Shit, Justin, if this keeps up, Condoleeza is going to throw her handbag at me. Point is, can we not find an axis of discussion (a mode of discussion) that would be amenable or palatable to Michael P. ? It's his list, I'm a guest, I don't want to piss him off, we need Michael P. But there may be another angle of discussing the topic, PEN-Lers are always so good at this, at a different take on the same subject....?
Yes, the weather is improving. There is a difference in the heterodox socialist lexicon between (1) Greenies, (2) Greens and (3) the Green Party (4) The Irish Republican Movement. Jurriaan ----- Original Message ----- From: "andie nachgeborenen" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 3:28 PM Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Road to Serfdom > You're not going to get anywhere with this, Micahel P > will not allow this to proceed. That markets are BAD > is axiomatic, it's not up for discussion. I am not > permited to dispute the proposition, and neither are > you. This is a market-free zone, a litle space where > leftist economists can gather safe in the quieta > ssurance that everyoneelse agrees that the only things > to be said about markets are that they are > exploitative and ineffective and wasteful, and we can > all laugh at the market worshippers in the rest of the > economics community. We all repeat variations on this > mantra and never have to face any criticism of it > here. It's so obvious that it's not even allowed to be > disputed. I hope we are all clear on this now. So shut > up, and talk about something that reasonable people > can disagree about. Speaking for Michael, if I may, > I'm cuttting this discussion off NOW. No more. End of > story. Full stop. Period. > > Nice weather we're having this summer, eh? > > jks > > --- Jurriaan Bendien <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > But that is crazy. Not all markets are bad ! Marx > > did not argue this, nor > > did any Marxist revolutionary who actually was > > involved in a successful > > revolution. If you did argue this, then that would > > imply capitalism has > > meant no economic progress at all in any way, which > > is a ridiculous and > > undialectical view. > > > > I would say that this general dogma or prejudice > > about "markets are bad" was > > responsible for not a few economic disasters in the > > USSR and China, and it > > hides what the real issue is precisely about, namely > > exactly which property > > relations promote a just and efficient allocation of > > economic resources in > > the given context. It is evident that "markets" or > > "the market" is not a > > homogeneous category, but that a wide range of types > > of markets is possible, > > and that what is decisive is the property forms, > > ownership relations, social > > class relations and legal framework within which > > market transactions occur. > > > > In this context, Marx's own argument as I understand > > it is essentially (1) > > about the generalisation (universalisation) and > > overextension of markets > > based on bourgeois private property relations, which > > acquires an objective, > > independent, reified dynamic, causing a great deal > > of harm to human society, > > as well as developing the productive forces; (2) > > that a "dictatorship of the > > proletariat" would be able to experiment with a > > variety of property forms, > > in order to discover methods of resource allocation > > which fit best with > > social priorities - an experimentation which cannot > > occur in bourgeois > > society except in a very marginal sense; (3) that > > the historic objective is > > to supplant market allocation increasingly by direct > > methods of allocation > > which are more just, effective and efficient - > > methods which already > > anticipated in society as it exists today in many > > cases. > > > > The loss of this discourse in the socialist movement > > divides radicalism into > > two camps: sectarian socialists jabbering and > > blabbering about "reform > > versus revolution" without knowing what they are > > talking about, and applying > > wrongheaded critiques of social democracy, on the > > one hand; and Greenies who > > want to introduce all sorts of alternatives with a > > deformed view of what > > markets are, and how they really function in > > capitalist society, abstracting > > from the relations of social classes in so doing. > > If this situation continues, we might as well kiss > > socialism goodbye. > > > > Jurriaan > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > From: "andie nachgeborenen" > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 4:42 AM > > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Road to Serfdom > > > > > > > You don't understand. There are two thins Michael > > has > > > forbidden on pen-l. One is rudeness. The other is > > > discussion of market socialism. Markets are BAD, > > that > > > is settled, leftist economists don't have to think > > > about that any more -- and on pen-l, they can't > > talk > > > about it. I am too tired and busy to talk about it > > > anymore anyway. jks > > > __________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com >
