Re: the socialist transition about the role of rights, but it is not the
defining axis of socialism as such
My socialism is about creating the conditions for the free and full
development of each as the condition for the free and full development of
all. Is the Declaration?
Socialists have
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
At 19/11/01 11:11 -0500, Robert Needham wrote:
Greg Scoflield has raised interesting issues. I am more pessimitic than he.
But there are some optimistic predetermined milestones. If one defines a
democratic socialist society as one moving in the direction of equality of
citizenship and equality
]
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
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
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
Greg Scoflield has raised interesting issues. I am more pessimitic than he.
But there are some optimistic predetermined milestones. If one defines a
democratic socialist society as one moving in the direction of equality of
citizenship and equality of human rights then, from the Declaration of
Just because companies have monopoly power and owe
their power (property rights and all) to the state,
doesn't mean that market mechanisms have become
unimportant. Markets serve as a serious constraint on
the choices open to the directors of almost any
company. This is why I ask what you mean by
The insurance case is on the table now. There is an
interesting column today in the Post by Warren Buffet;
his company sells insurance and lost a few billion last
month.
He makes what to me is a persuasive point that the
costs of some disasters exceed the total capitalization
of the industry,
Max's example of insurance is on the spot. Originally, as I understand it,
insurance began with shipowners sharing risks among themselves. In this
way, though individual shipwreck could destroy a prosperous shipowner.
With the great fire of London of 1666, early capitalist business took note
At 19/11/01 10:06 -0800, you wrote:
Max's example of insurance is on the spot. Originally, as I understand it,
insurance began with shipowners sharing risks among themselves. In this
way, though individual shipwreck could destroy a prosperous shipowner.
With the great fire of London of 1666,
Chris, the Dutch led in financial innovations of all kinds. Annuities
preceded insurance, I believe. Shipping insurance preceded fire
insurance.
Fire insurance was considered to be a public service. Ben Franklin worked
on introducing fire insurance in Pennsylvania, I believe -- working from
:19698] Re: Re: Socialism Now
Just because companies have monopoly power and owe
their power (property rights and all) to the state,
doesn't mean that market mechanisms have become
unimportant. Markets serve as a serious constraint on
the choices open to the directors of almost any
company. This is why
the role and plans of super-monopolies, but
politically we have become reductionist.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
--- Message Received ---
From: Frederick Guy [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:12:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [PEN-L:19698] Re: Re: Socialism Now
]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 11:11:44 -0500
Subject: [PEN-L:19697] Re: Re: Re: Socialism Now
Greg Scoflield has raised interesting issues. I am more pessimitic than he.
But there are some optimistic predetermined milestones. If one defines a
democratic socialist society as one moving in the direction
On Sunday, November 18, 2001 at 15:23:43 (+0800) Greg Schofield writes:
...
The fact is that socialism does not have to wait, that historically it
has already come of age but in a guise we didn't expect, the struggle
for its Proletarian future should be taking place in the here and
now. The
of the struggle they are already
engaged in.
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
--- Message Received ---
From: William S. Lear [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 08:21:49 -0600
Subject: [PEN-L:19684] Re: Socialism Now
Sorry, but I find this a bit facile. There is a tremendous
Hard-headed types? Greg there hundreds, perhaps thousands of
groupsicals, with heads that are not only hard, but made of pure wood.
Greg Schofield wrote:
Bill, the problem is partly found in your answer.
That is you see proletarian socialism as the objective, as an abstraction which must
Aside from proletarian power, what is absent from today's society that would be needed
for socialism to work as a economic system?
Nothing!
That's right not a single thing is needed aside from proletarian control - all the
social mechanisms exist albeit in the hands of the ruling class.
Marx
I would find it helpful if you specified what you mean by 'socialism'
and 'socialisied'.
I am skeptical because some of the past uses of 'socialised' in this
context do not seem applicable today. There was an argument based on
certain isomorphisms of socialist and capitalist production and
Received ---
From: Gar Lipow [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Sun, 18 Nov 2001 09:09:22 -0800
Subject: [PEN-L:19686] Re: Re: Re: Socialism Now
snipped
21:50:30 +
Subject: [PEN-L:19687] Re: Re: Re: Socialism Now
I would find it helpful if you specified what you mean by 'socialism'
and 'socialisied'.
I am skeptical because some of the past uses of 'socialised' in this
context do not seem applicable today. There was an argument based
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
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
Aside from proletarian power, what is absent from today's society that would be needed
for socialism to work as a economic system?
Nothing!
That's right not a single thing is needed aside from proletarian control - all the
social mechanisms exist albeit in the hands of the ruling class.
Marx
25 matches
Mail list logo
