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.
> Kornai's contention is that this not correct. If a firm faces massive > effective demand, which equals or outstrips its capacity, then the easiest > way to fulfil that demand is by producing last year's model--and devoting > no resources to innovation. To coin a phrase, notional innovation simply > requires freedom, but actual innovation also requires time and money. > Kornai puts a very serious argument forward that the de facto mechanisms of > a socialist economy do not provide the incentives to commit economic > resources to innovation, whereas the de facto mechanisms of a capitalist > economy do. > > I can appreciate the desire to defend socialism against an apparent attack. > This is not one. Kornai would, I think, describe himself as a socialist. He > was simply trying to explain the huge differences in effective product and > process innovation between the capitalist and socialist block without > having recourse to "Stalinism" as the explanation of everything. He was > also, I expect, trying to inform those who might wish to bring about future > socialist states that they could not "utopianly" rely upon the socialist > economy generating innovation unless it was "scientifically" planned for. I think that Kornai's arguments are serious and worth addressing. But one should be aware of the extent to which he changes his position in parallel with the evolution of the Hungarian intelligentsia into a new bourgeoisie. In the early 70s he was presenting exactly the opposite argument with respect to information. In his book Mathmatical Planning of Structural Decisions, which I bought in Budapest in the mid 80's he argues that the great merit of socialism was that it abolished commercial secrecy and allowed information about internal enterprise plans to be distributed. On the question of excessive demand. This was certainly a characterisitic feature of the east european economies, but it does not need to characterise a communist economy. If the state allows some price flexibility and raises sufficient taxes to finance its expenditure the surplus cash balances that were characterisitic of the socialist economies can be eliminated. In our book, Allin and I suggest that labour tokens might even be date stamped, losing validity after a year.
- [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
- [OPE-L:2198] Re: Re: Re: Re: socialism in a single moon?, Steve Keen Mon 17 Jan 2000, 19:48 GMT
- Message not available
- [OPE-L:2179] Re: Re: Re: socialism in a single moon?, michael a. lebowitz Mon 17 Jan 2000, 09:03 GMT