What is the best source that discusses the pre-reform
political and economic developments in China. The Monthly Review special issue
focuses almost entirely on post-1978. Would a comparison of
directions/developments pre- and post -978 be worthwhile?
Joel Wendland
What is the best source that discusses the pre-reform political and economic
developments in China. The Monthly Review special issue focuses almost
entirely on post-1978. Would a comparison of directions/developments pre-
and post -978 be worthwhile?
Joel Wendland
http://www.politicalaffairs.net
China and market socialism
Concerning China in particular, Jim Devine wrote:
Rather than discussing market socialism, I think it would be worth
pen-l's while to discuss Charlie Andrews' proposal for competing
not-for-profit enterprises (in his FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY).
The last two chapters
deserve to be better known.
The main importance of Guevara is that he provides an alternative to the
false dichotomy set up between Stalinist planning and the implicitly
capitalist logic of market socialism. During our fierce debate over
market socialism on the Marxism list, any number
olitical environment of earth over the past couple of hundred years - War, and predator wars on the part of the most powerful states that we call imperial powers or imperialist.
There is a deeper issue involved in any discussion of "workers ownership" and "market socialism" as it a
I venture into anything approaching dialogue with LP
with great trepidation. Nonetheless, I'll make two
comments. One is that I don't agree with Stone
Bowman that market socialism would properly launched
tend to displace capitalism even if worker ownership
were superior on efficiency grounds
United Airlines does not seem to be a clean test of market socialism.
Workers got nominal ownership and three seats on the board. Even so, the
article that Lou posted was correct in asserting that that the worker
owned firms would have to follow market laws and therefore not really get
a chance
Michael Perelman wrote:
United Airlines does not seem to be a clean test of market socialism.
Workers got nominal ownership and three seats on the board. Even so, the
article that Lou posted was correct in asserting that that the worker
owned firms would have to follow market laws
Let's not rehash that one.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 10:36:39AM -0600, Carrol Cox wrote:
I don't believe market socialism would work,
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Carrol Cox wrote:
I don't believe market socialism would work, but it is childish to
suggest that the debacle at United Airlines proves anything about
anything (or even provides evidence for any particular thesis).
Does so. Does so.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32909] Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Michael Perelman writes: United Airlines does not seem to be a clean test of market socialism. Workers got nominal ownership and three seats on the board.
it's more of a clean test of the idea of worker-financed bail-outs
Title: RE: [PEN-L:32909] Re: Re: United Airlines and market socialism
Yes, it is a worker-financed bailout with a hint of "lemon socialism," where
the state (as in Britain) or the workers in the U.S. version, get an ineffectual
toehold in a business that is sure to lose money.
The major task on the agenda of socialists is how to
organize protests
to block Bush's war drive, not write blueprints for
future societies.
Who brought up the issue of United in the context of
attacking some people's favorite utopias and defending
his own favorite utopias? (See the
Devine, James wrote:
Marx actually suggested both (1) that huge capitalist firms represented
an abolition of capitalism within capitalism (see chapter 27 of volume
III of CAPITAL, p. 438 of the International Publishers' edition)
But that is only a reference to capitalism as it functioned in
you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find some pretext to defend
Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I am bending over
backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not provoking certain people
any more. I can certainly add you to the list.
--
The Marxism list: www.marxmail.org
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 12/09/02 10:32AM
the bankruptcy of United Airlines, a worker-owned firm, should even go further and
make us question whether
worker ownership buys the working-class anything, even in terms of a decent life under
capitalism.
So-called employee-owned companies are also
If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find
some pretext to defend
Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I
am bending over
backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not
provoking certain people
any more. I can certainly add you to the list.
Please do. And you
AM
Subject: [PEN-L:32921] Re: Re: : United Airlines and market socialism
If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find
some pretext to defend
Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I
am bending over
backwards to keep Michael Perelman happy by not
provoking
ken hanly wrote:
Are we to understand that Andie is a reborn Justin?
Welcome back...
Cheers, Ken Hanly (yet to be born again anything)
P.S. What exactly does nachgeborenen mean?
huh? isnt that your pun? it means born again, doesnt it? what am i
missing? what does 'andie' mean?
--- ken hanly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Are we to understand that Andie is a reborn Justin?
Welcome back...
Cheers, Ken Hanly (yet to be born again anything)
P.S. What exactly does nachgeborenen mean?
Yes, it's me. An die Nachgeborenen means To Those Born
Later. It's the title of a
Andie joined some time ago, well before the post in question.
On Mon, Dec 09, 2002 at 11:01:19AM -0800, andie nachgeborenen wrote:
If I knew you had rejoined PEN-L in order to find
some pretext to defend
Market Socialism, I never would have posted that. I
am bending over
In a paper titled Worker Ownership on the Mondragon model: Prospects
for Global Workplace Democracy
(www.workersnet.org/bowman_stone_monograph.htm)that I first heard
defended at the Brecht Forum about 5 years ago, Elizabeth A. Bowman and
Bob Stone argue that worker ownership under capitalism
China Seeks 'Socialist Market Economy'
VOA News
10 Nov 2002, 13:49 UTC
China's Communist leaders say they are building a socialist market
economy.
The minister of the Economic and Planning Commission, Zeng Peiyan, says
state-owned companies will remain the backbone of the economy, while
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
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
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
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
I'd like to see a copy, too.
Christian
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
[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
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
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]
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
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
In a message dated 7/14/02 7:48:43 AM Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
When Stalin turned the whole nation into a work camp in order to meet
these unrealistic goals, he expanded the police force in order that they
may function as work gang bosses. Scientific planning declined
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?
Michael, I'll talk about this as much as I like
When such debates become repetitive, sign-offs from the list increase.
Sometimes I inquire about the reason, sometimes not.
I don't want to throw you off the list. I don't think that I have thrown
one person per year off the list. Most of the times, the person was
purely disruptive and had
Justin Schwartz wrote:
OK, shoot. What's the argument?
Michael, I'll talk about this as much as I like, and if you don't like
it, throw me off the list. Messages calling finis or otherwise to
shut up because you don't like the content of civil discussions will
be ignored.
The problem
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
- 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
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
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
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
are superfluous to production.
In the last instance, market socialism - in my estimate as an individual not belonging to any political associations, is a theory of looking for the perfect "mode of distribution" for that, which is produced. That which is produced means "what&qu
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
I've tried to put an end to the discussion because it seems to be Justin
repeating his arguments for the market socialism. He tells me that he
believes that they are vital for the left. I don't see much evidence
that many people here agree with him.
My problem is that I do not see anything new
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
Sugn me off, Michael, I don't care to be part of your list under these
conditions. jks
From: Michael Perelman [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:27905] Repitition and Market Socialism
Date: Thu, 11 Jul 2002 09:22:13 -0700
I've tried to put
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
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
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
Here's my suggestion for Justin. Let's stipulate that everything you said so
far is true. Do you have anything to add -- something that you
have not already said? If not, the discussion is finished. If you have
something new to add, let's hear it.
This is pathetic, Michael. Having been on
Title: RE: [PEN-L:27920] Re: Repitition and Market Socialism
I agree with Christian. I do not see any reason to restrict Justin's contributions, except to encourage him to be more accurate in representing the opinions of others. I think the main job of the moderator is not to restrict
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
I would agree with Jim. While Michael may feel that the issue has
been debated sufficiently, I am somewhat disturbed by the
superficial analysis of market socialism that passes for critical
thought on this list. As someone who has worked for the past 15
years in Jugoslavia and, most
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.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I would agree with Jim. While Michael may feel that the issue has
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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.
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
http://www.igc.org/cdv/Discussion/discussion-david-belkin-riposte.html
At 19/11/01 15:38 +0800, Greg wrote:
This has become so common that the real difficulty is seeing the
market-governor determining the socially necessary labour in these
exchanges - rather what we are seeing is the result of planning. The
question posed by a particular rate of exchange dwell
]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:33:21 -0500
Subject: [PEN-L:19723] The (post-) market [Socialism Now}
This is great. Not only are we in a post-modern period, but a post-market period. Not
only is there an end of philosophy, ideology and history, but an end of the market.
Your Leninist
2001 07:16:37 +
Subject: [PEN-L:19731] Re: he market [Socialism Now}
At 19/11/01 15:38 +0800, Greg wrote:
This has become so common that the real difficulty is seeing the
market-governor determining the socially necessary labour in these
exchanges - rather what we are seeing is the result
The (post-) market [Socialism Now}
by Greg Schofield
19 November 2001 07:52 UTC
Greg,
This is great. Not only are we in a post-modern period, but a post-market period. Not
only is there an end of philosophy, ideology and history, but an end of the market.
Your Leninist logic
At 19/11/01 09:10 +0800, you wrote:
PS hand in hand with socialisation the market has become all but extinct,
though its form remains especially at the consumer end of things. The
speculative market is perhaps the last hold out of market mechanisms,
which of course is a parody of their former
PROTECTED]
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 06:55:24 +
Subject: [PEN-L:19692] The market [Socialism Now}
Greg, can you expand in what sense you mean this?
Certainly it is clear in Marx that he described an essentially social
process that appeared to be privately owned, and was treated legally
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/14/01 11:03PM
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
Is Brad D. discussing and planning a socialist or a capitalist future ?
CB
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/13/01 05:56PM
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
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
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
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
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
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
"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
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. Altho
'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 discussi
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
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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 04/12/01 05:28PM
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.
((
CB: Lenin didn't advocate "smashing" the
1 - 100 of 448 matches
Mail list logo
