Paul Phillips, writes that >> it is Horvat who rails against the Ward/Vanek model as empirically untrue -- in fact just the opposite.<< Right. But is the Ward model empirically wrong because it is logically flawed (because a worker co-op does not have an inherent tendency to be exclusive, to avoid expanding employment because it hurts insider interests) or is it empirically wrong because there are other things going on that counteract the posited inherent tendency (limits on co-op behavior by local and/or national government and/or political organizations such as the League of Communists)? Or could it be in between (a weak tendency to be exclusive, making it relatively easy for external forces to encourage a more socially-oriented policy)? I would also guess that when the political and economic situation collapses, the exclusivist in-group mentality would intensify or resurface, as the external institutional checks fade away. I really and truly hope that Paul Phillips is not retiring from contributing to pen-l so that he and others on the list could guide us toward an answer (or at least toward partial agreement with an agreement to disagree on some points). I think that Louis and everyone else have to refrain from anything that even seems to be personal attack. Sarcasm should be used with extreme care, too. As has been said many times over the years on pen-l, e-mail discussions strip off all of the body language and smiles that allow people to use mild personal attacks and sarcasm without deep-sixing a discussion. Humility helps. (BTW, it's also a really bad idea to carry antagonisms from previous discussions or from other lists into current discussions. Just because I _hate_ individual X's ideas about Y doesn't mean that his or her ideas are wrong about Z. People also change their minds.) Further, it's best to focus on only four types of argumentation (which cover a lot): (1) empirical propositions; (2) logical analysis; (3) methodology (how #1 and #2 work together to help us get a better understanding of truth); and (4) normative analysis. The last is especially tricky. A discussion of, for example, how "institution Y won't help us attain socialist goals" (or _will_ do so) can easily become a matter of name-calling. It's important to back up such propositions by making it clear what one's goals are (what one means by "socialism" or whatever) and being very specific (in terms of #1, #2, and #3) about why one is saying it. After all, people have different goals, different visions of socialism. I'm all in favor of citing books, even one's own (and I wish I had a book I could cite; maybe I should stop wasting so much time on pen-l). It only smacks of elitism when the citation is not accompanied by a short summary of what the book says and/or a discussion of the specific points of that book that pertain to the issue at hand. 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.
