Re: The (post-) market [Socialism Now}

["Greg Schofield" <g_schofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Eeek! not only post-modernist, but the end of history. I think I have really overstated what I meant to say.

Sorry Charles, I apprieicate what you have said very much, but I better qualify myself a little more. Regulated markets are now the norm, regulated that is by monopolistic plans, free markets were an expression of individual private capital, abuses did frequently occur (price fixing etc) but the bourgeoisie as a whole had real reason to make sure that markets functioned freely as possible.

What was previously an abuse is now the practical norm, which is a significant point in the socialisation of the means of distribution. The anarchic traits of the free market are not tolerated by the present ruling class in any important areas. Yet the left for the most part puts up "planning" as the answer to this historically non-existant problem.

In essense the bourgeoisie face the same problems with implementing their plans as a proletariat would in socialism (different plans of course). Bourgeois plans stem from the history of the property form, the fact they implement plans does not make them any more humane or anymore safe from crisis (like the old USSR the crisis bubbles up and disrupts the best and most sophisticated of plans), indeed the excessive amount of planning effecting the economy probably stokes the fires of eventual economic crisis (a speculative observation).

For us it is not sufficient to argue for economic planning as has been the case in the past, indeed one criticism of the present is that the great plans of the super-monopolies over-reach themselves and cripple important aspects of production (relations of production coming into conflict with productive powers - often seen as over-managed production).

The real question is what sort of plan for what objectives (the nuts and bolts), and ironically this may mean re-introducing regulated markets into areas that are now virtually market-less (the role of monopoly food distributors in Australia where the farmer's gate price is pushed below production costs, while the consumer price is held high - in remote aboriginal Australia this is a major cause for the health disaster which so afflicts such communities).

Forgive this meandering but this thought brings me to your point  "However , the last leap must be conscious not just objective." To make the subjective leap we on the left have to break well past political abstractions (such as markets "bad"; planning "good", which seems to typify our answers to any economic question) and start putting forward actual solutions around which struggle can congeal.

Moreover, all around society there are individuals and organisations already struggling about such issues, so it is not just a matter of inventing demands, but finding them and recasting them into a greater political platform. It is at this point where we can do the most service - not getting every detail right but forming a political framework where such struggles can find their place.

For the all-important leap of consciousness to take place, we need a conscious act of establishing general direction, not that all need to "belong" to this platform or even acknowledge it, but so sections can find a conscious expression of their particular struggle in a general concept - this is a contribution I think falls heavily on our shoulders - to provide the intellectual means of linking the specific to the general cause.

In this it does not matter if what I have said about markets is primitive (which it is), but that in this area a great deal of work needs to be done - the question is no longer a choice of planning or markets, but which plans - the corporate bourgeois plans, or a yet to be created proletarian plan for economic development.

Greg Schofield
Perth Australia



--- Message Received ---
From: "Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 20 Nov 2001 09:33:21 -0500
>Subject: [PEN-L:19723] The (post-) market [Socialism Now}
This is great.  Not only are we in a post-modern period, but a post-market period. Not only is there an end of philosophy, ideology and history, but an end of the market. Your Leninist logic is impeccable.  The international division of labor, globalized socialization of production, is overripe for social appropriation to replace private appropriation. The central contradiction of capitalism is 11 months pregnant with socialism. However , the last leap must be conscious not just objective.