________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Joseph Green [[email protected]] Sent: Friday, March 18, 2011 10:41 PM To: Progressive Economics Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Marginalism wrong or not even wrong
Hi Paul, Paul Cockshott wrote: > In 'Towards a New Socialism', we make it clear that in > a planned socialist economy there is no buying and selling between factories. That's not exactly true. There is buying and selling between factories in your system, but because it takes place as accounting entries kept track of by a central authority, you think it isn't real buying and selling. But in fact, since the economic accounts kept with these accounting entries determine what happens to the factories, including whether they stay open, it has the same economic effect as real buying and selling. You rename the economic entities as "projects", and you merge the central bank with the planning authorities, but real buying and selling exists. ------------------------- No because the products are state property all along. We call things projects to make the analogy with big capitalist firms which have projects to develop particular products, but these projects are not separate juridical entities owning property. For accounting purposes they function as cost centers but they are not owners. --------------------------- Let's look at this a little closer. In your book, you and Cottrell also state that the Soviet Union, from 1928-1931 on, was a socialist society (which I disagree with), although not the type you prefer. (See pp. 2. 174) And your discussion of central planning in this book and the articles you refer to is a modification of the Soviet methods, such as the proposals by Kantorovich. Yet in this system, there was buying and selling between factories. You refer to this buying and selling. So it's not true that you and Cottrell believe that buying and selling between factories can't take place in socialism or in a system with central planning. You don't like buying and the selling, but you do recognize the historical Soviet system, a system with buying and selling, as socialist. -------------------- That is true, but there was a shift from the 60s on, where what had initially just been cost centers actually began to function as juridical entities with a right to retain surplus. At this point it came closer to real buying and selling. The ambiguity of the situation is brought out well in Spuffords book Red Plenty. -------------------- Now, these sales were subject to the overall control of the planning agencies. And the enterprises were owned by the state. On this grounds, Preobrazhensky, in his book "The New Economics", advocated that it was only a matter of appearance that the state sector used prices, sales, made profits or losses, and was subject to such categories as interest, rent, and so forth. He sort to explain away these commodity categories and regard the state sector, even in the 20s, as socialist in and of itself. By the 30s, the entire industrial sector was a state sector, and from then on you regard the Soviet system as having a socialist economy. So in essence, you have a similar attitude to buying and selling in the state sector as Preobrazhensky. ------------------ If is similar, but over time finer distinctions had to be made. I will cover further points later. -------------------- The University of Glasgow, charity number SC004401 _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
