TINA at Jul 21, 94 10:14:17 am

[Herbert Gintis <gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>You know, all that old fashioned stuff like production for use not
>profit, collective ownership, self-management, the end to exploitation
>and class rule - all those impossible dreamy demands without which even
>social democracy, RIP, would never have been possible.

	You don't understand my position, Doug. I have not forgotten
the goals at all. I am not suggesting that we forget about the goals
of visionary socialism. I am suggesting we spend more time figuring
out how to IMPLEMENT them. We economists have the obligation to
provide solutions for society. It is not enough just to criticize the
current system and compare it unfavorably with the Good Society
when we have no cogent institutional structure for that society.

>That you have to ask the question speaks volumes in itself - either
>you've forgotten, or you're evading the point.

	BTW, not all the things you say are goals. 'Production for
use, not for profit' is not a goal, it is a means. I don't agree at
all with this as an end in itself. Similarly, collective ownership is
a means not an end. I don't see why collective ownership is desireable
in general at all. I think you are confusing means with ends, and what
you consider to be a set of desireable ends, I tend to think are just
failed means.

Self-management is an end, as is the end of exploitation and class
rule. So are human dignity and equality, environmentally sustainable
development, meeting minimal human needs, and providing people with
the means to realize their personal potentials.

>TINA is a remarkably authoritarian concept, which is not surprising given
>its pedigree. It relies on assertion, not argument, and declares certain
>ideas not merely mistaken but virtually nonexistent.
>
	I call it like it is, my friend, and humbly challenge you to
come up with the alternative.

Herb gintis@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx