Re: Beyond Communism and Capitalism?

[Justin Schwartz <jschwart@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I subscribe to what Doug says below: in the foreseeable future of our
movement, there is no alternative to market socialism.

As to what Louis says, he misunderstands the point of models of socialism,
planned or market. They are not directives from the CC of the CP as to how
to build a society. They are ways of testing by thought experiment the
properties of various institutions and arrangements, in part as a guide to
action, rough, tenattive, revisable, and to be adapted to local and
historical circumstances, but perhaps more importantly just now, as a
weapon in our arsenal, a defense to the virtually universally shared
belief that we cannot do better than capitalism.

No one will believe you
if you say, I won't say how, but we can do metter. And if you say how, you
get into model building. People, including workers, want some arguments
taht socialism will work and can avoid the historical problems of formerly
existing socialism. By builsing models we indicate how we might do that.
Obviously any real world movement will face problems not anticipated by
any model builder and create solutions not thought of or approved by any
model builder. But that doesn't mean model building is a waste of time.

As to the adequacy of Nove's or whoever's theory of bureacracy, put your
chips on the table, lay out your criticisms and explain why they matter.

--Justin Schwartz

On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Louis N Proyect wrote:

> Louis: When I worked in Nicaragua, the term "market socialism" never came
> up. Nicaragua was a mixed-economy. Leaving aside those societies in which
> socialism was imposed bureaucratically from above, this seems to be the
> pattern. Socialist revolutions inevitably produce mixed-economies at the
> outset. The Soviet Union, China, Vietnam and Nicaragua proceeded not
> according to some blueprint, but in conformity with existing political and
> economic conditions. Cuba, as far as I know, is the only place where all
> vestiges of private ownership were torn up root and branch from the very
> beginning. This took place because of special circumstances unlikely to be
> repeated (it is an island, Kruschschev was fairly committed to its success,
> etc.)
>
> My objection to Nove, Roemer et al are the following:
>
> 1. They have a incorrect analysis of the causes of bureaucracy.
>
> 2. The market-socialism "blueprints" they recommend tend towards a utopian
> concept of socialism. It seems pointless to construct Swiss-watch models
> of what is feasible socialism in the absence of any type of Marxist
> analysis of the society you are operating in. More specifically, the
> market-socialists seem to adopt a model of an advanced capitalist nation
> as the seedbed for their intellectual experiments. Places like Zaire,
> Brazil, the Philippines, etc. never show up in their studies. What they
> are doing reminds me of what some people call the "stovepipe baseball
> leagues." This is where basefall fans sit around and talk about their
> dream teams: "In leftfield I would have Dave Zapp..." Market socialists
> instead say things like, "Every citizen would have a share of a
> worker-owned corporation...". You get the picture.
>
>
> On Tue, 16 Jan 1996, Doug Henwood wrote:
>
> > Now that we're back into the market socialism debate, I'll ask again as I
> > did before - what choice do we have? We live in a world where markets
> > permeate everything, even fantasies and conversations with our inner
> > selves. What is the point in inventing new societies de novo the way Roemer
> > does? Any move towards socialism would begin with transforming the
> > institutions we live under now, which means transforming markets - i.e.,
> > introducing more planning at the macro level and more worker control at the
> > micro. Market socialism may not be one's idea of utopia, but it's the only
> > politically conceivable option for the next, oh, two centuries.
> >
> > Doug
> >
> > --
> >
> > Doug Henwood
> > Left Business Observer
> > 250 W 85 St
> > New York NY 10024-3217
> > USA
> > +1-212-874-4020 voice
> > +1-212-874-3137 fax
> > email: <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>
> > web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>      --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---







     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---

     ------------------