IMPORTANT: If you cite this message, OPE-L policy requires you not to reveal the identity of the author.
You may cite this message only if you do not disclose who wrote it.
---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sun, 16 Jan 2000 16:55:53 +0100 From: Jurriaan Bendien <djjb99@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Jerry wrote: > b) One could also argue that socialism has the capacity to promote > innovation in ways that capitalist firms can not. Why such timidity ? If you ask me, the whole idea that a socialist economy would stifle innovation because it lacks competitive pressure etc. is simply an ideological hoax. It is based on the experience of poor countries which lacked a democratic civil society, seeking to industrialise under the tutelage of a despotic bureaucratic caste which referred to socialist ideology to justify itself. This bureaucratic caste stifled all innovation and innovators which it perceived as a threat to its interests, and made the generalised application of innovations very difficult except in those areas which it prioritised and rewarded. Even so, you cannot say that e.g. Soviet science and art, or Chinese science and art, have not been extremely innovative in many areas, making decisive contributions to human progress from which the West has benefited. And bourgeois society can be just as repressive towards innovative behaviour if it does not conform to the logic of markets and the profit motive, or even just to bourgeois norms of behaviour. Indeed it can ruthlessly exploit innovators and creative people, or place them in Faustian-type dillema's, thereby repressing innovation. In essence, the process of innovation simply requires freedom for experimentation, for doing something different from "normality" or tradition. This is I think far more a political, ideological, juridical, cultural, and moral question than a question of economics. The economic issue concerns more the application and generalisation of inventions, ensuring the institutional arrangements which allow inventions to be appropriately applied and generalised. Admittedly, the two overlap in regard to the question of "moral and material incentives". But if (1) you do not accept Stalinism or Maoism etc. as the socialist model for innovation, and if (2) you break with the myth that innovative behaviour is chiefly caused by capitalist economic behaviour, and if (3) the existence of markets does not gurantee freedom for the majority, the field of possibility is really wide open. If socialism is about anything, it is about the liberation of the creative powers of the working classes. Maybe we should be more concerned about lack of innovative thinking among socialist economists ! As the French students said in 1968, "L'imagination au pouvoir" ! Regards Jurriaan
- [OPE-L:2200] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theory and socialism, (continued)
- [OPE-L:2200] Re: Re: Re: Re: value-form theory and socialism, Michael J Williams Mon 17 Jan 2000, 22:44 GMT
- [OPE-L:2184] FW: Re: [OPE-L:2141]Thermodynamics, P . J . Wells Mon 17 Jan 2000, 15:20 GMT
- [OPE-L:2181] Re: socialism in a single moon?, Gerald Levy Mon 17 Jan 2000, 12:19 GMT
- [OPE-L:2175] Re: the political economy of call centers, Gerald Levy Sun 16 Jan 2000, 19:44 GMT
- [OPE-L:2173] Re: socialism in a single moon?, Gerald Levy Sun 16 Jan 2000, 15:59 GMT
- [OPE-L:2177] Re: Re: socialism in a single moon?, Steve Keen Mon 17 Jan 2000, 03:03 GMT
- [OPE-L:2207] Re: Re: Re: socialism in a single moon?, clyder Tue 18 Jan 2000, 09:52 GMT
- [OPE-L:2211] Re: socialism in a single moon?, Gerald Levy Tue 18 Jan 2000, 17:29 GMT
- Message not available
- [OPE-L:2178] Re: Re: Re: socialism in a single moon?, Jurriaan Bendien Mon 17 Jan 2000, 07:40 GMT