Justin,
I'm sorry for the very belated response. Referring to quick and
dirty summary of Pierson's SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISM (Pen State U., 1995)
you ask?
On Tue, 18 Mar 1997, Justin Schwartz wrote:
According to ypu, Pierson has two main
> objections to market socialism.
>
> 1) A market socialist economy cannot be a "pure" free market economy but
> will require extensive government regulation to deal with externalities,
> etc. OK, but why does this show that markets do not have a central role as
> regulators of a socialist economy or can be entirely dispensed with in
> favor of planning?
>
I think the issue here is "central role as regulators of the economy" and
the very gray area between "market socialists" and advocates of what I
like to call "Democratically Planned Socialism" who accept a role for
markets but who emphasize that social-choice and planning will have THE
central role in regulating the economy though markets will have A role in
this as well particularly in areas pertaining to individual choice. This
group which I am partial too include (in my reading) Pat Devine (with his
distinction between
"market exchange" and "market forces" and David Laibman, David Kotz) but
could also include folds identified "market socialists" such as David
Schweickart and perhaps yourself? depending on the relative emphasis
placed on markets as "social regulators".
As I read it Pierson's point is that socialists cannot make
markets a "good" in themselves in the way that Hyekian liberals and
conservative do this. They cannot really be "market socialists" but only
socialists who see some value in markets IF THEY SERVE TO FURTHER
SOCIALIST GOALS. I see this as corroborating the arguments of
anti-"market socialists" that it is a mistake for socialists to
politically refer to their vision as "market-anything". Socialist goals
are incompatible with "market ideology" (in this sense as an ultimate and
principled regulator )
and this has to be made clear in the label that we give to our vision.
> 2) Market socialism cannot be achieved by reformist means. Why is this a
> criticism of market socialism rather than reformism?
>
I don't believe so, as Pierson is a reformist. The point I believe is
that in so far as market socialism is viewed as a way out of the problems
of social-democratic reformist politics it fails. I think he is right
that this has been one of the markets socialists principle justifications
(a practical and feasible socialism that can be currently attractive
politically and useful now as an organizing vision for socialists).
Pierson points out that reforms which have to more with expanding the
power of democratic and collective social choice - over markets (what I
would call anti-market politics) may be more feasible and better then
trying to retain market regulation and change property rights.
IN Pen-L Solidarity,
Ron Baiman
Roosevelt U., Chicago
