Re: TINA

[Doug Henwood <dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx>]

I'm all for spending more time figuring out how to implement these
things. Politically speaking, however, without the Utopian goals, nothing
will ever happen. Somehow Utopian goals and practical politics/economics
have to be reconciled, to feed each other.

Saying TINA the mixed economy doesn't contribute to this effort at all.
As I pointed out elsewhere, the mixed economy is rapidly disappearing
worldwide and a purer capitalism is taking its place. Why has this
happened?

Doug

Doug Henwood [dhenwood@xxxxxxxxx]
Left Business Observer
212-874-4020 (voice)
212-874-3137 (fax)




On Fri, 22 Jul 1994, Herbert Gintis wrote:

> >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
>