Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: summary of calculationdebate

["Ben B. Day" <bday@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Sat, 22 Jul 2000, Bill Rosenberg wrote:

> Socialism is discredited largely (rightly or wrongly) because of the fall of the
> USSR and Eastern Europe. It comes down to: what is the alternative to the
> market? If you tell them: "a planned economy", they will ask where it has
> worked. The kind of theoretical answers we've seen in the recent discussions on
> this list won't convince: what empirical evidence people have about those
> alternatives frightens them to hell rather than attracts them.

It's interesting to note that the socialist presence within the
anti-corporate/anti-capitalist movement has been overwhelmingly anarchist,
and I suspect that this is precisely why: a socialism adverse to planning
can, to a large degree, wash its hands of the disasters you mention.
This last Mayday, for the first time ever (I'm fairly certain), anarchists
outnumbered communist at the Mayday march in France. This especially
bizarre given that the former isn't even a parliamentary party, while the
latter is! Needless to say, the anarachist presence in Seattle and D.C.
was also large (although the "Black Bloc" expanded its ideological
constitution, slightly, for D.C.).
So, when you deliver your speech (or carry out your debate), be careful
not to equate "socialism" with "planned economy," as much of the movement
you're speaking of is composed of those backing the former, but shunning
the latter.

> I suspect you're right Rob about a mixed planned/market system (though as the
> discussions on PEN-L have shown, that is scarcely a straightforward concept
> either). That of course will be heresy to those I am speaking to.

Well, for this I imagine people would turn to China, our very own "market
socialism" (as it describes itself). This is an example with enough
peculiarities and specificities to make it difficult as a potential model,
though.

----Ben