About a Hahnel & Albert-type socialism, Justin S writes:>> Politicization of the whole economy will mean that each group will try to put the burdens and costs on other groups while reapin[g] advantages for themselves.<< Wait a sec, Justin! that's _exactly_ the way a capitalist market works (see, e.g., E.K. Hunt's critique of welfare economics in the Ed Nell edited volume, GROWTH, PROFITS, AND PROPERTY). I see _no_ reason to see a "socialist market" not acting in the same way. A "socialized market" would involve a lot of regulation, special taxes, etc. This in turn would encourage lobbying by the producers (whether they're run as cooperatives or not), in order to ease their regulatory burden and the effluent taxes they have to pay (and raise the bounties they get from central authorities for producing external benefits). Of course, the wealthier or luckier producers (co-ops) would have the most influence... They can then turn that influence into greater wealth. So they could dump costs on others and "internalize the external economies" of others. At least you have to admit that Robin is addressing the issue of how one can structure a socialist economy to avoid encouraging the aggressive-individualistic or particularistic motives that are both encouraged by and mess up the capitalist market and the "socialized market." BTW, Marx accurately pointed to the increasingly overt socialization of individualized production. In more common-sense terms, this refers to the growth of economic power, interdependency, the importance of external costs & benefits, etc., etc. Increased socialization of production automatically produces increased politicization of individual activities. We can't avoid that politicization (meaning that we can't go up to our cabins in the woods, become totally self-sufficient, and avoid all other people). The question is: is the politicization going to be democratic (one person/one vote) or capitalist (one dollar/one vote)? I didn't see my pen-l missive on this subject from last week in the pen-l archives at csf.colorado.edu (or even in my own archives), so here it is again. Sorry if it is repetitive, redundant, pleonastic, or duplicative. In addition to the issue of external costs & benefits, Robin Hahnel is onto something that Kenneth Arrow noted a long time ago: "Under the system of a free market, such feelings [social values, the ordering of social states according to moral standards] play no direct part in social choice... The market mechanism... takes into account only the ordering according to tastes [the ordering according to the direct consumption by the individual]." (SOCIAL CHOICE AND INDIVIDUAL VALUES, 1963: p. 18). Social preferences, like feelings of solidarity, cannot be expressed in an atomized market setting. Robin also stresses how a competitive environment encourages the type of personality that actively externalizes external costs (i.e., dumps) and internalizes internal benefits (cream-skims, etc.) Since external costs and benefits (including the "pecuniary" ones) are omnipresent, this argument has to be answered seriously. I'll get back to the NAIRU later... in pen-l solidarity, Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
