Jim Devine wrote:
In light of the manifest failure of planning a large economy (the USSR) and the way in which "market socialism" tends to turn into capitalism, I like Charlie Andrews' alternative of decentralized not-for-profit institutions embedded in a larger democratic society. I also like the way it's part of his scheme to reward workers with free education and how the system has a tendency to gradually move toward a non-market communism. See http://www.laborrepublic.org/.
FWIW, it looks like we both agree that central planning is a dead end and that social democracy is the way to go. "From each according to ability, to each according to deeds", I also concur with. But because we cannot sidestep natural elasticities between costed inputs and demand for output, and deeds become valued through the demand for one's output, I hold that a for-profit economy is by far the most effective way to deal with this situation; as long as it leads to an after the fact (of supply) remuneration in the form of profit sharing. This necessitates cost+ pricing, rather than a command system, at least for a substantial portion of an economy. A "tendency to gradually move toward a non-market communism" would be absent. But why would that matter in an environment where social needs are adequately taken care of?
John V _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
