Re: [A-List] Populism or Neoliberalism?

[Louis Proyect <lnp3@xxxxxxxxx>]

Yoshie Furuhashi wrote:
> The term socialization has been used variously in the Marxist
> tradition, including the sense in which capital itself socializes
> production.

Actually, after looking at the archives, I noticed that you referred to 
Iran as more "socialistic": "You'd never know that by listening to most 
liberals and leftists, but Iran's economy is structurally more 
socialistic than Venezuela's". That's really what got me going. I don't 
mind you flooding this mailing list with all sorts of newspaper 
articles. I just can't stand mislabeling Iran in this fashion.

> On one hand, while the means of production remain in private hands,
> it's not possible for people to control them; on the other hand,
> people have a much better chance of controlling what is in the hands
> of the state.  For the market depoliticizes, and the state
> politicizes, who gets what.

I absolutely advocate state ownership even if it is in a capitalist 
state like Iran or Iraq.

> What is to be done today, given the choices that people are making?
> IMHO, it would make sense for leftists, especially those who are
> economists, to figure out how to run a populist mixed economy in the
> interest of people as much as possible, until such time as people put
> socialism on the agenda, while always reminding people that there
> exists essential contradiction in a populist economy (as in any
> capitalist economy) that creates certain inevitable problems (that are
> specific to a populist economy, unlike the problems of a liberal
> economy and a socialist economy).

I think it makes no sense whatsoever for leftists in the USA to figure 
out how to run a populist mixed economy, or a socialist economy for that 
matter. This is a retreat from politics into the kind of utopianism that 
Michael Albert or Eric Olin Wright indulges in. Completely harmless but 
a waste of time.