Re: Monthly Review: China and Market Socialism
What is the best source that discusses the pre-reform political and economic developments in China. The Monthly Review special issue focuses almost entirely on post-1978. Would a comparison of directions/developments pre- and post -978 be worthwhile? Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net Reply The archives of the A-List probably contains much material on China. Henry C.K. Lis is a first rate . . . actually excellent economist . . . in my opinion and is well within Marxism and a prolific writer on China and world economy. http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/a-list Recently we discussed aspects of the Monthly Review article on China. Currently things are a bit slow with it being the vacation time of year and all. Henry is a regular contribution to Asia Times. I generally write a more intense version of material sent to Pen-L on the A-List. At any rate the archives are really worth looking at. Melvin P.
Monthly Review: China and Market Socialism
What is the best source that discusses the pre-reform political and economic developments in China. The Monthly Review special issue focuses almost entirely on post-1978. Would a comparison of directions/developments pre- and post -978 be worthwhile? Joel Wendland http://www.politicalaffairs.net Also, http://classwarnotes.blogspot.com _ MSN Toolbar provides one-click access to Hotmail from any Web page FREE download! http://toolbar.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200413ave/direct/01/
China and market socialism (was Road to Serfdom)
China and market socialism Concerning China in particular, Jim Devine wrote: 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). The last two chapters of From Capitalism to Equality outline an economy of firms that do not retain profits, nor even aim at them, though the firms must break even. However, they do compete, and the result is technological vigor and all that. These institutions are workable when taking over the U.S. economy. I can't say whether they were relevant to China in the early 1980s, when the drive to dismantle the socialist economy and install a capitalist economy became obvious. See, for example, on-the-ground reports from William Hinton. That said, the problem in China was not a problem of figuring out economic institutions that would overcome imbalance and inefficiency from the Mao era. (Marty) It was not a tragic policy dilemma (need to promote efficiency and economic vigor - only remedy is market socialist measures - market socialism stumbles into capitalism). 1. Any government with a high-priority purpose can figure out institutions to achieve the purpose. No genius is necessary, and the necessary brainpower is available. 2. The preceding period was not the Mao era. On the surface it was the Mao era until 1976. The problem of the era was that the Chinese government did not have a predominant purpose. The socialists could never get the room they needed to develop the economy, because the capitalist factions had enough power to stymie or distort new measures. On the other hand, the leading adherents of capitalism had bad reputations and could not act boldly. 3. The standoff finally broke in favor of the adherents of capitalism. The thing to figure out is whether the socialists could have won the struggle by different political means. Of course there are nuances to this, but I think it comes down to these points, not a tragic policy dilemma (need to promote efficiency and economic vigor - only remedy is market socialist measures - market socialism tends to stumble into capitalism). Charles Andrews Publisher's Web site for From Capitalism to Equality is at http://www.laborrepublic.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Throw out all the plans and kick the people in the ass so that we might live to see another day was Mr. Stalin's program of industrial development. Was this the wrong program for the times? Of course it was wrong. Socialism has to be based on science. When you throw statisticians and engineers into prisons, you undercut the ability of a workers state to defend itself. Everytime an ostensibly revolutionary government takes this route, from the USSR in the 1930s to Mao's Cultural Revolution, the result has been devastating. The problem is the law of value. The law of value states that commodities - products, must in the last instance, exchange for equivalents amount of human labor, no matter what their price, or you are courting rebellion of the popular masses. I am not sure what point you are trying to make. The law of value was only partially in effect in the USSR. Here is how Che Guevara approached these questions: --- Che Guevara had some of the most interesting insights into the problems of socialist construction since the days of Lenin. He is better known as a guerrilla fighter, but his essays on planning and other economic matters deserve to be better known. The main importance of Guevara is that he provides an alternative to the false dichotomy set up between Stalinist planning and the implicitly capitalist logic of market socialism. During our fierce debate over market socialism on the Marxism list, any number of Guevara's statements could have been brought to bear on the discussion. Guevara was a stickler for accounting and controls, as was Lenin. At a speech given to a ceremony to winners of socialist emulation awards in the Ministry of Industry in October of 1965, he described the importance of controls: Rigorous controls are needed throughout the entire organizational process. These controls begin at the base, in the production unit. They require statistics that one can feel confident are exact, as well as good habits in using statistical data. It's necessary to know how to use statistics. These are not just cold figures--although that's what they are for the majority of administrators today, with the exception of output figures. On the contrary, these figures must contain within them an entire series of secrets that must be unveiled. Learning to interpret these secrets is the task of the day. Controls should also be applied to everything related to inventories in a unit or enterprise: the quantity on hand of raw materials, or, let's say, of spare parts or finished goods. All this should be accounted for precisely and kept up to date. This kind of accounting must never be allowed to slip. It is the sole guarantee that we can carry on work with minimal chance of interruption, depending on the distance our supplies have to travel. To conduct inventory on a scientific basis, we also have to keep track of the stock of basic means of production. For example, we must take inventory of all the machinery a factory possesses, so that this too can be managed centrally. This would give a clear idea of a machine's depreciation--that is, the period of time over which it will wear out, the moment at which it should be replaced. We will also find out if a piece of machinery is being underutilized and should be moved to some other place. We have to make an increasingly detailed analysis of costs, so that we will be able to take advantage of the last particle of human labor that is being wasted. Socialism is the rational allocation of human labor. You can't manage the economy if you can't analyze it, and you can't analyze it if there is no accurate data. And there is no accurate data, without a statistical system with people accustomed to collecting data and transforming it into numbers. Guevara had confidence that socialism could be built if the proper resources and management were allocated to the task. He believed in technology and progress. Like Lenin, he admired many of the accounting and management breakthroughs found in the advanced capitalist countries. Lenin was preoccupied with these matters immediately after the birth of the new Soviet state and minced no words about the value of strict accounting controls. In the Immediate Tasks of the Soviet Government written in the spring of 1918, Lenin said: The state, which for centuries has been an organ for oppression and robbery of the people, has left us with a legacy of the people's supreme hatred and suspicion of everything that is connected with the state. It is very difficult to overcome this, and only a Soviet government can do it. Even a Soviet government, however, will require plenty of time and enormous perseverance to accomplish it. This 'legacy' is especially apparent in the problem of accounting and control--the fundamental problem facing the socialist revolution on the morrow of the overthrow of the bourgeoisie. A certain amount of time
Re: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
In a message dated 12/9/02 8:23:37 AM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Real life proved how senseless the plan was. Kuibyshev had recklessly predicted that costs would go down, meanwhile they went up: although the plan allocated 22 billion rubles for industry, transportation and building, the Soviets spent 41.6 billion. The money in circulation, which planners limited to a growth of only 1.25 billion rubles, consequently grew to 5.7 billion in 1933. Now we get to the real problem for those who speak about "planning" during this period. As madcap and as utopian as the original plan was, Stalin tossed it into the garbage can immediately after the planners submitted it to him. He commanded new goals in 1929-30 that disregarded any economic criteria. For example, instead of a goal of producing 10 million tons of pig iron in 1933, the Soviets now targeted 17 million. All this scientific "planning" was taking place when a bloody war against the Kulaks was turning the Russian countryside into chaos. Molotov declared that to talk about a 5-year plan during this period was "nonsense." Stalin told Gosplan to forget about coming up with a new plan that made sense. The main driving force now was speed. The slogan "tempos decide everything" became policy. The overwhelming majority of Gosplan, hand-picked by Stalin, viewed the new policy with shock. Molotov said this was too bad, and cleaned house in the old Gosplan with "all of its old-fashioned planners" as he delicately put it. When Stalin turned the whole nation into a work camp in order to meet these unrealistic goals, he expanded the police force in order that they may function as work gang bosses. Scientific planning declined and command mechanisms took their place. As the command mechanisms grew, so grew the administrative apparatus to implement them. The more bottlenecks that showed up, the greater the need for bureaucrats to step in and pull levers. This is the explanation of the monstrous bureaucratic apparatus in the former Soviet Union, not scientific planning. Comment; I have stated in the past and will state again that I enjoy Lou's theoretical, political and ideological contributions, which I generally speaking - disagree with, because they tend to be far to doctrinaire in the wrong places and not theoretical enough in the right places. Beneath all of the ideological verbiage Lou so generously spew forth is the question of the law of value and what was possible. It is true that Lou has stated - repeatedly, that anyone in the social position of Mr. Stalin would have been compelled to do similar things, with variations based on the disposition of the individual. Under what conditions would any individual - this means you the reader, disregard economic criteria and scream - demand, that tempo determines everything? The answer is obvious to anyone that has considered the economic and political environment of earth over the past couple of hundred years - War, and predator wars on the part of the most powerful states that we call imperial powers or imperialist. There is a deeper issue involved in any discussion of "workers ownership" and "market socialism" as it applies to our present/future and our immediate past. This deeper issue is the law of value and its multisided modes of expression. In the realm of daily life this means what compromises political leaders must make with the people in their daily life activity. The peasant farmer of the Soviet Republic - during the period of time Lou speaks of, cannot live his life based on a theoretical conception and wants to know "what is the value of my labor" or what goods on the market can my labor be exchanged for? All political leaders must compromise with the mass "social consciousness" period. On the other hand tempo - the rate and speed of industrial development, determined if the Soviet Republic had enough military equipment to defeat the increasing fascist danger. "Throw out all the plans and kick the people in the ass so that we might live to see another day" was Mr. Stalin's program of industrial development. Was this the wrong program for the times? This is the historic debate. Human beings cannot plan an economy - only computers. This is so because the computers approximations are closer to facts - not necessarily the "truth" in the mind of men. Here is an important key in understanding the growth of the bureaucrats and bureaucracy in the Soviet Republic. The problem in our society is not that the "workers lack control of production" or that market socialism - what ever that means, is not a viable solution to the issues of the maintenance of life on earth and in our country. Workers control is a Utopian dream because the various strat of society - layers of administrators, professionals and technicans, percieve
Re: United Airlines and market socialism
I venture into anything approaching dialogue with LP with great trepidation. Nonetheless, I'll make two comments. One is that I don't agree with Stone Bowman that market socialism would properly launched tend to displace capitalism even if worker ownership were superior on efficiency grounds. This was a proposition originally entertained by JS Mill. I have a short paper on this topic (Where Did Mill Go Wrong?) that I was thinking of someday working up for publication; I could post it to those who might be interested. I'd appreciate comments. The second is that it's an obviosu fallacy to conclude from the the bankruptcy of United that worker ownership, much less market socialism (not the same thing) would never work. LP would bridle at the suggestion that the much more spectacular failure of Soviet communism shows that planning can't work, although there the argument is much stronger -- something like planning was ther tried on a society wide basis for a long time. The failure of a single enterprise with partial worker ownership for about 15 years, little worker input, and no self-management, shows us even less, far less, about the prospects for worker self-managed market socialism. jks --- Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a paper titled Worker Ownership on the Mondragon model: Prospects for Global Workplace Democracy (www.workersnet.org/bowman_stone_monograph.htm)that I first heard defended at the Brecht Forum about 5 years ago, Elizabeth A. Bowman and Bob Stone argue that worker ownership under capitalism can eventually bring about socialism. They say, Once such a cooperative sector of the world economy is properly launched, it will tend to displace capitalist firms, ultimately saturating production with more socialist property relations and unraveling essentials of capitalism itself. If anything, the degeneration of Mondragon itself should make us think twice about this approach. But the bankruptcy of United Airlines, a worker-owned firm, should even go further and make us question whether worker ownership buys the working-class anything, even in terms of a decent life under capitalism. This is from www.wsws.org, a website that blends useful analyses such as this with bonkers Healyite ultraleftism: So-called employee-owned companies are also capitalist enterprises. They operate to make a profit and are subject to all the laws of the capitalist market. They must meet competition on the national and global arena through the capitalist methods of cost-cutting and downsizing. Even the claim that workers are the genuine owners of United Airlines and other employee-owned companies is false. It is the banks and financiers who funded the deal who are the real owners. These worker buyouts follow a definite pattern. Generally a company that is in trouble turns to its unions for concessions in an attempt to force the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the workers. There are threats of mass layoffs or closure. Workers are told they have no choice but to give up huge cuts in pay and accept the destruction of working conditions. They are told they must agree not to strike. In exchange they are given shares of stock in the company, usually with the stipulation that the shares cannot be sold for a certain number of years. More often than not, the shares often turn out to be worthless. Take the case of McLouth Steel, a worker-owned company in Michigan that went bankrupt and closed in 1996, following a 1988 buyout organized by the United Steelworkers union. At the end, McLouth workers with the highest seniority were earning pay barely half that of workers at other major mills. When the mill finally closed, the supposed worker-owners were not even given advance notice. Most learned about it through the TV news and the newspapers. In the case of United, while the employees have been given a nominally controlling share of stock, 53 percent, real control of the company still rests in the hands of the same management team as before. The beneficiaries have not been the workers, but the union bureaucrats. The three airline unions each obtained one seat on the company board of directors. Workers paid for their stock by handing over more than $5 billion in concessions and agreeing to other cost-cutting measures, such as the replacement of some unionized jobs with contract employees. The buyout agreement created a low-cost subsidiary, United Shuttle, where workers are paid at a rate 30 percent below Southwest Airlines, United's major short-haul competitor. In a letter to the United Airlines board of directors filed with the Security and Exchange Commission, the Air Line Pilots Association and the International Association of Machinists declared, We believe that our plan will catapult the company light-years ahead of its competitors by enabling
Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
United Airlines does not seem to be a clean test of market socialism. Workers got nominal ownership and three seats on the board. Even so, the article that Lou posted was correct in asserting that that the worker owned firms would have to follow market laws and therefore not really get a chance for socialism. Marx suggested that huge capitalist forms would create a shell from which socialist organizations could emerge. I don't buy that idea either. I will leave it there rather than to start a new discussion about the merits of market socialism. On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 08:11:44AM -0800, andie nachgeborenen wrote: I venture into anything approaching dialogue with LP with great trepidation. Nonetheless, I'll make two comments. One is that I don't agree with Stone Bowman that market socialism would properly launched tend to displace capitalism even if worker ownership were superior on efficiency grounds. This was a proposition originally entertained by JS Mill. I have a short paper on this topic (Where Did Mill Go Wrong?) that I was thinking of someday working up for publication; I could post it to those who might be interested. I'd appreciate comments. The second is that it's an obviosu fallacy to conclude from the the bankruptcy of United that worker ownership, much less market socialism (not the same thing) would never work. LP would bridle at the suggestion that the much more spectacular failure of Soviet communism shows that planning can't work, although there the argument is much stronger -- something like planning was ther tried on a society wide basis for a long time. The failure of a single enterprise with partial worker ownership for about 15 years, little worker input, and no self-management, shows us even less, far less, about the prospects for worker self-managed market socialism. jks --- Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a paper titled Worker Ownership on the Mondragon model: Prospects for Global Workplace Democracy (www.workersnet.org/bowman_stone_monograph.htm)that I first heard defended at the Brecht Forum about 5 years ago, Elizabeth A. Bowman and Bob Stone argue that worker ownership under capitalism can eventually bring about socialism. They say, Once such a cooperative sector of the world economy is properly launched, it will tend to displace capitalist firms, ultimately saturating production with more socialist property relations and unraveling essentials of capitalism itself. If anything, the degeneration of Mondragon itself should make us think twice about this approach. But the bankruptcy of United Airlines, a worker-owned firm, should even go further and make us question whether worker ownership buys the working-class anything, even in terms of a decent life under capitalism. This is from www.wsws.org, a website that blends useful analyses such as this with bonkers Healyite ultraleftism: So-called employee-owned companies are also capitalist enterprises. They operate to make a profit and are subject to all the laws of the capitalist market. They must meet competition on the national and global arena through the capitalist methods of cost-cutting and downsizing. Even the claim that workers are the genuine owners of United Airlines and other employee-owned companies is false. It is the banks and financiers who funded the deal who are the real owners. These worker buyouts follow a definite pattern. Generally a company that is in trouble turns to its unions for concessions in an attempt to force the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the workers. There are threats of mass layoffs or closure. Workers are told they have no choice but to give up huge cuts in pay and accept the destruction of working conditions. They are told they must agree not to strike. In exchange they are given shares of stock in the company, usually with the stipulation that the shares cannot be sold for a certain number of years. More often than not, the shares often turn out to be worthless. Take the case of McLouth Steel, a worker-owned company in Michigan that went bankrupt and closed in 1996, following a 1988 buyout organized by the United Steelworkers union. At the end, McLouth workers with the highest seniority were earning pay barely half that of workers at other major mills. When the mill finally closed, the supposed worker-owners were not even given advance notice. Most learned about it through the TV news and the newspapers. In the case of United, while the employees have been given a nominally controlling share of stock, 53 percent, real control of the company still rests in the hands of the same management team as before. The beneficiaries have not been the workers, but the union bureaucrats. The three airline unions each obtained one
Re: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Michael Perelman wrote: United Airlines does not seem to be a clean test of market socialism. Workers got nominal ownership and three seats on the board. Even so, the article that Lou posted was correct in asserting that that the worker owned firms would have to follow market laws and therefore not really get a chance for socialism. Marx suggested that huge capitalist forms would create a shell from which socialist organizations could emerge. I don't buy that idea either. I don't believe market socialism would work, but it is childish to suggest that the debacle at United Airlines proves anything about anything (or even provides evidence for any particular thesis). Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Let's not rehash that one. On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:36:39AM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote: I don't believe market socialism would work, -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Carrol Cox wrote: I don't believe market socialism would work, but it is childish to suggest that the debacle at United Airlines proves anything about anything (or even provides evidence for any particular thesis). Does so. Does so. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
RE: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32909] Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism Michael Perelman writes: United Airlines does not seem to be a clean test of market socialism. Workers got nominal ownership and three seats on the board. it's more of a clean test of the idea of worker-financed bail-outs of capitalist corporations in a system that militates against democratic workers' control. Even so, the article that Lou posted was correct in asserting that that the worker owned firms would have to follow market laws and therefore not really get a chance for socialism. Marx suggested that huge capitalist forms would create a shell from which socialist organizations could emerge. I don't buy that idea either. Marx actually suggested both (1) that huge capitalist firms represented an abolition of capitalism within capitalism (see chapter 27 of volume III of CAPITAL, p. 438 of the International Publishers' edition) and (2) that workers' cooperatives were a precursor of socialism (within the old form the first sprouts of the new, especially by showing that the capitalist was redundant (chs. 27 23, pp. 440 387). (In ch. 27, he writes that although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. ... the antithesis between capital and labor is overcome within them, if only by making the associated workers their own capitalist... They show how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one. (p. 440).) To my mind, this does not say that Marx emphasized planning (the basic rule of the huge firms' internal organization) over workers' cooperatives, as the apologists for the old Soviet Union said. Nor does it say that he emphasized cooperatives over planning (as some market socialists do). Rather, it says that Marx wanted _both_ society-level planning _and_ workers' control (overcoming the antithesis between capital and labor) as complementary parts of the same socialist package. Of course, this simply puts a major task on the agenda of socialists: how can we merge and reconcile central planning and decentralized democratic cooperatives? Marx looked at precursor forms, but it seems like we have to go further, talking about various possible schemes. I don't want pen-l to do this at this point (unless others prevail), since SCIENCE SOCIETY had a good issue on this subject recently. Jim
Re: RE: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32909] Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Yes, it is a worker-financed bailout with a hint of "lemon socialism," where
the state (as in Britain) or the workers in the U.S. version, get an ineffectual
toehold in a business that is sure to lose money.
Joel Blau
Devine, James wrote:
Michael Perelman writes: United Airlines does not
seem to be a clean test of market socialism. Workers got nominal ownership
and three seats on the board.
it's more of a clean test of the idea of worker-financed
bail-outs of capitalist corporations in a system that militates against democratic
workers' control.
Even so, the article that Lou posted was correct
in asserting that that the worker owned firms would have to follow market
laws and therefore not really get a chance for socialism. Marx suggested
that huge capitalist forms would create a shell from which socialist organizations
could emerge. I don't buy that idea either.
Marx actually suggested both (1) that huge capitalist
firms represented an abolition of capitalism within capitalism (see chapter
27 of volume III of CAPITAL, p. 438 of the International Publishers' edition)
and (2) that workers' cooperatives were a precursor of socialism ("within
the old form the first sprouts of the new," especially by showing that the
capitalist was "redundant" (chs. 27 23, pp. 440 387). (In ch.
27, he writes that "although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce,
everywhere in their actual organization all the shortcomings of the prevailing
system. ... the antithesis between capital and labor is overcome within them,
if only by making the associated workers their own capitalist... They show
how a new mode of production naturally grows out of an old one." (p. 440).)
To my mind, this does not say that Marx emphasized planning
(the basic rule of the huge firms' internal organization) over workers' cooperatives,
as the apologists for the old Soviet Union said. Nor does it say that he
emphasized cooperatives over planning (as some "market socialists" do). Rather,
it says that Marx wanted _both_ society-level planning _and_ workers' control
(overcoming the antithesis between capital and labor) as complementary parts
of the same socialist package.
Of course, this simply puts a major task on the agenda
of socialists: how can we merge and reconcile central planning and decentralized
democratic cooperatives? Marx looked at precursor forms, but it seems like
we have to go further, talking about various possible schemes. I don't want
pen-l to do this at this point (unless others prevail), since SCIENCE
SOCIETY had a good issue on this subject recently.
Jim
: United Airlines and market socialism
The major task on the agenda of socialists is how to organize protests to block Bush's war drive, not write blueprints for future societies. Who brought up the issue of United in the context of attacking some people's favorite utopias and defending his own favorite utopias? (See the heading, provided by LP.) Isn't that a distraction from the immediate task to hand, responding to whatever capital throws at us this week? jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: RE: Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Devine, James wrote: Marx actually suggested both (1) that huge capitalist firms represented an abolition of capitalism within capitalism (see chapter 27 of volume III of CAPITAL, p. 438 of the International Publishers' edition) But that is only a reference to capitalism as it functioned in earlier stages of its development rather than any kind of progressive movement toward socialism, as indicated in Bowman and Stone's paper. Marx says in fact that this development reproduces a new financial aristocracy, a new variety of parasites in the shape of promoters, speculators and simply nominal directors; a whole system of swindling and cheating by means of corporation promotion, stock issuance, and stock speculation. It is private production without the control of private property. That is not what we are shooting for. that workers' cooperatives were a precursor of socialism (within the old form the first sprouts of the new, especially by showing that the capitalist was redundant (chs. 27 23, pp. 440 387). But Marx never uses the word socialism when speaking about such cooperatives, only that they are another expression of how credit is transforming capitalist production: The credit system is not only the principal basis for the gradual transformation of capitalist private enterprises. into capitalist stock companies, but equally offers the means for the gradual extension of co-operative enterprises on a more or less national scale. The capitalist stock companies, as much as the co-operative factories, should be considered as transitional forms from the capitalist mode of production to the associated one, with the only distinction that the antagonism is resolved negatively in the one and positively in the other. Just because something is transitional, it does not mean that it is transitional to socialism. Marx's formulations in this chapter are oblique, to say the least. To my mind, this does not say that Marx emphasized planning (the basic rule of the huge firms' internal organization) over workers' cooperatives, as the apologists for the old Soviet Union said. Nor does it say that he emphasized cooperatives over planning (as some market socialists do). Rather, it says that Marx wanted _both_ society-level planning _and_ workers' control (overcoming the antithesis between capital and labor) as complementary parts of the same socialist package. It says no such thing at all. You are just projecting your own idealism into Karl Marx. Of course, this simply puts a major task on the agenda of socialists: how can we merge and reconcile central planning and decentralized democratic cooperatives? The major task on the agenda of socialists is how to organize protests to block Bush's war drive, not write blueprints for future societies. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: : United Airlines and market socialism
Who brought up the issue of United in the context of attacking some people's favorite utopias and defending his own favorite utopias? (See the heading, provided by LP.) Isn't that a distraction from the immediate task to hand, responding to whatever capital throws at us this week? jks If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find some pretext to defend Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I am bending over backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not provoking certain people any more. I can certainly add you to the list. -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Re: United Airlines and market socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/09/02 10:32AM the bankruptcy of United Airlines, a worker-owned firm, should even go further and make us question whether worker ownership buys the working-class anything, even in terms of a decent life under capitalism. So-called employee-owned companies are also capitalist enterprises. They operate to make a profit and are subject to all the laws of the capitalist market. They must meet competition on the national and global arena through the capitalist methods of cost-cutting and downsizing. Even the claim that workers are the genuine owners of United Airlines and other employee-owned companies is false. It is the banks and financiers who funded the deal who are the real owners. ua is an 'esop', employee stock ownership plan... used to be good bit of interest in them in certain elite circles... former louisiana senator russell long was enthusiastic proponent of esops as he thought they promote 'free enterprise', he sponsored several congressional esop bills... business interest in esops stem from financial advantages such as tax incentives... esop legal structure allows only worker-ownership of stock reflecting market value which perpetuates participation according to capitalist principle of one share-one vote... esops are not required to grant voting rights or board representation to 'worker-owners' and existing management is usually retained... esop idea generally traced to investment banker william kelso's late '50s book 'the capitalist manifesto' which argued that only way to save us from 'creeping socialism' would be diffusion of stock-ownership... esop advocates make worker-ownership a high-risk profit-sharing scheme in corporate capital game, whatever high that workers get intially from from their ownership generally fades after structural limitations are recognized, disillusionment and conflict emerge from contradiction between formal ownership and local of control... esops should not be expected to result in democratic workplaces, egalitarian values, or other 'socialist stuff' because they aren't intended to do so... *flashing neon sign* i've probably mentioned more than once on pen-l - given that topic comes up periodically - that i have an article from '80s on worker-ownership - 'the limits of worker-ownership' - that appeared in inaugural issue of 'nature, society, thought'... in addition to esops, i look at so-called mock conventional and producer cooperative forms, consider worker-ownership, worker control, workplace democracy... data may be dated but, overall, piece holds up well... happy to send copy, e-mail me off list... will have to send via postal mail, wrote thing in my pre-computer days and have never scanned it to disk (nor is it available on -line at nst website)... michael hoover
Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism
If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find some pretext to defend Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I am bending over backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not provoking certain people any more. I can certainly add you to the list. Please do. And you needn't speculate about my motives for rejoining PEN-L. Engaging in fruitless discussion with you was not high on my list of reasons. Matzel tov. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism
Are we to understand that Andie is a reborn Justin? Welcome back... Cheers, Ken Hanly (yet to be born again anything) P.S. What exactly does nachgeborenen mean? - Original Message - From: andie nachgeborenen [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Monday, December 09, 2002 11:01 AM Subject: [PEN-L:32921] Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find some pretext to defend Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I am bending over backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not provoking certain people any more. I can certainly add you to the list. Please do. And you needn't speculate about my motives for rejoining PEN-L. Engaging in fruitless discussion with you was not high on my list of reasons. Matzel tov. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism
ken hanly wrote: Are we to understand that Andie is a reborn Justin? Welcome back... Cheers, Ken Hanly (yet to be born again anything) P.S. What exactly does nachgeborenen mean? huh? isnt that your pun? it means born again, doesnt it? what am i missing? what does 'andie' mean? --ravi
Re: Re: Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism
--- ken hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Are we to understand that Andie is a reborn Justin? Welcome back... Cheers, Ken Hanly (yet to be born again anything) P.S. What exactly does nachgeborenen mean? Yes, it's me. An die Nachgeborenen means To Those Born Later. It's the title of a Brecht poem that I like: To those born later I Truly, I live in dark times! The guileless word is folly. A smooth forehead Suggests insensitivity. The man who laughs Has simply not yet heard The terrible news.What kind of times are they, when A talk about trees is almost a crime Because it implies silence about so many horrors? That man there calmly crossing the street Is already perhaps beyond the reach of his friends Who are in need?It is true I still earn my keep But, believe me, that is only an accident. Nothing I do gives me the right to eat my fill. By chance I´ve been spared. (If my luck breaks, I am lost.)They say to me: Eat and drink! Be glad you have it! But how can I eat and drink if I snatch what I eat From the starving, and My glass of water belongs to one dying of thirst? And yet I eat and drink. I would also like to be wise. In the old books it says what wisdom is: to shun the strife of the world and to live out Your brief time without fear Also to get along without violence To return good for evil Not to fulfil your desires but to forget them Is accounted wise. All this I cannot do: Truly, I live in dark times. II I came to the cities in a time of disorder When hunger reigned there. I came among men in a time of revolt And I rebelled with them. So passed my time Which had been given to me on earth. My food I ate beeween battles To sleep I lay down among murderers Love I practised carelessly And nature I looked at without patience.
Re: Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism
Andie joined some time ago, well before the post in question. On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:01:19AM -0800, andie nachgeborenen wrote: If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find some pretext to defend Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I am bending over backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not provoking certain people any more. I can certainly add you to the list. Please do. And you needn't speculate about my motives for rejoining PEN-L. Engaging in fruitless discussion with you was not high on my list of reasons. Matzel tov. jks __ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now. http://mailplus.yahoo.com -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
United Airlines and market socialism
In a paper titled Worker Ownership on the Mondragon model: Prospects for Global Workplace Democracy (www.workersnet.org/bowman_stone_monograph.htm)that I first heard defended at the Brecht Forum about 5 years ago, Elizabeth A. Bowman and Bob Stone argue that worker ownership under capitalism can eventually bring about socialism. They say, Once such a cooperative sector of the world economy is properly launched, it will tend to displace capitalist firms, ultimately saturating production with more socialist property relations and unraveling essentials of capitalism itself. If anything, the degeneration of Mondragon itself should make us think twice about this approach. But the bankruptcy of United Airlines, a worker-owned firm, should even go further and make us question whether worker ownership buys the working-class anything, even in terms of a decent life under capitalism. This is from www.wsws.org, a website that blends useful analyses such as this with bonkers Healyite ultraleftism: So-called employee-owned companies are also capitalist enterprises. They operate to make a profit and are subject to all the laws of the capitalist market. They must meet competition on the national and global arena through the capitalist methods of cost-cutting and downsizing. Even the claim that workers are the genuine owners of United Airlines and other employee-owned companies is false. It is the banks and financiers who funded the deal who are the real owners. These worker buyouts follow a definite pattern. Generally a company that is in trouble turns to its unions for concessions in an attempt to force the burden of the crisis onto the backs of the workers. There are threats of mass layoffs or closure. Workers are told they have no choice but to give up huge cuts in pay and accept the destruction of working conditions. They are told they must agree not to strike. In exchange they are given shares of stock in the company, usually with the stipulation that the shares cannot be sold for a certain number of years. More often than not, the shares often turn out to be worthless. Take the case of McLouth Steel, a worker-owned company in Michigan that went bankrupt and closed in 1996, following a 1988 buyout organized by the United Steelworkers union. At the end, McLouth workers with the highest seniority were earning pay barely half that of workers at other major mills. When the mill finally closed, the supposed worker-owners were not even given advance notice. Most learned about it through the TV news and the newspapers. In the case of United, while the employees have been given a nominally controlling share of stock, 53 percent, real control of the company still rests in the hands of the same management team as before. The beneficiaries have not been the workers, but the union bureaucrats. The three airline unions each obtained one seat on the company board of directors. Workers paid for their stock by handing over more than $5 billion in concessions and agreeing to other cost-cutting measures, such as the replacement of some unionized jobs with contract employees. The buyout agreement created a low-cost subsidiary, United Shuttle, where workers are paid at a rate 30 percent below Southwest Airlines, United's major short-haul competitor. In a letter to the United Airlines board of directors filed with the Security and Exchange Commission, the Air Line Pilots Association and the International Association of Machinists declared, We believe that our plan will catapult the company light-years ahead of its competitors by enabling it to serve the global community more flexibly and efficiently than any other major American carrier and to compete head to head with 'low-cost carriers' in the short-haul marketplace. full: http://www.wsws.org/correspo/1998/may1998/sj-m5.shtml -- The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
At last--actually existing market socialism!
China Seeks 'Socialist Market Economy' VOA News 10 Nov 2002, 13:49 UTC China's Communist leaders say they are building a socialist market economy. The minister of the Economic and Planning Commission, Zeng Peiyan, says state-owned companies will remain the backbone of the economy, while private companies will help create jobs and growth. He made the comments at the Chinese Communist Party Congress in Beijing on Sunday. Chinese officials predict their economy will grow by eight percent this year. Delegates are expected to approve rule changes allowing entrepreneurs to join the Communist Party for the first time. The man who is expected to become China's next leader, Vice President Hu Jintao, spoke to the delegates Saturday, saying he will adhere to Marxist ideals, while working to bring affluence to the nation's citizens. During the congress, 76-year-old President Jiang Zemin is expected to hand over his post as head of the Communist party to Vice President Hu. He is then expected to resign as president early next year.
Re: market socialism -- an offer
Michalke. Is the day still open? I would appreciate a copy of the pdf file. For people who are interested, here is a one-day offer. I have an excellent pdf article (not mine) which I can share with interested people. This is a one day offer only. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 -- Dr. W.R. Needham Associate Chair, Undergraduate Affairs Department of Economics 200 University Avenue West, University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1 Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Tel:519-888-4567 ext: 3949 Fax:519-725-0530 web: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/fac-needham.html [We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects. - Herman Melville] [Fascism should be more properly called corporatism, since it is the merger of state and corporate power. Benito Mussolini]
market socialism -- an offer
For people who are interested, here is a one-day offer. I have an excellent pdf article (not mine) which I can share with interested people. This is a one day offer only. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: market socialism -- an offer
Title: RE: [PEN-L:28479] market socialism -- an offer I'd like to see this pdf file. (For some reason, I can't correspond with Michael directly.) Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 25, 2002 9:43 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:28479] market socialism -- an offer For people who are interested, here is a one-day offer. I have an excellent pdf article (not mine) which I can share with interested people. This is a one day offer only. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: market socialism -- an offer
Do we have to promise not to discuss it on Pen-L? -Original Message- From: Michael Perelman [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 25 July 2002 17:43 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:28479] market socialism -- an offer For people who are interested, here is a one-day offer. I have an excellent pdf article (not mine) which I can share with interested people. This is a one day offer only. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 ___ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___
Re: RE: market socialism -- an offer
I'd like to see a copy, too. Christian
RE: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
I appreciate that we have avoided a rehash of the market socialism debate. With regard to the surplus, many traditional societies consumed the surplus in the form of a ceremony at the end of the year rather than engaging in accumulation. In the investment banking community we used to call this ceremony bonus time. dd ___ Email Disclaimer This communication may contain confidential or privileged information and is for the attention of the named recipient only. It should not be passed on to any other person. Information relating to any company or security, is for information purposes only and should not be interpreted as a solicitation or offer to buy or sell any security. The information on which this communication is based has been obtained from sources we believe to be reliable, but we do not guarantee its accuracy or completeness. All expressions of opinion are subject to change without notice. All e-mail messages, and associated attachments, are subject to interception and monitoring for lawful business purposes. (c) 2002 Cazenove Service Company or affiliates. Cazenove Co. Ltd and Cazenove Fund Management Limited provide independent advice and are regulated by the Financial Services Authority and members of the London Stock Exchange. Cazenove Fund Management Jersey is a branch of Cazenove Fund Management Limited and is regulated by the Jersey Financial Services Commission. Cazenove Investment Fund Management Limited, regulated by the Financial Services Authority and a member of IMA, promotes only its own products and services. ___
Re: : Market Socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Gar in a recent post on Market Socialism and inequality (I accidently erased the wrong post) made the statement that inequality under market socialism would be worse than under planning and used Jugoslavia as an example. Unfortunately for his argument, this is not in accord with the facts. Income distribution within the republics in Jugoslavia were among the lowest in the world, and far lower than in the USSR or eastern European command economy countries. I have searched the literature pretty thoroughly. I can't find anyone who says this. Everyone seems to agree that income inequality increased pretty continuously. Um there were two periods here. 153-1963 which was self management, but not necessarily market socialism. Because the enterprises were still dominated by party led managers, investment was pretty much decided by central planners, and key prices were controlled. Still it was more market like than the Soviet U nion. And secondly was period of true market socialism - 1963 through early or mid seventies. Inflation, unemployment and rising inequality seem to be almost universally considered side effects. (Income distribution between republics were high but did not increase with the adoption of market socialism and, depending on which statistics and years you use, may have declined. There is some evidence that they declined during the period of market socialism and then widened in the subsequent period of socialist self-management.) An economist at York University in Toronto (his name escapes me at the moment) has published a number of studies showing the very egalitarian wage structure within the Yugoslav republics. There was also of course redistributive taxation to provide social services (health, education, etc.) which further reduced real (market plus social wages) incomes. I need to look at this study. The reason I'm not citing any of my sources is that none of them give numbers - just general assertions. You are in a similar position with a source whose name you do not remember. What we really need is some Gini coefficients for Yugoslavia, and some of the planned economies, year by year from 1950-1975. Failing that we need some citations from people in a position to know what they are talking about. And, especially given the problems that followed, I'm not sure that low gini coefficients within regions would be relevant if they are high between regions. At least, I consider the income disparity between Alabama and Connecticut relevant to judging the U.S. In Mondragon, originally the wage spread was limited to 3 to 1, though I believe it was raised to 4.5 or 6 to 1 because the co-ops were simply unable to hire or retain professional workers (engineers, scientists, etc.) at the original 3 to 1 rate operating, as they do, within a capitalist market system. Obviously, this would be easier in a socialist market system. Mondragon is a different case. But one thing to consider is that Mondragon has always hired non-member managers at the top, and a certain amount of non-member labor at the bottom. So 3 to 1 was *never* the real income distribution. Also Mondragon took place in a very poor area. The value per worker produced did not vary so much - which made a fairly egalitarian income distribution possible (though not 3 to 1). But in addition to pressure from foreign markets, there is also the pressure of it's own success. That is, as some, but not all, plants produce greater value per worker - there is a greater value disparity per worker, which makes egalitarianism more difficult. Incidently, a number of my Slovenian students have lamented the growth of inequality and the rise in selfishness with the ending of socialist self-management. There is a real nostalgia for the egalitarianism of their old socialist market/self-management system. This is all the more interesting since many of them were too young to remember the old system. But what they are lamenting is the introduction of capitalism. I never denied that market socialism (if it implemented in a way that is truly socialist) is preferable to capitalism. Also, because the repression in Yugoslavia was weaker than the Soviet Union
Re: Re: : Market Socialism
OK - I found some GINI data on Yugoslavia, (A World Bank Spreadsheet). Apparently the problem is that Eastern Bloc nation data from this period is very unreliable. Here are the Yugoslavia numbers: Year Low High 1963 24.63 34.51 1964 23.00 23.00 1965 30.60 30.60 1966 23.00 27.20 1967 24.00 25.80 1968 17.91 34.74 1969 24.00 26.00 1970 25.00 25.00 1971 23.00 24.30 1972 22.80 23.00 1973 22.00 32.00 1974 21.00 22.70 1975 21.00 21.80 1976 21.00 21.40 Note that I included a high and low for each year. Generally there is more than one of them per year. If you graph them there is a very spiky result, but I admit it tends slightly downward. Tomorrow maybe someone else can find similar data for the then Soviet Union or for Poland or Rumania. Most of these data points are from source rated by the WB to be inconsistent, or from samples not representing the whole country or from incomplete and unreliable tax records and so forth... In short I don't know if this Gini is meaningful...
Re: Re: Re: Re: : Market Socialism
Paul, could you give us the flavor of the role of remittances in the wage structure of Yugoslavia? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: : Market Socialism
Michael, I can't give you the contribution to wage income, but I can give some perspective on how important it was to overall income vis a vis Jugoslavia's overall external financial commitment. Ratios of Worker Remittances to Interest Payments in Yugoslavia's Current Account YearRatio 19704.0 19754.8 19801.4 19820.7 19840.8 (I haven't kept track of them since the mid-80s, but I believe they declined). However, these remittances would not be included in the wage distribution. Nor would the remittances of workers from Bosnia or Kosovo or Macedonia from Slovenia and Croatia to the southern republics. These were probably equally or more significant and would lead to some narrowing of the (real) income differential within the country (i.e. between republics). Paul Date sent: Tue, 16 Jul 2002 16:31:49 -0700 From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:28098] Re: Re: Re: Re: : Market Socialism Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Paul, could you give us the flavor of the role of remittances in the wage structure of Yugoslavia? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Market Socialism
At 14/07/02 11:11 -0700, you wrote: Building on Ian's quote from his ex-neighbor from Boeing, whenever a real emergency arises -- earthquakes, total wars We retreat from markets and turn to something else -- at least as long as the crisis state remains. Would the public applaud the entrepreneurship of someone selling bottled water for $10 to people fleeing the World Trade Center? -- Michael Perelman I think marxism is not very good at noticing this. Possibly because of the rigorously abstract way Marx analysed the underlying processes, people can forget how they manifest themselves concretely. Every society especially in crises has an overall view of its total social product and the customs and laws that are necessary to sustain this. If Adam Smith always assumed the existence of society, so should marxists. No market has ever existed outside hman society, and a great range of human productive activitities, social as well as material, which are use values, and are not yet commodities. The status of the exploiting class is often associated with public contributions to the non-commodity realm of society. Indeed subtler readings of Marx suggest how capitalism has grown by eating into areas of this social environment and using it to reduce the labour content of commodities or create new commodities. Just as capitalism tends to eat into the physical environment. I would assert that no form of socialism, market or otherwise, can be thought to be serious, if it does not address the flexible interplay of the commodity realm of human reproduction and the non-commodity realm. Indeed I suspect that the transition to communism will be associated with the blurring of this boundary. Chris Burford London
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
In a message dated 7/14/02 7:48:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When Stalin turned the whole nation into a work camp in order to meet
these unrealistic goals, he expanded the police force in order that they
may function as work gang bosses. Scientific planning declined and
command mechanisms took their place. As the command mechanisms grew, so
grew the administrative apparatus to implement them. The more
bottlenecks that showed up, the greater the need for bureaucrats to step
in and pull levers. This is the explanation of the monstrous
bureaucratic apparatus in the former Soviet Union, not scientific planning.
--
Louis Proyect
www.marxmail.org
I actually agree that the above is a more than less accurate deciphering of the evolution of industrial socialism - as it emerged, in the second and third decade of the past century and the growth of the bureaucratic apparatus in the former Soviet Union.
I personally would have opted to work in one of the plants - that were being planned, where it was safer than the planning offices of the proletarian state. I have personally come to believe that industrial society by definition converts the country - any geographic areas, into a workcamp based on the vortex created by "the center" - there goes the neighborhood folks.
Thanks Lou for not only placing "planning" in a historical time frame, which implies that accounting is best understood in the framework of a specific timeframe but also outlining how the human drama unfolded.
("You call that a damn plan comrade?" Ivan says, "Actually it is only the second draft of the fifth presentation, but we are going to take matters to a higher level consistent with the goals of the proletarian social revolution. Let us not forget, tempo decides everything.")
Planning today within the bounds of capital is infinitely superior to the planning and accounting during the era of Henry Ford, Sr. It seems to me that planning has and is slowly morphing into accountability - not the demand for more administrators (bureaucrats), but rather, the striving for results based on interactive processes that link the consumer with the productive of material wherewithal.
Fifty years from now the planning question in the former Soviet Union is going to be reframed and clearly understood as impossible to solve during the decade of the 20's and 30s. Soviet society missed its need to leap forward during the 1950s and 60s. This leap would have had to be based on incremental improvements in the technological basis of the infrastructure. This would have not solved the problem of the bureaucrats and privileges.
When all is said and done, privileges, corruption and bribery - Soviet style, become a social power in connection with scarcity and the historic commodity hunger of humanity. "Commodity hunger" does not mean consumerism but the "hunger" created as the results of forever tearing the majority of humanity from the boundary of agricultural life.
(Sidebar: Lou, I believe a deeper conception of commodity production as a historical process is revealed in the term "commodity hunger." Maybe, I won't be regulated to antiquity this decade, although obsolescence is on my heels).
What the communist of the era in question meant by building the basis of socialism is pretty clear today and this simply meant the industrial infrastructure without private owners. That task was at least a couple of eras away from being able to satisfy in a minimum way, humanities hunger for articles of consumption. This hunger does not stand still and is a moving target requiring a computerized mechanism to keep in sight. Still yet, there is a human hand on the computer and he decided to take a two hour lunch break in a four hour work day.
Planning today has a somewhat different mode of existence, because the instruments of executing process has changed, not withstanding property relations.
Melvin P.
Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
I think there is more advanced argument to be made against market socialism. If Justin has not been exiled from the list I would like a chance to make it in argument against the market socialists. p OK, shoot. What's the argument? Michael, I'll talk about this as much as I like, and if you don't like it, throw me off the list. Messages calling finis or otherwise to shut up because you don't like the content of civil discussions will be ignored. jks _ Join the worlds largest e-mail service with MSN Hotmail. http://www.hotmail.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
When such debates become repetitive, sign-offs from the list increase. Sometimes I inquire about the reason, sometimes not. I don't want to throw you off the list. I don't think that I have thrown one person per year off the list. Most of the times, the person was purely disruptive and had nothing to contribute. I put a finis on threads from time to time. Most people don't take it personally. What I requested was that arguments not be repeated. Finis requests are meant to raise the signal/noise ratio. On Sun, Jul 14, 2002 at 02:32:43PM +, Justin Schwartz wrote: Michael, I'll talk about this as much as I like, and if you don't like it, throw me off the list. Messages calling finis or otherwise to shut up because you don't like the content of civil discussions will be ignored. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
Justin Schwartz wrote: OK, shoot. What's the argument? Michael, I'll talk about this as much as I like, and if you don't like it, throw me off the list. Messages calling finis or otherwise to shut up because you don't like the content of civil discussions will be ignored. The problem is that we need more than talk. Some email lists tend to be exploited as mediums of the half-digested quip, even by those who have lengthy records in print publications. This is why I complain about your misspelled words. If they happened occasionally, I wouldn't mind but when nearly one out of twenty words is misspelled, it possibly betrays one in the act of typing rather than writing. I don't think it is useful to keep repeating truisms such as markets allow individual firms to react to the needs of consumers. For every truism such as this, one can respond with something like markets foster the concentration of political and economic power. Thus, you end up with a kind of debate in pop economic philosophy rather than any kind of rigorous examination of why the USSR ended up the way it did. The answer to this is in history, not pop economic philosophy. Any serious examination of Soviet history would reveal the disappearance of planning. Therefore, the Hayekian critique is mounted against a non-existent target. The Soviet government announced the first five year plan in 1928. Stalin loyalists, like Krzhizanovksy and Strumlin, who headed Gosplan, the minister of planning, worried about the excess rigidity of this plan. They noted that the success of the plan was based on 4 factors: 1) five good consecutive crops, 2) more external trade and help than in 1928, 3) a sharp improvement in overall economic indicators, and 4) a smaller ration than before of military expenditures in the state's total expenditures. How could anybody predict five consecutive good crops in the USSR? The plan assumed the most optimistic conditions and nobody had a contingency plan to allow for failure of any of the necessary conditions. Bazarov, another Stalin loyalist in Gosplan, pointed to another area of risk: the lack of political cadres. He warned the Gosplan presidium in 1929, If you plan simultaneously a series of undertakings on such a gigantic scale without knowing in advance the organizational forms, without having cadres and without knowing what they should be taught, then you get a chaos guaranteed in advance; difficulties will arise which will not only slow down the execution of the five-year plan, which will take seven if not ten years to achieve, but results even worse may occur; here such a blatantly squandering of means could happen which would discredit the whole idea of industrialization. Strumlin admitted that the planners preferred to stand for higher tempos rather than sit in prison for lower ones. Strumlin and Krzhizanovksy had been expressing doubts about the plan for some time and Stalin removed these acolytes from Gosplan in 1930. In order for the planners, who were operating under terrible political pressure, to make sense of the plan, they had to play all kinds of games. They had to falsify productivity and yield goals in order to allow the input and output portions of the plan to balance. V.V. Kuibyshev, another high-level planner and one of Stalin's proteges, confessed in a letter to his wife how he had finessed the industrial plan he had developing. Here is what worried me yesterday and today; I am unable to tie up the balance, and as I cannot go for contracting the capital outlays--contracting the tempo--there will be no other way but to take upon myself an almost unmanageable task in the realm of lowering costs. Eventually Kuibyshev swallowed any doubts he may have had and began cooking the books in such a way as to make the five-year plan, risky as it was, totally unrealizable. Real life proved how senseless the plan was. Kuibyshev had recklessly predicted that costs would go down, meanwhile they went up: although the plan allocated 22 billion rubles for industry, transportation and building, the Soviets spent 41.6 billion. The money in circulation, which planners limited to a growth of only 1.25 billion rubles, consequently grew to 5.7 billion in 1933. Now we get to the real problem for those who speak about planning during this period. As madcap and as utopian as the original plan was, Stalin tossed it into the garbage can immediately after the planners submitted it to him. He commanded new goals in 1929-30 that disregarded any economic criteria. For example, instead of a goal of producing 10 million tons of pig iron in 1933, the Soviets now targeted 17 million. All this scientific planning was taking place when a bloody war against the Kulaks was turning the Russian countryside into chaos. Molotov declared that to talk about a 5-year plan during this period was nonsense. Stalin told Gosplan to forget about coming up with a new plan that
Re: : Market Socialism
Justin Schwartz wrote: I think there is more advanced argument to be made against market socialism. If Justin has not been exiled from the list I would like a chance to make it in argument against the market socialists. p OK, shoot. What's the argument? If you remember, the context on this was a discussion of Hayek. A big part of the argument FOR market socialism is a TINA argument against planning. Not a claim that non-market socialism is literally impossible, but a claim that it tends to be inherently inefficient, and probably undemocratic. So a big part of any critique of market socialism is the defense of planning. The conversation went like this: Gar In terms of incentives, planning can be market like in this respect: A workplace is rated on efficiency based on actual output vs. actual input. (input being measured in money costs of buying the the inputs, output being measured what people willing to pay for what is produced). If efficiency falls below the minimum (say the average for the economy as a whole, or for the particulars sector) then the workplace is dissolved. Short of this workers have incentives to discover how to do things right because they get feedback as to how close to having this happen they are or how far away. In short, the further from bankruptcy you are the more secure your job is; the close to bankruptcy you are the less secure. Justin That's an interesting thought. Gar Not new to you I hope. Justin It does create consequences, which provide incentives, for inefficient behavior. Note, though, that the incentivesa re purely negative. There si the threat of bankruptcy, but no promise of profit for doing things better. And then I asked you for the incentives for inefficienct behavior inherent in this; they are not self evident. I would add to this another incentive; effor ratings. Those you work most closely with, know whether you are putting out your best effort or not. (If they don't you are working in the wrong, place.) This is both a positive and negative incentive. If you work harder than the average bear, you get more than the average bear. If you slack, but not to the point where you are fired, you get less. The workplace ratings provide an incentive to rate effort fairly. Or to put it another way workplace ratings provide a material incentive to see that everyone else works efficiencly, including rating others on effort as fairly as possible. (Because if you rate someone too highly, you encourage them to slack and have to carry their load in order to maintain a good workplace rating. If you rate them too low, they will find other work, and you will end up with someone new who you either rate fairly or...) But of course I would not object to market socialism if I did not think it vastly inferior to planned socialism. My major objection is that market socialism requires a greater degree of inequality than planning does - especially in disribution of income. Because the subject of equality and inequality is one on which many pro-planning Marxists (including Marx) agree with marketeers - that equality qua equality is not very important or is even undesirable.
Re: Re: : Market Socialism
- Original Message - From: Gar Lipow [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you remember, the context on this was a discussion of Hayek. A big part of the argument FOR market socialism is a TINA argument against planning. Not a claim that non-market socialism is literally impossible, but a claim that it tends to be inherently inefficient, and probably undemocratic. So a big part of any critique of market socialism is the defense of planning. [from an interview with Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing in yesterday's Guardian] In the six years since he and his executive team put together Vision 2016, they have transformed Boeing from a maker of airplanes into a systems integrator, a vision, he says, buttressed by this week's merger. Now, building on the experiences of the war in Afghanistan and, with savage irony, the opportunities provided by September 11, he wants to go further and place Boeing at the forefront of what the Pentagon calls system-centric warfare: commanding and controlling the low- or no-casualty (of friendly forces) battlefield of the future. ***So the issue seems to be whether markets and planning are complementary institutional processes and it would seem to be an empirical matter as to what kinds of decentralization would be workable. Ian
Re: Re: Re: : Market Socialism
Building on Ian's quote from his ex-neighbor from Boeing, whenever a real emergency arises -- earthquakes, total wars We retreat from markets and turn to something else -- at least as long as the crisis state remains. Would the public applaud the entrepreneurship of someone selling bottled water for $10 to people fleeing the World Trade Center? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: : Market Socialism
Ian Murray wrote: [from an interview with Phil Condit, CEO of Boeing in yesterday's Guardian] In the six years since he and his executive team put together Vision 2016, they have transformed Boeing from a maker of airplanes into a systems integrator, a vision, he says, buttressed by this week's merger. Now, building on the experiences of the war in Afghanistan and, with savage irony, the opportunities provided by September 11, he wants to go further and place Boeing at the forefront of what the Pentagon calls system-centric warfare: commanding and controlling the low- or no-casualty (of friendly forces) battlefield of the future. ***So the issue seems to be whether markets and planning are complementary institutional processes and it would seem to be an empirical matter as to what kinds of decentralization would be workable. Ian I don't think decentralization is the word in this context. Markets are extremely centralizing institution. And there is no inherent reason planning needs to centralized. As you say, degree of centralization and decentralization is an empircal question. But this is true in both markets and planning.
Re: Re: Re: Re: : Market Socialism
Gar in a recent post on Market Socialism and inequality (I accidently erased the wrong post) made the statement that inequality under market socialism would be worse than under planning and used Jugoslavia as an example. Unfortunately for his argument, this is not in accord with the facts. Income distribution within the republics in Jugoslavia were among the lowest in the world, and far lower than in the USSR or eastern European command economy countries. (Income distribution between republics were high but did not increase with the adoption of market socialism and, depending on which statistics and years you use, may have declined. There is some evidence that they declined during the period of market socialism and then widened in the subsequent period of socialist self-management.) An economist at York University in Toronto (his name escapes me at the moment) has published a number of studies showing the very egalitarian wage structure within the Yugoslav republics. There was also of course redistributive taxation to provide social services (health, education, etc.) which further reduced real (market plus social wages) incomes. In Mondragon, originally the wage spread was limited to 3 to 1, though I believe it was raised to 4.5 or 6 to 1 because the co-ops were simply unable to hire or retain professional workers (engineers, scientists, etc.) at the original 3 to 1 rate operating, as they do, within a capitalist market system. Obviously, this would be easier in a socialist market system. Incidently, a number of my Slovenian students have lamented the growth of inequality and the rise in selfishness with the ending of socialist self-management. There is a real nostalgia for the egalitarianism of their old socialist market/self-management system. This is all the more interesting since many of them were too young to remember the old system. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba
Re: Re: Coke, Value Science - Market Socialism
During the era of the overthrow of Soviet power or rather public property relations in the USSR industrial infrastructure, I became a market socialist for about 86 hours. At that time I imagined to have discovered a hidden truth in Polany's "Great Transformation." Later it became obvious that the hidden truth remained hidden - undiscoverable. Value is not a theoretical fiction or "clinging with dogmatic obstinacy to the redundant concept of the law of value," in my opinion. The law of value is a law - the most fundamental, of commodity production - not capitalism. A law or law system is the underlying principles that govern a process or what is the same, a recurring series of events that distinguish one thing from another and drives the process or gives a process its self-movement. The law of value begins emerging in human society when individuals or groups of individuals are able to produce more articles than they consume - achieve a surplus, and in connection with others, engage in the exchange of articles. This process of exchange, which arises on the basis of the aforementioned surplus, (which does not exclude human needs and needs/desires) is the vortex in which privately produced articles undergo a transformation into commodities. The form of human intercourse called exchange is the definition of the word market. With the development of production - communications and transportation, the exchange process "distant" itself from the production process and begins to operate on the basis of a self-movement unique to exchange. That is the expansion of the means of distribution, which are dependent on communications and transportation, gives exchange as market the appearance of an independent existence. The appearance of an independent existence becomes a fact of independence as distribution. However distribution is always limited to what is available to be distributed or exchanged. The mode of distribution, born in the womb of exchange, which arises from human laboring, separates itself from its creative mother and achieves its independence outside of the creative mother and constitutes itself as the scaffolding of the market - exchange. Value is not a theoretical fiction. As the most fundamental component of the law system of commodity production the law of value means how, by what means or on what basis commodities become exchangeable, since their production arises under specific conditions by varying individuals. The value of commodities is bound up with the expenditure of human labor - the material activity of real human beings and its magnitude grasped - as articulated by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels, as human labor in the abstract. The expenditure of human labor in the production of commodities varies from one era to another based on the progressive development of the productive forces. Consequently, the values of commodities vary from one era and one epoch to another and with it the mode of distribution. Marx conception of the science of society and his assertion and daily pushing to teach the Workingmen and indeed the proletariat why it must fight for a society of associated producers is bound up with his understanding of the direction of the progressive development of the productive forces, as opposed to historically distinct stages in the development of the mode of distribution. If value is bound up with human laboring - mental and physical, and the productive forces are technically capable of providing the world peoples with a secure minimum basis of human existence based on needs, what justifies private ownership of bridges, factories and distribution routes? At our current state of development an enormous sector of capital are speculators and are totally detached from any element of production and distribution of the social products. As a class they are superfluous to production. In the last instance, market socialism - in my estimate as an individual not belonging to any political associations, is a theory of looking for the perfect "mode of distribution" for that, which is produced. That which is produced means "what" and "how much." "What is produced" is governed by the relationship between heavy and light industry and historical development. "How much" is governed by the development of the productive forces. Generally these factors are articulated by "market socialist" as the need for "price" signals in the act of exchange that indicates product need and desires, devoid of the "what" and "how much" as development. This understanding accounts for my rather short romance with market socialism - a lengthy "one night stand." The historic comparison has been between the production of consumer goods and their distribution within the orbit of Soviet imperial authority or rather the imperial authority of the proletariat, and that of the
Market socialism as a form of utopianism
Jutsin Shwartz: Well, I've been arguing with folks hereabouts. Ia gree that some anonmytity is possible under planning. However there is little under, for example, the Albert-Hahnel and Devine models, both of which require the consumer to justify her choices to the world. Still, it's good to see someone acknowledge that the democractization of choice is not an unqualified good. The best planning model on this dimension is Madel's cleaned up version of the Soviet system, where planning is basically matter of projecting from current demand. There are other problems with the model, such as insensitivity to changes in demand and stifling of innovation, but preserving anonymity isn't one of them. Ernest Mandel never thought in terms of models. This, of course, is as it should be. He was a Marxist, not a utopian socialist. Although most people associate utopian socialism with the generally benign experiments of the 19th century (one of which was dramatized in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance), it is less about concrete projects than it is about a way of thinking. For Marx and Engels, the three main features of utopian thought were: 1) Ahistoricism: The utopian socialists did not see the class struggle as the locomotive of history. While they saw socialism as being preferable to capitalism, they neither understood the historical contradictions that would undermine it in the long run, nor the historical agency that was capable of resolving these contradictions: the working-class. 2) Moralism: What counts for the utopian socialists is the moral example of their program. If there is no historical agency such as the working-class to fulfill the role of abolishing class society, then it is up to the moral power of the utopian scheme to persuade humanity for the need for change. 3) Rationalism: The utopian scheme must not only be morally uplifting, it must also make sense. The best utopian socialist projects would be those that stood up to relentless logical analysis. As Engels said in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: To all these socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. All of these themes are present to one degree or another in the projects of market socialists like John Roemer or their new left rivals Albert and Hahnel. At first blush, John Roemer seems an unlikely utopian since he couches his schema in hard-headed microeconomics. In Market Socialism, a Blueprint: How Such an Economy Might Work, he says that it is possible to use markets to allocate resources in an economy where firms are not privately owned by investors who trade stock in them with the purpose of maximizing their gain, and that the government can intervene in such an economy to influence the level and composition of investment should the people wish to do so. This doesn't sound particularly 'visionary', does it? What is particularly utopian about the schemas of Schweickart, Roemer et al is not that they have the redemptive and egalitarian power of Saint-Simon or Robert Owens, but that it is based on an ahistorical notion of how socialism comes into existence. Specifically, there is no historical agency. Roemer shares with the 19th century utopians a tendency to present a vision that is detached from history. Since history play very little role in Roemer's thought overall, it is understandable why he would devote himself to utopian schemas. Furthermore, since AM is based on removing one of the key aspects of the Marxist understanding of capitalism --the labor theory of value-- it is difficult to see how any historical agency can carry this social transformation out. Once the class-struggle is removed, the socialist project becomes an exercise in game-playing by rational actors. Since rationalism is a cornerstone of utopian thought, market socialism would have an appeal because it is eminently rational. Answering the question of whether his schema will work, Roemer offers the following assurance: Is it possible for a market system to equilibrate an economy in which profits are distributed as I have described and in which the government intervenes in the investment behavior of the economy by manipulating interests if the managers of firms maximize profits, facing market prices, wages and interest rates? My colleagues Joaquim Silvestre, Ignacio Ortuno, and I have studied this question, and the answer is yes. My, isn't this reassuring. There is only one problem. The difficulties we face in building socialism are not on the theoretical front, but in the application of theory. The reason for this of course is that such applications always take place in the circumstances of war, economic blockade, internal counter-revolution, etc., where even the best
Repitition and Market Socialism
I've tried to put an end to the discussion because it seems to be Justin repeating his arguments for the market socialism. He tells me that he believes that they are vital for the left. I don't see much evidence that many people here agree with him. My problem is that I do not see anything new, Justin. Repetition does not constitute some sort of proof. Justin suggests that markets produce efficiency, novelty, variety, and human satisfaction. I see markets as producing waste, sameness, and a stifling of human content. I have made my case before. Others have also. So have you. Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that everything you said so far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. If you have something new to add, let's hear it. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27895] Market socialism as a form of utopianism Utopianism will always play a role in the socialist movement, because people need to have some idea of what they're fighting _for_, not just what they're fighting against. If people don't have some vision of a rational and moral future (which doesn't exist and never has existed and is so ahistorical), they can't have hope. There are people who can embrace socialism without having any hope, but it doesn't seem there's enough of them to form a socialist movement. Sometimes this utopianism shows up as idealized models (as with Owen, Fourier, or Saint-Simon) while other times it shows up in the form of idealizing actually-existing societies (as with the CP's idolization of the USSR during the 1930s). Despite Marx Engels' critiques of utopian socialism, they learned a lot from the utopians. They did not dismiss them the way latter-day Marxist often did (as a way of deflecting criticism of the USSR, etc.), perhaps because so many working people were utopian in their attitudes. BTW, there are Marxist utopians, such as William Morris (see his NEWS FROM NOWHERE), who spend a lot of time on how the change came (how the workers fought for socialism and how it became communism). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: Louis Proyect [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 8:08 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27895] Market socialism as a form of utopianism Jutsin Shwartz: Well, I've been arguing with folks hereabouts. Ia gree that some anonmytity is possible under planning. However there is little under, for example, the Albert-Hahnel and Devine models, both of which require the consumer to justify her choices to the world. Still, it's good to see someone acknowledge that the democractization of choice is not an unqualified good. The best planning model on this dimension is Madel's cleaned up version of the Soviet system, where planning is basically matter of projecting from current demand. There are other problems with the model, such as insensitivity to changes in demand and stifling of innovation, but preserving anonymity isn't one of them. Ernest Mandel never thought in terms of models. This, of course, is as it should be. He was a Marxist, not a utopian socialist. Although most people associate utopian socialism with the generally benign experiments of the 19th century (one of which was dramatized in Nathaniel Hawthorne's The Blithedale Romance), it is less about concrete projects than it is about a way of thinking. For Marx and Engels, the three main features of utopian thought were: 1) Ahistoricism: The utopian socialists did not see the class struggle as the locomotive of history. While they saw socialism as being preferable to capitalism, they neither understood the historical contradictions that would undermine it in the long run, nor the historical agency that was capable of resolving these contradictions: the working-class. 2) Moralism: What counts for the utopian socialists is the moral example of their program. If there is no historical agency such as the working-class to fulfill the role of abolishing class society, then it is up to the moral power of the utopian scheme to persuade humanity for the need for change. 3) Rationalism: The utopian scheme must not only be morally uplifting, it must also make sense. The best utopian socialist projects would be those that stood up to relentless logical analysis. As Engels said in Socialism: Utopian and Scientific: To all these socialism is the expression of absolute truth, reason and justice, and has only to be discovered to conquer all the world by virtue of its own power. And as absolute truth is independent of time, space, and of the historical development of man, it is a mere accident when and where it is discovered. All of these themes are present to one degree or another in the projects of market socialists like John Roemer or their new left rivals Albert and Hahnel. At first blush, John Roemer seems an unlikely utopian since he couches his schema in hard-headed microeconomics. In Market Socialism, a Blueprint: How Such an Economy Might Work, he says that it is possible to use markets to allocate resources in an economy where firms are not privately owned by investors who trade stock in them with the purpose of maximizing their gain, and that the government can intervene in such an economy to influence the level and composition of investment should the people wish to do so. This doesn't sound particularly 'visionary', does it? What is particularly utopian about the schemas of Schweickart, Roemer et al is not that they have the redemptive and egalitarian power of Saint-Simon or Robert Owens, but that it is based on an ahistorical
Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
Sugn me off, Michael, I don't care to be part of your list under these conditions. jks From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED] Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27905] Repitition and Market Socialism Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:22:13 -0700 I've tried to put an end to the discussion because it seems to be Justin repeating his arguments for the market socialism. He tells me that he believes that they are vital for the left. I don't see much evidence that many people here agree with him. My problem is that I do not see anything new, Justin. Repetition does not constitute some sort of proof. Justin suggests that markets produce efficiency, novelty, variety, and human satisfaction. I see markets as producing waste, sameness, and a stifling of human content. I have made my case before. Others have also. So have you. Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that everything you said so far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. If you have something new to add, let's hear it. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901 _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
From: Devine, James [EMAIL PROTECTED] Utopianism will always play a role in the socialist movement, because people need to have some idea of what they're fighting _for_, not just what they're fighting against. Absolutely. And if the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose, I too as a devotely irreligious person can cite the bible's memorable comment on this topic: Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18) Utopian visions can catalyze thought and action. They are not to be sneered at. Carl _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
From: Carl Remick [EMAIL PROTECTED] I too as a devotely irreligious person can cite the bible ... Er, make that devoutly. Normally I don't follow up on spelling errors, but since Louis Proyect seems to be setting a new, higher standard on this score, I figured I should be punctilious in this instance :) Carl _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
Absolutely. And if the devil can quote scripture to suit his purpose, I too as a devotely irreligious person can cite the bible's memorable comment on this topic: Where there is no vision, the people perish. (Proverbs 29:18) Utopian visions can catalyze thought and action. They are not to be sneered at. Carl This doesn't quite address my concerns. When William Morris wrote something like this, he was using his literary imagination: But on the Monday in question the Committee of Public Safety, on the one hand afraid of general unorganised pillage, and on the other emboldened by the wavering conduct of the authorities, sent a deputation provided with carts and all necessary gear to clear out two or three big provision stores in the centre of town, leaving papers with the shop managers promising to pay the price of them: and also in the part of the town where they were strongest they took possession of several bakers' shops and set men at work in them for the benefit of the people; - all of which was done with little or no disturbance, the police assisting in keeping order at the sack of the stores, as they would have done at a big fire. With Hahnel-Albert's Looking Forward, you are not dealing with imaginary political landscapes, you are dealing with blueprints for a future society: One tool for eliminating workplace hierarchy is workers' councils of all relevant workers. Small councils deal with immediate problems confronting small work groups. Larger councils make decisions for work teams encompassing a network of work groups, for example, in a wing or on a floor. Still larger councils make decisions for a division, a complex of divisions, or a plant, and federations of councils make decisions for an industry. Every council and federation principally concerns itself with affairs at its own level while contributing to decisions at higher levels in proportion to how they are affected. Some decisions require a majority of all members. Others, where the change has more drastic implications, may require two-thirds. Nothing requires that every decision must await every council's or worker's input. Personnel decisions are made only by people directly concerned. Decisions about breaks that affect a whole floor would be made by all involved on that floor. Plant decisions would be made by plant councils. In the first instance, with Morris, you are dealing with a genre of literature, namely the utopian novel. There are other examples, from More's Utopian to Samuel Butler's Erewhon. In the case of Hahnel-Albert, you are confronted with *utopianism*, a form of political advocacy that seeks ideal solutions to problems that had historical origins. In all of the various writings of Hahnel and Albert, you find almost no understanding of why the Soviet economy failed. Without such an understanding, nostrums like Looking Forward are useless. If the entire Bolshevik Party had voted in favor of Looking Forward in 1921, that would have had zero impact on the subsequent evolution of Soviet society. It imploded because of civil war and the failure of socialist revolutions in the west. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that everything you said so far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. If you have something new to add, let's hear it. This is pathetic, Michael. Having been on this list for a few years, I can only think of a few instances in which people have really moved conversations along, on this standard. Besides, so what if debates don't generate anything new for you? Isn't possible that people _learn_ through repetition? The members of this list have talked almost incessantly about the current crisis or whatever for at least the last 4 years, and yet you can never seem to get enough of that. My point is not that this isn't worthwhile--just the opposite. But it's true for Justin, too. If people weren't really interested, they just wouldn't bother. Give the list some credit. Christian
RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27920] Re: Repitition and Market Socialism I agree with Christian. I do not see any reason to restrict Justin's contributions, except to encourage him to be more accurate in representing the opinions of others. I think the main job of the moderator is not to restrict the content of discussion but the tone (avoiding flame-wars and the like). [BTW, I'm off pen-l until Saturday. I have posted too much for not only the patience of the list, but for my own good.] Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27920] Re: Repitition and Market Socialism Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that everything you said so far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. If you have something new to add, let's hear it. This is pathetic, Michael. Having been on this list for a few years, I can only think of a few instances in which people have really moved conversations along, on this standard. Besides, so what if debates don't generate anything new for you? Isn't possible that people _learn_ through repetition? The members of this list have talked almost incessantly about the current crisis or whatever for at least the last 4 years, and yet you can never seem to get enough of that. My point is not that this isn't worthwhile--just the opposite. But it's true for Justin, too. If people weren't really interested, they just wouldn't bother. Give the list some credit. Christian
Re: Re: market socialism. finis.
At 03:35 AM 07/11/2002 +, Justin wrote: I have not participated in this discussion. But I violently object to Michael shutting down a discussion of a topic that a great many people on the list are interested in, but that he, for some reason, has an allergy too. There are a zillion topics that we beat to death. This one gets Michael's goat. I don't know why. I think the usual rule should apply: if you aren't interested, Michael, don't participate. If there are fair number of people on the list who want to talk about something,a re are doing so in a reasonbaly civil manner, let them do it. You don't see it getting anywhere new? That's because you have made up your mind. You just want various shades of denunciations of the evils of markets. That's find, denounce away if you like. But lets others defend. Well, yeah, if everyone is interested in continuing this discussion, fine. I have not gotten much from it myself. The problem for me is that the discussion has remained extremely abstract and has not done much other than reinforce the prejudices people had when they started the discussion. People have simply taken the nebulous concept of market -- like a Platonic form; they have not distinguished what the differences might be between a market under capitalism vs what how it might function under democractic socialism; they have not talked about whether the market should be the locus of exchange for all labor and the products of labor, or whether it needs to be limited, nor have they explained (to my satisfaction) how they invisible hand of the market is an agent preferrable to human intelligence and the process of consensus building. So, if we're going to have a discussion, it would be really nice if people addressed some of these issues. Joanna
Re: Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the first instance, with Morris, you are dealing with a genre of literature, namely the utopian novel. ... In the case of Hahnel-Albert, you are confronted with *utopianism*, a form of political advocacy that seeks ideal solutions to problems that had historical origins. Ralph Waldo Emerson much agreed with you. In criticizing the utopianism of Charles Fourier, he said in part: Our feeling was, that Fourier had skipped no fact but one, namely, Life. He treats man as a plastic thing, something that may be put up or down, ripened or retarded, moulded, polished, made into solid, or fluid, or gas, at the will of the leader; or, perhaps, as a vegetable, from which, though now a poor crab, a very good peach can by manure and exposure be in time produced, but skips the faculty of life, which spawns and scorns system and system-makers, which eludes all conditions, which makes or supplants a thousand phalanxes and New-Harmonies with each pulsation. Carl _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: market socialism. finis.
Well, yeah, if everyone is interested in continuing this discussion, fine. I have not gotten much from it myself. The problem for me is that the discussion has remained extremely abstract and has not done much other than reinforce the prejudices people had when they started the discussion. People have simply taken the nebulous concept of market -- like a Platonic form; they have not distinguished what the differences might be between a market under capitalism vs what how it might function under democractic socialism; they have not talked about whether the market should be the locus of exchange for all labor and the products of labor, or whether it needs to be limited, nor have they explained (to my satisfaction) how they invisible hand of the market is an agent preferrable to human intelligence and the process of consensus building. So, if we're going to have a discussion, it would be really nice if people addressed some of these issues. Joanna grin I just joined the discussion. If it continues we will.
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
I don't think it is ahistorical to deal with the limits of the possible. Most utopian socialists today are activists. And in fact, I doubt that in the immediate issues, what we are fighting for today Albert and Hahel, Justin, and Michael Perlman would find much to disagree about. But if you want to win m ore than immediate reform, knowing where you want to go is part of knowing what to do. Besides, regardless on what you blame the failures on , actually existing socialisms have been pretty miserable places to live - not only in material goods but in terms of freedom. Workers are not stupid. If you ever want workers to support socialism in the future, you are going to have to give examples of how it can work better than it has in the past. Carl Remick wrote: From: Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the first instance, with Morris, you are dealing with a genre of literature, namely the utopian novel. ... In the case of Hahnel-Albert, you are confronted with *utopianism*, a form of political advocacy that seeks ideal solutions to problems that had historical origins. Ralph Waldo Emerson much agreed with you. In criticizing the utopianism of Charles Fourier, he said in part: Our feeling was, that Fourier had skipped no fact but one, namely, Life. He treats man as a plastic thing, something that may be put up or down, ripened or retarded, moulded, polished, made into solid, or fluid, or gas, at the will of the leader; or, perhaps, as a vegetable, from which, though now a poor crab, a very good peach can by manure and exposure be in time produced, but skips the faculty of life, which spawns and scorns system and system-makers, which eludes all conditions, which makes or supplants a thousand phalanxes and New-Harmonies with each pulsation. Carl _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
Gar wrote: I don't think it is ahistorical to deal with the limits of the possible. Most utopian socialists today are activists. I am sorry, Gar. This is not a question of activist credibility. This is not why I object to Looking Forward. It is about how socialism can be achieved. I believe that it miseducates people to write elaborate models. Marxists focus on strategies for revolution, not how future post-revolutionary societies will function. Besides, regardless on what you blame the failures on , actually existing socialisms have been pretty miserable places to live - not only in material goods but in terms of freedom. Workers are not stupid. If you ever want workers to support socialism in the future, you are going to have to give examples of how it can work better than it has in the past. I disagree. There will never be a revolution in a country like the USA until the material conditions have worsened to an extent not experienced in our lifetime. When that time arrives--as I am sure it will--people will care less about what took place in the USSR. We are looking at corporate malfeasance and declining stock markets, a combination that even Bush says might lead to questioning of the capitalist system. We are also faced with the prospects of a cataclysmic war with Iraq. In face of objective conditions that are only likely to worsen in the next ten years or so, it would be a diversion from our tasks as socialists to concoct castles in the air. People will not want assurances how the system of the future will work, they will want leadership to get the boot of capital off their necks. Hate to sound apocalyptic, but that's the way I see it. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
I am sorry, Gar. This is not a question of activist credibility. This is not why I object to Looking Forward. It is about how socialism can be achieved. I believe that it miseducates people to write elaborate models. Marxists focus on strategies for revolution, not how future post-revolutionary societies will function. If it is the only thing maybe. But as part of a broader program of activism, how does it miseducate? Besides, regardless on what you blame the failures on , actually existing socialisms have been pretty miserable places to live - not only in material goods but in terms of freedom. Workers are not stupid. If you ever want workers to support socialism in the future, you are going to have to give examples of how it can work better than it has in the past. I disagree. There will never be a revolution in a country like the USA until the material conditions have worsened to an extent not experienced in our lifetime. When that time arrives--as I am sure it will--people will care less about what took place in the USSR. We are looking at corporate malfeasance and declining stock markets, a combination that even Bush says might lead to questioning of the capitalist system. We are also faced with the prospects of a cataclysmic war with Iraq. In face of objective conditions that are only likely to worsen in the next ten years or so, it would be a diversion from our tasks as socialists to concoct castles in the air. People will not want assurances how the system of the future will work, they will want leadership to get the boot of capital off their necks. Hate to sound apocalyptic, but that's the way I see it. The worse the better eh? Both from personal experience, and from my reading of history people are mostly likely to engage in either radical or revolutionary activity when they have hope - when they believe things can be better. I think you can find more examples of revolution during times of hope than during times of despair...
Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
From: Carl Remick [EMAIL PROTECTED] Ralph Waldo Emerson, ... criticizing the utopianism of Charles Fourier, said in part ... Michael Perelman asked offlist about the source of that quote. It's from Emerson's essay Fourierism and the Socialists -- text at http://www.xmission.com/~seldom74/emerson/fourier.html Carl _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
Gar: If it is the only thing maybe. But as part of a broader program of activism, how does it miseducate? It tries to makes a connection between our ideas and what happened in history. Against the managerialism of Lenin, Albert-Hahnel propose participatory economics. Russia did not end up with a bureaucratic monstrosity because of things in Lenin's brain, but because the civil war of 1918-1920 led to death of most of the people who actually made the revolution. Their place was taken by pie-cards and time-servers. This was not a function of ideology, but history. The worse the better eh? Both from personal experience, and from my reading of history people are mostly likely to engage in either radical or revolutionary activity when they have hope - when they believe things can be better. Well, our experience must be different. During the most explosive growth of the revolutionary movement in this country, from the Debs era, to the building of the CIO in the 1930s, to the 1960s antiwar, black and student movement, there was very little model building. I expect this will be the case during the next radicalization. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Market socialism as a form of utopianism
At 11:54 AM 07/11/2002 -0700, Gar wrote: The worse the better eh? Both from personal experience, and from my reading of history people are mostly likely to engage in either radical or revolutionary activity when they have hope - when they believe things can be better. I think you can find more examples of revolution during times of hope than during times of despair... Yeah. Even that old weirdo, Eric Hoffer, noticed this. Joanna
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: RE: Market socialism as a form ofutopianism
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Carl Remick wrote: Ralph Waldo Emerson, ... criticizing the utopianism of Charles Fourier, said in part ... While we're putting down Utopians, this reminds me of one of my favorite Keynes quotes, about Bertrand Russell: Bertie in particular sustained simultaneously a pair of opinions ludicrously incompatible. He held that in fact human affairs were carried on after a most irrational fashion, but that the remedy was quite simple and easy, since all we had to do was to carry them on rationally. Discussion beyond this point was really very boring. Michael
Re: RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
I would agree with Jim. While Michael may feel that the issue has been debated sufficiently, I am somewhat disturbed by the superficial analysis of market socialism that passes for critical thought on this list. As someone who has worked for the past 15 years in Jugoslavia and, most intensively, in Slovenia, I am dismayed by the level of discourse on workers' self-management, labour based economies, Jugoslav economic history, the theory and practice of market socialism etc. Quite frankly, I would not accept what is presented on this list at a second year level. I think Justin may well be encouraged to drop the subject , but not because he is going over old ground, but because it appears that everyone's mind is made up and they have no intention of being influenced by fact or argument.If anyone seriously wants to debate the theory of market socialism I think they should look at the basic literature. At risk of appearing arrogant on this, one place they might begin is my and Jim Stoddard's contribution on market socialism to the Encyclopedia of Political Economy. But please, the level of debate so far is hardly complimentary to the list. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba I agree with Christian. I do not see any reason to restrict Justin's contributions, I think the main job of the moderator is not to restrict the content of discussion but the tone (avoiding flame-wars and the like). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27920] Re: Repitition and Market Socialism Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that everything you said so far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. If you have something new to add, let's hear it. This is pathetic, Michael. Having been on this list for a few years, I can only think of a few instances in which people have really moved conversations along, on this standard. Besides, so what if debates don't generate anything new for you? Isn't possible that people _learn_ through repetition? The members of this list have talked almost incessantly about the current crisis or whatever for at least the last 4 years, and yet you can never seem to get enough of that. My point is not that this isn't worthwhile--just the opposite. But it's true for Justin, too. If people weren't really interested, they just wouldn't bother. Give the list some credit. Christian
Re: Re: RE: Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
I think there is more advanced argument to be made against market socialism. If Justin has not been exiled from the list I would like a chance to make it in argument against the market socialists. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I would agree with Jim. While Michael may feel that the issue has been debated sufficiently, I am somewhat disturbed by the superficial analysis of market socialism that passes for critical thought on this list. As someone who has worked for the past 15 years in Jugoslavia and, most intensively, in Slovenia, I am dismayed by the level of discourse on workers' self-management, labour based economies, Jugoslav economic history, the theory and practice of market socialism etc. Quite frankly, I would not accept what is presented on this list at a second year level. I think Justin may well be encouraged to drop the subject , but not because he is going over old ground, but because it appears that everyone's mind is made up and they have no intention of being influenced by fact or argument.If anyone seriously wants to debate the theory of market socialism I think they should look at the basic literature. At risk of appearing arrogant on this, one place they might begin is my and Jim Stoddard's contribution on market socialism to the Encyclopedia of Political Economy. But please, the level of debate so far is hardly complimentary to the list. Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba I agree with Christian. I do not see any reason to restrict Justin's contributions, I think the main job of the moderator is not to restrict the content of discussion but the tone (avoiding flame-wars and the like). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Thursday, July 11, 2002 10:52 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: [PEN-L:27920] Re: Repitition and Market Socialism Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that everything you said so far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. If you have something new to add, let's hear it. This is pathetic, Michael. Having been on this list for a few years, I can only think of a few instances in which people have really moved conversations along, on this standard. Besides, so what if debates don't generate anything new for you? Isn't possible that people _learn_ through repetition? The members of this list have talked almost incessantly about the current crisis or whatever for at least the last 4 years, and yet you can never seem to get enough of that. My point is not that this isn't worthwhile--just the opposite. But it's true for Justin, too. If people weren't really interested, they just wouldn't bother. Give the list some credit. Christian
Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
At 09/07/02 20:00 +, you wrote: It seems I'm not a market socialist after all, jks. Please forgive my treachery - I cannot abide the profit motive - I thought a market socialist believed in the market as a central means of determining economic development. My mistake. Will read the archives. Sé How can you run markets without a profit motive? jks It is common in most human societies that have ever existed to attempt to accumulate a surplus, but wouldn't Marx, strictly, say that a surplus is only profit under capitalist conditions of the private ownership of the means of production. At first sight in a technologically developed world, it might look the same but fundamentally and in subtle details it is not necessarily the same. Or is that just playing dialectical games with words, only necessary because of clinging with dogmatic obstinacy to the redundant concept of the law of value? Chris Burford
Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
How can you run markets without a profit motive? jks It is common in most human societies that have ever existed to attempt to accumulate a surplus, Name one. The guilds and mechants of feudal times attempted to make profits, as did Roman traders, Arab caravaners, etc. They were not operating on Maussian gift principles. There are exchange systems without the profit motive, but markets are almost defined by the profit-making purpose of the exchange. but wouldn't Marx, strictly, say that a surplus is only profit under capitalist conditions of the private ownership of the means of production. No. Where do you get that? He'd say that profit represents SV under market conditions. At first sight in a technologically developed world, it might look the same but fundamentally and in subtle details it is not necessarily the same. Specify the difference, please. Or is that just playing dialectical games with words, only necessary because of clinging with dogmatic obstinacy to the redundant concept of the law of value? I can talk value talk with the best of 'em. I just don't believe in it. jks _ Send and receive Hotmail on your mobile device: http://mobile.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
I appreciate that we have avoided a rehash of the market socialism debate. With regard to the surplus, many traditional societies consumed the surplus in the form of a ceremony at the end of the year rather than engaging in accumulation. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University [EMAIL PROTECTED] Chico, CA 95929 530-898-5321 fax 530-898-5901
Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apologyalready
Michael Perelman wrote: I appreciate that we have avoided a rehash of the market socialism debate. With regard to the surplus, many traditional societies consumed the surplus in the form of a ceremony at the end of the year rather than engaging in accumulation. You nostalgic for that practice, or is there something to be said for accumulation? Doug
Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
How about something like this, at least for produce markets: The land is worked in common and the produce stored. People take from the stores according to their needs. Planting will be adjusted according to whether there are shortages or surpluses of products. These are truly free markets that avoid rationing on the basis of price as in conventional free markets. This is along the lines of the sort of thing attempted by Winstanley and the Diggers. Note that production is not a command economy but based upon market demand. Where is the profit motive? Cheers, Ken Hanly - Original Message - From: Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, July 09, 2002 1:00 PM Subject: [PEN-L:27780] Re: Market Socialism - an apology already It seems I'm not a market socialist after all, jks. Please forgive my treachery - I cannot abide the profit motive - I thought a market socialist believed in the market as a central means of determining economic development. My mistake. Will read the archives. Sé How can you run markets without a profit motive? jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
How about something like this, at least for produce markets: The land is worked in common and the produce stored. People take from the stores according to their needs. Planting will be adjusted according to whether there are shortages or surpluses of products. These are truly free markets that avoid rationing on the basis of price as in conventional free markets. This is along the lines of the sort of thing attempted by Winstanley and the Diggers. Note that production is not a command economy but based upon market demand. Where is the profit motive? Cheers, Ken Hanly This isn't a market, unless any system that responds to demand is a market. In which case any but the most obtuse sort of planning is a market system. It's not what any market socialist means by a market. What we mean is that the producers produce for profit, and sell their stuff toothers on anm uh, open market, in the hope of realizing a profit. I recognize that this is extremrely evil and wicked, but we are servents of Satan, what can I say? jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
This isn't a market, unless any system that responds to demand is a market. In which case any but the most obtuse sort of planning is a market system. It's not what any market socialist means by a market. What we mean is that the producers produce for profit, and sell their stuff toothers on anm uh, What is a stuff toother? Wasn't anm uh the 4th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty? If so, I believe his name needs to be capitalized. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism - an apologyalready
A stuff toother is slang for potlatch. Gene Louis Proyect wrote: This isn't a market, unless any system that responds to demand is a market. In which case any but the most obtuse sort of planning is a market system. It's not what any market socialist means by a market. What we mean is that the producers produce for profit, and sell their stuff toothers on anm uh, What is a stuff toother? Wasn't anm uh the 4th Pharaoh of the 18th dynasty? If so, I believe his name needs to be capitalized. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
market socialism. finis.
I think that our discussion about the ability of the market to offer a variety and how that variety should be determined has landed is right back to our earlier discussions of market socialism, although we have done so without bringing up the names of any obscure Austrian economists. I don't see this discussion going anywhere new. It's probably time to drop it. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: market socialism. finis.
Subject: [PEN-L:27861] market socialism. finis. Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2002 15:32:34 -0700 I think that our discussion about the ability of the market to offer a variety and how that variety should be determined has landed is right back to our earlier discussions of market socialism, although we have done so without bringing up the names of any obscure Austrian economists. I don't see this discussion going anywhere new. It's probably time to drop it. -- I have not participated in this discussion. But I violently object to Michael shutting down a discussion of a topic that a great many people on the list are interested in, but that he, for some reason, has an allergy too. There are a zillion topics that we beat to death. This one gets Michael's goat. I don't know why. I think the usual rule should apply: if you aren't interested, Michael, don't participate. If there are fair number of people on the list who want to talk about something,a re are doing so in a reasonbaly civil manner, let them do it. You don't see it getting anywhere new? That's because you have made up your mind. You just want various shades of denunciations of the evils of markets. That's find, denounce away if you like. But lets others defend. This is a topic of central important to the left. Some people obviously find value in the discussion. So I'm asking you to stop trying to cap what a lot of folks here apparantly think they are learning from. jks jks _ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx
Market Socialism - an apology already
Martin, My apologies for my ignorance. It seems I'm not a market socialist after all, jks. Please forgive my treachery - I cannot abide the profit motive - I thought a market socialist believed in the market as a central means of determining economic development. My mistake. Will read the archives. Sé _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
Surely one can realistically hold the argument that we don't want to be a market society (based on the notion of capitlaist individualism and what that implies) and still hold to the notion of markets as allocation devices suitable in some instances in societies that are communitarian. Martin, My apologies for my ignorance. It seems I'm not a market socialist after all, jks. Please forgive my treachery - I cannot abide the profit motive - I thought a market socialist believed in the market as a central means of determining economic development. My mistake. Will read the archives. Sé _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com -- Dr. W.R. Needham Associate Chair, Undergraduate Affairs Department of Economics 200 University Avenue West, University of Waterloo, N2L 3G1 Waterloo, Ontario, Canada Tel:519-888-4567 ext: 3949 Fax:519-725-0530 web: http://economics.uwaterloo.ca/fac-needham.html [We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects. - Herman Melville]
Re: Market Socialism - an apology already
It seems I'm not a market socialist after all, jks. Please forgive my treachery - I cannot abide the profit motive - I thought a market socialist believed in the market as a central means of determining economic development. My mistake. Will read the archives. Sé How can you run markets without a profit motive? jks _ Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
Market Socialism
http://www.igc.org/cdv/Discussion/discussion-david-belkin-riposte.html
Re: he market [Socialism Now}
At 19/11/01 15:38 +0800, Greg wrote: This has become so common that the real difficulty is seeing the market-governor determining the socially necessary labour in these exchanges - rather what we are seeing is the result of planning. The question posed by a particular rate of exchange dwell more on the plans of the major players (takeover as against out-sourcing, diversification as against core business, and risk management strategies), then the displine of market buying and selling. While I am sympathetic to Greg's overall approach I wonder if these formulations do not require a bit more discussion. There is no reason why reality should conform to the ideas of Marx but it would be interesting if they do not. I am not sure that the market-governor determines the socially necessary labour time. Rather it helps the price of commodities equilbrate around their socially necessary labour time. I am not quite sure about the concept of the discipline of market, except in so far as all commodities imply exchange and a question of how that exchange is tested. I wonder if it is the rate of exchange that dwells more on the plans of the major players or that the major players are able through unequal competition to determine the prevailing means of production for the commodity in question. Greg has already come back in the discussion and clarified that his remarks relate to the greatly diminshed and still diminishing free markets, rather than to all markets:- Socialisation has lead to the elimination of certain markets and to the close control of nearly all the others to the point where the concept of a free market is negated. The reduction of the role of the market leads inevitable to an expansion of administration in order to compensate for its previous role (accountants, manargerial controls, etc) and a greater and greater emphasis placed on profit realisation (much of the so called service industry) which boils down to a lot of energy placed in controlling the market in order to render profits. Both tendencies lead to an explosion of non-productive labour (labour which adds nothing to the actual products being sold but becomes essential to finally sell them). I would caution against the danger of confusion in Marx about whether productive labour is labour that produces surplus value, or labour that produces a concrete use value. A lot of secondary organisational work can be done in regulating markets that can yield surplus value. Indeed stock exchanges are now often launched on the stock exchange themselves. There is also a fundamental question about the nature of commodities, that does not affect the general thrust of Greg's argument at all but might I suggest misdirect the focus of criticism. In a sense some of this can be seen in the consumer market where labling and services almost become the commodity while the actual product seems to come a poor second. My comment on this is to go back to the actual second footnote in Capital that approvingly quotes Nicholas Barbon saying that the greatest number of things have their value from supplying the wants of the mind. Over 130 years after Capital Vol I it is even more the case that most commodities in prosperous capitalist markets supply the needs of the fancy rather than the strictly material needs of the stomach. I hope these points are more than quibbles and help explore the main direction of your arguments, Greg. Like you, I would stress the high degree of socialisation of late capitalism. But whereas the assumptions about socialism used to be about having large monopolies under state control, I see the ripeness of late capitalism as being in the increasingly subtle ways in which the absolute private ownership of capital is restricted and subsumed. For example Gordon Brown's Financial Services Authority presiding over large investing institutions like pension funds and insurance companies, which are already recycling working people's savings, and institutions like the Bank of England whivh are now placed under the control of a committee responsible to civil society. To use Foucault's metaphor quoted by Hardt and Negri, this is the shift from a disciplinary society to a society of control in which monopoly dominated markets are still real but in which mechanisms of command become ever more 'democratic', ever more immanent to the social field, distributed througout the brains and bodies of the citizens. The is not incompatible with the struggle for working class power which you promote *under present* conditions, nor of course with modifying the legal sense in which the means of production are privately owned and still less privately controlled. Regards Chris Burford London
Re: The (post-) market [Socialism Now}
Eeek! not only post-modernist, but the end of history. I think I have really overstated what I meant to say. Sorry Charles, I apprieicate what you have said very much, but I better qualify myself a little more. Regulated markets are now the norm, regulated that is by monopolistic plans, free markets were an expression of individual private capital, abuses did frequently occur (price fixing etc) but the bourgeoisie as a whole had real reason to make sure that markets functioned freely as possible. What was previously an abuse is now the practical norm, which is a significant point in the socialisation of the means of distribution. The anarchic traits of the free market are not tolerated by the present ruling class in any important areas. Yet the left for the most part puts up planning as the answer to this historically non-existant problem. In essense the bourgeoisie face the same problems with implementing their plans as a proletariat would in socialism (different plans of course). Bourgeois plans stem from the history of the property form, the fact they implement plans does not make them any more humane or anymore safe from crisis (like the old USSR the crisis bubbles up and disrupts the best and most sophisticated of plans), indeed the excessive amount of planning effecting the economy probably stokes the fires of eventual economic crisis (a speculative observation). For us it is not sufficient to argue for economic planning as has been the case in the past, indeed one criticism of the present is that the great plans of the super-monopolies over-reach themselves and cripple important aspects of production (relations of production coming into conflict with productive powers - often seen as over-managed production). The real question is what sort of plan for what objectives (the nuts and bolts), and ironically this may mean re-introducing regulated markets into areas that are now virtually market-less (the role of monopoly food distributors in Australia where the farmer's gate price is pushed below production costs, while the consumer price is held high - in remote aboriginal Australia this is a major cause for the health disaster which so afflicts such communities). Forgive this meandering but this thought brings me to your point However , the last leap must be conscious not just objective. To make the subjective leap we on the left have to break well past political abstractions (such as markets bad; planning good, which seems to typify our answers to any economic question) and start putting forward actual solutions around which struggle can congeal. Moreover, all around society there are individuals and organisations already struggling about such issues, so it is not just a matter of inventing demands, but finding them and recasting them into a greater political platform. It is at this point where we can do the most service - not getting every detail right but forming a political framework where such struggles can find their place. For the all-important leap of consciousness to take place, we need a conscious act of establishing general direction, not that all need to belong to this platform or even acknowledge it, but so sections can find a conscious expression of their particular struggle in a general concept - this is a contribution I think falls heavily on our shoulders - to provide the intellectual means of linking the specific to the general cause. In this it does not matter if what I have said about markets is primitive (which it is), but that in this area a great deal of work needs to be done - the question is no longer a choice of planning or markets, but which plans - the corporate bourgeois plans, or a yet to be created proletarian plan for economic development. Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: Charles Brown [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:33:21 -0500 Subject: [PEN-L:19723] The (post-) market [Socialism Now} This is great. Not only are we in a post-modern period, but a post-market period. Not only is there an end of philosophy, ideology and history, but an end of the market. Your Leninist logic is impeccable. The international division of labor, globalized socialization of production, is overripe for social appropriation to replace private appropriation. The central contradiction of capitalism is 11 months pregnant with socialism. However , the last leap must be conscious not just objective.
Re: Re: he market [Socialism Now}
of production (echoes of Marx on the Asiatic mode of production). My clumsy introduction of the importance of non-productive labour is that it is an indicator of things going off-the-rails based on the observation that cut-backs in productive labour (cost saving and higher productivity) seem to go hand in hand with expansions of non-productive labour (managerial, accountancy, capital services and of course marketing in all its varied forms - whether in-house or out-sourced). Not that I have made the subject matter any clearer by this post I fear. Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Wed, 21 Nov 2001 07:16:37 + Subject: [PEN-L:19731] Re: he market [Socialism Now} At 19/11/01 15:38 +0800, Greg wrote: This has become so common that the real difficulty is seeing the market-governor determining the socially necessary labour in these exchanges - rather what we are seeing is the result of planning. The question posed by a particular rate of exchange dwell more on the plans of the major players (takeover as against out-sourcing, diversification as against core business, and risk management strategies), then the displine of market buying and selling. While I am sympathetic to Greg's overall approach I wonder if these formulations do not require a bit more discussion. There is no reason why reality should conform to the ideas of Marx but it would be interesting if they do not. I am not sure that the market-governor determines the socially necessary labour time. Rather it helps the price of commodities equilbrate around their socially necessary labour time. I am not quite sure about the concept of the discipline of market, except in so far as all commodities imply exchange and a question of how that exchange is tested. I wonder if it is the rate of exchange that dwells more on the plans of the major players or that the major players are able through unequal competition to determine the prevailing means of production for the commodity in question. Greg has already come back in the discussion and clarified that his remarks relate to the greatly diminshed and still diminishing free markets, rather than to all markets:- Socialisation has lead to the elimination of certain markets and to the close control of nearly all the others to the point where the concept of a free market is negated. The reduction of the role of the market leads inevitable to an expansion of administration in order to compensate for its previous role (accountants, manargerial controls, etc) and a greater and greater emphasis placed on profit realisation (much of the so called service industry) which boils down to a lot of energy placed in controlling the market in order to render profits. Both tendencies lead to an explosion of non-productive labour (labour which adds nothing to the actual products being sold but becomes essential to finally sell them). I would caution against the danger of confusion in Marx about whether productive labour is labour that produces surplus value, or labour that produces a concrete use value. A lot of secondary organisational work can be done in regulating markets that can yield surplus value. Indeed stock exchanges are now often launched on the stock exchange themselves. There is also a fundamental question about the nature of commodities, that does not affect the general thrust of Greg's argument at all but might I suggest misdirect the focus of criticism. In a sense some of this can be seen in the consumer market where labling and services almost become the commodity while the actual product seems to come a poor second. My comment on this is to go back to the actual second footnote in Capital that approvingly quotes Nicholas Barbon saying that the greatest number of things have their value from supplying the wants of the mind. Over 130 years after Capital Vol I it is even more the case that most commodities in prosperous capitalist markets supply the needs of the fancy rather than the strictly material needs of the stomach. I hope these points are more than quibbles and help explore the main direction of your arguments, Greg. Like you, I would stress the high degree of socialisation of late capitalism. But whereas the assumptions about socialism used to be about having large monopolies under state control, I see the ripeness of late capitalism as being in the increasingly subtle ways in which the absolute private ownership of capital is restricted and subsumed. For example Gordon Brown's Financial Services Authority presiding over large investing institutions like pension funds and insurance companies, which are already recycling working people's savings, and institutions like the Bank of England whivh are now placed under the control of a committee responsible to civil society. To use Foucault's metaphor quoted by Hardt and Negri, this is the shift
The (post-) market [Socialism Now}
The (post-) market [Socialism Now} by Greg Schofield 19 November 2001 07:52 UTC Greg, This is great. Not only are we in a post-modern period, but a post-market period. Not only is there an end of philosophy, ideology and history, but an end of the market. Your Leninist logic is impeccable. The international division of labor, globalized socialization of production, is overripe for social appropriation to replace private appropriation. The central contradiction of capitalism is 11 months pregnant with socialism. However , the last leap must be conscious not just objective. Charles Sorry Chris I should be clearer than this. I am not saying that every kind of market is gone, classic markets exists albeit on a small scale. At one point or another profits must be realisied via exchange and that too is a market mechanism. However under classic capitalism the whole of the economy was animated by market exchanges (as per the nature of individual private capitals in intercourse). Monopoly capital internalisied such market exchanges into internal transactions, which strengthen its control over actual exchanges taking place elsewhere. In turn this strengthened position gives such leavage over existing markets they soon cease to exist as markets - the monopolies merely determining the rate of exchange. This has become so common that the real difficulty is seeing the market-governor determining the socially necessary labour in these exchanges - rather what we are seeing is the result of planning. The question posed by a particular rate of exchange dwell more on the plans of the major players (takeover as against out-sourcing, diversification as against core business, and risk management strategies), then the displine of market buying and selling. In a sense some of this can be seen in the consumer market where labling and services almost become the commodity while the actual product seems to come a poor second. The other more obvious attribute is the army of accountants needed to replace market operations, the immense amount of paper-work generated in order to keep track of all the elements and, of course, crisis appearing as a managerial attribute rather than direct market forces. In this there is no turning back the clock as the neo-liberals pretend (invariably leading to an explosion in paper-work and accountants). The chaos of the market (its actual governance of production) is well and truely pushed into the background - which is the essence of my point. The chaos we now enjoy is a coporate bureacratic one. Greg Schofield Perth Australia
The market [Socialism Now}
At 19/11/01 09:10 +0800, you wrote: PS hand in hand with socialisation the market has become all but extinct, though its form remains especially at the consumer end of things. The speculative market is perhaps the last hold out of market mechanisms, which of course is a parody of their former function (speculative exchanges are very much removed from the exchanges of actual value - the historical purpose of real markets). Greg Schofield Perth Australia Greg, can you expand in what sense you mean this? Certainly it is clear in Marx that he described an essentially social process that appeared to be privately owned, and was treated legally as privately owned, thereby permitting the extraction of surplus value and the dynamics of uneven capitalist accumulation. He is clear that commodities existed long before the capitalist mode of production became dominant. So in what sense has the market *now* become all but extinct? Do you just mean that giant oligopolies have so much influence on demand and distribution that they effectively control it? Regards Chris
Re: The market [Socialism Now}
Sorry Chris I should be clearer than this. I am not saying that every kind of market is gone, classic markets exists albeit on a small scale. At one point or another profits must be realisied via exchange and that too is a market mechanism. However under classic capitalism the whole of the economy was animated by market exchanges (as per the nature of individual private capitals in intercourse). Monopoly capital internalisied such market exchanges into internal transactions, which strengthen its control over actual exchanges taking place elsewhere. In turn this strengthened position gives such leavage over existing markets they soon cease to exist as markets - the monopolies merely determining the rate of exchange. This has become so common that the real difficulty is seeing the market-governor determining the socially necessary labour in these exchanges - rather what we are seeing is the result of planning. The question posed by a particular rate of exchange dwell more on the plans of the major players (takeover as against out-sourcing, diversification as against core business, and risk management strategies), then the displine of market buying and selling. In a sense some of this can be seen in the consumer market where labling and services almost become the commodity while the actual product seems to come a poor second. The other more obvious attribute is the army of accountants needed to replace market operations, the immense amount of paper-work generated in order to keep track of all the elements and, of course, crisis appearing as a managerial attribute rather than direct market forces. In this there is no turning back the clock as the neo-liberals pretend (invariably leading to an explosion in paper-work and accountants). The chaos of the market (its actual governance of production) is well and truely pushed into the background - which is the essence of my point. The chaos we now enjoy is a coporate bureacratic one. Greg Schofield Perth Australia --- Message Received --- From: Chris Burford [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 06:55:24 + Subject: [PEN-L:19692] The market [Socialism Now} Greg, can you expand in what sense you mean this? Certainly it is clear in Marx that he described an essentially social process that appeared to be privately owned, and was treated legally as privately owned, thereby permitting the extraction of surplus value and the dynamics of uneven capitalist accumulation. He is clear that commodities existed long before the capitalist mode of production became dominant. So in what sense has the market *now* become all but extinct? Do you just mean that giant oligopolies have so much influence on demand and distribution that they effectively control it? Regards Chris
RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism
I've never met anyone so dumb as to claim the fact that the Second International did *no* thinking about what society would look like after the revolution played a role in opening the way for Stalin. Until now... I have not been a part of this thread and tend to generally avoid these kinds of discussions. I also don't know Brad. But I think this kind of insulting, patronizing and arrogant remark is totally out of line, whoever it is aimed at. When I was a graduate student at Berkeley, I was struck by how common this style of rhetoric was, especially among members of the economics department. "Look how smart I am by saying you are dumb." A number of preceptive observers of elite academia (sorry, don't have the cites at my figure tips) have comments on how many of personalities in academia (especially those who have spent all there life on the graduate school - professorship sequence) have infantisized personalities. Maybe it's time to grow-up.
Market Socialism: Secret Socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/14/01 11:03PM Probably not intentionally calculated to do so. Michael Yates suggested that it was a reflexive action. As I said, it is not a reflex action. It is a mere commonplace: If you refuse to *think* about the future--claim that thinking about the future is positively harmful--don't be surprised at whatever future you get. Wrap yourself up in the mantle of Marx and refuse to think about the future, and you wind up with Lenin's understanding of the German planned World War I economy. That's one of the things that happened to world socialism between 1917 and its nadir in August 1939. ( CB: Odd how Brad talks like he is sort of a socialist, like he has been planning out a socialist future. Is it that you are a better socialist than the openly declared socialists , Brad , ? Something like, the best socialists have remained in the closet.
Market Socialism
Is Brad D. discussing and planning a socialist or a capitalist future ? CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/13/01 05:56PM Wow. On Thu, Apr 12, 2001 at 10:41:54PM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote: I recall how Marx scrupulously tried to avoid discussions about how to organize the future, since it would just set off squabbling. And *not* discussing how to organize the future leads to... Stalin. I'd rather have a *lot* of squabbling myself... Brad DeLong
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism
The observation that the post-1918 Bolshevik Party had no clue what kind of society it should be building--and that that was a big source of trouble--is not red-baiting. It's a commonplace. I've never met anyone so dumb as to claim the fact that the Second International did *no* thinking about what society would look like after the revolution played a role in opening the way for Stalin. Until now... Brad DeLong Of course, George Washington and Alexander Hamilton knew exatcly what they were doing... Ian
Re: Re: Market Socialism
Oh I dunno, during the more extreme flame wars in here, there are days when I think I should join the (jackie) masonic order (who unlike the Stonecutters on "The Simpsons" may really be making Steve Guttenberg a star) Ann Seriously, I learn a lot in here and am continuously reminded of what I still need to study including what would market socialism do with(out) e-commerce. - Original Message - From: "Michael Perelman" [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Friday, April 13, 2001 11:54 PM Subject: [PEN-L:10198] Re: Market Socialism I don't think so. I know that my own views have grown from many of the discussions here -- except for Jackie Mason. On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 11:45:21PM -0400, Doug Henwood wrote: Michael Perelman wrote: For example, you could easily divide up the participants in the earlier debates into a small number of groups and identify which post came from which group. I think you have a hard time finding anybody who demonstrated any change in their thinking as a result of any of the communications. Is that untrue of other things we discuss here? Postmodernism? Catastrophe? Anarchism? Jackie Mason? Doug -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism
I wrote: "let's you and him fight!" -- is this an effort to divide and conquer (what's left of) the left? quoth Brad, in his wisdom: No. It's an attempt to *think* about the future. If you want to make not thinking about the future a virtue, go ahead... Michael, is the above calculated to spark a flame-war? Speaking of not thinking, if Brad had done any of that, he'd have noticed that I'm one of the people who argues that one should look before leaping, think about possible socialisms... BTW, I'm not convinced that the Second International and other socialist forces did no thinking about how socialism would be organized before 1917. One of the biggest-selling books on the left during the late 19th century was Edward Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD, a utopian novel. He wasn't a Marxist (since he saw class antagonism as an evil) but his vision could be assimilated by top-down socialists of various stripes, including both Stalinists and mainstream social democrats. In many ways, his technocratic/patriotic model of the industrial army represents a statement of the positive ideals of Stalinism. (It's sort of the "dual" of the Arrow-Debreu-Walras model of general equilibrium, but instead as a totally planned economy. In the end, both are equally silly, though.) On the other hand, there were socialist responses to Bellamy, such as William Morris' NEWS FROM NOWHERE. This was embraced by many outside the social-democratic mainstream. In the end, however, I can't blame a lack of thinking or Bellamy-type thinking for the rise of Stalinism. It's more a matter of actual history, not the history of ideas. The Russian revolution was well-nigh inevitable. Lenin and the Bolsheviks stepped in and tried to make it a good thing for workers and peasants. The imperialist powers invaded and encouraged the civil war (which would have happened anyway), so Lenin _et al_ had little choice but to embrace more top-down "solutions." (They were roundly denouced for this by bourgeois thinkers, as if the bourgeoisie didn't rule in a top-down way as a matter of course.) The transition to Stalinism (which might have happened when Lenin still had power) came when virtue was made of necessity -- and then when nationalism was embraced. -- Jim Devine - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://bstar.net/panda/
Re: Market Socialism
Probably not intentionally calculated to do so. Michael Yates suggested that it was a reflexive action. Let me raise a question -- not specifically about whether or not the rise of Stalin was the result of an intellectual failure -- regarding how many degrees of freedom a country has after a revolution. I think that Lou has written about how few choices Nicaragua had when then Sandinistas stepped in. Now, a couple of us have gone round and round regarding the TINA perspective, meaning that you have to conform to the market or you are screwed. I don't believe it, but I do think that countries are limited in how far they can go. I suspect that the world will owe Cuba a great debt in the future for showing how far ingenuity can allow a country to survive with few ties to the world economy. The Wall Street Journal this week had a short piece showing how Iraq is also developing some modest innovations in the face of the embargo. But countries also have to pay a great price for independence. I have rambled enough. [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: quoth Brad, in his wisdom: No. It's an attempt to *think* about the future. If you want to make not thinking about the future a virtue, go ahead... Michael, is the above calculated to spark a flame-war? Speaking of not thinking, if Brad had done any of that, he'd have noticed that I'm one of the people who argues that one should look before leaping, think about possible socialisms... -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Market Socialism
Probably not intentionally calculated to do so. Michael Yates suggested that it was a reflexive action. As I said, it is not a reflex action. It is a mere commonplace: If you refuse to *think* about the future--claim that thinking about the future is positively harmful--don't be surprised at whatever future you get. Wrap yourself up in the mantle of Marx and refuse to think about the future, and you wind up with Lenin's understanding of the German planned World War I economy. That's one of the things that happened to world socialism between 1917 and its nadir in August 1939.
Knowing the Present Re: Market Socialism [ was
"The movement is everything, the final goal is nothing."
Bernstein
"The final goal is everything, the movement is nothing."
Luxemburg
"Writing recipes for the cookshops of the future is not our thing"
(slightly paraphased)
Marx
"The anatomy of the human hand is a key to the anatomy of the ape. . .
."
Marx
And see Chapter 8, "Studying History Backward: A Neglected Feature of
the Materialiust Conception of History" in Bertell Ollman, _Dialectical
Investigations_.
The key point in Marx's reference to the ape and the human hand is that
no amount of study of the ape's anatomy can establish the subsequent
evolution -- to discover that potential one must look backward from
knowledge of the human hand.
Discussions of the nature of socialism socialism are absurd if conducted
from the p[erspectuive of being a motive for strugle -- that is, from
the perspective of being seen as humanity's reward for struggle. But we
cannot understand the present except by looking backward from the
future.
Feudalism no more necessarily led to capitalism than he ape led to homo
sapiens; it could have been vastly otherwise. In Stephen Gould's analogy
the tape of life would not run the same if replayed; similarly the tape
of human history would not run the same if replayed.
But unlike all earler social systems capitalism contains the elements of
its own necessary dissolution -- that is, capitalism can only be
understood when looked back on from the future. It is absurd and
destructive to write recipes for the cook shops of the future, but to
understand the present we must see that capitalism _necessarily_ leads
to either socialism or barbarianism, that capitalism except insofar as
it is the womb of socialism is endlessly destructive. Hence our
_general_ conception of socialism is an integral part of our
understanding of capitalism.
Those who see capitalism as a merely necessary extenstion of feudalism,
as merely feudal commerce grown wealthier and bigger and with more
technology, not as a qualitatively different social system, come to see
it merely in moral (moralistic) terms, and see socialism merely as a
morally preferable system. They become obsessed with proving how bad
capitalism is (which leads, among other things, to various forms of
anarchism) or they become obsessed with proving how good socialism will
be (which leads, among other things, to various forms of radical
liberalism). In either case we are apt to end up with some more or less
disguised version of Bernsteinism, which because it sees socialism
merely as a desirable goal rather than a necessary outcome of capitalism
("necessary" does _not_ mean "inevitable") can proclaim that the present
(tactics) is everything, the final goal nothing. But the final goal is
everything because it is only that final goal which makes the present
intelligible, and thus allows rational discussion of strategy and
tactics.
Carrol
Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
Louis Proyect wrote: I don't know about Chase-Dunn and 'market socialism'. In this 1999 article on "Globalization: a World Systems Perspective", he calls for soft-pedaling opposition to WTO and throwing one's support behind a 'global state' whatever its class character. Although I lack sufficient motivation to read Hardt-Negri's "Empire", it seems that the same kind of neo-Bernsteinism is at work here. Except for the minor detail that they're anti-statists. Doug
Re: Knowing the Present Re: Market Socialism [ was
Carrol writes:Discussions of the nature of socialism socialism are absurd if conducted from the p[erspectuive of being a motive for strugle -- that is, from the perspective of being seen as humanity's reward for struggle. But we cannot understand the present except by looking backward from the future. right, we shouldn't see discussions of socialism's anatomy as being descriptions of what will (or can) be obtained via struggle. However, it someone like Alec Nove or John Roemer argues that the only kind of socialism that's "feasible" is something that looks a lot like capitalism, why shouldn't we argue that something better is feasible? unless one is totally "into facts" (a total empiricist), why is it wrong to think about future possibilities? It's best to at least _try_ to look before leaping, as long as we remember that our "looks" are necessarily provisional and incomplete and (most importantly) abstract. ...But unlike all earler social systems capitalism contains the elements of its own necessary dissolution -- that is, capitalism can only be understood when looked back on from the future. It is absurd and destructive to write recipes for the cook shops of the future, but to understand the present we must see that capitalism _necessarily_ leads to either socialism or barbarianism, that capitalism except insofar as it is the womb of socialism is endlessly destructive. Hence our _general_ conception of socialism is an integral part of our understanding of capitalism. right. As far as I can tell, in his CAPITAL Marx saw two major elements of socialism as developing in the "womb" of capitalism. One was the huge joint-stock corporation (a small-scale centrally-planned economy) and the other was worker cooperatives. I see nothing wrong with speculating about how these two elements can coexist and actually prosper as an alternative to capitalism, as long as we remember that it's speculation. I guess the current discussion of possible socialisms is going to die, since (1) as Michael Perelman makes clear, we don't want to rehash an old debate about so-called "market socialism"; and (2) these days, the debate about "market socialism" vs. planning schemes of various sorts (Albert/Hahnel, Pat (no relation) Devine, David Laibman, etc.) is the only simple way to organize a serious discussion. But we shouldn't rule out discussions of how socialism can and should be organized as _a matter of principle_ as Louis would have it. Otherwise, we're into cheer-leading for Kemal Ataturk, Juan Peron, and other bourgeois leaders. We have to ask how the people -- workers and other oppressed groups -- can rule, rather than always choosing amongst bourgeois elites. -- Jim Devine - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://bstar.net/panda/
Knowing the Present Re: Market Socialism [ was
Re: Re: Knowing the Present Re: Market Socialism [ was
But we shouldn't rule out discussions of how socialism can and should be organized as _a matter of principle_ as Louis would have it. Otherwise, we're into cheer-leading for Kemal Ataturk, Juan Peron, and other bourgeois leaders. We have to ask how the people -- workers and other oppressed groups -- can rule, rather than always choosing amongst bourgeois elites. -- Jim Devine This is a gross distortion of my views. I am not a cheer-leader. I favor development on a national scale free of imperialist interference. To reduce the governments of Lazaro Cardenas, Peron, Nasser and Kemal to "bourgeois elites" is simplistic. Socialists must solidarize with all efforts to use the wealth of a developing country for the common good, even if it is not according to the socialist abc's. In such countries, the job of socialists is to mobilize the masses to defend anti-imperialist gains until they can be persuaded in their majority to fight for socialism. Nationalist regimes in the third world are *not* the enemies of the people, unless they use nationalism as a demagogic way to oppose social change. In this hemisphere and in Africa an example of this kind of nationalism would be Duvalier's and Mobutu's use of "negritude" themes. If we can't tell the difference between someone like Duvalier and Aristide on one hand, or Mobutu and Lumumba on the other, then we need a refresher course in history and politics. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Market Socialism
I recall how Marx scrupulously tried to avoid discussions about how to organize the future, since it would just set off squabbling. And *not* discussing how to organize the future leads to... Stalin. I'd rather have a *lot* of squabbling myself... Brad DeLong
Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/12/01 05:28PM The nation state is here to stay at least in the medium term, and it is the worst kind of idealism to talk glibly about "smashing" it in the classical Leninist manner, as Lenin himself found out. (( CB: Lenin didn't advocate "smashing" the state. He advocated replacing the bourgeois state with a socialist state. The state only whithers away when thee are no more bourgeois states in the world.See _The State and Revolution_
