Jim (Devine), I liked your post on dumping costs and the idealization of markets by some market socialists as a magical way to avoid "political" social choice decisions. I too like much of Hahnel-Albert's work but feel that their categorical rejection of all market mechanisms is counter productive and leaves them open to the wishfull thinking impractical utopian type criticism to which they have been subjected. I think pen-l readers (market socialists and non alike) may find SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISISM: THE NEW MARKET SOCIALISM by Christopher Pierson (Penn State , 1995) of interest. I'm reveiwing for SCIENCE AND SOCIETY which sent me the book out of the blue - for which I'm grateful. Pierson who is a political scientist has packed an awsomely exhaustive survey of market socialism both from economists , but particualry from policy sci theorists such as Dahl, Held, and Gould, which is highly relevant to this debate but which we economists rarely address. His conclusion: though the market socialists have provoked a much needed debate on some traditional socialist assumptions, it is not a viable or feasible program for the future. Among other things this is because market socialists are not Hayekians who can see the market as an absolute ideal but rather acknowledge that bad market outcomes must be corrected politically. This implies an embedding of markets in politics in a way that Neo-Liberals would dispise, but which means that markets can only be advocated conditionally for utilitarian purposes by market socialists so that in the end the issue once again is increased democratization and accountability of both the state and civil society - a job which cnnot be reduced to markets. Pierson argues that in the end market socialism is also not a FEASIBLE strategy politically as the changes in ownership it advocates would be fiercly resisted and could not be implemented without collapsing an existing captialist economy (esp. in an era of global capitalism) This which is also the problem of social democratic reforms which led to some of the market socialism ideas IS NOT SOLVED by market socialism. Pierson seems to lean towards a "wage-fund" or "pension-fund" staregy which a la Meidner could be implemented gradually out of growth. Finally,an era of increasing recognition of "environmental limits" whatever they may be, implies greater atention to collective control over resources. So we're back to social choice, "externalities", and the environment - (my reading) once again. You can run but you can't hide (from social choice) behind a market! Cheers! Ron Baiman Economics, Roosevelt Univ., Chicago