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.
Re Paul C's [OPE-L:2207]: > 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. Price flexibility led, in the case of the USSR (e.g. in the NEP) and in various E. European economies (e.g. Poland in the 70's and early 80's) to a change in the *terms of trade* between the working-class and the peasantry (or between the working class and firms that produce means of consumption as was the case in Hungary during the NEM in the late 60's and Yugoslavia in the 70's). I.e. without some time of state restraint on consumer prices, the living standard of workers can be reduced (witness, in more recent years, what happened in Russia when price controls were removed). So, I think that we have to recognize that "price flexibility" is not a class neutral policy. Furthermore, when you say that the state should "raise sufficient taxes ...", then the question becomes: which class (or class segment) will pay a greater burden of taxation"? If we are still talking about a class society (that rules out communism), then the state (which supposedly will "wither away" by the time we have reached the Valhalla mode of production) will have to be directed by and for the working-class (as distinct from some political party that claims to best know what workers really want). Surely, that state then should be expected to further the interests of the working class (rather than let prices on working-class consumption goods increase and/or taxation on workers increase to the point where the standard of living of the working class declines). Of course, one could claim that these issues won't arise under communism. Quite right -- but that is only because a condition of affluence and the overcoming of scarcity has been -- by assumption -- accomplished. Yet, surely that begs the question since, unless this condition of affluence has already been met prior to the international revolution (highly unrealistic in my view) how do we get to communism? One possible answer might be that human needs will have to be re-defined, yet it is unclear how that process would take place. How can we possibly know from the standpoint of today how workers will define human needs in the society of the future? In solidarity, Jerry
- [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
- [OPE-L:2204] Re: Re: Re: Re: socialism in a single moon?, Steve Keen Tue 18 Jan 2000, 02:17 GMT