OK, no further argument from me.  On the USSR though, when I was young, about 
18 to 22, my leanings were distinctly communist.  I subscribed to a magazine 
called "The USSR Today" put out by the Soviet Union.  It showed healthy, even 
glowing, people working in factories or taking their holidays at a Black Sea 
resort.  It showed people being housed properly, fed properly etc.  What lie, 
what an unwarranted reification of something black and ugly.  But I guess it 
paid off at the time.

Ed

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Arthur Cordell 
  To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION' 
  Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:33 AM
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933


  Ed,

   

  I said that capitalism solves the production problem but seems incapable of 
solving the distribution problem.

   

  I didn't say anything about the quality of what was distributed by the 
communist govts.  

   

   

   

  From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Ed Weick
  Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 11:25 AM
  To: RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933

   

  I think that we have to be careful about communism solving the distribution 
problem.  Yes indeed, everyone may have had something to eat and a place to 
sleep in the USSR, but in millions of cases that consisted of a very cold bed 
and mouldy bread in the Gulag.  Take a look at Anne Applebaum's "Gulag, a 
history" for examples of what distribution meant under Stalin.  And I don't 
think capitalism should be expected to solve the distribution problem.  It's 
job is to be efficient and productive.  Government's job is to siphon off as 
much income as possible from the productive process and undertake distribution 
as necessary.

   

  And Sally, I don't think the economy is a good place to try to find meaning 
in one's life.  Meaning has to be found elsewhere, in the arts for example, or 
in spirituality and religion, or in working for the good of your fellow man.  
The economy should be seen as a place that provides you with the resources to 
do meaningful things, nothing more.

   

  Ed

   

   

  ----- Original Message ----- 

  From: "Sally Lerner" <[email protected]>

  To: "RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION" 
<[email protected]>

  Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2011 9:00 AM

  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933

   

  Can part of the problem be that vast numbers of people find so little 
meaningful in their lives?  Of course, if
  so, what to do about that and, most important, how to recognize and avoid the 
dangers inherent in the yearning
  for meaning.  

  Sally
  ________________________________________
  From: [email protected] 
[[email protected]] on behalf of Arthur Cordell 
[[email protected]]
  Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 9:13 PM
  To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,    EDUCATION'
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again  from 1933

  The tragic irony is that communism solved the distribution problem but 
couldn't solve the production problem while the reverse holds true for 
capitalism: production problem solved  but can't solve the distribution problem.

  arthur

  From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of michael gurstein
  Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 8:53 PM
  To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION, EDUCATION'
  Subject: Re: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933

  It seems that as a civilization we have resolved the production problems but 
can't figure out how to make the distribution work in any decent and humane way.

  M

  -----Original Message-----
  From: [email protected] 
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Arthur Cordell
  Sent: Wednesday, December 28, 2011 5:29 PM
  To: 'RE-DESIGNING WORK, INCOME DISTRIBUTION,EDUCATION'
  Subject: [Futurework] Keynes again from 1933
  The decadent international but individualistic capitalism in the hands of 
which we found ourselves after the war(one) is not a success. It is not 
intelligent. It is not beautiful. It is not just. It is not virtuous. And it 
doesn't deliver the goods. In short we dislike it, and we are beginning to 
despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely 
perplexed.

    *   National self-sufficiency 
(1933)<http://www.panarchy.org/keynes/national.1933.html> Section 3, 
republished in Collected Writings Vol. 11 (1982).


  _______________________________________________
  Futurework mailing list
  [email protected]
  https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  _______________________________________________
  Futurework mailing list
  [email protected]
  https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
_______________________________________________
Futurework mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework

Reply via email to