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
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 an
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 this
[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
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
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
- 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
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.
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
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
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
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 for that
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
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
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
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
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. Although I lack
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
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 05:03PM
-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
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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
"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...
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
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
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
[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
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
--- 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.
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
, 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
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
- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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'
[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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
[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
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,
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 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
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/19/00 03:15PM
Excellent stuff, Jim.
__
CB: ditto
[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.
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
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
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
1 - 100 of 235 matches
Mail list logo
