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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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.
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: 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: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism
"let's you and him fight!" -- is this an effort to divide and conquer (what's left of) the left? -- Jim Devine No. It's an attempt to *think* about the future. If you want to make not thinking about the future a virtue, go ahead...
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
Jim Devine: In fact, I think that Lenin did a lot of thinking about how socialism should be organized, in his STATE AND REVOLUTION. I'm sure this attitude was shared by other Bolsheviks, especially as they found that power was in their hands. Yes, Lenin did a lot of thinking about how socialism should be organized after 1917 because he was trying to run a socialist government. I don't think such talk among people like us does very much good. It is much better to figure out how to deal with immediate questions such as deregulation, the stock market, IMF austerity, etc. At least on questions such as these, we can exchange useful information. On the question of how to organize socialism, I'd think I'd prefer to discuss whether people will engage in sports after socialism. My old pal Derrick Morrison used to love to provoke people in SWP headquarters on a saturday afternoon by saying that under socialism, nobody would compete at baseball, etc. We also used to discuss how children would be reared. I frequently stated that it would be done by professionals with no blood ties to the kids. Nothing could have been worse than the bourgeois family. Ah, the 1960s! Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was
Louis writes: I don't think such talk [about how socialism is to be run] among people like us does very much good. It is much better to figure out how to deal with immediate questions such as deregulation, the stock market, IMF austerity, etc. At least on questions such as these, we can exchange useful information. Again, I don't see why these two topics (how socialism should be organized immediate issues, tactics, and strategies) are mutually exclusive. If you're not interested in the first topic, you don't have to read what pen-l people have to say. (You could filter your messages so that all messages with subject lines including the word "socialism" are automatical sent to the trash can.) But just because you're not interested in a topic doesn't mean that pen-l can't discuss it. As far as I can tell, the only person who has that kind of say is Michael Perelman. BTW, what type of people _should_ be discussing issues of how socialism should be run? Don't you think a bunch of professional economists and economically-literate folks could add something? - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://bstar.net/panda/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was
Jim Devine: automatical sent to the trash can.) But just because you're not interested in a topic doesn't mean that pen-l can't discuss it. As far as I can tell, the only person who has that kind of say is Michael Perelman. Actually, I think that Michael just said that the topic has been done to death. BTW, what type of people _should_ be discussing issues of how socialism should be run? Don't you think a bunch of professional economists and economically-literate folks could add something? Naw, it can wait. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was
Jim Devine: BTW, what type of people _should_ be discussing issues of how socialism should be run? Don't you think a bunch of professional economists and economically-literate folks could add something? Naw, it can wait. Louis Proyect Friends, I am not writing this to pour further gasoline into the fire. As far as I am concerned, I recieved enough information to continue my own reading on the subject of market socialism. The reason why I am writing this is that back home, we, the left (not only the socialists but also the social democrats, excluding third-wayers, and even the tiny groups anarchists, ecologists and the like), are being challenged by the counter party to offer an alternative in these days. Wouldn't it have been nicer if we were better prepared? Best, Sabri __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Market socialism -- summing up?
Thanks. Okay, Michael. I will, but a blatant misrepresentation of what I had said, added to several posts attacking my intelligence finally got to me. I'm calm, really I am. Real calm. Maybe a good game of basketball would help me. And my next softball game isn't until thursday. Rod Michael Perelman wrote: Calm down plase. Rod Hay wrote: You provided a lot of bluster about the Soviet Union. I am talking about something much simpler and more in my limited grasp. Real existing non market institutions, that seem to work perfectly well. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] The History of Economic Thought Archive http://socserv2.mcmaster.ca/~econ/ugcm/3ll3/index.html Batoche Books http://Batoche.co-ltd.net/ 52 Eby Street South Kitchener, Ontario N2G 3L1 Canada -- 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
In a message dated 7/16/00 11:02:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I have read Schweickart, but you do us all a service by summarizing his work so well. Let's look at (1). Some cooperatives do better than others. Now comes time to replace a worker. What is the relative position of her/his replacement? Does the original worker share in the continued profits of the firm? Is the new worker given the same rights as the initial worker? These are decisions that coops will make. The firms are worker self-managed. They decide how But you are worried that the coops will exploit the workers somehow. I am sure that could be a problem in some circumstances,w hich is why therew ould have top be unions and labor legislation. What is this free/regulated market? Firms still have the incentive to play market games, e.g. cutting back on quality to save money ... or to throw external costs onto society . Sure. That is why we have government, to provide the postive externalties the market won't (public goods like roads and schools) and to regulate negatve externalities like pollution. The regullatred market is not taht different from the one that operates in social democratic countriesa, except that there is no cvapitalist class to distort the legislature or administraive process. --jks
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: market socialism
In a message dated 7/16/00 1:45:23 PM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: This is a very helpful post. Is there anywhere on line where one could read up on the essential features of market socialism etc. Don't know, alas. I'd order Dave's book, in paperback from Westview Press. 2) How does Schweickart envision that we get from here to his system? Surely it is important to trace the forces withing capitalism that lead to market socialism. It seems to me that as the energy crisis hits us workers will demand a command and rationing system rather than a market. In a market distribution of scarce energy resources those in developed countries will see what were earlier considered everyday comforts and conveniences priced beyond reach. Dave has a discussion of this, which is good--I mean, thatr he has a discussion of it. He identifies various socializing tendencies he sees at work. I think he is a tad reformist in his thinking. But basically, withj differences of emphasis, he does not disagree that the program would have to be promoted by the government,w hich would require a party committed to the program to have control of the government, which woukld require a lot of struggle. 3) What of pensions both old age and disability? What is a public good? Is electricity marketed? Gas? How does one decide? Dave and I support old age and disability pensions tahtw ould be far more generous than the ones we have. As to electrivity, gas, etc., wherher they would be marketed, I don't think there is an a priori answer. I say, plan what you can, market what you must. El;ectricity and natural gas are pretty close to pradigmatic of things that can be successfully planned. A public good is a good such that everyone benefits if someone else provides it, so there is a graet temptation to free ride, not to do anything to provide it yourself. Roads, schools, national defense are the usual examples. 4) As for the calculation problem. I have not studied it. In fact I don't know precisely what it is supposed to be except broadly the difficulty of compiling all the information that one would need to plan production in the absence of market prices. That is a good first approximation. I have been repeatedly restating the C-problem over the last while. It is my argument against pure planning. I thought that computers could help solve that and techniqus such as input-output analaysis as well. These help, but there must be accurate informatiuon for them to work on. Planning has no incentives to discocver and provide accurate information; the reserve is true. That's the rub. What of Timeworks remarks on the issue? What's that? --jks
