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]
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: : 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: 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: 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: 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: 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
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
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
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: 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
Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/12/01 05:03PM -In fact, if anything, it is classical Marxist doctrine- Marx was quite clear -in calling for socialists to support the greatest centralization of the -state possible, erasing localism as much as possible. ((( CB: Isn't Marx supporting centralization of a _socialist_, NOT bourgeois state ? He's not saying the workers' movement should support reforms to centralize a bourgeois state, but revolutionary overthrow of the bourgeoisie state to be replaced by a socialist state that is centralized, no ? Centralizing the bourgeois state would be a step thwarting the workers from overthrowing and replacing it. --- No, Marx in 1850 looking at Germany was comparing it to expectations of the French Revolution - ie. the triumph of a bourgeois revolution. The idea was that a more centralized bourgois state would be riper for later proletarian revolution because workers would not be divided into myriad localistic struggles but would combine together. Marx was moderately favorable towards Bismarck, at least in the sense of preferring his success over the local states Bismarck forced into his Prussian-led central state. Engels would later note that Social Democrats would organize tremendously successfully in that more centralized political environment. In a sense, Marx's analysis like Chase-Dunn's reflects the logic that Daniel Singer laid out in his THE END OF SOCIALISM where he noted that the power of capital strike and flight made localistic socialist parties unlikely to succeed in radical transformation but would instead cave to the threats of capitalism- essentially the fear of a race to the bottom in competition for capital. There is a strong logic to global centralization where working class movements can push for global socialist reforms without becoming entangled into the national politics of "competitiveness." -- Nathan Newman
Re: Market Socialism
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 -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
Marx was moderately favorable towards Bismarck, at least in the sense of preferring his success over the local states Bismarck forced into his Prussian-led central state. Engels would later note that Social Democrats would organize tremendously successfully in that more centralized political environment. Marx and Engels agitated for bourgeois democracy, which entailed the creation of a unitary German state. But without democracy, the workers would not be able to press class-based demands. Parliamentary democracy tends to go with a unified national state on the France 1789 model, but without the right to vote, form unions, etc., there is little value in a unitary bourgeois state per se. In a sense, Marx's analysis like Chase-Dunn's reflects the logic that Daniel Singer laid out in his THE END OF SOCIALISM where he noted that the power of capital strike and flight made localistic socialist parties unlikely to succeed in radical transformation but would instead cave to the threats of capitalism- essentially the fear of a race to the bottom in competition for capital. -- Nathan Newman I didn't realize that Singer had been into a leftish kind of TINA. That stuff was certainly widespread, wasn't it. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
TINA and Internationalist Socialism (was Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
- Original Message - From: "Louis Proyect" [EMAIL PROTECTED] In a sense, Marx's analysis like Chase-Dunn's reflects the logic that Daniel Singer laid out in his THE END OF SOCIALISM where he noted that the power of capital strike and flight made localistic socialist parties unlikely to succeed in radical transformation but would instead cave to the threats of capitalism- essentially the fear of a race to the bottom in competition for capital. -- Nathan Newman -I didn't realize that Singer had been into a leftish kind of TINA. That -stuff was certainly widespread, wasn't it. Well, in a sense every internationalist socialist, from Marx through Trotsky through Chase-Dunn, have argued that socialism in one country was an impossibility. So TINA was always a Marxist truism at the nation-state level. Thatcherism sought to argue by (false) analogy that since it was socialist policies ran into contradictions nationally, it was therefore impossible anywhere, thus making capitalism inevitable everywhere. I've sometimes joked that a purely localistic left focus on politics could be summed up as "Think Globally, Discredit yourself Locally" as capital strikes, runaway shops and corporate blackmail undermines attempts at localistic socialist-oriented solutions. Many quite rational working class voters support economic conservatives, not because they like their policies, but because accomodating capital will lead to a greater share of capital versus other communities. As each community thereby competes for capital, working class folks end up collectively poorer, but that doesn't change the rationality of the localistic votes. This is the point of Marx (and Singer and Chase-Dunn), that only in a more centralized state will working class rationality make socialism more rational than opportunistic competition for capital between communities. Localistic politics creates all kinds of prisoner dilemmas as cities try to beggar each other in pursuit of capital. The silliest versions are the corporate welfare to sports arenas but there are many other versions as state governments compete with one another through tax abatements, lower taxes and subsidies, just as nations compete through similar means. It is collectively idiotic but often quite rational as individual local political measures. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism
Brad just can't help red baiting. It's part of the air the breathes. michael yates 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: Market Socialism
Brad writes: And *not* discussing how to organize the future leads to... Stalin. so was a lack of prior discussion the basis of the bloodiness of the revolution from above that's being foisted on the world by the "Washington Consensus" (the US Treasury, the IMF, the World Bank)? I'd rather have a *lot* of squabbling myself... "let's you and him fight!" -- is this an effort to divide and conquer (what's left of) the left? -- Jim Devine - This message was sent using Panda Mail. Check your regular email account away from home free! http://bstar.net/panda/
Re: TINA and Internationalist Socialism (was Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
Nathan: Well, in a sense every internationalist socialist, from Marx through Trotsky through Chase-Dunn, have argued that socialism in one country was an impossibility. So TINA was always a Marxist truism at the nation-state level. Thatcherism sought to argue by (false) analogy that since it was socialist policies ran into contradictions nationally, it was therefore impossible anywhere, thus making capitalism inevitable everywhere. TINA means that "there is no alternative" to capitalism. Marxists don't think in these terms, only people who have become cowed by capitalism. This is the point of Marx (and Singer and Chase-Dunn), that only in a more centralized state will working class rationality make socialism more rational than opportunistic competition for capital between communities. I have no idea what this means. Sorry. Localistic politics creates all kinds of prisoner dilemmas as cities try to beggar each other in pursuit of capital. The silliest versions are the corporate welfare to sports arenas but there are many other versions as state governments compete with one another through tax abatements, lower taxes and subsidies, just as nations compete through similar means. It is collectively idiotic but often quite rational as individual local political measures. Er. Okay. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism
Brad just can't help red baiting. It's part of the air the breathes. michael yates 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 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
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: Market Socialism
Thinking about the future is very important, but talking about it doesn't make much sense when people have stopped thinking and merely assert what they believe to be true. 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. So is not a matter of thinking about the future, but rather insisting that everybody else adopt a specific vision. On Fri, Apr 13, 2001 at 08:15:52PM -0700, Brad DeLong wrote: 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 Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Market Socialism
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
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: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
[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. Tendencies toward political/economic monopoly across national boundaries are hailed on the basis of accelerating the formation of the objective basis for world socialism. In fact such processes only helped to pave the way for WWI. The nationalism that Chase-Dunn decries is merely the dialectical twin of structures such as FTAA or WTO. Socialism will only be achieved by arming the working class and smashing all such structures whether they are confined to a single nation-state or extend globally.] http://csf.colorado.edu/jwsr/archive/vol5/vol5_number2/html/chase-dunn/index .shtml Of course, capitalists know as well as others that effective adjudication means the establishment of a global monopoly of legitimate violence. The process of state formation has a long history, and the king's army needs to be bigger than any combination of private armies which might be brought against him. While the idea of a world state may be a frightening specter to some, I am optimistic about it for several reasons. First, a world state is probably the most direct and stable way to prevent nuclear holocaust, a desideratum which must be at the top of everyone's list. Secondly, the creation of a global state which can peacefully adjudicate disputes among nations will transform the existing interstate system. The interstate system is the political structure which stands behind the maneuverability of capital and its ability to escape organized workers and other social constraints on profitable accumulation. While a world state may at first be dominated by capitalists, the very existence of such a state will provide a single focus for struggles to socially regulate investment decisions and to create a more balanced, egalitarian and ecologically sound form of production and distribution. The progressive response to neoliberalism needs to be organized at national, international and global levels if it is to succeed. Democratic socialists should be wary of strategies that focus only on economic nationalism and national autarchy as a response to economic globalization. Socialism in one country has never worked in the past and it certainly will not work in a world that is more interlinked than ever before. The old forms of progressive internationalism were somewhat premature, but internationalism has finally become not only desirable but necessary. This does not mean that local, regional and national-level struggles are irrelevant. They are just as relevant as they always have been. But, they need to also have a global strategy and global-level cooperation lest they be isolated and defeated. Communications technology can certainly be an important tool for the kinds of long-distance interactions that will be required for truly international cooperation and coordination among popular movements. It would be a mistake to pit global strategies against national or local ones. All fronts should be the focus of a coordinated effort. W. Warren Wagar (1996) has proposed the formation of a "World Party" as an instrument of "mundialization" -- the creation of a global socialist commonwealth. His proposal has been critiqued from many angles -- as a throw-back to the Third International, etc. I suggest that Wagar's idea is a good one, and that a party of the sort he is advocating will indeed emerge and that it will contribute a great deal toward bringing about a more humane world-system. Self-doubt and post-modern reticence may make such a direct approach appear Napoleonic. It is certainly necessary to learn from past mistakes, but this should not prevent us debating the pros and cons of positive action. The international segment of the world capitalist class is indeed moving slowly toward global state formation. The World Trade Organization is only the latest element in this process. Rather than simply oppose this move with a return to nationalism, progressives should make every effort to organize social and political globalization, and to democratize the emerging global state. We need to prevent the normal operation of the interstate system and future hegemonic rivalry from causing another war among core powers (e.g, Wagar 1992; see also Chase-Dunn and Bornschier 1998). And, we need to shape the emerging world society into a global democratic commonwealth based on collective rationality, liberty and equality. This possibility is present in existing and evolving structures. The agents are all those who are tired of wars and hatred and who desire a humane, sustainable and fair world-system. This is certainly a majority of the people of the Earth. Louis Proyect
Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
Dear Sabri, Stiglitz's book is strangely uninformed for such an intelligent economist. S is right that the Oskar Lange model of "market socialism," formulated in reply to Mises and Hayek on the calculation problem, is neoclassical in inspiration, quite consciously. Lange used to say that Marxist economics is the economics of capitalsim, neoclassical economics the economics of socialism. However, first, recent work by Steele and Boies has made clear the extent to which Lange was not offering a model of market socialism but of planned socialism that used NCE techniques. More recent work on market socialism is divided between neoclassicallly inspired work (Vanek, Roemer) and institutionalist-postKeynesian economics (Schweickart, Ellerman--though Ellerman doesn't call it "socialist" anymore). Schweickart, the main proponent of worker controlled MS in the world today, is hostile to NCE and doesn't use it. I remark that Schweickart is also a mathematician (Ph.D., UVa), and has scathing contempt for the mathematical incompertence of most NCE-ers. We have lunch on Wednesdays, and in our last meeting he called them "dunderheads." So, anyway, while Stiglitz is right in attacking neoclassical market socialism, it is sort of a straw man. At least one has not disposed of MS by attacking the NCE variant of it. As far as information economics goes: I am a self-described Hayekian market socialist. I think that information economics is a solid basis for market socialism. Hayekian arguments show that pure planning can't work for informational-economic reasions, and we need markets. (No, you planning types, I am not going to defend this proposition now; you can look up what I have said about it in the archives.) But contrary to what the Austrians thought, they provide no basis at all for the defense of capitalism, because they don't address why we supposedly need private property in productive assets. I don't know Bosewell Chase-Dunn, though I obviously will have to become familiar with their work. However, if their model is Roemerian, I am unhappy with Roemer for three resaons. First, he has no significant role for worker self-management, which I regard as essential to the socialist project. Second, I am not persuaded that we need any sort of capital markets are of the kind that are central to his model. In fact, I very much doubt whether these are compatible with the degree of democratic control over the economy that I think socialism requires. Third, I have little use for the sort of economic egalitarianism that Roemer makes absolutely central. As I have argued here, I think that material inequality is not a big deal as long as it is not excessive and there is a comfortbale minimum for all. Dear Justin and others, I have three questions: 1) A short while ago I found this book by Stiglitz in a used book store: "Whither Socialism?", The MIT Press, 1996. Have not read the book yet, although skimmed it quickly once. As far as I gathered from this quick look, he is arguing among other things that market socialist models derive from neoclassical economics and, as with other neoclassical models, suffer from an "inadequate" framework for explaning/predicting the behavior market mechanisms, and hence, lead to the "wrong belief" that market socialism could work. What is the response of Market Socialists to such criticism coming from the information economics school? 2) Are there any Market Socialist models which were developed using tools from information economics? 3) I don't know if any of you are familiar with "The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism" by Terry Boswell and Chris Chase-Dunn. It came out from Lynne Rienner in 2000. In this book, they take a departure from a market socialist model, presumably for a national economy, Roemer outlined in his 1994 book "A Future for Socialism" and extend Roemer' s model to the world level after some modifications. Can those of you who are familiar with Boswell and Chase-Dunn model share their views on this model with this list? Best Sabri --- Justin Schwartz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Also, MR won't publish anything by market socialists--it only attacks us from "outside." In the last 20 years, in which MS has been (to say the least) a big topic on the left, MR has not published anything by Schweickart, Roemer, Branko Horvat, J. Vanek, Tom Weisskopf, or even poor lil me. I have had several things on MS bounced from MR with the express explanation that they were very good and written clearly and briefly, but outside the ideological pale. One of the things wasn't even an advocay of MS, but an argument that planned socialists has to take seriously the sort of Hayekian objections that make some people into marked socialists. I remain a subscriber anyway. --jks __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail.
Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
--- Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. This is pretty much what Boswell and Chase-Dunn suggest in "The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism" as well. I am not at all comfortable with the strategy they are suggesting to the global movements, as, for example, it involves supporting the EU and the like and then somehow democratizing them later. I am not claiming that their strategy suggestions have no merits since they suggest, for example, going beyond coordinating existing unions at the global level and organizing the unorganized workers and the unemployed, both in the core and the periphery. However, calling their approach neo-Bernsteinism seems to be a fair assesment. On the other hand, Louis, I don't know how realistic it is to expect in these days that the working class can be armed to smash the structures of capitalism, whether they are at the national or global level, either. In the not so near future, maybe. But any such attempt now in my country would find the Turkish Army, which is immersed in imperialism up to their ears, ready to smash them and it is highly unlikely that the army will side with the revolutionaries any time soon. Obviously, this is just one example. However, my problem is that my people and I are suffering badly and we need some remedy soon. To put it differently, I am puzzled and I am sure I am not alone. A very sad period with many of unknowns and uncertainties we all are going through I would say. Anyway! I asked my original questions because I don't know much about the existing market socialist models and am interested in hearing from market socialists and their opponents their reasons for and against. Best Sabri __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
On the other hand, Louis, I don't know how realistic it is to expect in these days that the working class can be armed to smash the structures of capitalism, whether they are at the national or global level, either. In the not so near future, maybe. But any such attempt now in my country would find the Turkish Army, which is immersed in imperialism up to their ears, ready to smash them and it is highly unlikely that the army will side with the revolutionaries any time soon. Obviously, this is just one example. I was being a bit provocative in my formulation. I was simply trying to reinforce certain principles found in "State in Revolution" that tend to get lost in the mish-mosh of world systems theory, etc. However, my problem is that my people and I are suffering badly and we need some remedy soon. I am very close to a Turkish student in the USA who gets regular reports from her parents in Istambul. Things are certainly bad. But we need to destroy false illusions in order to move forward. I have been corresponding with an Iranian student who expressed a similar sense of frustration about the gap between the enormous suffering felt right now and the far-off, remote ideal of socialism. Since the art of politics is knowing what has to be done *next*, our efforts should be focused on the immediate class struggle and not blueprints for a socialist society. That is in fact what Marx said. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org
Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
Sabri, I concur with Justin that the NCE version of market socialism is just as flawed as NCE itself and therefore of little use as a model for a real economy, in particular a socialist real economy. I would disagree with Justin that there is no role for planning. Obviously, for instance, the provision of a state wide system of electricity generation and distribution can not be efficiently done without a degree of central planning and regulation. This has been adequately demonstrated in California, Alberta, and New Zealand. Infrastructure by its very nature, size and externalities must be planned. Nor do I agree with his proposition that there be no capital market. The abolition of a managed capital market was one of the major problems that eventually brought down the Yugoslav system of self-managed socialism. However, I do agree that a capital market does not imply private ownership but is compatible with self-managed market socialism. Justin recommends David Shweickart and I too like his book _Against Capitalism_. However, I think a much fuller treatment which deals with all the things that Stiglitz criticizes is found in Branko Horvat's _The Political Economy of Socialism_ (M.E. Sharpe, 1982). It also has the advantage of having been written by someone with extensive experience in designing and implementing a successful (for a time) market socialist system. On the other hand, the idea that somehow we can forget the nation state and organize a world system that we can revolutionize is just about as off-the-wall utopianism as I can imagine. Perhaps you can solve your own personal economic problems by selling them the Brooklyn Bridge? Paul Phillips, Economics, University of Manitoba Date sent: Thu, 12 Apr 2001 13:00:11 -0700 (PDT) From: Sabri Oncu [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:[PEN-L:10133] Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --- Louis Proyect [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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. This is pretty much what Boswell and Chase-Dunn suggest in "The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism" as well. I am not at all comfortable with the strategy they are suggesting to the global movements, as, for example, it involves supporting the EU and the like and then somehow democratizing them later. I am not claiming that their strategy suggestions have no merits since they suggest, for example, going beyond coordinating existing unions at the global level and organizing the unorganized workers and the unemployed, both in the core and the periphery. However, calling their approach neo-Bernsteinism seems to be a fair assesment. On the other hand, Louis, I don't know how realistic it is to expect in these days that the working class can be armed to smash the structures of capitalism, whether they are at the national or global level, either. In the not so near future, maybe. But any such attempt now in my country would find the Turkish Army, which is immersed in imperialism up to their ears, ready to smash them and it is highly unlikely that the army will side with the revolutionaries any time soon. Obviously, this is just one example. However, my problem is that my people and I are suffering badly and we need some remedy soon. To put it differently, I am puzzled and I am sure I am not alone. A very sad period with many of unknowns and uncertainties we all are going through I would say. Anyway! I asked my original questions because I don't know much about the existing market socialist models and am interested in hearing from market socialists and their opponents their reasons for and against. Best Sabri __ Do You Yahoo!? Get email at your own domain with Yahoo! Mail. http://personal.mail.yahoo.com/
Re: Market Socialism
Sometime ago, we had a long debate on market socialism, which eventually ended up with a great deal of repetition. The first part might well be useful to you. It is very easy for us here to plot out the proper course for Indonesia. I don't feel confident that I really u an nderstand the micro economy of tiny Chico. When I go to the gym, I ask the realtors, who was building those big houses? What sort of jobs today have been? But I am not satisfied that I have a firm grip. Anyway, maybe you could check the archives http://csf.Colorado.EDU/pen-l/ If you still have questions, let's see what we can do. Also, if you're able to communicate this, plus more about Indonesia. Where exactly are you? -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
- Original Message - From: "Sabri Oncu" [EMAIL PROTECTED] This is pretty much what Boswell and Chase-Dunn suggest in "The Spiral of Capitalism and Socialism" as well. I am not at all comfortable with the strategy they are suggesting to the global movements, as, for example, it involves supporting the EU and the like and then somehow democratizing them later...However, calling their approach neo-Bernsteinism seems to be a fair assesment. Hardly Bernsteinism, who was quite comfortable operating for reforms at the existing political level and had little interest in internationalism. In fact, if anything, it is classical Marxist doctrine- Marx was quite clear in calling for socialists to support the greatest centralization of the state possible, erasing localism as much as possible. In 1850, surveying the last few years of revolutionary upsurge, Marx noted that the bourgois parties sought to maintain decentralized government, while workers should support the strongest centralization possible. In his Address to the Communist League, he wrote: "The democrats will either work directly towards a federated republic, or at least, if they cannot avoid the one and indivisible republic they will attempt to paralyze the central government by granting the municipalities and provinces the greatest possible autonomy and independence. In opposition to this plan the workers must not only strive for one and indivisible German republic, but also, within this republic, for the most decisive centralization of power in the hands of the state authority. They should not let themselves be led astray by empty democratic talk about the freedom of the municipalities, self-government, etc...A renewal of the present situation, in which the Germans have to wage a separate struggle in each town and province for the same degree of progress, can also not be tolerated...As in France in 1793, it is the task of the genuinely revolutionary party in Germany to carry through the strictest centralization." Chase-Dunn et al just take this logic to the global state level, with the argument being that only with the framework of global government can a united global working class abandon divisive separate state-by-state struggles in favor of a united struggle to convert the global bourgois state to a socialist one. It may be the wrong analysis for this period (although I have some sympathy in moving things in that direction), but it is classical Marxism, not revisionism. -- Nathan Newman
Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
I don't say that there is no role for planning. I am an advocate of the Schweickart model, which calls for investment planning--there are no capital markets in the model; and in addition, for planning of public goods, such as electric power. I disagree with Philip about the lack of capital markets as a source of the Yugoslav problems. There was a problem with a lack of a hard budget constraint to force reorganization or closure of inefficienmt enterprises--socialism requires bankruptcy with teeth--but I don't see that there are the kind of information efficiencies in capital allocation that markets bring to product allocation. I like Horvat too-his book made a market socialist of me, rescuing me from Hayek-induced despondency about the prospects for socialism. I agree, too, that we have to start on a natonal, or at leasta hemispheric basis. 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. --jks Sabri, I concur with Justin that the NCE version of market socialism is just as flawed as NCE itself and therefore of little use as a model for a real economy, in particular a socialist real economy. I would disagree with Justin that there is no role for planning. Obviously, for instance, the provision of a state wide system of electricity generation and distribution can not be efficiently done without a degree of central planning and regulation. This has been adequately demonstrated in California, Alberta, and New Zealand. Infrastructure by its very nature, size and externalities must be planned. Nor do I agree with his proposition that there be no capital market. The abolition of a managed capital market was one of the major problems that eventually brought down the Yugoslav system of self-managed socialism. However, I do agree that a capital market does not imply private ownership but is compatible with self-managed market socialism. Justin recommends David Shweickart and I too like his book _Against Capitalism_. However, I think a much fuller treatment which deals with all the things that Stiglitz criticizes is found in Branko Horvat's _The Political Economy of Socialism_ (M.E. Sharpe, 1982). It also has the advantage of having been written by someone with extensive experience in designing and implementing a successful (for a time) market socialist system. On the other hand, the idea that somehow we can forget the nation state and organize a world system that we can revolutionize is just about as off-the-wall utopianism as I can imagine. Perhaps you can solve your own personal economic problems by selling them the Brooklyn Bridge? _ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
Re: Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism [ was Burawoy]
Louis writes:Since the art of politics is knowing what has to be done *next*, our efforts should be focused on the immediate class struggle and not blueprints for a socialist society. That is in fact what Marx said. I thought we got beyond quoting Marx as if doing so settled questions. In any event, since the revolution isn't going to happen *next*, it's quite possible to think about how socialism can should be organized while _at the same time_, thinking about the immediate class struggle. (Why can't we think about two separate topics at the same time?) It's useful to avoid merely "thinking with one's blood" or some other kind of spontaneity and to try to figure out where we should be going. [BTW, I remember seeing a comment on Louis' Marxism web-page in which he looked favorably on utopian thinking as long as it didn't go too far, reifying the utopian schemes.] 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. - 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 [ 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: Market Socialism
I did not intend to be a censor, but I did not think that it would do much good to rehash our old arguments. The debate between Jim and Lou was interesting. I recall how Marx scrupulously tried to avoid discussions about how to organize the future, since it would just set off squabbling. At the same time, we need to be able to project a vision to make socialism sound attractive. I tend to agree with Louis that, within this venue, we will probably not make much headway in discovering the best form of socialism. In our previous attempts we certainly did not get very far. But then, we still have a lot to do in communicating a better understanding of the problems with existing capitalism. Within our own group, only Doug Henwood, the much lamented Max Sawicky, Mark Weisbrot, Robert Naiman, and recently Seth S. in his Common Dreams posting seem to have much success in communicating with a broader audience. Apologies to those whom I overlooked. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: Market Socialism
Michael Perelman wrote: . . . much success in communicating with a broader audience. "Broader audience" is too vague -- it seems usually to mean large, nondescript, miscellanmeous audience consisting of isolated individuals sitting at home. There is such an audience, and reaching it may at times be of marginal use. But the only 'broader' audience that counts in the long run are those reached by leaflets or word of mouth, so the main task of authors of books and articles is not to reach a broader audience but to provide ammunition (information, tactical and strategic training, perspective, etc.) to those who write the leaflets or who talk with the readers of those leaflets. At one time I was a superb leaflet writer -- leaflets I wrote got people talking to each other. I don't know if I could do it now or not. CArrol Carrol
Re: Re: Re: Market Socialism
you are absolutely correct. Carrol Cox wrote: so the main task of authors of books and articles is not to reach a broader audience but to provide ammunition (information, tactical and strategic training, perspective, etc.) to those who write the leaflets or who talk with the readers of those leaflets. -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Market socialism: was Re: Re: Asset ownership by type in Yugoslavia, 12/31/1995
Actually this was a small part of the market socialists agenda, kind of the wrapping of a package whose cantents (and substance) was (much) more concerned with the agenda of rationlizing the subjection of public owned enterprises (or cooperatives) in socialist countries to market competition in a bid to increase productivity of those enterprises. Steve Honestly, I am not sure whether the term market socialism applies to China all that well. State owned enterprises, which existed side-by-side in NEP-like fashion with the more dynamic and profitable private enterprises on the seaboard, hardly seemed expressive of the sort of ideology found in classic market socialism. I think that "market socialism" was just a slogan for a NEP type economy. Of course, unlike the Soviet CP in the 1920s, this was seen as a step toward capitalism rather than a temporary measure to strengthen socialism. Louis Proyect Marxism mailing list: http://www.marxmail.org/
Re: Market socialism: was Re: Re: Asset ownership by typein Yugoslavia, 12/31/1995
Airlines, etc. there could be a transition to socialism. Actually this was a small part of the market socialists agenda, kind of the wrapping of a package whose cantents (and substance) was (much) more concerned with the agenda of rationlizing the subjection of public owned enterprises (or cooperatives) in socialist countries to market competition in a bid to increase productivity of those enterprises. If you go to China you'll find that whether you're talking to 'reformists' or 'Maoists' this is largely accepted. This is in no small part due to the fact that critiques of Deng Xiaoping's theories must at all costs be upheld in China. That conference translation displayed the wide acceptance across 'left' and 'right' cadres in China of market socialist ideology, which Raymond Lau in Pacific Review, Vol 12, No. 1, 1999, "Left and Right in China's economic reform in the 1990's..." has documented quite ably. Ooops the conference translation I referred to was the one that was put on this list about a month ago or so. The conference was a 'left cadre' mtg. discussing the problems of reform...The Lau article was a critique of the embrace of market socialist ideology on the 'left' and 'right' in China today. Steve Steve
Re: market socialism, etc.
JD writes: Marx distinguished an "industrial capitalist" (i.e., the capitalist who organizes production) from capitalists in general (those who own the means of production). This is not the same as the distinction between the entrepreneur and the capitalist, but it is close. No, it is not close - as is obvious in the dismissive (marxist) remarks which you and others in pen-l have made about entrepreneurship. Further, he talks about innovation (the activity which distinguishes the "entrepreneur" in Austrian lingo), though I don't think he uses that word. (The distinction seems an "Austrian" innovation.) For example, in chapter 12 of volume I of CAPITAL, he talks about one capitalist introducing an new way of producing things and how it is then imitated by other capitalists, due to the coercive force of competition. But the Austrian would never say "coercive force of competition" - and this is a crucial distinction - since for them it is not a matter of a *structure* pushing you do do something which you might otherwise not want/desire to do. Marx's emphasis is on _process_ innovation (rather than product innovation), The Austrians put a big emphasis on prices as signals (of tastes scarcity). My understanding of Marx is that one of the bases of his crisis theory is that these signals are wrong in the sense that they do not allow "entrepreneurs" to coordinate to prevent underconsumption and the like. Prices cannot provide an understanding of the nature of the capitalist totality and the conditions needed for its harmonious expanded reproduction over time. Instead of gradual change, we see "equilibration" through sharp crises. Schumpeter, on the contrary, minimizes the role of prices in innovation. Emphasis on prices gives the impression that capitalists/entrepreneurs are always passively responding to market signals. But S's concept of "creative destruction" activates the capitalist - at the micro-economic level - in a way that M's theory could never do, since, for starters, M has micro-economic analysis. S writes: "Economists are at long last emerging from the stage in which price competition was all they saw. As soon as quality competition and sales effort are admitted into the sacred precints of theory, the price variable is ousted from its dominant position. "In capitalist reality [what counts is] the competition from the new commodity, the new technology, the new source of supply, the new type of organization..." S never failed to praise M for his emphasis on the dynamic quality of capitalism, that cap "can never be stationary", but criticises him for viewing the capitalist as a mere personification of capital, rather than as an *agent* who understands his own actions and is consciously, willingly engaged in the market. The word "rational" in economics is basically a theoretical fiction. It is heuristically useful. You seem to confuse two meanings of rationality, formal and substantive, in the use of the value- judgement "narrow-minded individualistic..." in your definition of economic rationality. It is interesting to note that for Weber capitalism was irrational at the substantive level. I don't know about S, but using the word "rational behavior" does not imply undue emphasis on individuals - as Michael Perelman narrowly thinks as well - since we are talikng about rational behavior as a pattern or sequence of behavior. No reason to keep fighting the intellectual ghosts of the 50s. Marx believed, I think, that a holistic approach was superior to an individualistic approach. That is, he made a sociological statement that certain kinds of societies produce certain kinds of attitudes. Thus, he saw capitalism -- and specifically the societal environment of capitalist competition -- as encouraging narrow-minded individualistic profit-seeking (one vision of "rationality"). If Marx is seen as explaining the basis for profit-maximization, then all the results derived from that assumption can be accepted by Marx (as long as unreasonable auxiliary assumptions aren't introduced). Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: market socialism
G'day Charles, Y'all should get another name other than "market". That term has a very specific history synonymous with "capitalism". Call it the Marxit instead of the market, or the "Exchange Network" or something. I admit people use the term today because they don't want to say 'capitalism' (for fear of reawakening old grievances and malcontents), but we'd be wise to remember markets have existed ever since ancient times - and to claim it was capitalism all along rather buggers our historical analysis, no? Talking of history, I wonder what this list would be talking about if we lived in a time of, say, crippling poverty for more than half the world's people, half a billion people going to waste on the world's unemployment slagheap, a rapid degradation of the environment as a whole, violent social fragmentation (already manifest in Africa, Eurasia from the Balkans to the Caucuses, parts of Southern Asia, and half the Pacific - with Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, most of Latin America and maybe China all on the precipice), and mebbe a hundred million people with AIDS. I doubt whether we'd have the wherewithal to put a hole in such a wall of misery - seems to me we'd need not just debt cancellations but planned investment *on a world scale* (Ted Trainor reckons one-fifth of the world's people receive 86% of all income while one-fifth receive only 1.5%), a global employment policy, and flattened cycles (so we don't regularly chuck, say, 200 million SE Asian families on the slagheap, as happened in '98). As that little lot would probably require a global currency, and either a very powerful world-government or a sort of GlobeCom gigamonopoly - a sorta Keynesian welfare-globe or Schumpetarian corporate-socialist-globe - well, we might as well argue about what we'd do after a socialist revolution that's at least no less likely to happen in the foreseeable future than that little list is, eh? Yours morosely, Rob.
Re: market socialism
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/20/00 02:24PM G'day Charles, Y'all should get another name other than "market". That term has a very specific history synonymous with "capitalism". Call it the Marxit instead of the market, or the "Exchange Network" or something. I admit people use the term today because they don't want to say 'capitalism' (for fear of reawakening old grievances and malcontents), but we'd be wise to remember markets have existed ever since ancient times - and to claim it was capitalism all along rather buggers our historical analysis, no? CB: Yea, capitalism is when the market becomes the prevailing or dominant form of the economy. A "market economy" is usually used to refer to an economy in which the market is the dominant form. ___ Talking of history, I wonder what this list would be talking about if we lived in a time of, say, crippling poverty for more than half the world's people, half a billion people going to waste on the world's unemployment slagheap, a rapid degradation of the environment as a whole, violent social fragmentation (already manifest in Africa, Eurasia from the Balkans to the Caucuses, parts of Southern Asia, and half the Pacific - with Burma, Cambodia, Laos, Indonesia, most of Latin America and maybe China all on the precipice), and mebbe a hundred million people with AIDS. I doubt whether we'd have the wherewithal to put a hole in such a wall of misery - seems to me we'd need not just debt cancellations but planned investment *on a world scale* (Ted Trainor reckons one-fifth of the world's people receive 86% of all income while one-fifth receive only 1.5%), a global employment policy, and flattened cycles (so we don't regularly chuck, say, 200 million SE Asian families on the slagheap, as happened in '98). As that little lot would probably require a global currency, and either a very powerful world-government or a sort of GlobeCom gigamonopoly - a sorta Keynesian welfare-globe or Schumpetarian corporate-socialist-globe - well, we might as well argue about what we'd do after a socialist revolution that's at least no less likely to happen in the foreseeable future than that little list is, eh? Yours morosely, Rob.
Re: market socialism, etc.
Not tyring to spoil the party (I agree this was a good post - the sort of stuff I am sure penners would read more if only they had not wasted their time finding them in the pile of shabby responses which pollute this place when there's a heated debate) but I have to take issue with the comment below, not because I want to pretend I know something about the Austrians (except what I thought I had to learn as a TA for Henryk Flakierski, the one Paul had in mind from York): The "Austrian" theory of competition is derivative from Marx and the classicals. I'm pretty sure that Bohm-Bawerk developed most of his stuff in response to Marx, while appropriating the parts of Marx he liked (e.g., the dynamic vision of competition). But here's Schumpeter himself, the one Austrian who was closest to Marx: For Marx the capitalist economy "is incessantly being revolutionized from within by new enterprise, i.e., by the intrusion of new commodities or new methods of production or new commercial opportunities into the industrial structure [...] This is how progress comes about in capitalist society. In order to escape being undersold, every firm is in the end compelled to follow suit, to invest in its turn and, in order to be able to do so, to plow back part of its profits, i.e., to accumulate. Thus, everyone else accumulates. Now Marx saw this process of industrial change more clearly...than any other economist of his time. This does not mean that he correctly understood its nature or correctly analyzed its mechanism. With him, *that mechanism resolves itself into mere mechanics of masses of capital. He had no adequate theory of enterprise and his failure to distinguish the entrepreneur from the capitalist*, together with a faulty theoretical technique, accounts for many cases of non sequitur and for many mistakes" When S says no adequate theory of enterprise he means that M had no adequate theory of rational behavior. Marx has no concept of rational action, his 'rational miser' is a mere personification of the capitalist system.
Re: market socialism
What do you call systems of exchange of goods produced for profit in precapitalsit societies? Why give capiatlsits "the market" an more than we would give them "democracy"? --jks In a message dated Thu, 20 Jul 2000 1:25:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Y'all should get another name other than "market". That term has a very specific history synonymous with "capitalism". Call it the Marxit instead of the market, or the "Exchange Network" or something. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/00 02:55AM In a message dated 7/16/00 2:09:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, here's the Schweickart model in the four promised sentences: (1) Production of consumer and capital goods is carried out by worker-self-managed cooperatives in wht all are cooperators, there are no capitalists or wage labors--all profits are captured by the cooperators. (2) These compete for business in a fairly free, although regulated market. (3) The capital assets are owned by the state and rented to the producers, who pay a sort of capital tax on their use and must maintain their value (discounted for depreciatuion), although they may sell and buy capital assets: there is no private productive property. (4) New investment is planned through a system of state-owned banks according to criteria of profitability as well as job creation, econological soundness, and other values, under general priorities democratically determined by the legislature; there is no primary financial market. (1), (2), (4) are the socialist bits: no exploitation, no private property, no market in financial capital, which is planned. (1) and (2) are the market bits: free cooperative enterprise. There is more to it--the government provides as well for public goods (roads, schools, health care) that the market cannot provide or provide well, runs macroeconomic policy, maintains full employment, and of course regulates the market, but that's the core of it. Now, for more details, you really should read some of the places where Dave has explained this over the last 20-odd years. A short statement is in Bertell Ollman, ed. Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists. The long statement is in Dave's Against Capitalism (Westview 1996). He has a medium-length statement in a fiorthcoming book, on which I and others are commenting at the Radical Philosophy Association in Chicago in the fall, Beyond Capitalism. Dave exaplins a great length why the model is better than laissez faire or welfare state capitalism and why it avoids the problems those generate. He doesn't much talk about why it is better than planning--he leaves that to me. --jks
Re: market socialism, etc.
Ricardo quotes Schumpeter: But here's Schumpeter himself, the one Austrian who was closest to Marx: For Marx the capitalist economy "is incessantly being revolutionized from within by new enterprise, i.e., by the intrusion of new commodities or new methods of production or new commercial opportunities into the industrial structure [...] This is how progress comes about in capitalist society. In order to escape being undersold, every firm is in the end compelled to follow suit, to invest in its turn and, in order to be able to do so, to plow back part of its profits, i.e., to accumulate. Thus, everyone else accumulates. Now Marx saw this process of industrial change more clearly...than any other economist of his time. This does not mean that he correctly understood its nature or correctly analyzed its mechanism. With him, *that mechanism resolves itself into mere mechanics of masses of capital. He had no adequate theory of enterprise and his failure to distinguish the entrepreneur from the capitalist*, together with a faulty theoretical technique, accounts for many cases of non sequitur and for many mistakes" What "cases of non sequitur" and "mistakes" does Schumpeter have in mind? When S says no adequate theory of enterprise he means that M had no adequate theory of rational behavior. Marx has no concept of rational action, his 'rational miser' is a mere personification of the capitalist system. Why "theory of enterprise" = "theory of rational behavior"? Yoshie
Re: market socialism
Trade , maybe. I understand the Roman Army was paid with money. Evidently, the production for exchange and not use in pre-capitalist societies was not the main mode of production. So, the calculation problem was probably a lot less. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/20/00 03:19PM What do you call systems of exchange of goods produced for profit in precapitalsit societies? Why give capiatlsits "the market" an more than we would give them "democracy"? --jks In a message dated Thu, 20 Jul 2000 1:25:51 PM Eastern Daylight Time, "Charles Brown" [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: Y'all should get another name other than "market". That term has a very specific history synonymous with "capitalism". Call it the Marxit instead of the market, or the "Exchange Network" or something. CB [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/16/00 02:55AM In a message dated 7/16/00 2:09:00 AM Eastern Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: OK, here's the Schweickart model in the four promised sentences: (1) Production of consumer and capital goods is carried out by worker-self-managed cooperatives in wht all are cooperators, there are no capitalists or wage labors--all profits are captured by the cooperators. (2) These compete for business in a fairly free, although regulated market. (3) The capital assets are owned by the state and rented to the producers, who pay a sort of capital tax on their use and must maintain their value (discounted for depreciatuion), although they may sell and buy capital assets: there is no private productive property. (4) New investment is planned through a system of state-owned banks according to criteria of profitability as well as job creation, econological soundness, and other values, under general priorities democratically determined by the legislature; there is no primary financial market. (1), (2), (4) are the socialist bits: no exploitation, no private property, no market in financial capital, which is planned. (1) and (2) are the market bits: free cooperative enterprise. There is more to it--the government provides as well for public goods (roads, schools, health care) that the market cannot provide or provide well, runs macroeconomic policy, maintains full employment, and of course regulates the market, but that's the core of it. Now, for more details, you really should read some of the places where Dave has explained this over the last 20-odd years. A short statement is in Bertell Ollman, ed. Market Socialism: The Debate Among Socialists. The long statement is in Dave's Against Capitalism (Westview 1996). He has a medium-length statement in a fiorthcoming book, on which I and others are commenting at the Radical Philosophy Association in Chicago in the fall, Beyond Capitalism. Dave exaplins a great length why the model is better than laissez faire or welfare state capitalism and why it avoids the problems those generate. He doesn't much talk about why it is better than planning--he leaves that to me. --jks
Re: Re: market socialism, etc.
Because we are supposed to look at capitalism at the level of individual behavior. Yoshie Furuhashi wrote: Why "theory of enterprise" = "theory of rational behavior"? Yoshie -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Re: market socialism, etc.
I wrote: The "Austrian" theory of competition is derivative from Marx and the classicals. I'm pretty sure that Bohm-Bawerk developed most of his stuff in response to Marx, while appropriating the parts of Marx he liked (e.g., the dynamic vision of competition). RD comments: But here's Schumpeter himself, the one Austrian who was closest to Marx: For Marx the capitalist economy "is incessantly being revolutionized from within by new enterprise, i.e., by the intrusion of new commodities or new methods of production or new commercial opportunities into the industrial structure [...] This is how progress comes about in capitalist society. In order to escape being undersold, every firm is in the end compelled to follow suit, to invest in its turn and, in order to be able to do so, to plow back part of its profits, i.e., to accumulate. Thus, everyone else accumulates. Now Marx saw this process of industrial change more clearly...than any other economist of his time. This does not mean that he correctly understood its nature or correctly analyzed its mechanism. With him, *that mechanism resolves itself into mere mechanics of masses of capital. He had no adequate theory of enterprise and his failure to distinguish the entrepreneur from the capitalist*, together with a faulty theoretical technique, accounts for many cases of non sequitur and for many mistakes" Marx distinguished an "industrial capitalist" (i.e., the capitalist who organizes production) from capitalists in general (those who own the means of production). This is not the same as the distinction between the entrepreneur and the capitalist, but it is close. Further, he talks about innovation (the activity which distinguishes the "entrepreneur" in Austrian lingo), though I don't think he uses that word. (The distinction seems an "Austrian" innovation.) For example, in chapter 12 of volume I of CAPITAL, he talks about one capitalist introducing an new way of producing things and how it is then imitated by other capitalists, due to the coercive force of competition. Marx's emphasis is on _process_ innovation (rather than product innovation), though he does talk about new ways to add non-nutritious filler to food (in order to lower the cost of labor-power). This is partly a product of the historical era in which he lived. He also does not sneak in the assumption (as Austrian economists do) that "innovation" is always a good thing (so that "entrepreneurs" should be rewarded) or that the market is the judge of what's good. This makes sense, since both Charles Ponzi and the unknown man or woman who introduced "crack" cocaine engaged in innovation and were thus entrepreneurs. Marx seems to assume that innovation can be good (i.e., building up the wealth needed for socialism) or bad (i.e., encouraging resistance to capitalism). The Austrians put a big emphasis on prices as signals (of tastes scarcity). My understanding of Marx is that one of the bases of his crisis theory is that these signals are wrong in the sense that they do not allow "entrepreneurs" to coordinate to prevent underconsumption and the like. Prices cannot provide an understanding of the nature of the capitalist totality and the conditions needed for its harmonious expanded reproduction over time. Instead of gradual change, we see "equilibration" through sharp crises. Since Schumpeter doesn't explain what he mans by "faulty theoretical technique," no comment can be made on that. When S says no adequate theory of enterprise he means that M had no adequate theory of rational behavior. Marx has no concept of rational action, his 'rational miser' is a mere personification of the capitalist system. The word "rational" in economics is basically a theoretical fiction. NC economists _assume_ that people are "rational." The usual textbook economist's meaning of this is that people are self-interested, not caring about other individuals. But the more sophisticated theorists use a definition that's basically tautological, single-minded goal-seeking. The only thing that differentiates irrationality from rationality is that the latter involves consistent preferences (i.e., under similar conditions, A will be preferred to B). But that doesn't make sense over time (since "tastes" change) and ignores the preference for variety. Crucially, the concept of rationality falls away when we realize that due to sociological effects, tastes are endogenous. Whether or not this is a reasonable approach is another issue, since social scientists make a lot of unreasonable assumptions (simplifying in order to understand). It's my impression that it's not the assumption of "rationality" that produces predictions or understanding as much as an understanding of the _constraints_ that limit individual (consumer or firm) choice. Consumer rationality cannot be used to predict an increased supply of labor-power as wages rise (because there are income
Re: Market socialism -- summing up?
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/17/00 02:35PM The basic reason I have been urging is the calculation problem, which Rob dismisses as "not theoretically deep" because it is "merely empirical." I guess this shows a divide so great between our conceptions of theoretical explanation that I do not think it can be bridged. I am a pragmatist, and think all our theories are empirical and revisable, provisional and practically tested. Rob complains that Hayek didn't back up his theory with empirical studies. Well, he wasn't that sort of economist. But thetheory is powerfully confirmed empirically: the Soviet Union is now 'former" and it failed on its own terms for more or less the reasons Hayek said it would. So far, Hayek 1, Marx O--not that the fSU embodied Marx's ideals, but (as a number of people here have said), nothing has so far. Hayek might suggest that there is an explantion for that. ( CB: This is false. The Soviet Union didn't fail because it had economic planning. It failed because capitalism has the biggest war machine in the history of humanity and used it to perpetrate the biggest war and most deadly threat of war on the SU. So, the fall of the SU does not empirically confirm Hayek.
Re: market socialism, etc.
Excellent stuff, Jim. I'm emerging from my shell to add one point. Justin's faith in the informational content of prices is touching. Developments in financial theory over the last 15 or so years should counsel a bit more skepticism. Efficient market theory has been importantly discredited, and Shiller-style analyses of excess volatility and mean reversion are taken a lot more seriously, even by the likes of Eugene Fama. There are good psychological reasons behind overreaction - e.g., the human tendency to value the most recent piece of information excessively, at the expense of earlier knowledge. You also have herding, fads, crowd behavior, etc. So there's lots of noise mixed in with signal. This newer thinking about financial market prices is not without real world implications. As Terry Marsh and Robert Merton wrote in 1986: "To reject the Efficient Market Hypothesis for the whole stock market...implies broadly that production decisions based on stock prices will lead to inefficient capital allocations. More generally, if the application of rational expectations theory to the virtually 'ideal' conditions provided by the stock market fails, then what confidence can economists have in its application to other areas of economics...?" Less than Justin does, apparently. Doug
Re: Re: market socialism, etc.
At 03:15 PM 7/19/00 -0400, you wrote: Excellent stuff, Jim. thanks! (In the long version, I told Justin to go read Zizek. Never having read the dude, not only did I probably misspell his name, but I haven't the slightest idea what to recommend...) I'm emerging from my shell to add one point. Justin's faith in the informational content of prices is touching. Developments in financial theory over the last 15 or so years should counsel a bit more skepticism. Efficient market theory has been importantly discredited, and Shiller-style analyses of excess volatility and mean reversion are taken a lot more seriously, even by the likes of Eugene Fama. There are good psychological reasons behind overreaction - e.g., the human tendency to value the most recent piece of information excessively, at the expense of earlier knowledge. You also have herding, fads, crowd behavior, etc. So there's lots of noise mixed in with signal. yeah, the analysis of what's wrong with prices in financial markets has informed our knowledge of what's wrong with prices elsewhere. come back, Doug! Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Re: Market socialism, etc.
Justin writes: I agree that Jim's replies are excellent, and I shall have to think about them. I wish that Jim would moderate his tone. If I have been repetitive, it is because some people--not Jim--weren't getting the point. I am sorry that I am irritated, but I've been familiar with the Hayek-kritik of totally-centralized planning for 30 years or so. It was in the intro textbook they assigned when I was a Frosh in college, just as it appears in Bowles Edwards, UNDERSTANDING CAPITALISM, 2nd ed. I get tired of repetition, too. I think that one obligation of a radical political economist is to get beyond the usual cant, so I try. I'll let others be the judge, but it's possible that (as with oysters) my irritation may have produced a pearl or two (perhaps discolored and misshapen, but what the hell). If there's someone out there in pen-l world who's an expert on this subject, do you want to be the (lead?) co-author to help me whip my points into a small book? Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
Re: market socialism, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/00 03:15PM Excellent stuff, Jim. __ CB: ditto
Re: Market socialism, etc.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/00 05:10PM If there's someone out there in pen-l world who's an expert on this subject, do you want to be the (lead?) co-author to help me whip my points into a small book? __ CB: You really should do that.
Re: Re: market socialism, etc.
While we are voting, I also found Jim's post quite helpful. I also support Neil's return. He added little traffic. He didn't insult anyone. Some people don't mind Spam. Personally I use Klik. Von Mises saw co-operatives as special interest groups who like every other special interest group wanted special grants and favors from the state to help them compete in the market thus distorting it. His article on Co-ops is availabe at the Von Mises site. Cheers, Ken Hanly Charles Brown wrote: [EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/00 03:15PM Excellent stuff, Jim. __ CB: ditto
Re: Re: 'market socialism
This snipe is unfair. i have been (alsmost single handedly) giving detailed, lengthy, precise, and extensive arguments. I do now and then make a suggestion for reading an original source, but if you wanted an account of the calculation debate, you have a moderately good introduction to the main argument solely from my posts. As for Neil, why bother responding. Nothing you say can make any difference to someone who has got religion. He knows all the answers. --jks In a message dated Mon, 17 Jul 2000 1:25:01 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Ken Hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: To use Justin's technique. Go read the Regina Manifesto. Cheers, Ken Hanly neil wrote: . Capitals rule cannot be mended, it must be ended! Neil .
Re: market socialism
Calm down Justin. Hayek's critique is not theoretically deep. It is simply an empirical claim. But he has done not one empirical study to back it up. It may be correct or it may not. Only experience will show. Pointing to past incidents of failure proves very little. As Michael and many others have pointed out it is easy to detail many occasions when markets have failed to work any where near their theoretical ideal. Shall we infer from that that markets never work? In fact, most of us are socialist because markets do such a miserable job at some very basic tasks. It is pointless to keep referring to the Soviet Union. I have at no time suggested, implied or meant that the Soviet Union should be a model for anything. And we would be poor socialists if that was the best we could dream up. All of my examples have been much more mundane and closer to home. I have admitted several times that you are right about incentives. But you have given no evidence (other than applying superlative adjectives to Hayek) for your claim that only markets can provide that incentive. When I give an example of a non market institution that works better than the market, you grant it. All right, now you say that non market institutions will work in individual industries, but not in all at once. Any critical percentage? A theoretically deep critique should have something to say about that. I propose that we design alternative institutions one good at time, and when we can't find something better than a market organization we will leave the market? On a practical level in the U.S. that would involve a vigourous protection of public education and the advocacy of a public health programme. In Canada, it would involve protection of those non market institutions and the creation of new ones in other areas. My favourites at the moment are housing, food and transportation. Until now I have tried to ignore your implications that disagreeing with you proves my stupidity. I will grant that without you having to shout it continually. Lets stick to the debate. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So the argument is meaningless if it does not estabalish a priori that markets are better than any kind of planning anywhere? Rubbish. Nonsense. That is a fast way of not having to try to answer a very strong, empirically supported, theoretically deep critique of a nonmarket economy. To see this, consider the answer: you say, the only way to see if nonmarket alternatives will work is to try. But try what? You say, planning. I say, look at the USSR. You say, but our planning will be democratic! I say, that wpn't help (see what I have argued above). At this point you say, that's meaningless, because otherwise planning would never work. No, say I, and Hayek: the problem is that planning won't work outside a market framework, to give us the information we need. An starting to feel like a proken record. I really do appreciate Jim Divine's contribution, whicha t least comes to grips with real issues and offers real arguments. --jks In a message dated Mon, 17 Jul 2000 8:15:23 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Rod Hay [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: In that case, the argument is meaningless. We can only know if alternatives to markets can work if we try. Even then we can only know that that particular experiment did not work, not that no institutional arrangement can work. If the proposition is not general, it is merely an empirical hypothesis. Rod [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hayek had a deep insight, and, like many peop;le with such an insight, went overboard with it. We might take it for what it is worth, while correcting for its overstatement. However, his main point was not that _nothing_ could be planned, but that _not everything_ could be planned. He was in fact a lot less ferocious about markets than a lot of his followers, A big U of Chicago Law School libertarian, Richard Epstein, recently took him to task for that in a piece in the U Md. L. Rev. My poiint too is that planning cannot tiotally or largely displace markets, not that it cannot be used where experience shows it works. --jks -- 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 -- 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
