Re: The Road to Serfdom

[andie nachgeborenen <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>]

I am not going to start, but this a rule that is not
applied to any other discussion, that no one is not
permitted to make a point that Michael thinks has been
made before at some point. If I wanted to discuss the
well worn territory of how markets are BAD, this rule
would not apply. And of course this rule is not how
discussions or understanding proceeds in any context.
So the rule is equivalent to a ban on the topic. And,
Jim, it aint me who created the bad tone here: I
thought we had quite civil and (from my point of view,
anyway) fruitful discussions of the issues before
Michael issued his ukase. It's the ukase that I
resent. But it's Michael's list; he wants a market
free zone, who am I to object. jks

--- Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
wrote:
> Right.  If someone had something to say that has not
> already been said
> here, fine, but the discussion the last few times
> went nowhere.
>
> On Sat, Aug 09, 2003 at 07:45:45AM -0700, Devine,
> James wrote:
> > My understanding is that the reason why Michael
> Perelman opposes pen-l discussions of "market
> socialism" is (1) we've had them before, mostly
> killing the subject, and (2) they degenerated into a
> tone similar to the one below.
> >
> > That said, I see nothing wrong with a pen-l
> discussion of "market socialism." Maybe some new
> points will come up, though I doubt it.
> > Jim
> >
> >       -----Original Message-----
> >       From: andie nachgeborenen
> [mailto:andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx]
> >       Sent: Sat 8/9/2003 6:28 AM
> >       To: PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >       Cc:
> >       Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Road to Serfdom
> >
> >
> >
> >       You're not going to get  anywhere with this,
> Micahel P
> >       will not allow this to proceed. That markets
> are BAD
> >       is axiomatic, it's not up for discussion. I
> am not
> >       permited to dispute the proposition, and
> neither are
> >       you. This is a market-free zone, a litle
> space where
> >       leftist economists can gather safe in the
> quieta
> >       ssurance that everyoneelse agrees that the
> only things
> >       to be said about markets are that they are
> >       exploitative and ineffective and wasteful,
> and we can
> >       all laugh at the market worshippers in the
> rest of the
> >       economics community. We all repeat
> variations on this
> >       mantra and never have to face any criticism
> of it
> >       here. It's so obvious that it's not even
> allowed to be
> >       disputed. I hope we are all clear on this
> now. So shut
> >       up, and talk about something that reasonable
> people
> >       can disagree about. Speaking for Michael, if
> I may,
> >       I'm cuttting this discussion off NOW. No
> more. End of
> >       story. Full stop. Period.
> >
> >       Nice weather we're having this summer, eh?
> >
> >       jks
> >
> >       --- Jurriaan Bendien <bendien@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
> >       > But that is crazy. Not all markets are bad
> ! Marx
> >       > did not argue this, nor
> >       > did any Marxist revolutionary who actually
> was
> >       > involved in a successful
> >       > revolution. If you did argue this, then
> that would
> >       > imply capitalism has
> >       > meant no economic progress at all in any
> way, which
> >       > is a ridiculous and
> >       > undialectical view.
> >       >
> >       > I would say that this general dogma or
> prejudice
> >       > about "markets are bad" was
> >       > responsible for not a few economic
> disasters in the
> >       > USSR and China, and it
> >       > hides what the real issue is precisely
> about, namely
> >       > exactly which property
> >       > relations promote a just and efficient
> allocation of
> >       > economic resources in
> >       > the given context. It is evident that
> "markets" or
> >       > "the market" is not a
> >       > homogeneous category, but that a wide
> range of types
> >       > of markets is possible,
> >       > and that what is decisive is the property
> forms,
> >       > ownership relations, social
> >       > class relations and legal framework within
> which
> >       > market transactions occur.
> >       >
> >       > In this context, Marx's own argument as I
> understand
> >       > it is essentially (1)
> >       > about the generalisation
> (universalisation) and
> >       > overextension of markets
> >       > based on bourgeois private property
> relations, which
> >       > acquires an objective,
> >       > independent, reified dynamic, causing a
> great deal
> >       > of harm to human society,
> >       > as well as developing the productive
> forces; (2)
> >       > that a "dictatorship of the
> >       > proletariat" would be able to experiment
> with a
> >       > variety of property forms,
> >       > in order to discover methods of resource
> allocation
> >       > which fit best with
> >       > social priorities - an experimentation
> which cannot
> >       > occur in bourgeois
> >       > society except in a very marginal sense;
> (3) that
> >       > the historic objective is
> >       > to supplant market allocation increasingly
> by direct
> >       > methods of allocation
> >       > which are more just, effective and
> efficient -
> >       > methods which already
> >       > anticipated in society as it exists today
> in many
> >       > cases.
> >       >
> >       > The loss of this discourse in the
> socialist movement
> >       > divides radicalism into
> >       > two camps: sectarian socialists jabbering
> and
> >       > blabbering about "reform
> >       > versus revolution" without knowing what
> they are
> >       > talking about, and applying
> >       > wrongheaded critiques of social democracy,
> on the
> >       > one hand; and Greenies who
> >       > want to introduce all sorts of
> alternatives with a
> >       > deformed view of what
> >       > markets are, and how they really function
> in
> >       > capitalist society, abstracting
> >       > from the relations of social classes in so
> doing.
> >       > If this situation continues, we might as
> well kiss
> >       > socialism goodbye.
> >       >
> >       > Jurriaan
> >       >
> >       > ----- Original Message -----
> >       > From: "andie nachgeborenen"
> >       > <andie_nachgeborenen@xxxxxxxxx>
> >       > To: <PEN-L@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >       > Sent: Saturday, August 09, 2003 4:42 AM
> >       > Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Road to Serfdom
> >       >
> >       >
> >       > > You don't understand. There are two
> thins Michael
> >       > has
> >       > > forbidden on pen-l. One is rudeness. The
> other is
> >       > > discussion of market socialism. Markets
> are BAD,
> >       > that
> >       > > is settled, leftist economists don't
> have to think
> >       > > about that any more -- and on pen-l,
> they can't
> >       > talk
> >       > > about it. I am too tired and busy to
> talk about it
> >       > > anymore anyway. jks
> >
> >
> >       __________________________________
> >       Do you Yahoo!?
> >       Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web
> site design software
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com