On Sat, 8 Feb 1997 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> In response to Rhon Baiman:
>
> 1) Social division of labor: agreed that this is important
> for socialism. But can't a substantial measure of social
> control over the division of labor be handled *directly*
> and decentrally via workers' self-management, and *indirectly*
> and centrally via investment planning--eg. subsidized credit
> allocation for firms that innovatively deploy workers in a
> variety of supervisory and menial tasks--and *directly* and
> centrally by prescribing appropriate employment policies in
> the central and local government sectors, as well as prescribing
> suitable labor laws for the worker-controlled sector (mandating
> various kinds of interaction in the workplace, etc)?
>
Yes, I agree, but particularly the later is direct labor market planning
- or a more advanced version of "active labor market policy" as
in Sweden. I have suggested for example that all workers be required to
spend a periods of time doing work in all categories of the social
division of labor (I believe Devine had 5 or 6 for example: nurturing,
managing, creative, drugery, skilled, etc.) before specializing. This
might just be included as an extension of formal education or as part of
military service in some countries. Though some would argue that this
would represent a further encroachment of individual choice, it seems to
me that it greatly extend opportunity and possibility, as well as breath
of experieince for MOST people and thus expand real individual choice.
This is part of the reason why I don't think it is useful to make
an artificial separation between the finacial and other sectors
allocating the first to planning and the latter to the market as
Schweickart does. Social versus individual choice , planning versus
markets, will require case by case adjudication it seems to me, with
individual choice (markets) generally circumscribed by longer-term, more
deliberative, and braoder scoped, planning.
> 2) Labels: Schweickart himself terms his model 'economic
> democracy', not 'market socialism'. I think he recognizes
> the many limitations of markets, particularly as regards
> the volatility of market determination of investment, the
> effects of advertizing and sales manipulation, and
> the need for a large, non-market sector of public services
> in areas like health-care, education, social services,
> public transport, public recreational spaces, etc.
>
Yes again, I now recall that you are correct, as I noted in my earlier
post, I like Schweickart's book alot
- in fact a quote from a very supportive review I did of it for the RRPE
is emblazened on the cover of the paper back edition. I think David goes
farther than any other of the broadly speaking "market socialist" models
that I'm familiar with, in recognizing the need and importance of planning.
A major problem here, as I see it, is one of PR and ideology and goes
back to the original Marxist critique of "equal exchange" ideology. It
would be very hard to justifiy the degree of investment planning that S.
proposes (and the labor market planning that you propose) and at the same
time uphold markets as a dominant mechanism for goods, and labor (income)
allocation. It seems to me that as socialists we must continue to
emphasize that
though markets can be useful and important particularly for decisions that
that are truely private in that have negligible externalites, important
allocation decisions which impact beyond individuals should be
subservient to conscious value driven, democratic political allocation,
to the extent that accountable and democratic mechanisms can be devised
which do improve upon market allocation. This I believe should be our
guiding *principle* which in principle delegitimates "equal exchange" and
markets politically.
In the U.S., socialists should
not be lending further credance to the "insane marketization" of society
(as you put it for other countries) - but rather, as we have historically,
working full tilt against it. The
subtleties beyond the labels can be addressed if necessary i.e. that we
don't dogmatically reject all markets , they are important for "exit"
type accountability to consumers, managed competition (excuse the phrase) is
probably
necessary to stimluate innovation and achieve greater accountability for
many "socialized" enterprizes, etc. (see Laibman's model for example), but
while acknowledging that we do take
this into account, we need to work to
emphasize the importance of 'prisoner's
dilemma', equity, long-term planetary and human development, etc. which
demonstrate how markets are fundamentally undemocratic, unjust, unfair,
and will ultimately lead us to barbarism if they are continued to be
upheld as a core allocational principle.
The term "market-socialism" puts too much stress on markets in my view
and we should avoid using it - "economic democracy" is fine.
2) Social pricing and externalities: how does one calculate
the externality component of a price if one doesn't
also know its non-externality component? and how does one
know the latter in the generalized absence of factor and
other markets? This is the old problem of trying to
calculate abstract labor values in the absence of
> prices. Unless you pay *some* regard to the pattern of
> monetarily effective demand for various types of concrete
> labor--adjustments via the tax and transfer systems can
> still be employed 'ex post' to reach socially desirable
> goals--then a damaging degree of under- and over-supply of
> different types of concrete labor seems likely to result.
> The externalities associated with *this* kind of
> misallocation of resources have in fact been greater
> historically than those associated with markets. Or at
> least, societies experiencing these types of
> misallocations have found it difficult to survive let
> alone flourish Practically the whole of the former
> Communist bloc countries suffered severe economic and
> political collapses, which is why they are *now* being
> subjected to the most inhumane and insane efforts at
> radical marketization.
>
> Handing the task of overall resource allocation to even a
> democratically accountable body of professional planners
> will not work if the planners themselves do not have good
> information about the pattern of demand which would flow
> from a distribution of income reflecting individually
> chosen labor contributions (though not property
> ownership). Once this pattern is known, then further
> adjustments can of course be made via tax and transfer
> payments, selective price controls, and enhanced
> investment "in human beings" so as to improve the
> prospects of those who currently are disadvantaged in the
> labor market. But trying to calculate all these matters
> in advance of individual choices being registered in some
> way strikes me as a recipe for alienation on the massive
> scale witnessed historically under Communism.
>
> The alternative more-tolerant-markets approach is I think
> is also favoured on political grounds. People in advanced
> capitalist countries have some experience of social
> democratic methods of economic and social management, and
> retain at least some vestigial faith in them. I think it
> is a much more feasible task politically to ally
> traditional social democratic models of societal
> governance with new (democratic socialist) calls for
> worker self-management and social ownership of capital,
> than it is to propose an entirely new mechanism of social
> choice which will inevitably be associated in popular
> consciousness with the disastrous reputation of
> Soviet-style central planning, however much one tries to
> avoid that association.
>
You make some important points here but you seem to be
envisioning a system of systemic economy wide planning which attempts to
calcualte labor values etc. along the lines of the Soviet Style centralized
planning models. What I have in mind is more of a gradual take-over of
market allocation by planning sector by sector, perhaps starting with
finance and lobor markets, (according to Pollin the Fed in the U.S. already
has substantial
authority to engage in active planning for regional and national
economic development as
well as the passive macro financial planning (mostly to benefit the
financial sector) that it already does), and moving on to other key
sectors perhaps starting with infrastructure including
information (microsoft,
networked information technology, the internet, etc.). It seems to me
that a selective gradual, and careful - least the outcome be worse than
that delivered by the market, approach to planning will overcome the
pricing problem you refer to which presumes a "pricing benchmark". Here
we would have a situation of evolving benchmarks which would
gradually improve
upon the original (and least beneficial) market pricing one.
The second part of your comment refers to political considerations. Yes
politically I agree that at this juncture anything not tied to "the
market" is difficult to promote politically. But is seems to me our job
as socialists is to do everything we can to point out clear examples and
sectors where planning has functioned well in the past and we're
non-market solutions are absolutely necessary (Kuttner's most recent book
apparently attempts just this - I haven't got hold of it yet -
though a social-democrat and not at least publically a
democratic-socialist, Kuttner I think has excellent left political instincts)
In this regard we may not be that far apart - if one considers 'economic
democracy" as a first step toward democratic socialism - and in
particular if one considers that expanding "stakeholder" enterprizes to
include the true 'stakeholders' in the case of large industries all of
society , means essentially a networked system of democratic planning
especially if coupled with more centralized determination of key interest
rate, pricing policy etc.
Here we get into the issue of what is "government" which seems to
be so central to David Belkin's view (see Socialist Forum/Center for
Democratic Values Debates - on Demcratic Socialists of America Web site)
- truely democratic stakeholder corporations in my view represent a form
of social choice, and social planning - which are implicilty part of
"governance". David Belkin (a devout market socialist) beats away at
"government" to claim that socialist must move toward 'stakeholder" firms
ie. social "governance" , but his caustic critique of governemnt
undermines his argument for social choice in general. There is no way to
avoid social choice ultimately -
hiding it behind "a market" may be politically expedient for the
short-term but in my view will not serve us well for longer term historic
socialist objectives and political education which is mostly what were
about in the U.S.
Sorry, this is so long - and thanks much for your thoughtful and much
better articulated comments, than these - I hope my generally points are clear.
In Solidarity,
Ron Baiman
Dept. of Economics
Roosevelt Univ.
Chicago
