wage rates that certainly do NOT represent marginal revenue products and accurate social opportunity costs. But then the labor component of the costs of items will not reflect social opportunity costs of items. So, equity and efficiency are fundamentally at odds in market socialist economies. And no, markets do NOT provide what people want. In a trivial sense they do. If one seller of shoes is making ugly ones and another is making attractive ones, the market will pressure the former to adapt or depart. But in a much more important sense markets mis-price goods because of extensive external effects, and provide incentives for profit maximizers to externalize costs as much as it provides them incentives to improve product quality. And then there is the problem that the behavioral roles that markets force us to play are hardly the kind of lesson we hope our children learn in play school -- that is equitable cooperation -- rather than advancing our own interests at the expense of others. -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8671] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
At 11:27 AM -0800 2/17/97, Bill Burgess wrote: In a recent post Doug Henwood mentioned the likes of "swaptions", "Butterflies" and a couple of other rare money species. Could you explain what these are? Swaptions are options on swaps. A butterfly spread involves simultaneous purchase and sale of three options of different strike price and/or maturity, whose parameter look like the V of a butterfly of a graph. Please don't make me get out the book and come up with exact parameters. One of my favorite features in the New Palgrave Dictionary of Finance is the Whitmanic list of some 120 innovations over the last 20 years. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8672] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Michael Perelman wrote, Funny that Doug and Harry both remarked on the strangeness of capitalism. I am discussing that subject just now in my latest project. I am off to the library to look at Polanyi's "Aristotle disovers the economy" again. BUT, lest we get carried away with only the _strangeness_ of capitalism, there is the infamous other side: it works. It doesn't achieve a just distribution of wealth, but it does sustain a remarkable generation and accumulation of wealth, technological innovation etc., etc.. And it works only up to a point (crisis tendencies). My point in mentioning potlatch (besides a bit of local B.C. boosterism) was that it is another example of a cultural institution that was apparently very successful in underpinning a remarkable generation and accumulation of wealth, although the "rationality" of the potlatch isn't obvious to a Euro-centric view. In fact, the potlatch was outlawed by the British colonists. It would be easy to think of this prohibition as a mean-spirited repressive thing done just for the sake of crushing a people's culture. But the Brits probably thought they were "protecting" the aboriginals from their destructive and wasteful ways -- "saving them from themselves." If we think of markets as cultural institutions, then there are issues at stake other than rationalizing the production and distribution of use values. I'll just mention the issue of motivation as one that regularly stumps the advocates of central planning -- and, no, the answer isn't "indoctrination." It may be useful, here, to think again about Max Sawicky's "quest for income" remark with the qualification that we needn't see such a quest as rational behaviour, nor see the outcome of the quest as having much to do with innate ability, application or even luck. In many cases, the "outcome" may be predetermined and the "quest" an entirely ritual activity carried out to legitimize the predetermined order of things. Still bothering me in the "market socialism/planned socialism" dichotomy is a little demon I'll call by the code name of the teleology of reason. Isn't Hegel standing on his head _still_ Hegel? Regards, Tom Walker ^^ knoW Ware Communications | Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art [EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate." (604) 669-3286| ^^ The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8674] request for help with sources - 1
I have a student who is doing a paper for another class on how the World Bank, IMF, etc. policies impact on indigenous businesses and restrict the growth of the local economy. I know that the "50 years is enough" group has done a lot of work in this area, but I can find their e-mail or web addr. Anyone have those? Also, if you have any suggestions as to good readings on this topic, please forward them to me. One final question on this topic. I remember someone who has done a lot of work on this topic is a woman named Cheryl P. Anyone would can help me with her last name would be appreciated. Thanks for your help, Doug Orr
[PEN-L:8676] Re: request for help with sources - 1
DOUG ORR wrote: One final question on this topic. I remember someone who has done a lot of work on this topic is a woman named Cheryl P. Anyone would can help me with her last name would be appreciated. Payer Jerry
[PEN-L:8679] Salinas + Narcos (news) (fwd)
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 1997 00:27:08 + Subject: Salinas + Narcos (news) Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] From: rc whalen [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Salinas + Narcos (news) Listeros: Remember who told you first. Un gran abrazo a todos! Diablito MEXICO CITY, Feb 16 (Reuter) - U.S. investigators have established close links between former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, his family and other ex-officials and Mexico's most powerful and bloodthirsty drug traffickers, a magazine reported on Sunday. Proceso magazine cited U.S. Justice Department documents being used in an investigation of a former Mexican prosecutor, Mario Ruiz Massieu, who is suspected of drug trafficking and money laundering. The former president's lawyer, Juan Velazquez, told Reuters the report was "absolutely absurd" but said he would withhold further comment. Other Salinas family members and lawyers could not be reached for comment. A spokeswoman at the Mexican Attorney General's Office said there would be no immediate official reaction. Proceso said U.S. federal prosecutors will present the information before a grand jury in Houston starting on March 10. U.S. grand juries decide whether individuals will be formally charged with crimes. One witness cited by Proceso directly tied Salinas, who was president from 1988 to 1994, to convicted drug trafficker Juan Garcia Abrego. "The collaborating witness attended various social events in the ranch of Raul Salinas (Carlos's brother). Present at some of these events were Carlos Salinas, Raul Salinas ... and Juan Garcia Abrego," one of the U.S. documents published by Proceso said. "These social events took place during the period when Carlos Salinias was president." Garcia Abrego was arrested in northern Mexico a year into the term of current President Ernesto Zedillo, who succeeded Salinas, and later was convicted and sentenced to life in U.S. courts for drug trafficking and money laundering. The Proceso report said the Salinas clan also was linked to other top Mexican drug lords who remain at large. Among those also tied to the drug trade are two top Mexican politicians who were assassinated in 1994, shaking the Mexican political system to its core. Presidential candidate Luis Donaldo Colosio was gunned down during a campaign rally in Tijuana, and ruling party secretary general Jose Francisco Ruiz Massieu was shot dead outside a Mexico City hotel. Mexican authorities later arrested the former president's brother, Raul, for having masterminded Ruiz Massieu's killing. A witness named Magdalena Ruiz Pelayo, in U.S. federal prison on unspecified charges, said both Colosio and Ruiz Massieu had stolen large amounts of drug money from the Salinas family and other drug traffickers, according to the U.S. documents printed by Proceso. After his arrest on murder charges, Raul Salinas, who is still in jail, was found to have up to $300 million stashed away in European bank accounts. One witness cited in the Proceso account said Raul Salinas likely had "a couple of billion dollars in the bank" due to his role in granting protection to drug traffickers. "The collaborating witness estimated that (Raul) Salinas and (Mario) Ruiz Massieu charged $150 million monthly in payments coming from the mafias," said the documents. REUT R.C. Whalen Legal Research International P.O. Box 250 Briarcliff Manor, NY 10510-0250 Tel: (914) 945-0816 Fax:(914) 945-0782 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8682] Re: nuclear subs in russia
I watched a 60 minutes segment Sunday about the financial collapse of the Russian army. The part that really caught my attention, though, is the fact that by not paying their bills, the Russian nuclear submarines are in danger of melting down because the equipment which keeps the temperatures moderate in the winter runs on electricity and the Russian navy is not paying their electric bill. The electric company has shut off power. The housing holding the nuclear material in the subs may crack and melt downs ensue. I must say, this is one of the most frightening shows I've ever seen in my life. The payback from years of militarism and the cold war could destroy the oceans, and of course, life on the planet. All in the name of free market efficiency. How does one go about doing something about this? maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8681] Child of MERU {g'child of NAIRU}
I'm too sick to do "real" work (except the stuff that _really_ needs to be done) and I'm stuck in the office because my wife has my car, so here's the continuing saga of the NAIRU/MERU... In response to my question of whether or not we can "say _definitely_ that unemployment in the US is lower now than it was in 1933," Tom Walker writes: I agree with much of what Jim says. And I'm all for having "some idea rather than no idea at all." But, having some idea is not the same as being able to say _definitely_ that unemployment in the US is lower now than it was in 1933. My own "definite" sense that unemployment was higher in 1933 comes from the mass of anecdotal evidence, not from comparison of the U rates (and I'll bet Jim's does, too). It's not _just_ anecdotal: looking at the social indicators like food consumption per capita, these fell as U rose. (BTW, this indicates the foolishness and perhaps mendacity of people like Michael Darby or Robert Lucas, who aver that the 1930s unemploy- ment was frictional, voluntary.) I frankly wouldn't know where to begin to compare the differences in data collection methods, definitions of unemployment, level of participation in market vs. subsistence economy etc. No, I have to correct myself, I *would* know where to begin -- by listing all of the substantive social-historical differences I could find and then trying to find anecdotal evidence that might allow me to interpret the data in such a way that I could make a reasonably confident comparison. At the end of such a process, I might well want to present the results in a table comparing the (now highly qualified and possibly 'adjusted') "rates" of unemployment. For me, that would be more of a rhetorical practice (presenting information in a way that might be intelligible to my audience) than a scientific one. The scientific practice would involve making the distinctions between methods of data collection, etc., etc. I don't see why the manifest flaws in the measurement of the U rate means that the use of the U rate in time series (or even in the more-difficult between-country comparisons) is merely "rhetorical" (which seems like a negative term to me). Economic historians have their ways to deal with such things, e.g., as when Christina Romer does calculations of _current_ U rate using methods that fit the data-availability limitations of 1933, so as to get a better feel for historical comparisons (rather than futilely trying to measure 1933 U using the methods that are adapted to the data availability of 1997). Even then, of course it's true that we've seen a decline in the farm sector and similar alternatives to wage labor _plus_ the rise of welfare-state institutions (until recently), which provide new alternatives, usually temporary ones, to wage labor. But I would see that as modifying the _impact_ of U rather than U itself. Further, such structural changes usually take place very slowly, so that for a short period (like, say, 4 years) we can assume them constant, until someone can point up what's wrong with such an assumption. I would totally agree that the measured U rate is an inevitably imperfect measure of Marx's reserve army of labor or even of some neoclassical concept of U. But why do people like Dr. Harvey Brenner find correlations between the U rate and such key variables as the suicide rate, the crime rate, the rate of violent crimes against spouses, etc.? That (and the negative correlation between U and worker incomes) suggests that the U rate is measuring _something_. It is measuring an important component of the objective conditions that people face, the conditions that generate the anecdotal evidence that Tom refers to. I don't object at all to comparing "rates of unemployment" provided the numbers are embedded in a discussion of how the measurement has been arrived at and what it does and doesn't reveal. This is true of _all_ serious empirical work. As every historian knows, anecdotal evidence _also_ needs to be treated skeptically. What I object to is the comparison of rates in the abstract. And, IN ABSTRACTION, there is no comparing the 1933 rate of unemployment and the 1997 one. ... Such comparisons are no more meaningful than would be a "literary" evaluation that simply counts the number of words in a book. Rather than being an attack on the U rate _per se_, this seems to be an attack on abstraction in general, or rather an abstract attack on abstractions. But the point of abstractions is not the concepts themselves, but the constant back-and-forth (the dialectic, if you will) between the abstract theory and the imperfectly-known and -measured empirical world. (NB: the U rate is _definitely_ an abstraction, a number calculated with a certain theory in mind, consciously or unconsciously. It is NOT the same thing as the multidimensional relationships which we think of as "unemployment.") I totally agree when bill mitchell writes: it is foolish to get into a lather denying the
[PEN-L:8680] Strike to Protest Victimisation of Union Branch Secretary
From: Lawrence, Elizabeth To: 'CAN-LABOR '; LABOR-L, trade-unions-he; work-at-edu Subject: Strike to Protest Victimisation of Union Branch Secretary Date: 17 February 1997 12:14 Strike to Protest Victimisation of Union Branch Secretary in Accrington, Lancashire, England. (Please cross post to other discussion groups whose members may be interested in this item.) Members of NATFHE (the lecturers' union) at Accrington and Rossendale College are starting indefinite strike action on Monday 24 February to demand the re-instatement of their Branch Secretary, who was sacked at the end of last term in an act of blatant victimisation by the college management. For details of the story please read on. Victimisation of union officers is recognised by all labour movement activists as a serious attack on union organization. A particularly vicious case of victimisation has occurred at Accrington and Rossendale College (a community college) in Accrington, Lancashire, England. Pat (Patrick) Walsh, union Branch Secretary and National Executive Council Member of NATFHE (National Association of Teachers in Further and Higher Education) was sacked on 20 December 1996, the last day of academic term. In recent years there has been a growth of a bullying, managerialist culture in further education colleges, such as Accrington and Rossendale. (Further education colleges provide education and training for young people from the age of sixteen upwards, together with education for mature students.) In the UK further education colleges were until a few years ago run and controlled by local councils. They are now managed by 'independent' corporations, often dominated by local business interests. Along with this more macho managerial culture, there has been a bitter contracts dispute in these colleges, with the employers seeking to impose new contracts with longer working hours, shorter holidays and the removal of contractual safeguards on workloads, such as limits on teaching hours and number of evening sessions lecturers can be required to work. In this climate attacks on union officers have become more frequent. In some colleges union members are scared to take on official union positions, such as Branch Secretary, because they know it means they will be targeted by management. Accrington and Rossendale College has had a recent history of industrial conflict, particularly over attempts by the employer to sack part-time lecturers and bring in agency staff. In 1996, shortly after the end of the summer term, 340 part-time lecturers were sacked by the college. They were told they could be re-employed if they registered with Education Lecturing Services (ELS). This is an agency which provides part-time lecturers for colleges. Staff working with ELS are classified as self-employed and thus have no entitlement to employment benefits, such as sick pay, holiday pay and maternity leave. Pat Walsh as union Branch Secretary was in the forefront of the campaign to resist the introduction of ELS at Accrington and Rossendale College. He managed to persuade his branch of over 100 full-time lecturers to vote 2-1 in favour of all out indefinite strike action in opposition to the introduction of ELS. It is not always easy for union officers to persuade full-time staff to take strike action in defence of part-timers' rights. (The union was not able to include the part-time lecturers in the ballot because they had been sacked by the college, and so their inclusion would have given the employer grounds to challenge the ballot in the courts.) Since a Conservative Government was elected in Britain in 1979, a number of legal changes have made it increasingly difficult for unions to organize any industrial action without falling foul of the law. For instance political strikes are automatically unlawful. All strike votes have to be conducted by postal ballots to members' homes. Ballot forms must include a statement that industrial action involves breach of contract. Employers must be given a list of names of all the members the union is balloting and also a list of all members they are calling upon to take strike action. Employers are also entitled to know the actual figures in the ballot result and to be given at least seven days notice before the industrial action starts. (The Government is presently considering proposals to extend this to fourteen days.) All this means that it takes a labour union in Britain a minimum of several weeks to organize a lawful strike. Any slight mistake and the union can be taken before the courts and, if it does not call off the action, it risks having its funds sequestrated. Given all these requirements, it is very easy for employers to take unions to court to challenge a ballot result, for instance on the grounds of minor inaccuracies in the list of names. This happened at Accrington and Rossendale College.
[PEN-L:8678] Re: request for help with sources - 1
The name is: Cheryl Payer Her book on the IMF was called "The Debt Trap". I think the one one of the World Bank was called just that. Her address is: Carmine St. No. 10, New York On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, DOUG ORR wrote: I have a student who is doing a paper for another class on how the World Bank, IMF, etc. policies impact on indigenous businesses and restrict the growth of the local economy. I know that the "50 years is enough" group has done a lot of work in this area, but I can find their e-mail or web addr. Anyone have those? Also, if you have any suggestions as to good readings on this topic, please forward them to me. One final question on this topic. I remember someone who has done a lot of work on this topic is a woman named Cheryl P. Anyone would can help me with her last name would be appreciated. Thanks for your help, Doug Orr
[PEN-L:8677] request for help with sources - 2
I have a second request for help with sources. I have another student who is in the MBA program who wants to do a 5-credit independent study on "green capitalism." Specifically she is somewhat interested in "green investing," but is more intereseted in firms that focus on doing environmentally conscious production or other "socially conscious" production, such as seriously striving for ethnic and gender diversity, as opposed to just window decoration. Since this would be a 5-credit hour project, I am hoping to get a large number of references. Any and all suggestions are welcome. Thanks, Doug Orr
[PEN-L:8675] visions of the future
Anders writes Someone could argue that only by having a clear vision of the future we want can we hope to make progress. But I've been in plenty of meetings with lefties who have such a vision, and it doesn't seem to do much in helping to figure out what we do right now. As often as not, it turns into a reason to have a knock-down fight over differences that are trivial in the here-and-now, or it becomes a rationale for taking actions that at best could be called "liberal" (or simply "stupid," such as planning "revolutionary" actions with the assumption that your funding will mostly come from foundations). I am familiar with this problem. But I think we can deal with this kind of problem by (1) realizing that if socialism comes to the world, it will be a creation, from below, by the oppressed and exploited and (2) all that intellectuals can do is advise people about how to do that creation. They cannot do it _for_ them, since that simply sets up a new ruling stratum, imposing a pre-digested vision on people. If we know that intellec- tuals/activists/etc. are simply helpers and not a "vanguard" that knows what's good for people better than they do themselves (a vanguard such as that which has run the "Leninist" and social-democratic parties), a certain modesty and anti-sectarianism is encouraged. As I understand Marx (via Hal Draper's exhaustive study of his politics), old Karlos was all in favor of "utopian" visions, even though he thought they were by no means sufficient. He saw utopian thinking as potentially being part of the collective self-education of the proletariat; a collective self-education in which intellectuals can only be helpers, not indoctrinators or prophets; and a collective self-education which is an essential part of the process of the oppressed developing the power and consciousness needed to eject the oppressors from the seat of power and set the stage for the abolition of oppression. BTW, one of the problems with most schemes of "market socialism" or "centrally-planned socialism" is that they are hardly exciting to the people that these socialisms are supposed to help. Can you imagine the response to the idea of establishing a bureaucracy to centrally plan the economy? or to the idea of setting up a bureaucracy that is supposed to guide the market under socialism so that it serves the social welfare? On the latter, I can see that many would like the idea of workers' coopera- tives, but there's a lot of drab stuff associated with market socialism. We need to be more willing to ask people how they would like to run the economy if they "had their druthers," i.e., what their utopian visions are. We'd probably would learn a lot. Maybe then we could design models of socialism that would be merely transitional phases to such visions. in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:8673] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
At 12:10 PM -0800 2/17/97, Tom Walker wrote: BUT, lest we get carried away with only the _strangeness_ of capitalism, there is the infamous other side: it works. It doesn't achieve a just distribution of wealth, but it does sustain a remarkable generation and accumulation of wealth, technological innovation etc., etc.. But statements like "it works" are part of the weirdness. What is it that works? "Wealth" and "innovation" are hardly transparent categories. Memo to Jerry L: yeah, of course the point is to decode all the laws behind the seeming strangeness of the system, but people who obsess about laws often forget the strangeness. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8670] Re: the oddities and logic of capitalism
Jerry Levy quoted everyone else and then wrote,
To say that capitalism is "odd", by itself, is not a very meaningful
statement. For Marx, the object was to discover the _logic_ of capitalism
("the economic law of motion of modern society"), rather than mere
oddities. It is easy enough to talk about "oddities" -- more difficult is
developing a systematic analysis of why what appears only to be odd
represents a necessary form of appearance of capital inherent in the
value-form.
While discussion of "oddities" is a (sometimes) amusing and interesting
pastime, the task of political economy is to penetrate beyond the veil
of both the "odd" and the "normal."
I agree entirely with Jerry's first paragraph and can only laugh at his
second. What ever could have "aroused" Jerry to such "seminal" thought?
Regards,
Tom Walker
^^
knoW Ware Communications |
Vancouver, B.C., CANADA | "Only in mediocre art
[EMAIL PROTECTED] |does life unfold as fate."
(604) 669-3286|
^^
The TimeWork Web: http://mindlink.net/knowware/worksite.htm
[PEN-L:8669] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
At 10:06 AM 2/17/97 -0800, Max wrote: Maybe we differ in that one impulse is devoted to creating a legacy of a vision which future generations will find illuminating and useful, and frankly I'm interested in work whose beneficial, tangible effects I will live to see, not least because I would like to be assured they are indeed forthcoming. I think you could even argue that it doesn't make a lot of sense to create a vision of the future--except perhaps as an occasional mental exercise for opening your mind to new possibilities in the here-and-now. We're in the same position as someone in 11th Century Europe trying to imagine what capitalism would look like; it's a near-impossible task. Someone could argue that only by having a clear vision of the future we want can we hope to make progress. But I've been in plenty of meetings with lefties who have such a vision, and it doesn't seem to do much in helping to figure out what we do right now. As often as not, it turns into a reason to have a knock-down fight over differences that are trivial in the here-and-now, or it becomes a rationale for taking actions that at best could be called "liberal" (or simply "stupid," such as planning "revolutionary" actions with the assumption that your funding will mostly come from foundations). Of course, my feelings about long-long term visions may be colored by the fact that I don't find either market socialism or central planning very believable. I think market socialism suffers from from the problems that several Pen-lrs have raised. And given my limited experience with planning, either in the government, businesses, or community groups, I have a hard time believing that central democratic planning, even if it's driven from the bottom up, would work. Either system, even if it only worked in a half-assed, clunky, inequitable way, would be a hell of a lot better than what we've got now, but I can't see either as an end-point. It's fun to spin stories about what the future might look like, and I'm glad Pen-l is doing it, but right now our side needs more help in the present. If someone came to me today and asked, "what do lefties think the world should look like after capitalism?" I could give them a hefty stack of readings. If they asked me, "if a bunch of us start running for office and 8 years from now take over the California state government, what economic policies would we want to be fighting for," the stack would be pretty tiny. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:8668] Re: market socialism, etc.
At 09:45 AM 2/17/97 -0800, Jim wrote: In addition to the issue of external costs benefits, Robin Hahnel is onto something that Kenneth Arrow noted a long time ago: "Under the system of a free market, such feelings [social values, the ordering of social states according to moral standards] play no direct part in social choice... The market mechanism... takes into account only the ordering according to tastes [the ordering according to the direct consumption by the individual]." (SOCIAL CHOICE AND INDIVIDUAL VALUES, 1963: p. 18). Social preferences, like feelings of solidarity, cannot be expressed in an atomized market setting. And more recently, Soros of all people said something quite similar; for an interesting, somewhat bizarre read, check out the latest Atlantic. Among other things, Soros admits that (surprise!) simply unleashing capitalism in Eastern Europe failed miserably, and he says that unfettered laissez-faire policies may destroy our society. Not exactly a shocker for folks here, but it's fun to have someone like Soros to smack Right-wingers over the head. Anders Schneiderman Progressive Communications
[PEN-L:8665] the oddities and logic of capitalism
Tom Walker wrote:
I wrote,
Probably no more
than one in twenty "marxian economists" would see commodity production as
odd. That doesn't mean it's _not_ odd.
And Max Sawicky replied
This gives an unexpected meaning to the word
'odd.'
It may be unexpected, but it's not original. The idea that commodity
production is "odd" comes unembelished right out of chapter one of Capital
-- more precisely the last section on the Fetishism of the Commodity.
Doug Henwood then wrote:
This is an important point. In a time when so many of the dwindling band of
radical political economists are in hot pursuit of respectability - math,
suits and/or stockings, and everything - it's easy to lose the sense that
capitalism is a really weird social system. Not only the fetishism of
commodities, but the ghostly power of money, the colonization of mental and
erotic life by what Keynes called the Benthamite contraption... I could go
on. In finance, the capitalist subfield I spend all too much time
following, human ingenuity and material resources are devoted to crafting
inverse floaters, swaptions, reset notes, and butterfly spreads. Capitalism
does give new meaning to the word odd, though by now it shouldn't be
unexpected.
Jerry now writes:
To say that capitalism is "odd", by itself, is not a very meaningful
statement. For Marx, the object was to discover the _logic_ of capitalism
("the economic law of motion of modern society"), rather than mere
oddities. It is easy enough to talk about "oddities" -- more difficult is
developing a systematic analysis of why what appears only to be odd
represents a necessary form of appearance of capital inherent in the
value-form.
While discussion of "oddities" is a (sometimes) amusing and interesting
pastime, the task of political economy is to penetrate beyond the veil
of both the "odd" and the "normal."
Jerry
[PEN-L:8664] Re: Your gender or culture determines your opinions
In a message dated 97-02-16 16:47:03 EST, you write: In a message dated 97-02-15 09:06:43 EST, you write: man hours sigh. they just don't get it. maggie coleman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Maggie, Did I write this? I hope not - I have to pay thrice in my household for such words!! How are things going? I have FREE tkst to "TGI Fridays" (includes meal, tip tax but NO drink) Do you want to meet Friday for lunch at one their locations? They expire on Friday 2/28/97 Call me, maybe we can John in on a lunch tooo (212-799-6377) Jason
[PEN-L:8662] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't follow, "follow the bananas" or "J. Fred Max." I'd appreciate some enlightenment on these burning questions. I don't think ignorance is at issue, just a taste for my jokes and a certain amount of aging. My point was that if human history is two million years long, than the first million and a half would seem to have little relevance to the problems of modern society, except in some very profound psycho/anthro sense that would take extended scholarly work to uncover, and even more trouble to explain to me. Re: "J Fred etc.", before you were born there was a television star named J. Fred Muggs with a taste for bananas. Actually, Max, I think it does. Prior to agriculture, people hardly worked at all, and didn't have a sense of "work" as separate from leisure (as far as we know). The economy as a separate sphere of the world, in particular, is an invention of capitalism. If capitalism was a logical and progressive stage in history, about which Marx seems right to me, and since Marx's envisioned successor to capitalism is nowhere in sight, then "work" in quotes or something close to it is an inescapable feature of the modern world. And please don't make me out to be stupid (ignorant, okay, but not stupid): I'm *not* suggesting we should kill 5 billion or so people, destroy all the machinery, factories, and buildings, give up agriculture, and practice hunting and gathering. Not at all. You're racing way beyond what I was talking or thinking about or imputing to or about anybody. I do wonder about alternatives informed by your implied critique of capitalist work and social relations, in terms of their nature and, most of all, their practicality. Maybe we differ in that one impulse is devoted to creating a legacy of a vision which future generations will find illuminating and useful, and frankly I'm interested in work whose beneficial, tangible effects I will live to see, not least because I would like to be assured they are indeed forthcoming. As I've said before, if I was in academia I might have different inclinations. Cheers, MBS
[PEN-L:8659] overstuffed mailboxes
When you let your mailboxes fill up and your system begins to reject your mail, it all bounces back to me. I get about 100 such bounces every day. I may need to start removing such accounts from pen-l. Sorry. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8658] market socialism, etc.
About a Hahnel Albert-type socialism, Justin S writes: Politicization of the whole economy will mean that each group will try to put the burdens and costs on other groups while reapin[g] advantages for themselves. Wait a sec, Justin! that's _exactly_ the way a capitalist market works (see, e.g., E.K. Hunt's critique of welfare economics in the Ed Nell edited volume, GROWTH, PROFITS, AND PROPERTY). I see _no_ reason to see a "socialist market" not acting in the same way. A "socialized market" would involve a lot of regulation, special taxes, etc. This in turn would encourage lobbying by the producers (whether they're run as cooperatives or not), in order to ease their regulatory burden and the effluent taxes they have to pay (and raise the bounties they get from central authorities for producing external benefits). Of course, the wealthier or luckier producers (co-ops) would have the most influence... They can then turn that influence into greater wealth. So they could dump costs on others and "internalize the external economies" of others. At least you have to admit that Robin is addressing the issue of how one can structure a socialist economy to avoid encouraging the aggressive-individualistic or particularistic motives that are both encouraged by and mess up the capitalist market and the "socialized market." BTW, Marx accurately pointed to the increasingly overt socialization of individualized production. In more common-sense terms, this refers to the growth of economic power, interdependency, the importance of external costs benefits, etc., etc. Increased socialization of production automatically produces increased politicization of individual activities. We can't avoid that politicization (meaning that we can't go up to our cabins in the woods, become totally self-sufficient, and avoid all other people). The question is: is the politicization going to be democratic (one person/one vote) or capitalist (one dollar/one vote)? I didn't see my pen-l missive on this subject from last week in the pen-l archives at csf.colorado.edu (or even in my own archives), so here it is again. Sorry if it is repetitive, redundant, pleonastic, or duplicative. In addition to the issue of external costs benefits, Robin Hahnel is onto something that Kenneth Arrow noted a long time ago: "Under the system of a free market, such feelings [social values, the ordering of social states according to moral standards] play no direct part in social choice... The market mechanism... takes into account only the ordering according to tastes [the ordering according to the direct consumption by the individual]." (SOCIAL CHOICE AND INDIVIDUAL VALUES, 1963: p. 18). Social preferences, like feelings of solidarity, cannot be expressed in an atomized market setting. Robin also stresses how a competitive environment encourages the type of personality that actively externalizes external costs (i.e., dumps) and internalizes internal benefits (cream-skims, etc.) Since external costs and benefits (including the "pecuniary" ones) are omnipresent, this argument has to be answered seriously. I'll get back to the NAIRU later... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:8657] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
On Mon, 17 Feb 1997, Doug Henwood wrote: This is an important point. In a time when so many of the dwindling band of radical political economists are in hot pursuit of respectability - math, suits and/or stockings, and everything - it's easy to lose the sense that capitalism is a really weird social system. Not only the fetishism of commodities, but the ghostly power of money, the colonization of mental and erotic life by what Keynes called the Benthamite contraption... I could go on. In finance, the capitalist subfield I spend all too much time following, human ingenuity and material resources are devoted to crafting inverse floaters, swaptions, reset notes, and butterfly spreads. Capitalism does give new meaning to the word odd, though by now it shouldn't be unexpected. Doug Doug: Well said. The sense, the feeling, that there is something "odd" or downright insane about capitalism is not only a healthy antidote to being sucked into the system but also an essential ingredient in being able to visualize alternatives. It should be founded on both experience and theory but the feeling of "we've got to be able to do better than this! This is a screwy way to organize a society" is a necessary complement to the usual critique of alienation, exploitation and brutality. Harry Harry Cleaver Department of Economics University of Texas at Austin Austin, Texas 78712-1173 USA Phone Numbers: (hm) (512) 478-8427 (off) (512) 475-8535 Fax:(512) 471-3510 E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Cleaver homepage: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/index.html Chiapas95 homepage: http://www.eco.utexas.edu/faculty/Cleaver/chiapas95.html Accion Zapatista homepage: http://www.utexas.edu/students/nave/
[PEN-L:8656] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
At 8:21 AM -0800 2/17/97, Tom Walker wrote: I wrote, Probably no more than one in twenty "marxian economists" would see commodity production as odd. That doesn't mean it's _not_ odd. And Max Sawicky replied This gives an unexpected meaning to the word 'odd.' It may be unexpected, but it's not original. The idea that commodity production is "odd" comes unembelished right out of chapter one of Capital -- more precisely the last section on the Fetishism of the Commodity. This is an important point. In a time when so many of the dwindling band of radical political economists are in hot pursuit of respectability - math, suits and/or stockings, and everything - it's easy to lose the sense that capitalism is a really weird social system. Not only the fetishism of commodities, but the ghostly power of money, the colonization of mental and erotic life by what Keynes called the Benthamite contraption... I could go on. In finance, the capitalist subfield I spend all too much time following, human ingenuity and material resources are devoted to crafting inverse floaters, swaptions, reset notes, and butterfly spreads. Capitalism does give new meaning to the word odd, though by now it shouldn't be unexpected. Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:8653] Re: market socialism, planned socialism, ut
I agree with Robin Hahnel that externalities are pervasive in market economies and that a great deal of mispricing occurs as a result. The question that needs addressing, though, is how to calculate externalities accurately enough without a decentralized, flexible price system. To take the example RH gives, a large range of consumer items were significantly mispriced because of a failure to take into account the costs of disposal of packaging materials. But how is an accurate calculation of this cost to be arrived at in the absence of a decentralized price system which tells us the (doubtless changing) cost (price) of disposing of packaging materials? That's one problem. If you then expand this task to including all the significant costs of all externalities, and then require that all such calculations be carried out by an extensive system of democratic planning, then the informational problems do prima facie appear to be colossal. There is also the problem which was historically experienced in non-market economies of implementing a system of incentives for planners not to dump externalities on other people. The Communist bloc countries did have enormous pollution problems. A democratized system of planning would help, but it's not obvious that serious problems would not still be encountered. The question at issue would then be whether these problems would be systematically greater or smaller in magnitude than those generated by a system of markets combined with serious measures of planning and regulation, such as proposed by the 'market socialist' school. On redistributive taxation: even the hyper-capitalist USA once had tax rates in excess of 70 percent and capitalist countries in Europe had much more progressive tax systems than they do now. The willingness of the population to accept highly progressive taxation is tied to the range and quality of public services which they receive in return. I think there would still be considerable popular support for high-quality universal health-care, child-care, education, etc based on highly redistributive taxation. The weakening of support for redistributive taxation in recent years is more due to the fact that there has been less of it--big tax cuts for the rich--and public services have suffered as a result. Hence people are less willing to pay for sub-standard services. Peter [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:8651] Re: market socialism, planned socialism
Reply-to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:8639] Re: market socialism, planned socialism And what's your time horizon for "new-fangled"? Since the death of Christ? . . . Even "since the death of Christ" is only 2000 years -- of 2 million years of human beings. This is one-tenth of one percent of history, Max. Hell, *agriculture* is "new-fangled!" Blair Sandler The burden of this statement is to show that the first, oh, 1.5 million "years of human beings" informs some kind of alternative paradigm for the organization of society. I don't envy you the task, but I can suggest at least one clue: follow the bananas. Regards, J. Fred Max Please excuse my ignorance, but I don't follow, "follow the bananas" or "J. Fred Max." I'd appreciate some enlightenment on these burning questions. Actually, Max, I think it does. Prior to agriculture, people hardly worked at all, and didn't have a sense of "work" as separate from leisure (as far as we know). The economy as a separate sphere of the world, in particular, is an invention of capitalism. And please don't make me out to be stupid (ignorant, okay, but not stupid): I'm *not* suggesting we should kill 5 billion or so people, destroy all the machinery, factories, and buildings, give up agriculture, and practice hunting and gathering. Blair * Blair Sandler "If I had to choose a reductionist paradigm, [EMAIL PROTECTED] Classical Marxism is a damned good one." *
[PEN-L:8649] Over 6000 Participate From More Than 20 Countries: Padagogy '97
From February 3-7, a Conference on Education took place in Havana, Cuba with the participation of over 6,000 teachers, professors and specialists in the field of education. The topic was: "Forum for the Unity of Latin-American Educators" and delegates came from over twenty countries, including countries such as Canada, Spain, Portugal and Australia, besides countries of Latin America and the West Indies. They exchanged experiences, discussed the results of their research and together sought answers to different questions. Altogether nineteen workshops were organized to allow for a better exchange between delegates. The workshops dealt with a variety of questions concerning education, from pre-school education to post-university education, including special education, adult education, work training and educational technology. Several workshops dealt with the different new approaches in education, including the education policy of different countries of Latin America and especially the health and education policy of Cuba. Altogether over 1,200 presentations were made, not including the special conferences, the round tables and panel discussions that took place throughout the conference. Cubans themselves made over 500 presentations and Brazilians over 200. A Canadian delegation comprised of nine specialists was taking part for the second time. The Canadian delegates were from the University of Quebec in Montreal, the University of Montreal, Laval University and a high school. They made five presentations which were all well received and raised a lot of interest. The Canadian delegation also held a meeting with the director of International Relations for the Cuban Ministry of Education and the Cuban representative responsible for developing relations with Canada. This meeting, which took place on the invitation of the Cuban Ministry of Education, made it possible to have direct exchanges on questions of mutual interest. Furthermore, links were established with two schools in Havana to start a correspondence project between the teachers and students of both countries. It is hoped that the project will lead to student exchanges between the participating schools. Besides the workshops, other important salient features of the conference included the opening session with the speech of the Cuban Minister of Education which presented the orientation of the conference and the work in the field of education in Cuba; the opening performance given by primary school children. Other events such as the cultural gala and the fiesta at the end of the conference were also greatly appreciated by delegates. But the most marked event was without contest the daily participation of Cuban President Fidel Castro in the conference. Fidel Castro participated in the company of the ministers of External Affairs, Education and Health who also presided over three special conferences on the problems faced by the Cuban people. The presentations made at these special conferences informed the participants of the criminal plans of the U.S. towards Cuba, specifically as concerns the latest provocation in the form of a four page document entitled "Plan for the Democratization of Cuba", which details Bill Clinton's plan for a transition from the Cuban socialist system to a capitalist system. On many occasions, and especially during his intervention at the closing session of the conference, Fidel Castro exposed the plans of the U.S. and reiterated that the Cuban people will never give in to U.S. threats and blackmail. He said that the Cuban socialist revolution will continue to develop. He said that many peoples of the world fighting for their independence have turned their eyes to Cuba and feel inspired by its example. He added that Cuba has responsibility towards its own people and the peoples of Latin America and the West Indies, but also towards all the peoples of the world. He called on the participants to continue their work to reverse the anti-social policies being implemented in every country. The Congress concluded in an atmosphere of confidence and unity with the Cuban people and a commitment of all participants to work in their respective countries to advance the struggle for the reversal of the anti-social policies and for the education of their people, for a democratization of the political systems that will place human beings at the center of all development. The final declaration called for the strengthening of the unity between the peoples of the Americas and the West Indies, expressed support for the struggle of the Cuban people for their independence and the denunciation of the U.S. blockade against Cuba. Call to Educators to Work for Unity and the Preservation of Identity At the inauguration of Pedagogy '97, Cuban Education Minister Luis Gomez issued a call to latin American teachers and professors to work for unity and the preservation of identity. They must work to create awareness about saving Latin
[PEN-L:8648] Re: World Banquet -Reply
Doug Henwood [EMAIL PROTECTED] 14/February/1997 06:16pm He was succeeded by Lewis Preston, who has since died, and then by James Wolfensohn, who is very much alive, and a walking example of the bourgeoisie at its cleverest. Wolfie was banqueting in Cape Town last Friday and Maputo on Saturday. He got a little indigestion, no doubt, when his bio appeared in a national paper on Friday adorned with a 1995 Henwood verdict: "Wolfensohn is an ideal-type of the global ruling class. Word on Wall Street is that he's a real charmer if he wants something from you, but an arrogant prick otherwise."
