[PEN-L:9255] Why not be a utopian: real version
Sorry, I hit the wrong key the first time: Now the quote: Ruth Levitas. 1990. The Concept of Utopia (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press). 35: "The real dispute between Marx and Engels and the utopian socialists is not about the merit of goals or of images of the future but about the process of transformation, and particularly about the belief that propaganda alone would result in the realization of socialism." I think she is only partly correct. The other fault of the utopians is that they had made up blueprints in their head, which they wanted to impose on others. Some on the list use the term to imply a search for a vision of an alternative. In this sense, utopian is good. We have really failed to communicate our vision of socialism. As a result, too many people want to stay with the devil that they know, especially since the Soviet version of socialism was or has been made out to be so horrible. That vision thing remains terribly important. If we get all worked up about the departures from our own exact version of socialist planning, maybe we are being utopian in the bad sense. I confess that I think that market socialism can not work. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9257] Re: Why not be a utopian: real version
As one who raised "the vision thing," I welcome this observation. Actually I sought to distinguish being a visionary from being a utopian. In endeavoring to popularize what a socialist future might offer, I think it is critical that we define what underlying values guide us and serve as our "moral compass" in the construction of socialism. We can debate the structural form forever, but without a guiding set of values, it will be a meaningless and sterile debate about a structure devoid of true content. In solidarity, Michael At 07:42 AM 3/31/97 -0800, Michael Perelman wrote: Sorry, I hit the wrong key the first time: Now the quote: Ruth Levitas. 1990. The Concept of Utopia (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press). 35: "The real dispute between Marx and Engels and the utopian socialists is not about the merit of goals or of images of the future but about the process of transformation, and particularly about the belief that propaganda alone would result in the realization of socialism." I think she is only partly correct. The other fault of the utopians is that they had made up blueprints in their head, which they wanted to impose on others. Some on the list use the term to imply a search for a vision of an alternative. In this sense, utopian is good. We have really failed to communicate our vision of socialism. As a result, too many people want to stay with the devil that they know, especially since the Soviet version of socialism was or has been made out to be so horrible. That vision thing remains terribly important. If we get all worked up about the departures from our own exact version of socialist planning, maybe we are being utopian in the bad sense. I confess that I think that market socialism can not work. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9260] Re: Slovenia
At 03:49 PM 3/30/97 -0800, Robin Hahnel wrote: It's hard to reply briefly about "aggregation" in participatory planning. Our model (and utopian vision) is very different from small semi-autonomous eco-economies ala Gar Alperowitz or Howie Hawkins -- or the more famous Murray Bookchin. We have a large national economy model with federations of workers and consumers playing an important role in the planning process -- along with individual workers and consumers councils. As a working colleague of Alperovitz, I just want to correct the impression that his model is simply autonomous local community-economies. While there is a strong emphasis on a local-level structural basis and an overall idea of "subsidiarity"--devolving power to lowest feasible level--Alperovitz also allows a prominent, critical part for units of economic planning larger than the local or even state level (probably at the subcontinental level in the US context) as well as larger-scaled public enterprise and so forth. It's not simply a "small community is everything" model. (Actually, the communities Alperovitz would use as the "building block" in his model are not "small communities" at all but mid-sized [i.e. 75-150,000 people or so].) For the curious, I attach my description of the entire model, as approached from a green standpoint, pulled from the working draft of a forthcoming annotated bibliography of alternative models. Feedback or questions in public or private regarding the below is welcome (though I will have trouble responding in "real time" this week.) cheers, Thad .. Gar Alperovitz, "Sustainability and the System Problem", PEGS Journal, Spring 1996; The System: If You Don't Like Capitalism and You Don't Like Socialism, What Do You Want? (forthcoming); "Speculative Theory and Regime Alternatives", in Soltan and Elkin, eds. The Constitution of Good Societies. (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press), 1996; "Distributing our Technological Inheritance", Technology Review, October 1994. Alperovitz's work qualifies as both a variant proposal of "market socialism" and as a serious attempt to specify the institutional requirements of an ecologically sustainable society ,with far more attention given to this question than is the case with most market socialist writers.) Alperovitz also pays strong attention to the institutional requirements of meaningful democratic governance, with particular emphasis on "equality" as a precondition of strong democracy; hence, while the following discussion takes ecological concern as the starting point, the model itself seeks to meld insights from political theory, political economy, and ecological economics into a comprehensive vision. According to Alperovitz, there are (at least) four fundamental structural problems in capitalism which militate against ecological sustainability: First, the ability of private firms to pass off social costs (i.e ..pollution) on to the community; Second, the overall growth trajectory of the system; Thirdly, the capacity of interest groups representing corporate power to block or dampen "reform" efforts, most spectacularly in the case of efficient use of technology (compare subsidies of the nuclear vs. solar industries, or the auto vs. rail industries); Fourthly, the fact of economic insecurity at the individual, community, and firm level which compels all actors to acquire "more" as soon as possible, because one may not have any tomorrow, or because if one does not climb the ladder (or increase market share) they will inevitably fall down (or lose market share). The following discussion proceeds by discussing Alperovitz's solution, structurally, to problems #1, #3, and # 4, followed by additional comments fleshing out the overall vision--thereby making an answer to the difficult problem #2 possible. This annotation concludes with a summary of Alperovitz's proposed strategy. Problem #1: For Alperovitz, a structural solution to the first problem requires that firms must be able to "internalize" the externalities; functionally, this means that they should be community owned, or owned by some combination of interests (worker-community joint interest, partial ownership in locally-owned firms, etc) guaranteeing a community stake. Under a community ownership regime, if a community wishes to pollute its river, it can make the decision to do so; or it might decide not to pollute itself and instead accept a lower profit margin. The key point is that the community, in a democratic process, has the power to determine the ecological behavior of its major industry. Obviously, a problem emerges when one considers emissions into the air which might pollute someone else, a problem requiring a macro-level planning capacity beyond the micro-level community-ownership structure, a point to be taken up again below. Problem #3: This is the "power problem of democracy"; Alperovitz's answer runs on several lines. First, the core structure of
[PEN-L:9262] FW: Ronnie Dugger in Philly; April Fools Demo at PECO; JOBS rally in
-- From: Philadsa To: amhoffma; MacMan2; jantzen; leonobol; winant; lsekaric; BerniceS; jhogan; emoore; AlEmily; gdolph; straussjohn; strieb; skeptic; rbove; landreau; StahlBen; siftartj; hkadran; tobiabj; sullivmj; sschatz; shapsj; rbrand; shoshana; clampetlundquist; peacedel; QuinnKM Subject: Ronnie Dugger in Philly; April Fools Demo at PECO; JOBS rally in Harrisburg Date: Sunday, March 30, 1997 10:56PM RONNIE DUGGER FOUNDER CO-CHAIR OF THE ALLIANCE FOR DEMOCRACY will speak on MOVING TOWARDS DEEP DEMOCRACY AND INDEPENDENCE FROM CORPORATE RULE Tuesday, April 1 at 7:00 p.m. Friends Center, 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia For more information, call Charles at (215) 235-0562. * * * * * * * * * APRIL FOOLS DAY ACTION AT PECO Tuesday, April 1 at Noon PERCRonnie Dugger, founder and co-chair of the Alliance for Democracy, on Moving Toward Deep Democracy Independence from Corporate Rule 7pm, Tuesday, April 1 Friends Center, 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia For more info, call Charles at (215) 235-0562 Ronnie Dugger, founder and co-chair of the Alliance for Democracy, on Moving Toward Deep Democracy Independence from Corporate Rule 7pm, Tuesday, April 1 Friends Center, 1501 Cherry St., Philadelphia For more info, call Charles at (215) 235-0562 Citizen Action is planning a media event on April Fools Day (Tuesday, April 1 at noon) to draw attentio to the ridiculous claims of PECO that it is in the consumers' best interest to pay for their bailout. CA and cooperating organizations will hold signs and distribute leaflets in front of PECO's offices on Market Street. For more information, contact CA at (215) 662-0731, (215) 662-0761 fax, or [EMAIL PROTECTED] * * * * * * * * * RALLY FOR JOBS Wednesday, April 9, 10:30 a.m. State Capitol, Harrisburg The Coalition for JOBS is planning a rally in support of the JOBS bill to be introduced by State Senator Vincent Hughes. The bill would create 10,000 public service jobs, with health benefits, daycare, job training, and job search assistance, for welfare recipients and others with no source of income. For more information or to reserve a seat on a bus to Harrisburg, contact the Philadelphia Unemployment Project at (215) 592-0933.
[PEN-L:9263] RE: Daily Labor Report
Hi Mark -- The Daily Labor Report is put out by the Bureau of National Affairs, 1231 - 25th St., NW, Washington, DC, 800/372-1088. BNA compiles free labor information from various US Govt. agencies and supplies it to all comers on a subscription basis. The cost is "only" $5,561.00 per year. Issues are available for every day that the USG is open and are hand delivered, if possible. I found this information interesting so I decided to forward it to the list. It is too bad that one of us is not providing this service. Dave -- From: Mark Weisbrot[SMTP:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Saturday, March 29, 1997 6:55 PM To: Richardson_D Subject: Daily Labor Report Dave, As a compulsive reader of your BLS Daily Report, I have seen regular references to the Daily Labor Report. Where I can I get this? Can I get it on e-mail or the Web? Thanks in advance, Mark - Name: Mark Weisbrot E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Preamble Center for Public Policy 1737 21st Street NW Washington DC 20009 (202) 265-3263 (offc) (202) 333-6141 (home) fax: (202)265-3647
[PEN-L:9265] Noam Chomsky on p.1 of NY Times today...
Well, not quite, but still quite a long article on front page of the Times today by John Broder called "Political Meddling of Outsiders: Not New for U.S." which plainly points out the hypocrisy of the current discussion re China's covert political campaigns in the U.S. Stops well short of fingering US complicity in genocides, of course, but still not bad; gives a big quote to Peter Kornbluh of the National Security Archives, a good radical. Does anyone know if Broder is a new or old reporter there? Can we expect more of this? Nice to have a small and surprising ideological triumph on monday morning. Thad p.s. Nice to see some attention given, finally, to agriculutral workers, also on p.1 Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
[PEN-L:9270] Re: Slovenia
Ken H.: 1) Obviously it is possible to have a worker-owned firm where not all the workers are owners, e.g. the flight attendants at UAL. Also, it is possible for a rip-off management to get control of things and pull off surplus for itself. But, these are clearly deviations from what is meant by full workers' ownership/management. 2) Many of your points have to do with externality problems of one sort or another, and I think it has already been stated by most of us advocating such systems that there should still be some sorts of planning and government regulation/control to deal with such problems. 3) Yes, there was a severe regional disparity problem in Yugoslavia. As a matter of fact the richer republics were substantially subsidizing the poorer ones in the later stages. As Louis Proyect has pointed out, this one was one of the motiviations for the "white flight" secession of Slovenia. BTW, there is a large literature that says that the regional disparities were not due to the nature of the system itself, e.g. Wei Ding, "Yugoslavia: Costs and Benefits of Union and Interdependence of Regional Economies," _Comparative Economic Studies_, 1991, vol. 33, pp. 1-26 and Evan Kraft, "Evaluating Regional Policy in Yugoslavia," _Comparative Economic Studies_, 1992, vol. 34, pp. 11-33. 4) In a truly worker managed firm, the level of profit will be determined by the workers. They will be "exploiting themselves." Do not be fooled that centrally planned command socialism does without profit. Even under Stalin, as early as the 1940s capital investments were being ranked according to their relative payback periods, that is rates of return. There was a very high extraction of surplus value by the state, see the very low levels of consumption, and the workers had no say whatsoever in the determination of this level. This was one of the reasons why these undemocratic systems were so unstable and so readily collapsed. Surely, next time (if there is one) we can do better. Barkley Rosser On Fri, 28 Mar 1997 16:20:25 -0800 (PST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: B. Rosser asks if worker owned industries exploit their workers. My point was that in a market capitalist economy worker-owned industries would produce to maximise or at the very least satisfice return on investment and there is no guarantee that this would correspond with social needs. I don't see that the workers as a group are not in the same situation as the individual owner proprietor but on a larger scale. Wouldn't the worker-owner be motivated to promote pro-business policies such as lower corporate taxes, less costly regulation. Wouldn't the group as a whole impose downsizing etc in order to compete effectively. Minority ownership by those bought out or let go would not stop this. Wouldn't they be tempted to hire temporary non-owners at lower wages and appropriate the surplus collectively etc. etc. By the way, are most industries privatized to the workers or to the public in general or what? This wasn't clear to me. In theory a worker-owned industry would return surplus value to the worker's themselves--but one would have to know the actual details of ownership and also how the industry was in actuality controlled to know how the surplus is actually distributed. Even capitalist owner's have been known to complain of a separation of ownership and control! While I have no detailed knowledge of the situation in Yugoslavia there was an economist who studied the Yugoslav economy (I can't recall his name) who visited here a couple of years ago who maintained that there was considerable regional disparity and the better off regions showed little desire or understanding of the problems of workers in poorer areas. Rather they tended to see the situation as poor management, work habits, etc. and felt they should fail rather than be subsidized by the central state. He also thought that in many cases worker control was on paper rather than actual, that many workers were passive not active and that actual control was exerted by a few in most cases. My main point remains though that I always have understood socialism as involving production for social need rather than profit. Having the profit go to worker-owned industries doesn't seem to change the fact that one would still have production for profit. Cheers, Ken Hanly -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9271] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report Consumer Surveys
Laurence Shute wrote: Can anyone tell me why the thin Conference Board consumer survey (5 or 6 questions?) is used so much, instead of the more extensive Michigan survey? As far as I know, they tell almost exactly the same story, though the Conference Board measure may be a bit more volatile. I can think of at least two reasons why the CB attracts more attention. One, it comes out earlier in the month. Two, the CB is more media friendly. And ever since Greenspan said he's watching the "jobs plentiful"/"jobs hard to get" subseries for a hint of the revival of working class confidence, the CB release is getting closer-than-usual attention. The "jobs plentiful" series is near a record high, and the "jobs hard to get" figure is at a record low (numbers begin in 1978). Doug -- Doug Henwood Left Business Observer 250 W 85 St New York NY 10024-3217 USA +1-212-874-4020 voice +1-212-874-3137 fax email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] web: http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html
[PEN-L:9277] chickens come home to roost
Jeff Sachs tells this story (mentioned in the Journal of Economic Literature), which could be used with respect to his great efforts in Russia: Sachs, Jeffrey. 1996. "Growth in Africa." The Economist (29 June): pp. 19-21. "In the old story, the peasant goes to the priest for advice on saving his dying chickens. The priest recommends prayer, but the chickens continue to die. The priest then recommends music for the chicken coop, but the deaths continue unabated. Pondering again, the priest recommends repainting the chicken coop in bright colours. Finally, all the chickens die. `What a shame,' the priest tells the peasant. `I had so many more good ideas'." -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9285] high finance
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 1997 17:25:35 -0800 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (George C. Kaplan) Subject: Computer model blamed for $83 Million loss The *Wall Street Journal*, 28 March 1997, reports that the derivatives trading unit of Bank of Tokyo-Mitsubishi Bank Ltd. has incurred an loss of $83 Million as a result of a computer model that overvalued a portfolio. The problem came to light last summer, when the model was revised. Another model-related loss, $139 Million by National Westminster Bank PLC is also mentioned. The article points out the risks of increasingly complicated derivatives portfolios, which are so complex that traders have no choice but to use computer-based models to evaluate them. But other sources point out that the real risks are the old familiar ones of trusting the computer too much. Thomas Coleman of TMG Financial Products Inc. says, "I've never seen an options model which, when used for the things it was meant to do by people who understood it, has caused a $50 million to $100 Million problem." George C. Kaplan [EMAIL PROTECTED] 510-643-5651 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9283] Re: soft budget constraint
At 12:41 PM 3/31/97 -0800, Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: To Paul Altesman: Would you please give us even one reference where anybody has ever declared the soft budget constraint to be a problem for socialist planning in general as opposed to some sort of market socialism without command planning? Sure. And rather than suggest you re-read my post of 3/27 which gave references (my last post complained that you weren't reading your interlocutors, did you miss it?) I will offer a new one - the Cambridge piece-de-resistance on Soviet matters "Economic Thought and Economic Reform in the Soviet Union" by Pekka Sutela. Traditionally, centrally planned command socialist economies, such as the USSR, did balance their budgets at the center and imposed that balance on the firms as well. But, as long as there is command planning, the central planners do have the ability, if they desire to exercise it, to control the budget of the enterprise. This disappears under indicative planning. The point is not just that the litterature references contradict you. Anyone with actual experience in the system would. Life inside,for example, the Soviet economic world was well... like life. The big firms were "too big, to fail" and knew it. They were also covered by powerful sectoral ministries who protected "their" enterprises at all costs. When it came to actual opperations (so-called plan implementation) Gosplan people dealt with aggregated numbers that had been heavily worked over, and ex-post. I think its almost a matter of common sense - interests and struggle don't end because a 5 year plan was published. I will try to move to the Yugo and China issues in a later, separate context.
[PEN-L:9281] Solidarity With Albania!
The Albanian people have stood up against the corrupt, criminal Berisha-Regime. For years, this regime has destroyed everything that the Albanian people had created in freedom, in the fields of industry, agriculture, medical benefits, and social and cultural organizations. It has made the country totally dependent on foreign credits and "aid." The International Monetary Fund and the World Bank have dictated Albanian politics. At the same time, thousands of Albanians have been persecuted for their political beliefs, elections have been rigged, the mafiosi have been given governmental positions, etc. The Albanian people are paying for this with terrible misery, unemployment and hunger. Many thousands have left their country as emigrants. They, who had previously been deceived by Western "freedom" and "prosperity," were nowhere made welcome. As the criminal involvement of the Berisha regime in connection with the financial swindles of the pyramid societies became more and more obvious, the Albanian people had enough and is now rising in revolt. This revolt and its demands are just! In particular the demands: The resignation of Berisha! New democratic elections immediately! A free, democratic constitution! Independence for Albania! are progressive and fully justified. They deserve the support of all democrats, anti-imperialists, socialists and communists. In its distress, the Berisha regime wants to bring foreign troops into Albania. Berisha has appealed to the UNO, NATO and the EU to intervene militarily. Berisha as representative of foreign capital and the mafia has no right to speak in the name of the Albanian people. He has already caused the Albanian people enough damage. Also the intervention of the foreign regimes as well as the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund have in no way served the country, but have only increased the poverty and misery. A military intervention will likewise not serve the Albanian people, but only the reactionary, criminal elements around Berisha and foreign capital. Therefore we demand: Hands off Albania! No military intervention! This call is directed to all friends of the Albanian people, to all democratic and anti-imperialist minded people. We ask you to sign this call and to circulate it. Please send the collected signatures of support to: Zeitungsverlag RM Postfach 401051 70410 Stuttgart, Germany Fax 0711/8702445 Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9282] Billions In Back Pay And Pensions Owed To Russian Workers; Russia To
Workers in Russia are owed more than 50 trillion roubles ($8.8 billion U.S.) in backpay, of which the state owes 10 trillion. Trade unions are organizing protest demonstrations, rallies and other actions on March 27 to demand their backpay and pensions. Organizers said they expect more than 20 million people to participate in the protest actions, including seven million workers presently on strike. Government spokespersons said the new government has been working around-the-clock for two weeks to bring about the necessary changes to address their demands. Prime Minister Viktor Chernomydrin and Deputy Prime Ministers Anatoloy Chubais and Boris Nemtsov are to hold a news conference this afternoon to detail the government's "approach to the problem of unpaid wages and pensions." The new government has "pledged to speed up economic reform and Nemtsov has promised to restructure powerful Russian monopolies," news agencies report. "I wouldn't expect any revolutionary decisions in the next 3-5 days, two weeks, or even month on issues such as natural monopolies, social issues or other problems," government spokesman Igor Shabdurasulov said. "It's not real to imagine solving such a series of problems tomorrow or the day after tomorrow." He said "it was absurd to hope that all back wages could be paid before Thursday, but said a timetable was being organized to set out realistic goals. Back pensions would be paid by the end of June, debts to teachers by May, and government debts by autumn." - Russia to Sign New Cooperation Agreement with NATO The Summit meeting held between U.S. President Bill Clinton and Russian President Boris Yeltsin failed to reach agreement as concerns NATO's eastward expansion. Russia has repeatedly stated its opposition to the inclusion of members of the former Warsaw Pact in NATO and after the March 21 Summit, news agencies say that the Russians and Americans "agreed to disagree" on NATO "but pledged to forge a new Russia-NATO cooperation agreement." The news agencies interpret this as a "signal" that "Russia will grudgingly acquiesce in the admission of some east European countries into NATO." Yeltsin said that he continued to view NATO expansion as "a mistake, and a serious one at that," while Clinton said it would move ahead as planned. Yeltsin said that the new cooperation agreement would be to "minimize" the impact of NATO expansion. Yeltsin also dropped a prior demand that the agreement be a legally binding international treaty. The joint statement released at the end of the Summit said the agreement, to be signed by Yeltsin and the heads of state of the 16 NATO members, would be "a firm commitment adopted at the highest political level." Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9280] Re: utopianism -- final words??
My utopian badge is red and black and is polished every day by the memory of millions who have given their lives for a more just democratic economy that strengthens people's solidarity for one another.
[PEN-L:9278] Re: Slovenia
At 01:47 PM 3/31/97 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Thad Williamson writes: Problem #1: For Alperovitz, a structural solution to the first problem requires that firms must be able to "internalize" the externalities; functionally, this means that they should be community owned, or owned by some combination of interests (worker-community joint interest, partial ownership in locally-owned firms, etc) guaranteeing a community stake. Under a community ownership regime, if a community wishes to pollute its river, it can make the decision to do so; or it might decide not to pollute itself and instead accept a lower profit margin. The key point is that the community, in a democratic process, has the power to determine the ecological behavior of its major industry. Obviously, a problem emerges when one considers emissions into the air which might pollute someone else, a problem requiring a macro-level planning capacity beyond the micro-level community-ownership structure, a point to be taken up again below. COMMENT: The problem with this is that pollution externalities are not likely to be confined to a community. Chernobyl devastated Laplander's way of life. Acid rain may damage communities far from the source communities. Pollution is often not a community matter, or even a state or provincial matter but a national or international matter. Why couldn't the internalization of costs be achieved through taxation? Surely control of pollution should not be at the local community level. As the last sentence of the initial statement re Alperovitz concurs, you're quite right to say it shouldn't be all at the local level. The main point is to break the dynamic whereby there is a sharp distinction between the intrinsic interests of private producer and the public good, starting at the local level. But obviously you need higher levels of authority (including possibly some int'l) for a lot of problems...the question is whether you can effectively get that by starting top-down to fix a system whose on-the-ground characteritics are biased against ecology. I.e. I'm not sure you can get the needed higher-level governance without serious attention and change at local level too. No problem with taxes as a tool, but politically I don't think you can just galve green taxes onto present capitalism and get a very happy result, with the possible exception of a place like Denmark or the Netherlands. Hanly continues: COMMENT: Are these forms of economic endeavor really growing that much? What proportion of total economic activity do they form. In some of the prairie provinces(Sask and Manitoba and to a lesser extent Alberta) , producer co-operatives, consumer co-operatives, credit unions and marketing co-operatives are quite a large factor in economic activity -as are the caisses populaires in Quebec, but it doesn't seem to stem the tide of neo-liberal policies. The organisations seem to become much less radical then in an earlier era. The CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation) specifically supported and built up these institutions in Saskatchewan in the fifties and sixties in the hope that there would be a steady evolution toward the co-operative commonwealth. It never happened and the nationalised industries and services have to a considerable extent been privatized. Among credit unions and co-operatives the trend is not to devolve into smaller units but to amalgamate into larger units. This is voted in democratically by the smaller units. Cheers, Ken Hanly I defer to and thank you for your superior knowledge of this stuff in Canadian scene. The growth referred to is in the US, and no the percentage of total economic activity is still negligible. The question of de-radicalization of these groups over time is very important (perhaps same point can be made about kibbutzim in Israel--compared to initial socialist vision..and in other countries.) To me this tendency just speaks to the need to have a larger "vision" or ideology to weld things together over time, so that organizations and groups have a sense of where they're going instead of simply slipping into being nice things within the parameter of capitalist society. In other words, this is exactly why I think "utopianism", or whatever you want to call it is important--esp. if you can plausibly connect the vision to concrete organizational activities, some already existent, much not yet born. thanks for the comments, Thad Thad Williamson National Center for Economic and Security Alternatives (Washington)/ Union Theological Seminary (New York) 212-531-1935 http://www.northcarolina.com/thad
[PEN-L:9275] Re: socialist scholars conference
I had a bit of the same reaction. In fact, it really goes far beyond just SSA. Most of Asia have enormous "hinterlands" - just India and China alone could keep foreign investors profitably busy for decades; even tigers like Thailand have only seen some provinces move into the semi-periphery; ditto for Latin America. Much the former Sov. Un. will probably be "outside the loop" when the capital destruction gets finished (don't forget, K can tear down in order to build up - which also raises the issue of war). Then there is the enormous space within each seemingly fully marketized space. In the '50s few of realized the potential for marketizing what was then household production. This process is not yet played out in the OECD countries, never mind the rest of the world. No doubt there yet more internal frontiers we have not yet thought of. Her point about fundamentals seemed well taken - but it might be a mistaken to assume that there no space left. At 12:21 PM 3/31/97 -0800, Karl Carlile wrote: MICHAEL: But now that capital has embraced the entire globe, we need to return to analysing the system as a whole. Unfortunately, the left has proved so far to be inadequate to this task, and she developed some ideas as to why this is so. I hope that she will develop these ideas more fully in the future. KARL: If capital has embrtaced the entire globe how come there is so little of it in sub-Saharan Africa. I raise this issue at least once before and as far as I recall nobody responded to it. It is obvious that sub-Saharn Africa is is not of significance to the ethno-centred subscribers on this mailing list. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:9273] RE: Daily Labor Report
I think that many of us appreciate Dave's forwarding the report to us. Richardson_D wrote: Hi Mark -- The Daily Labor Report is put out by the Bureau of National Affairs, 1231 - 25th St., NW, Washington, DC, 800/372-1088. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9274] Re: Why not be a utopian: real version
Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: Michael says that he thinks that "market socialism can not work." I am not sure what he means by that. There is a lot about the PRC I do not like, but it is working very well by many measures right now and it is market socialist, although not of the workers' managed variety that I advocate. Yes, China is working in the short run. It may not be environmentally viable, but it will work for a while. The PRC was much smarter than the Gorby circle in just about every way. Over time, as I mentioned in an earlier post, more and more the PRC will have to conform to the dictates of capital and the market will dominate the socialism in market socialism. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9272] Re: Slovenia
Thad Williamson writes: Problem #1: For Alperovitz, a structural solution to the first problem requires that firms must be able to "internalize" the externalities; functionally, this means that they should be community owned, or owned by some combination of interests (worker-community joint interest, partial ownership in locally-owned firms, etc) guaranteeing a community stake. Under a community ownership regime, if a community wishes to pollute its river, it can make the decision to do so; or it might decide not to pollute itself and instead accept a lower profit margin. The key point is that the community, in a democratic process, has the power to determine the ecological behavior of its major industry. Obviously, a problem emerges when one considers emissions into the air which might pollute someone else, a problem requiring a macro-level planning capacity beyond the micro-level community-ownership structure, a point to be taken up again below. COMMENT: The problem with this is that pollution externalities are not likely to be confined to a community. Chernobyl devastated Laplander's way of life. Acid rain may damage communities far from the source communities. Pollution is often not a community matter, or even a state or provincial matter but a national or international matter. Why couldn't the internalization of costs be achieved through taxation? Surely control of pollution should not be at the local community level. Williamson also writes: As to strategy, Alperovitz argues that the trajectory of the American political-economic system, characterized by increased political disillusionment and growing loss of faith (and actual capacity) in the ability of the current system to solve problems, is pushing the country into a period of profound disorientation. Ultimately, a coherent vision and sense of direction--new ideas--must be generated if the stalemate is ever to be escaped. At the same time, growing economic pressure on states and localities has helped stimulate an impressive growth in community-oriented economic experimentation, including community land trusts, worker ownership, community development corporations (many of which directly own businesses), municipal enterprise, state equity holdings, state pension fund investments in local enterprises, community supported agriculture, etc--all of which show impressive growth just since the mid-1980s. COMMENT: Are these forms of economic endeavor really growing that much? What proportion of total economic activity do they form. In some of the prairie provinces(Sask and Manitoba and to a lesser extent Alberta) , producer co-operatives, consumer co-operatives, credit unions and marketing co-operatives are quite a large factor in economic activity -as are the caisses populaires in Quebec, but it doesn't seem to stem the tide of neo-liberal policies. The organisations seem to become much less radical then in an earlier era. The CCF (Co-operative Commonwealth Federation) specifically supported and built up these institutions in Saskatchewan in the fifties and sixties in the hope that there would be a steady evolution toward the co-operative commonwealth. It never happened and the nationalised industries and services have to a considerable extent been privatized. Among credit unions and co-operatives the trend is not to devolve into smaller units but to amalgamate into larger units. This is voted in democratically by the smaller units. Cheers, Ken Hanly
[PEN-L:9269] Re: FW: BLS Daily Report Consumer Surveys
Pen-L, Can anyone tell me why the thin Conference Board consumer survey (5 or 6 questions?) is used so much, instead of the more extensive Michigan survey? Larry Shute Consumer confidence remained strong in March, edging down 0.4 percentage point, the Conference Board reports Consumers are optimistic about the current business situation, as well as the prospects for six months from now (Daily Report, page A-4; Washington Post, page C12; New York Times, page D5; Wall Street Journal, page A2).
[PEN-L:9268] soft budget constraint
To Paul Altesman: Would you please give us even one reference where anybody has ever declared the soft budget constraint to be a problem for socialist planning in general as opposed to some sort of market socialism without command planning? BTW, I agree that the foreign borrowings can be for more than just investment, but that does not get at this issue. Traditionally, centrally planned command socialist economies, such as the USSR, did balance their budgets at the center and imposed that balance on the firms as well. They faced external constraints and generally did not like to go into debt. Now, it is certainly true that such a system can borrow as a whole and get into trouble. An extreme case was the DPRK in the early 70s when it borrowed wildly from abroad during the height of the Sino-Soviet conflict when neither of them would help it. It defaulted on its foreign debts. But, as long as there is command planning, the central planners do have the ability, if they desire to exercise it, to control the budget of the enterprise. This disappears under indicative planning. Barkley Rosser -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9266] Re: On self citation
On Sun, 30 Mar 1997, Michael Perelman wrote: Louis has complained about self-citation. I differ with him. Maybe it is an occupational disease of academics, but I appreciate pointers to published material. I do not think many of us would think it to be cowardice. I agree. In fact, I would think that the arbitrary rejection of potentially valuable research to be much more dangerous. In addition, I find it grossly inappropriate to reject work, not because of its own failings, but because it may have gone against the main current of analysis at the time of publication, etc., etc., and thus ended up outside the all-important list of oft-cited authority. Jeff Fellows
[PEN-L:9267] Re: socialist scholars conference
MICHAEL: But now that capital has embraced the entire globe, we need to return to analysing the system as a whole. Unfortunately, the left has proved so far to be inadequate to this task, and she developed some ideas as to why this is so. I hope that she will develop these ideas more fully in the future. KARL: If capital has embrtaced the entire globe how come there is so little of it in sub-Saharan Africa. I raise this issue at least once before and as far as I recall nobody responded to it. It is obvious that sub-Saharn Africa is is not of significance to the ethno-centred subscribers on this mailing list. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:9264] Re: globalization juggernaut
This is a good point, Michael. But it may matter very much the form of the globalization. Thus, Slovenia has so far largely held off foreign direct investment and control, thereby allowing a continuation of workers' management, even if there has been a lot of privatization. However, as Paul P. noted, this has mostly taken the form of workers' ownership. Maybe if the relationship is open on trade but closed on capital movements, the pressures can be contained. Barkley Rosser On Sun, 30 Mar 1997 09:38:48 -0800 (PST) Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: The threat on Slovenia points to a general law of globalization. It seems that more planned societies can prosper when they first get involved with globalization -- Slovenia, Sweden, maybe China. Over time, globalization will create internal contradictions until the society must succomb to full globalization. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9261] Re: Why not be a utopian: real version
Michael says that he thinks that "market socialism can not work." I am not sure what he means by that. There is a lot about the PRC I do not like, but it is working very well by many measures right now and it is market socialist, although not of the workers' managed variety that I advocate. Perhaps it is the latter version that Michael is skeptical about. Michael, are you buying the "they will hyperinflate and implode" story, or the Kornai "they are unstable and necessarily go capitalist" story? BTW, to anybody not acquainted with the basic references on workers' management some are Benjamin Ward, "The Firm in Illyria," _American Economic Review_, 1958, vol. 48, pp. 566-589. Jaroslav Vanek, _The Participatory Economy_, 1971, Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Branko Horvat, _The Political Economy of Socialism_, 1982, Armonk: M.E. Sharpe. Also, a good recent review of many issues involved can be found in John P. Bonin, Derek C. Jones, and Louis Putterman, "Theoretical and Empirical Studies of Producer Cooperatives: Will the Twain Ever Meet?" _Journal of Economic Literature_, 1993, vol. 31, pp. 1290-1320. Barkley Rosser On Mon, 31 Mar 1997 07:44:28 -0800 (PST) Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Sorry, I hit the wrong key the first time: Now the quote: Ruth Levitas. 1990. The Concept of Utopia (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press). 35: "The real dispute between Marx and Engels and the utopian socialists is not about the merit of goals or of images of the future but about the process of transformation, and particularly about the belief that propaganda alone would result in the realization of socialism." I think she is only partly correct. The other fault of the utopians is that they had made up blueprints in their head, which they wanted to impose on others. Some on the list use the term to imply a search for a vision of an alternative. In this sense, utopian is good. We have really failed to communicate our vision of socialism. As a result, too many people want to stay with the devil that they know, especially since the Soviet version of socialism was or has been made out to be so horrible. That vision thing remains terribly important. If we get all worked up about the departures from our own exact version of socialist planning, maybe we are being utopian in the bad sense. I confess that I think that market socialism can not work. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rosser Jr, John Barkley [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9259] Re: utopianism -- final words??
ROBIN:I have always embraced the label "utopian" and wear the badge proudly. KARL:What colour is it and is it a big or a small badge? I bet you polish it every day to you mammy's delight. Yours etc., Karl
[PEN-L:9258] socialist scholars conference
Friends, I attended the SSC on Saturday and attended 3 sessions. I did not attend the one Louis P. discussed, but I heard about it through Harry Magdoff. Perhaps capitalist relationships have become so dominant that it is difficult even for critics to see through them. Surely growth and productivity will kill us all in the end. The 3 sessions I did attend were all very good. The first one, "Bringing Marx Back" featured several first-rate discussions. Doug Henwood gave a lucid account of the current financial insanity, utilising Marx's rather fragmentary comments on finance to great effect. He made a good point that financial markets are used by capitalsists to gain control over the economy as a whole. He further pointed out that today, money has become more or less completely divorced from social production. We should all hope that Doug's book comes out soon! It promises clear thinking and writing on what most people think of as hopelessly complex. Second, Ellen Wood, newly elected co-editor of Monthly Review, argued that as capital has become universal, in the sense that it has permeated all aspects of life throughout the world, Marxism, as the science of capital, is now needed more than ever. She partially developed the very interesting idea that much of post-Marx Marxism has dealt with capital's "external" aspects (theories of imperialism, etc), rather than its internal contradictions. But now that capital has embraced the entire globe, we need to return to analysing the system as a whole. Unfortunately, the left has proved so far to be inadequate to this task, and she developed some ideas as to why this is so. I hope that she will develop these ideas more fully in the future. Third, Daniel Singer strongly criticized social democracy and pointed to many signs of working class rebellion against the neoliberal regimes attempting to turn back the clock on workers' rights and lving standards. He urged a coherent frontal attack on capitalism, by which he meant, I assume, a united sorking class attack, the only thing which capital really fears. Finally, Istvan Meszaros (I don't dare spell this incorrectly!) made a number of interesting points connected to the idea that Marxism is hardly dead. He wondered if capital does not need a "respectable" left (if it does, all the more reason for radicals to relentlessly criticize social democracy, market socialism, etc.). He argued that capitalsim is completely uncontrollable and today's universal capitalism is engaged in "destructive production." He warned leftists against any acceptance of the logic of a labor market, pointing out that we had better be ready to accept the political implications of full employment, high wage struggles. This first meeting was jam-packed with people, who literally sat in every available space. I was very impressed with this and the general enthusiasm for a return to Marx. The second session was also well-attended and was titled something like "Rebuilding the Labor Movement from Below". Activist and writer Jane Slaughter chaired the session and made a sharp critique of the Sweeney regime in the AFL-CIO, pointing out that union democracy and workplace control are not on the leadership's agenda. Then activists David Pratt (TDU), Cesar Ayala (Latino Workers' Center), and Tim Schermerhorn (TWU New Directions) described their organizations attempts to build various types of democratic workers' movements. I was struck with the importance of democracy within the workers' movement. In his recent Monthly Review piece, Greg Albo suggest that in this age of capitalism's universalization, the struggle for democracy has become more radical than ever. So how can we push forward the struggle for democratic control of society if one of the main vehicles of that struggle, the workers' movement, is not intelf maximally democratic. I was curious, however, about what these activists themselves see as the goal of their struggles beyond their goals in their specific organizations. This session was marred a bit by some speches given by sectarians, but I guess that that goes with the territory. The third session was about postmodernism and chaired by John Foster. the panelist gave good arguments for the need to see the backward political implications of much postmodernism. Again the idea was presented that the totalizing nature of capitalism requires a totalizing critique. All in all, I came away energized and more optimistic than I've been in a long time. But, of course, I only wnet to three sessions and these were organized by groups which I have long supported, so I am sure my views are somewhat biased. Michael Yates
[PEN-L:9256] Re: Final thoughts on utopi
Dear Pen-l, Since the discussion in Science Society was mentioned by Robin Hahnel, I would like to make three quick observations. 1) The issue of SS devoted to "Socialism: Alternative Models and Visions" (Spring 1992) is still (in my completely biased opinion) the best self-contained and compact source for the range of views on socialism, ranging from David Schweickart through A-H to a statement (by yours truly) of a view based on democratic planning, _including_ but not limited to central planning, with an important secondary role for markets whose social content is progressively transformed. Copies are still available. 2) I agree entirely with the view that the utopian dimension belongs within a "scientific" socialist project (quotes around "scientific" here are not for ridicule, but to express awareness of the need for careful reexamination of this concept), and that Marx' and Engels' high regard for the thinkers they designated as "utopian" attests to their view of the intense continuity between earlier and later socialist thought. The key idea here is that socialism/communism, unlike all previous modes of production, must be consciously built, and therefore pre-visioned. 3) My editorial colleagues who expressed their doubts in a dissenting note in the "editorial perspectives" section of the issue also have a valid point, and a valid question: in view of the recent collapse of existing socialisms, how can we theorize socialism afresh in a way that takes this monumental reality into account; how can we avoid, to use Marx's words quoted in their statement, "writing Comtist recipes for the cookbooks of the future"? I doubt if any harm can come from embracing the tension between these two positions, and certainly those of us who have addressed the (re)envisioning issue by putting forward "models" or conceptualizations of socialism do not intend that they be studied in the abstract, apart from real movements against exploitation and oppression. In fact, cross-fertilization should occur, with progressive enrichment and unification of class (and other) struggles in the present, and the theoretical tradition projecting future transcendence of capitalism. (david) David Laibman Editor, Science Society -- REPLY FROM: David Laibman Return-Path: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Received: from brooklyn.cuny.edu by mailgate.brooklyn.cuny.edu id [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Sun, 30 Mar 97 18:51:55 EST Received: from anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu by brooklyn.cuny.edu (4.1/1.35) idAA26678; Sun, 30 Mar 97 18:50:57 EST Received: from anthrax (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by anthrax.ecst.csuchico.edu(8.8.5/8.8.5) with SMTP id PAA14361; Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:49:05 -0800 (PST) Date: Sun, 30 Mar 1997 15:49:05 -0800 (PST) Message-Id: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Errors-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Originator: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sender: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Precedence: bulk From: Robin Hahnel [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: Multiple recipients of list [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:9241] Re: Final thoughts on utopianism X-Listprocessor-Version: 6.0c -- ListProcessor by Anastasios Kotsikonas X-Comment: Progressive Economics I've been called worse by better than Comrade Proyect. I mentioned my teaching of comparative systems and visits to work with Cuban planners in an attempt to argue that, for better or worse, my utopian thinking is not totally uninformed by some study and familiarity with the history of "once existing socialism." If that triggered Louis' anti- academic reflex, so be it. For what its worth, the editorial board of Science and Society went through this -- I must say tiresome -- debate over the sins of utopian thinking before finally publishing their issue in 1992 on the Future of Socialism. Poor David Laibman had to struggle with his editorial board for 6 months to get them to agree to such an issue, and even then a dissenting minority of the board published a letter in the issue in objection. I have seen nothing in Louis or other anti-utopian postings on penl recently that improves upon that expression of the errors of utopian thinking -- with which I completely disagreed.
[PEN-L:9254] what's wrong with being utopian?
First a quote: -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 916-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:9253] FW: Daily Report
BLS DAILY REPORT, FRIDAY, MARCH 28, 1997: President Clinton would like to correct cost-of-living adjustments so they accurately reflect inflation before balanced budget negotiations conclude this year, White House Press Secretary Mike McCurry said yesterday. Although the idea of a new commission to make recommendations for corrections to the CPI has been put aside by President Clinton and proponents in Congress because of its political volatility, the prospect of adjusting the CPI or modifying cost-of-living adjustments remains in play, McCurry said. "It's still alive and it's going to get done. I think it's more a question of how it gets done," he told reporters. "The president, like I think just about everyone knowledgeable on the subject, believes there's an overstatement of inflation in the current index," he added. (Daily Labor Report, page A-6). New claims filed with state agencies for unemployment insurance benefits decreased by 4,000 to a seasonally adjusted total of 310,000 during the week ending March 22, the Labor Department reports. The 4-week average for jobless claims, a less volatile measure of employment conditions, fell to 311,250 from 312,750 the previous week. Both the initial benefits figure and the 4-week average for jobless claims have been hovering near 7-year lows for several weeks (Daily Labor Report, page D-1; New York Times, page C16; The Wall Street Journal, page A2 and graph of data from 1996 to the present on page A1). The Conference Board's help-wanted advertising index rose 3 percentage points in February to 90 percent of its 1987 base. (Daily Labor Report, page A-3; The Wall Street Journal, page A2). The Conference Board says that the latest job news tends to support the Fed's view that the current economic expansion will soon create inflationary conditions. "The job market continues to show surprising strength," says Ken Goldstein, a Conference Board economist. "While that is good news for job seekers," he added, "employers face the prospect of having to offer higher wages to attract quality job candidates."
[PEN-L:9252] Hawkins, Belkin, Magdoff
PEN-L'ers might be interested in my unbiased, journalistic musings on the panel discussion "What economics for socialism? Marxist, Market Economy, Cooperative?" that took place at this weekend's Socialist Scholars Conference. (I do forbid Peter Bohmer from reading this however.) There are no references to additional articles, books, etc. that you will have to track down to make sense of this post. Oh, I take that back. There are one or two, but you can find them at any Barnes and Noble. One of them, the Communist Manifesto, is even available on the WWW and is a heckuva read if I say so myself. The first presenter was Howard Hawkins, a member of the Green Party from upstate New York who works with co-ops but has his eyes opened to their flaws. He mentioned that Leland Stanford, a member of the bourgeoisie in California, wrote extensively about the need for co-ops during the pre-WWI period. He believed that they would make workers feel like they had a stake in the system. Hawkins also made an interesting point that the German social democracy had extensive co-op holdings on the eve of WWI. He speculates --correctly in my opinion-- that this influenced their decision to back the war. They thought that their socialist empire of printing-presses, publishing houses, etc. was worth defending from attack by enemy, barbarian nations. The next presenter was David Belkin, co-author with Frank Roosevelt of "Why Market Socialism". He argued that since "growth" was necessary, markets were needed. He accused Greens and some Marxists of being inconsistent when they call for defending social security. Unless economic growth is assured, social security will go down the drain. Belkin called for a much more "realistic" view of how socialism would be built. He described it as a negotiating process between different interest groups, not unlike those that take place behind the scenes in the NYC City Council. The final presenter was Harry Magdoff from Monthly Review. He started off by questioning the notion that social security was in danger. He thought that Belkin was transmitting the scare tactics of neoliberals who simply wanted to privatize social security. He also attacked the uncritical acceptance of growth in itself. When 4 out of 6 billion people on the planet are consumed with the task of finding some bread for their next meal, why should we worry about keeping up with the small minority of the planet's demand for "better" automobiles. Finally, he said that Belkin's view of socialist politics as being similar to City Council horse-trading described what he himself was involved with when he worked in the Department of Commerce in FDR's administration. He always found himself haggling over budget allocations, etc. But this had nothing to do with socialism. Socialism is a break with all the old models of political, social and economic behavior. As Magdoff was making his points, Belkin wore an adolescent smirk on his face the entire time. Later in the day I discovered from Doug Henwood that Belkin was a minor functionary in the office of some NYC Democratic Party official. It was no wonder that he was fixated on the sort of back-room negotiations that take place in such circles. It is what he does for a living. Belkin is a member of Democratic Socialists of America, the sponsor of the Socialist Scholars Conference and official section of the Second International in the USA. He is a socialist in name only. Like most DSA'ers, his politics can best be described as liberal Democrat with lip-service paid to a socialism somewhere in the distant future, perhaps the 24th century. During the discussion period, I brought up the two subjects that had been on my mind lately. The inappropriateness of Slovenia or Yugoslavia as a model for socialism, and the utopian nature of market socialism. Belkin was all smiles when I brought up the first question--evidently, he hates all forms of Communism, including the Yugoslavia state of the 1950s and 60s, so dear to people like David Schweickart. He flinched at the idea of being a utopian. (Why does everybody hate that label?) He wasn't "utopian", he was "realistic". What are the alternatives to a gradual evolution toward market socialism? The proletariat marching across the barricades with bayonets in hand? Odd that this would seem so out-of-place on the day that Timothy McVeigh is going on trial. Against a backdrop of neo-fascists accumulating weaponry to use against a government they deem oppressive, DSA'ers assure us that revolution is a pipe-dream. Just as the Communist Manifesto was written partially as a response to the utopian hopes of the 1800s, we Marxists need to develop a platform for social transformation geared to the economic realities of late capitalism. This requires looking at the living reality of the current age, not that of 60 or 100 years ago. Louis Proyect
