I think the absence of a widely shared utopia on the left is killing us.
I'm convinced by the evidence (as well as the logic) that prospect
theory is essentially right in its depiction of how people evaluate
their conditions. All evaluations are relative to a standard of
comparison. If
Yes I know you have a lot more meaty stuff to
think about right now. But you all know damn well
that the "Re Utopias" thread may return
eventually. These are just some useful on-line
resources to keep on file for when that happens.
The first item on the list is by me -- because
As a precautionary note, I should say that when I envision a worthwhile
society, I generally think in terms of free people forming voluntary
associations (though that is perhaps a muddy phrase). Thus, I tend to think
of: in what manner(s) will people feel like organizing in?
Neither Mike
William S. Lear wrote:
I'm really enjoying this exchange, just the kind of stuff I like to
think about, and I have one very small, peripheral question.
Robin writes:
... Even
competitive markets under conditions of perfect
I'm really enjoying this exchange, just the kind of stuff I like to
think about, and I have one very small, peripheral question.
Robin writes:
... Even
competitive markets under conditions of perfect information can lead to
very
maxsaw wrote:
From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By 'proportional share,' do you mean we are
financing everything via head taxes?
An important first step is that income is distributed equitably in the first place
-- which we believe it is in a participatory economy.
As a precautionary note, I should say that when I envision a worthwhile
society, I generally think in terms of free people forming voluntary
associations (though that is perhaps a muddy phrase). Thus, I tend to think
of: in what manner(s) will people feel like organizing in? Further, then,
Pardon me for reposting. I should have mentioned in the subject line that
my message "ride free or die!" was a reply to the thread on utopias.
Robin Hahnel wrote,
But these differences are not what is usually meant by people worried
about the free rider problem in provision of pu
john gulick wrote:
So at last all the latent anarcho-syndics on pen-l come out of the
woodwork. I'm pleased. A few questions posed at a fairly high level
of abstraction.
1) Even at the admittedly free-wheeling level of
pencil-and-paper "models," it's easy to talk about and celebrate
More belated response to Markland and Gulick on utopian vision:
I would think that communities would control their basic needs and interests
while joining in federations, both industrial and geographical, in order to
take advantage of economies of scale. At least that seems to be the crux of
More belated responses on utopian visions:
R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:
At 12:37 PM 12/2/97 -0500, you wrote:
One great thing about participatory planning is it eliminates the free rider
problem for expressing desires for public goods.
How exactly does it eliminate
the FR problem for
Louis Proyect wrote:
Robin Hahnel:
Or, you
put your faith in what a Swedish union official once answered a British
trade unionist demanding to know how Swedish unions came to an agreement
on a particular issue: "We have a meeting."
This was not intended as a criticism of Swedish
Robin Hahnel:
Or, you
put your faith in what a Swedish union official once answered a British
trade unionist demanding to know how Swedish unions came to an agreement
on a particular issue: "We have a meeting."
Just out of curiousity, Robin, what experience do you and Mike Albert have
in
Nevertheless, of greater interest to me is the contention that there
will be "No private property at all", which I claim is quite literally
impossible and therefore it is a question of how you limit (or just
plain "deal with") private property that should be addressed.
At this late date, I'd
From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My neighborhood consumption council will request neighborhood public
goods like side walks and play ground equipment for local parks. . . .
This sounded no different than the routine
operation of local government. What is new and
improved
My only response to your ill-informed personal attack on me is: Fuck
you.
Stronger letter to follow.
maxsaw wrote:
From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
My neighborhood consumption council will request neighborhood public
goods like side walks and play ground equipment for local parks...
This sounded no different than the routine
operation of local government. What is new
At 02:51 PM 1/1/98 -0500, Robin wrote:
So, when I am voting, or
instructing my representatives to vote, or voting for representatives
who will vote for me regarding public good requests I have no incentive
to over request -- since I will be charged my proportionate share of the
cost of all such
R. Anders Schneiderman wrote:
That [participatory plannings way of handling collective consumption] would take
care of some problems, but what about:
1) people who don't have kids who won't support increasing the education
budget for elementary schools?
2) people who vote against increasing
From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
By 'proportional share,' do you mean we are
financing everything via head taxes?
An important first step is that income is distributed equitably in the
first place -- which we believe it is in a participatory economy. . . .
If incomes
More belated response to Markland and Gulick on utopian vision:
I would think that communities would control their basic needs and interests
while joining in federations, both industrial and geographical, in order to
take advantage of economies of scale. At least that seems to be the crux of
James Devine wrote:
1) on "private" property's abolition: I think that the point of socialism
is to replace "private" property with _responsibility_. "Private" property
isn't really private: owning it gives one the right to impose a lot of
costs on other people and on nature, power without
. . .
Doesn't anyone know and good radical criminologists. We have a group of
lawyers -- gasp -- in the AU law school who are radical law theorists. . . .
I know a good liberal one, and he happens to be at AU.
He's Jim Lynch, in the Soc dept. I think you'd like what
he does.
Cheers,
probably missed a lot of the
discussion of utopias (or misunderstood it -- since the missives are not in
order). But here are three comments. I hope that this does not involve
repetition.
1) on "private" property's abolition: I think that the point of socialism
is to replace "pr
Date sent: Tue, 02 Dec 1997 12:37:26 -0500
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject:Re: utopias
Hahnel writes:
One great thing about participatory planning is it eliminates the free
rider
Bill Lear wrote,
Although Anders, Doug, and Tom all object to Robin's passing on the
question of laws and enforcement, I sympathize somewhat with Robin's
position. To the extent that any of this can be planned in advance,
there is, or should be, a certain freedom to see things in separate
At 01:53 PM 12/2/97 +, John wrote (replying to David):
I would think that communities would control their basic needs and interests
while joining in federations, both industrial and geographical, in order to
take advantage of economies of scale. At least that seems to be the crux of
Wrote Anders:
And then there are countless examples of how local control can stomp on
minorities or dump a community's crap on its neighbors if it isn't strongly
counterbalanced by larger entities. So, what's so great about starting
locally, as opposed to starting locally _and_ regionally _and_
At 10:41 PM 12/1/97 -0800, you wrote:
John Gulick:
what about the partial
correlation between the production of surplus (and I'm not talking
about superfluous luxury goods here) and increasingly sophisticated
and specialized technical and industrial divisions of labor ?
What about it? I
On Tuesday, December 2 [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
but i want to know which of our current jobs are good ones, which
could be mde into good ones (for our future good society), which would
have to be eliminated altogether or done by machines, etc?
Do you think a good first step would be to
friends,
but i want to know which of our current jobs are good ones, wqhich could be mde
into good ones (for our future good society), whihc would have to be
eliminatedaltogether or done by machines, etc?
michael yates
michael yates wrote,
but i want to know which of our current jobs are good ones, wqhich could be
mde
into good ones (for our future good society), whihc would have to be
eliminatedaltogether or done by machines, etc?
I suspect that most of the people on this list have jobs (or work) that they
R. Anders Schneiderman wrote (responding to Robin Hahnel):
One great thing about participatory planning is it eliminates the free
rider problem for expressing desires for public goods.
What about other free rider problems? And how exactly does it eliminate
the FR problem for expressing desires
On Tue, December 2, 1997 at 12:37:26 (-0500) Robin Hahnel writes:
One great thing about participatory planning is it eliminates the free
rider problem for expressing desires for public goods. Laws?
Enforcement? I'm an economist. Ask lawyers and criminologists about a
desirable system of law
Perhaps I should have made the point explicit. Tom alluded to Gomper's oft
cited speech in which he describes labor's aspirations as wanting "more."
Rarely do those who use the reference actually provide the entire quote from
which "more" is taken. I tried to dig it up, but could not. The
Tom Walker wrote:
My utopia is one in which _all_ of the left immediately stops doing what
they're doing and writes novels. Not because the novels would be likely to
have much political impact. But because the
stopping-doing-what-they're-doing might. Many (most?) on the left have been
holding
At 03:18 PM 12/1/97 -0800, Tom Walker wrote:
[SNIP]
Someone is reported to have once asked Samuel Gompers what labour really
wanted. He replied "More." Ironically, it was also Samuel Gompers who said
that as long as a single worker was unemployed, the hours of work were too
long.
I spent part of
Tom writes: On utopias. Here my world is populated with those who formerly
held a pretty clear (we thought) utopia in our heads, and tried to act
accordingly.
I think that the utopias that many held were cleaned-up (idealized)
versions of the old USSR or some other USSR-style country (just
At 12:11 30/11/97 -0500, you wrote:
We don't really need utopias. We need
plain language to describe a world where people can work 10 to 20 hours a
week producing a basket of goods that can satisfy all but those addicted to
shopping. What would go with this is a clean and healthy environment
Some thoughts on the last few days' discussion:
1. I see no contradiction between nationalism and internationalism -
though I do between chauvinism and internationalism, and between
nationalism and "transnationalism" in the sense of international
capitalism. I call myself an internationalist
40 matches
Mail list logo
