Date: Sat, 11 Jan 1997 17:25:25 -0500 From: Furuhashi.1-AT-osu.edu (Yoshie Furuhashi) Subject: Re: M-I: Market Socialism >On Sat, 11 Jan 1997, Zeynep Tufekcioglu wrote: > >> I'm going to abstract out a few points to be able to ask a few questions. >> One, I don't think we really have to prove that socialism can work in order >> to bring about revolution. That does not mean that we shouldn't care at all >> about the question. Two reasons, one, for the majority of the participants >> in revolutionary struggles, that's not the main issue. > >Z, this misses the point. The problem is that there are so few of us who >participate in these struggles. Those who do, we don't have to be >persuaded. It's those who don't who have to be persuaded. Whenever I talk >to working class people about socialism, they want to know the answers to >questions that only modelling can provide. Workers won't go along with us >unless they think that socialism will be better for us. > > Number two, it is not >> possible to foresee events so clearly so as to be able to assume that >> socialism will have to survive under condition A or B. > >As I'[ve said before, modelling is only about prediction at the very >highest level. A model is first of all a political organizing too here and >how. Second it is an heuristic that would give us a set of tools to work >with in concrete situations, something to deviate from. > > What if we have a >> revolution in Turkey? I don't know. What's happening in Greece, Iraq, Iran, >> Kurdistan and the US? What's the political balance, how much of the >> productive base has been destroyed, have we had a civil war, what are the >> chances of an imperialist intervention, what is the level of >> internationalism, etc. So, I don't have any idea what would work in Turkey. >> I sort of believe that life does pose us the relevant problems in a certain >> sequence. > >Well, if Hayek is right, we do have a general idea about what wouldn't >work in Turkey, or anywaywhere else. Likewise if Albert and Hahnel are >right, we have a notion about what might work perhaps in Turkey. The fact >that a market socialist or democratic planning model would not be >implemented in a concrete situation in the future exactly as written now >is not to the point. > >> >> But, of course, the question has some implications for today and our >> understanding of socialism, so it shouldn't be brushed off. >> >> I'd like to pose a few questions. Thinking outloud. >> >> I think about the role of the markets and I come up with "conveying >> information" and "efficiency". Rough, but for the sake of the argument. I've >> worked with research companies as well. The type that do mass-sweeps of the >> market such as retail audits and consumer panels. I'm convinced it is fairly >> straight-forward to obtain a lot of information from consumers about their >> preferences by means othen than that of the market, using current levels of >> technology. > >Sp argue Albert and Hahnel. But here are some problems: > >1. People are not necessarily good predictors of their needs and >preferences over any period of time. I myself "plan" by making a shopping >list when I go to the supermarket. I always forget something important and >have to go back at least twice during the week. And that's only for a >limited range of items (food) for a very short period (a week). I cannot >imagine having to predict everything that I would want or need for a year. >Somethings are unpredictable in their nature. Children grow at unexpected >rates and need sizes of clothing you don't anticipate. People develop new >tastes and interests. Things break.What if I had failed tp predict the >failure of my furnace? > >2. Aggregation of the preferences of millions of consumers is likely to >result in compromises that fail to satisfy any of them very well even if >people could know about them accurately years in advance. A planned system >threatens to produce say, either too many or too few shoes of styles >that really satisfy no one. One-size-fits all programs don't account for >variations in tastes and preferences and risk, I would say guarantee, >widespread dissatisfaction where it does not create actual harm by >creating real shortages of things that people need. Maybe we could all >live with ugly but servicable shoes.But what about a shortage of snow >boots or mediciness? > >3. One nice thing about markets is that it provides a scope for raw tastes >that don't have to be justified. A problem with Hahnel and Albert model >you are discussing is that it puts people in the position of having to >defend their tastes politically in areas where that may not be >appropriate. I care a lot about music, especially classic jazz. This is a >luxury taste, to be sure. Is there are limitred resources for recorded >music, it is likely to be swamped by more popular preferences for lite >jazz, rap, country, etc. Will the plan force me to defend my taste in >terms of, e.g., preserving our cultural heritage, etc., when what's really >at issue is that I like this music? Will it limit classic jazz output to a >handful or recordings a year? > >> accurate measure. Of course, there is the fact that people would be telling >> *beforehand* what they wanted, instead of choosing from alternatives. To me, >> that sounds not like a handicap, but a plus. To hell with artificial, >> commercial pumped needs. Long live true creativity. >> >The beforehand problem is very serious, as I said. There is no reason to >think that the needs one can predicts are nonartificial and the ones one >cannot are artificial. And I am disturbed by the thought that you or me or >anyone else should set ourselves yup as arbiters of what people's true >needs are. A rough hierarchy of needs is possiblwe and will command >general assent. All humans need water, food, shelter, and clothing before >they come to fancy shoes and classic jazz. But apart from that crude but >necesasry division, I wouldn't want to have to argue that your >hypotherical taste for rap is artificial and not worthy of satiusfaction, >unlike my natural, nonartificial need for classic jazz. And if somone >wantsto trade off smaller living quarters for fancy shoes, who are you to >object? > > >> I think the problem with planned economies not producing proper consumer >> goods was more a problem of their political structure, not some inherent >> wrong-ness with planning. They treated their "citizens" and "consumers" as >> one-way-feeding machines. Their political and economic structure collapsed >> mainy for those reasons. People weren't listened to either as workers >> producing or consuming the the goods or citizens making the relevant >> decisions. As far as I'm concerned, that's a matter of political will and >> the participatory nature of the revolution (before and after). The argument >> for markets conveying information hence is not very attractive for me. >> >Nor for nme. But the consequences of planning seem even more dismal. > >> As for efficiency, I have *a lot* of qualms. The efficiency of the markets >> stems from the fact that punishment for the inefficiency is concentrated on >> the failures. They do cause enormous amounts of inefficiency and waste, and >> they correct it by penalising specific segments. The capitalist goes >> bankrupt, the workers are unemployed. Otherwise, in order to compete, the >> workers have to work more in order to compete, under the threat of being >> fired. Now, we're not talking about some loafers who want to free-ride on >> the rest of the society. We're talking about the whole working class working >> harder so as not to get fired. Remove that threat (bankruptcy, and implied >> bankruptcy causing workers to work harder, ignore safety, etc.) and where >> comes the link between competition and efficiency? No loser, no efficiency. >> So, one can't just say competition is good and not think about what exactly >> competition is. > >Effiency can mean a lot ofthings. I want to take it here as the >commonsense notion of avoiding waste, which is at the bottom a waste of >human effort. If planning is inefficient in the sense that I argue, it >results in an immense amount of human effort going for naught. Now, I >think that the consequences of unemployment are bad enough for people that >fair amount of inefficiency has to be tolerated to avoid i. But not an >infinite amount. Even under a rational plan, inefficient enterprises >should be streamlined or closed down and the workers given other work to >do. I don't think that planning can manage this. Shwo me otherwise. What >incentives exist in a planning system to use workers productively, ration >resources intelligfently, and so forth? > >> It is obvious one of the main problems with Soviet Union was the fact that >> they continued to use capitalist indicators. > >No, they didn't. They might have been better off had they done so. >Capitalist indicators would have involved reasonable approximations of >comparative costs, how many yards of linen this ton of steel costs us, and >so on against all other possible uses of resources. In short, money >prices, as Marx explains in CI, Part I. The Soviet planners never had an >accurate sense of comparative costs. > > Of course, you don't measure >> steel in anything but tons, but quality of life and efficiency don't have >> the same meaning in capitalism and in socialism. > >Sure. "Efficiency" in capitalist externalizes costs onto the workers. >Costs to them don't count. One thing that's nice about cooperative market >socialism is that decisionmakers are those who pay the costs taht are >ignored under capitalism, the workers. We can resaonably conclude that >they will not ignore the costs to themselves in making their economic >decisions. > > As far as I've thought of >> the question, (I've read a fair amount, but not as extensive as the other >> participants to this debate), markets require us to adopt the same criteria >> capitalism used. > >Well, yes and no. Capitalist markets use profits and prices and so do >socialist ones. But who mnakes the decisions and in whose interests, >that's different. The class structure of society matters. That is why >market socialism is not a technical fix, but a socialist alternative. > > Planning offers a way out of this, but, a lot of problems >> need to be worked out such as indicator, planinng unit, participation, etc. > >OK, get working. I'll keep working on planning and we'll try to perwsuade >thew orkers and each other. > >--Justin > > > > > --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005