Coming at this from a different perspective:
If a progressive alternative to the market economy we have now is to come into
being, progressive economists have to find a way for the public to want one.
Right now the public seems to want, and I believe does want, "a better life for
my children." But what that is deeply understand to be is a higher income than
they currently have, thus more work, more economic growth (growth in GDP), etc.
Until the public has an opportunity to visualize a different future, future
capitalism will continue to fail to provide the dremed-of goal, while
continuing the apparition that it is just there, in the soon-to-be future.
What progressive economists must provide is a path to Visualizing a
different future. I see that as happening through a repeated shortening of
working hours, till wants and aspirations can include something beyond
consumption that can never deliver a better life. That is different than
describing -- rather than bringing into being -- a planned economy.
Nobelist Wassily Leontief used Input-Output economics as a planning method and
advocated cutting working hours (along with, for those working, supplemented
income from not-clearly-specified sources). Meanwhile, a discussion about
cutting working hours gets either no response from most economists, even Larry
Summers, or the claim that it is utopian.
Gene
On Jan 21, 2014, at 1:46 AM, William Cockshott wrote:
> I could scarcely disagree more.
> The level of agricultural production achievable under feudal social relations
> would mean the starvation of a large part of the world population to say
> nothing about the appalling social oppression it would involve.
> Discussion of planned economy is not a side issue. If one is to propose a
> progressive alternative to the market economy we have now, it is the only
> viable alternative. Right wing economics have spent 40 years or more
> rubbishing the whole idea for very clear political motives. If progressive
> economists do not defend it, then we concede Thatcher's claim 'There Is No
> Alternative'.
>
> Paul Cockshott
> School of Computer Science
> University of Glasgow
> http://glasgow.academia.edu/paulcockshott
> http://www.gla.ac.uk/schools/computing/staff/williamcockshott/#tabs=0
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Carrol Cox
> Sent: 21 January 2014 00:08
> To: 'Progressive Economics'
> Subject: Re: [Pen-l] Why Marxists consider a planned economy in accord with
> human nature
>
> Arguments for or against a "planned economy" are politically irrelevant.
> They are merely so much pedantry.
>
> Capitalism is plunging us (has plunged us) into barbarism. A return to
> feudalism would be vastly preferable from the point of view of human survival.
>
> We need to destroy capitalism, struggling to achieve a new democracy. We
> can't lay down the law of what that democracy can or will or should doi.
>
> Carrol
>
> "Marxists have no crystal ball."
> Mao
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
> _______________________________________________
> pen-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
