--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > JKS refers to > the well worn territory of how > markets are BAD< > > actually, my understanding is that (except for Mike > B), the main trend of the anti-"market socialism" > side was not that markets are "BAD." (Could you > name someone who says that markets are evil?)
Right here, right now, Mike Ballard. Look, are you trying to provoke me into participating in this discussion? You know that Micahel P is going to shut it down immediately. Besides, I am too tired and busy to do this now. I concede it, marketsa re BAD, or maybe good in theory but BAD in practice, whatever. Democracy will make everything great. Efficiency is a bourgeois notion. Whatever. I don't care anymore. Leave me alone. jks > Rather, it was that real-world markets do not > correspond to the textbook ideal of markets, which > doesn't exist in reality, while real-world markets > have a large number of imperfections that prevent > them from serving socialist-democratic goals. It's > the pro-"market socialism" side that puts forth that > markets are good, or at least better than central > planning, which is BAD. Frankly, I think that the > whole plan vs. market discussion misses the point > (i.e., the need for democracy as part of the > abolition of class and to avoid the > inequality-generating characteristics of both > markets and central plans). > > Rather than discussing "market socialism," I think > it would be worth pen-l's while to discuss Charlie > Andrews' proposal for competing not-for-profit > enterprises (in his FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY). > Maybe Charlie could be dragooned into participating. > > Jim > > > > > > > > __________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
