Regarding black markets:
--------------------------------
Tom replied:
Your question presumes markets are anathema to socialists and I agree that
is a fair assumption with regard to "traditional marxists". There are also
market socialists, such as Justin Schwartz on this list. I happen to hold
a third position, which is more or less agnostic toward markets. I would
argue that under capitalism markets are an expression of production
relations. Since production relations would be different under socialism,
markets wouldn't have the same importance but they may continue to have
some residual social function, such as garage sales have today. In other
words, they wouldn't be a matter of life or death.
I don't think that we will change production relations simply by outlawing
markets. But the existence or persistance of markets is not the same as
the claim that in every circumstance markets will produce a "more
efficient" outcome. That claim relies on the tautology of first of all
defining the market outcome as the standard for efficiency and secondly
discovering (what a surprise!) that markets are best at achieving that
standard.
Dennis replied:
Dunno. What's the question? Markets aren't inherent to the order of the
cosmos, if that's what you mean. They're a human creation, kind of like
Tokyo-3 (only most don't have those cool upside-down skyscrapers or the
underground bullet train).
Charles replied:
Gangsterism is fundamental to the origin and ongoing existence of
capitalism. It is not a side or exceptional aspect of the system. From the
pirating scoundrel Portuguese ( rough white boys on boats, such that this
should really be called the white market) who snatched a village of
African's up in the 1400's, through nuclear weapons pointed at the socialist
countries, criminal force and violence have always been central to all of
capitalism. The _Godfather_ myth should be read/viewed not as an exceptional
method of becoming a capitalist , but as typical.
Capitalism is capital crime, fundamentally.
----------------------------------
My question was intentionally vague, so let me try and clarify. My question
is not about whether markets are "efficient." As I understand it, one of
the left critiques of neoclassical economics is that neoclassical economics
incorrectly assumes that markets are "natural" and not a creation of the
rules of the political system, which reflect the interests of the powerful
in that system. If so, how do left economists explain the pervasive
presence of black markets -- markets which by definition are not defined by
rules imposed by the political system (except by the absence of rules),
where there is no recourse to courts, and which the politically powerful
devote considerable resources to attempting to eliminate? Is it the
position of left economists that black markets would not exist in a
socialist economic system?
With respect to Charles' reply, members of this list devote considerable
time attempting to determine when and where "capitalism" originated in
15-17th Centuries. But black markets/smuggling is a pervasive presence back
to ancient times. If so, why would left economists conclude that black
markets are intrinsic to capitalism, as opposed to all economic systems?
David Shemano
