Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 18:58:08 +0000
From: Joćo Paulo Monteiro <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: M-G: Market Socialism vs. Central Planning 


Dear M-I friends:

I have been away for some time, absorbed by other preoccupations. I
don=92t know if there is a standard procedure to adopt in these
circunstances. Must I say I=92m =93signing off=94, as I=92ve seen being done
here sometimes?

Catching up with what=92s been happening, I=92ve read a heated and
informative debate: coops/market socialism vs. central planning. I=92ve
learned a lot with this discussion, since I=92m a little removed from
what=92s hot in the alglo-saxonic intellectual universe. Shweikhart and
Albert/Hahnel are names I=92m hearing for the first time here. They=92ll
probably never get translated and published around this part of the
world.
A funny thing these cultural tectonic plates. I believe I belong to the
latin-germanic one. That=92s why I=92ll probably never dig much into
analytical marxism and stuff like that. I do have a english-portuguese
dictionary by me. I read the sentences and they make sense. I can follow
the arguments. But, on a higher level, my conceptual processing machine
is not compatible with this kind of input. Shall I dare saying here that
all the anglo-american empiricist tradition looks kind of provincial to
me? This is a delicate matter and I don=92t want to enter in any kind of
=93ethnical=94 bashing but the fact is I=92m in favour of intellectual
mongrelism and cosmopolitanism. True internationalism begins with sound
mental habits. That=92s probably why so many of the best marxists were
jews or, at least, travelled around a bit. Anyway, that=92s certainly not
a political argument against market socialism.

I have nothing against abstract modeling, but (as Louis P. emphasizes)
the issue here is class struggle. If the workers are on the move to
power, they=92ll create their own model on their way, with the colours of
real life. There will be not a question of: ah, but will it work? It
will work for sure, unless it gets crushed by it=92s enemies. To doubt
this is to admit that the workers may be fit for eternal slavery after
all. We don=92t have to talk and convince the workers into a proposed
model. This looks like owenism. No. It=92s their move and their bid.
They=92ll take it when the historical conditions are created. Socialism is
a historical product not some kind of political =93rational choice=94.
The bigger problem, however, is that these methodological flaws are
linked with a major political problem. For all I=92ve read from Kevin
Cabral and Justin Schwartz, I understand we will still be on the realm
of commodity exchange. You can put worker collectives in the place of
the bosses but, structurally, you still have one pole of capital
accumulation in one side and another pole of productive work on the
other. This is capitalism. Of a more convivial sort maybe but still
capitalism. Materials will be transformed, through productive work, into
merchandises, to be traded on the market, for a profit, to be
accumulated as capital. What do you call that? The issue is not the
property of the means of production. Property is a mere juridical
(bourgeois) concept. Giving it to the workers or the state (who will
lease usage to the workers) you=92re just moving the chairs around but the
room will look pretty much the same. The issue is the relations of
production.
Under market socialism, the general mold of capitalism will be intact.
People will just adapt themseles and =93find their place=94 again in it as
the system will keep rolling up and down on its automatic pilot
mechanisms. Read Yoshie=92s arguments. Besides, we=92re only too tired of
seeing it actually happen over and over again. Any social gains and
participatory rights won by the workers within this capitalist framework
will be taken away sooner or later to satisfy the conjuntural
necessities of the system. Roll in, roll out. Besides, this discussion
is not even substantially new after Yougoslavia and all the
self-management socialism debates of the 60=92s.

Just a quick word for the central-planners. This method is totally
bankruped, for all the reasons that have been exposed in this debate and
some more. It can achieve temporary good results in a small economy
and/or as a tool for capitalist rapid initial accumulation. But not much
more, I=92m afraid.
Of course, the dictatorship of the proletariat could use some wise
dosage of market and central-planning mechanisms. But communism will be
a world economy or, more exactly, a world post-economy. This rusty
central planning business will be totally out of the question for that.

What we need is a self-regulatory mechanism for a worker-ruled,
non-commodified, world wide productive system. I think this will became
possible, within a short period, with the revolution in the
communications technology. The production-consumption cycle will work
like a human brain, without any central point of command. The system
will run smoothly, adapting offer and demand tightly, through myriad,
networked, information channels. The anarchy of production and the
economic cycles of capitalism will be over. For the ones found of
computer architecture analogies, this will be like a =93massively
parallel=94 engine and not one with a CPU.
We=92ll have more news about this issue on this list soon. In fact, the
ideas of the last paragraph are borrowed from a comrade that should be
arriving here any minute.


Jo=E3o Paulo Monteiro



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---