Date: Sun, 12 Jan 97 5:40:18 EST
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
Subject: Re: M-I: Market socialism and the Hayekian critique





		Mr. Proyect,


	The Soviet problem was not simply one of fascist bureaucrats.  The
problem was that the rational which cedes power to "scientific planners" is
no different from the one which cedes power to fascist bureaucrats.  Where
does the central planner get the right to inflict (and make no mistake a
large number of people will see any plan as inflicted) his plan on the
worker?   How is such a right legally constituted?  How does the central
planner deal with rebellious firms?  What gives him the authority?  



	The problem with the Soviet Union was that it was not, and Russia
is not, a legally constituted society.  Regulations are not laws.  Laws
are derived from principles.  What principles give central planners the
authority to make decisions over distant factories?  In capitalism it is
private property.  You have to listen to corporate planners because they
represent the specifically numerable stockholders who have a concrete and
understandable stake in the factory - they paid cash money for it.
Planners represent constituencies who are too vaguely defined, at least
given our present understanding of society.  Therefore they are simply
ceded "authority" and that is the beginning of the end.  There has to be a
defined relationship between the constituency the planner represents and
the given factory.  Why should the workers at factory X answer to the
demands of this constituency?  Who says these are their demands?  Who the
hell is a worker working for?  "Everybody" is too vague and TOO POWERFUL. 
If a planner represents "everybody' then who can argue with him?  This is
why the Soviet Union failed:  They didn't understand the importance of
limited government.



	Commerce is played out in the civil arena.  Authority is granted
by contract.  The government simply decides what aspects of a contract it
will protect (given a dispute) and what kind it won't.  Who mediates a
dispute between a central planner and a manager, or a worker, and on what
basis?  Is there a contract between the worker and the planner?  How about
between the government and the planner?  Will a manager whose plant
performs poorly be able to sue the planner if he loses his job?  The
Soviet answer was to essentially criminalize every offense because every
dispute was thought to be between the state and the
worker/manager/planner.  This simply meant that too many people had the
mantle of state authority, and they, predictably, abused it. 




	peace,
		boddhisatva







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