I wrote: > How could the market be an "alternative"? an alternative to what? to socialism? it's clearly not an alternative to capitalism.< Justin S. writes >>This is a little glib, Jim. You know perfectly well that there are serious socialists, a fair number of us, who do argue that market socialism _is_ an alternative to capitalism, in fact, the best one.<< Glibness (glibicity?) has its role, but that's another subject. Somehow we ended up talking about different alternatives: I was asking how the _market_ could be an alternative and you answer by saying that _market socialism_ is an alternative. I see markets as _part of the problem_, one that has to be abolished. >>The most extended case for this view is David Schweickart's Against Capitalism (Westview 1996), which is not lightly to be brushed aside. The general point is that markets are logically compatible with socializerd ownership and worker control and require neither private ownership nor wage labor, the differentia of capitalism. This might not work for a number of reasons, but the case can be articulated in too much detail to say that market socialism is _clearly_ not an alternative. That is just false. << I was NOT rejecting Schweikart's work either lightly or categorically; in fact, I don't _reject_ it at all. (I bet that most people on pen-l would see this proposal as highly superior to Roemer's. They're right.) I think his book is a good _start_ for a debate about how to create of an alternative to capitalism. (If that debate is to be useful, it has to include many more people than just academics, BTW.) But I do not see his (or any) market socialism as the end-point. We can't simply deal with the institutions of private ownership and wage labor. We also have to deal with issues such as those of alienation and bureaucracy, vested interests and poor popular control over the state, and the abolition of the work/play dichotomy. I'm not just opposed to capitalism but to class society in general. We have to be concerned, for example, about how the division between mental and physical labor within the workplace can develop into a new class system. > What is "alternative" would be some new scheme for controlling markets in order to avoid the nasty effects of markets that Hahnel and others emphasize ... An alternative might be a scheme for forcing markets to behave the way they're advertised in economics books. Of course, once one starts doing that, the allegedly apolitical market is no longer apolitical and can no longer live up to the ideals of the "market socialists."< >>Well, it depends on what you mean by the ideals of markets socialist. My ideals are freedom, justice, and democracy, with efficiency in there too, and I think that a regulated socialized market would do pretty well on those counts--better than a wholly planned economy .... Maybe you are thinking of some hypothetical neoclassical socialist in the manner of Stiglitz's imaginary target in Whither Socialism, but no one actually ever maintained that position. << Sorry about that. I should have made it clear that I was not referring to ALL market socialists (as I did at other points in my missive), but to some of them, such as Roemer, who seems to strive to be the Stiglitzian straw man. > In any event, it's a big mistake to make a virtue out of necessity, to glorify the compromise as an end in itself, as many market socialists seem to do. It's important to develop the democratic-socialist ideal more concretely, so that we don't have to make such compromises. But compromises are hard to avoid.< >>I don't know who you are thinking of. I'm not terribly happy about the compromise with markets, but they do have certain virtues. I am even less happy about the systematic defects of planning that no one has been able to address in a systematic way.<< I think that one thing we have to get away from is thinking in terms of simply plan vs. market. The key issue is democratic sovereignty. How can we set up planning mechanisms that are based on democracy, encourage democracy, that discourage the establishment of a planning elite that can turn into a new class? How can we set up market mechanisms that are based on democracy, encourage democracy, that discourage the establishment of a marketing elite that can turn into a new class? I think that Albert & Hahnel approach this question in the right way, since they do allow for _some_ elements of markets (i.e., exchange & prices). In fact, compared to utopias such as William Morris' NEWS FROM NOWHERE, A & H are market socialists. > If "market socialism" is a transition phase, note, we have to be _very_ careful. Market institutions involve all sorts of groups (merchants, etc.) that have vested interests in preserving markets. Further, they can use their power and influence to turn themselves into full-scale capitalists (as might the "neutral technocrats" that many market socialists presume will regulate markets in a fair and efficient way).< >>I myself do not view market socialism as transitional, except in the sense that every social instututional instution is transitional to something. I am however unimpressed with the arguments that MS has degenerative tendencies. ... I wrote a little piece on it myself. I can recap the main points if there's interest.<< that would be a good idea. >So these vested interests will fight like hell to preserve their privilege (perhaps allied with the technocrats, who they ply with bribes), i.e., to prevent the emergence of real democratic socialism.< >>I guess there will be no vested interest in planned socialism, no technocrats to influence, no politics in a wholly politicized economy?<< This is a non sequitur. I would never deny the special interest of planners. Albert & Hahnel are striving to describe a system where planners are subordinated to democratic sovereignty. Further, your last clause suggests that you missed my last missive in a previous discussion we had. To summarize what I said: to think of a market economy as being anything but politicized is to fall for commodity fetishism. It is to fall for the view that markets are somehow "apolitical," a view that you seemed to reject above. >>In any case I think market socialism can be real democratic socialism, in fact, more democratic than planned socialism, for the reason that planning inefficiencies in a wholly planned economy will prevent the will of the people from being carried out, while in market socialism targeted incentives and regulation would be better at realizing the democratic will.<< Which "planned socialism" are you thinking of? Mandel or A & H or Pat (no relation) Devine? Here, it is you that puts all of your opponents into a single box. BTW, the problem of figuring out how to exactly "target" incentives and regulations to realize the democratic will has exactly the same information problems as with central planning. >>Perhaps you shoukd read Schweickart...<< I _have_ read his work, though I haven't read his collected works as yet. >>... I guess I don't see the logic that treats markets as the enemy. They're tools of coordination which may be used to promote what we really care about, which isn't an end to markets, but an end to exploitation, not the stopping of buying and selling, but freedom and democracy.<< I don't see markets as "tools of coordination," but as human-made institutions, ones that reward certain kinds of personalities and punish others and encourage certain types of behaviors and discourage others. (As Arrow notes, people can't express their social values in the market arena.) On the one hand, you praise Schweikart for being an institutionalist but on the other, you accept a non-institutionalist view of markets. I don't understand. 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.
