Huh?
That's my chief reaction to Robin's latest post on the "p/a &
social conscience" question. Here's why: Robin writes
> After considering apologizing for being a little "testy" in some of
> my postings on coupon socialism and people's comments about coupon
> socialism, I've decided not to. Instead I'll offer an opinion about why
> diminishing returns set into discussions: People do not respond to other
> peoples' direct questions and/or challenges.
>
I scrolled through Robin's earlier posts on this subject, and I
didn't see any mention of the "direct questions and/or challenges"
Robin directs to me (see below). Thus I don't see how I could have
responded. Others on PEN can attest that I tend to err toward over-,
rather than under-responding, save when I get swamped (say, from
responding to multiple PEN dance partners).
Now, as to Robin's challenges, which refer to my earlier post on the
subject:
> > To Gil Skillman:
>
> 1) Suppose it takes 300 years to "win" a transformation to the Albert/
> Hahnel model of a participatory economy. Why do you think it might take
> only 30 years to "win" a transition to the Roemer coupon economy? At least
> regarding the capitalist world, and the US in particular, wouldn't a
> transition to Roemer's coupon economy require completely expropriating
> the present capitalist class? Wouldn't they be likely to oppose such a
> change with a measure of vehemence? Would not it require a large and
> powerful and dedicated movement to overcome this opposition? Where would
> the recruits to the ranks of this political movement come from? Would
> workers who gain no increase in self-management from the transition to
> Roemer's coupon economy be likely to enlist? Would women or minorities
> with no reason to expect any change in the oppression and discrimination
> they face enlist to lay down their lives? Who besides the future bank
> managers, mutual fund managers, and enterprise managers would have any
> reason to fight for coupon socialism? In which case, why wouldn't a trans-
> ition to Roemer's economy take 3000 years or more.
Huh?
I gave the "30 vs. 300" time horizon comparison purely as a
hypothetical case, as part of a broader argument concerning possible
costs and benefits to alternative visions of socialism. I wasn't
suggesting the order of magnitude difference as a concrete, factual
distinction with regard to the comparative feasibility of Roemer's
vision vs. that of Albert and Hahnel.
For myself, I can think of arguments on both sides of the comparative
time horizon issue.
Robin continues:
> 2) How do you deny that Roemer's model is politically naive? The fact that
> it makes minimal and marginal institutional changes from present day capitalism
> does NOT mean it would not be met with vehement and powerful political opposi-
> tion. But the fact that it increases income equality only marginally, offers
> no more opportunities for worker or consumer self-management, and is more
> economically elitist than many current versions of capitalism DOES mean that
> few have an interest in signing on to fight for it. So how is the model even
> a "compelling" model of vehicle for a "practical" short to medium run pro-
> gressive strategy?
Huh?
I don't, I didn't, "deny that Roemer's model is politically naive".
However, political naivety is a question of degree. To be a radical
is to be "politically naive" in the sense of believing that
conventional wisdom and political economic business as usual can be
overturned.
That said, let me add that I agree with Robin that Roemer's vision
seems to be a pretty wimpy version of "egalitarian liberal"
socialism. At a minimum, one should also eliminate large
inheritances and consider the redistribution of real estate income as
well. These emendations are suggested by Roemer's own critique of
the standard (classical) liberal defense of capitalist private
property. Perhaps more people could get behind a more thoroughing
version of egalitarian liberal socialism.
Gil
