Question 1. Certainly a planned economy of necessity will involve control but as
long as there are mechanisms for NGO and citizen inputs that have genuine
efficacy any tendency to totalitarianism would probably be corrected. If the
planned economy
is within the context of competing political parties a tendency toward
totalitarianism might very well lead to the planners being booted out. It should
be noted too that when democracy does not meed the needs of market capitalist
economies it is unceremoniously overthrown as in Chile.
Question 2. Certainly a planned economy will not make certain choices available.
The Lincoln Navigator probalby would not be made in a planned economy--unless of
course the planners were part of an elite! Consumer choice would no doubt be
more limited under a socially responsible planned economy. However, it should be
noted that consumer choice in a market economy is entirely dependent upon
income. No money, no choice. Unlimited money, unlimited choice.
Cheers, Ken Hanly
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> A couple of questions for anyone to answer:
> 1) Is there a tendency for a planned economy to slide into totalitarianism?
> 2) Is it a pre-condition of a planned economy to limit choice (both consumer
> and social/moral choice...I like the distinction).
>
> Adam
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Charles Brown [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
> Sent: Thursday, 10 August 2000 4:57
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: [PEN-L:443] Re: now you know
>
> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] 08/09/00 02:43PM >>>
> Charles Brown wrote:
>
> >However, in this case this is how I would change history: prosecute
> >the fascists not the communists and socialists. Not that complex, I
> >know.
>
> And who's going to do this? The bourgeois state?
>
> __________
>
> CB: Good point. I was getting a bit Utopian , because Jim D. said we
> shouldn't be limited in our thinking by history and historical precedent.
>
> I see this as a programatic element for a Left Front in the crisis situation
> that Jim D. sketched out in his post. So, the state would be in play, would
> be an area of real contest, and would not be fully and thoroughly dominated
> by the bourgeoisie. Specifically, Jim referred to a situation of economic
> crisis and mass left parties. I took this to mean that the state was
> somewhat in play. We'd have to have left sections in the military, as with
> solidiers and sailors soviets prior to 1917 in Russia. Sort of a combination
> of Chile 1971 and Venezuela 2000.
