Date: Mon, 12 Feb 1996 23:58:50 -0500
From: Brian Carnell <briand-AT-carnell.com>
Subject: Re: Democracy and Planning: [WAS] Re: Young Liberal Fascist


At 07:56 AM 2/12/96 -0800, Peter wrote:
>How about: different parties coming up with alternative
>plans for the level and composition of investment and
>public expenditure, and then having a national vote
>on it.  Also, in the process of formulating these
>alternative plans, a broad process of consultation,
>public hearings, and input from workers' and consumers'
>councils and their democratically elected delegates.

This is the *worst* sort of application of democratic theory (although I do 
concede that it is indeed "democratic" socialism).

This would remove the main benefit of the market system -- that it can 
quickly and simultaneously try many solutions to the same problem, with only 
the best/cheapest solution finally emerging as the most successful.

For example, the status of computer operating systems is now in flux.  While 
I suspect in 5 years we will all be using some variation of Windows NT, 
there are plenty of groups and corporations working on alterative OSes, many 
of whom will fail miserably because they will be unable to capture market 
share, but a few that might depose Microsoft.

In your democratic socialist vision, this competition would be eliminated.  
Instead we would have consortiums and individuals offer plans of what they 
would do.  Then we would vote on a few of those plans and implement ONLY 
those plans democratically approved.  But since we have only imperfect 
information about the future, we risk ignoring the most profitable and 
effective solutions to problem.

This is exactly the sort of problem the Soviet Union constantly ran into 
with technological progress.  It committed its entire economy to a few 
solutions, and when it guess wrong it paid heavily.  You are of course not 
proposing that we run our economy like the USSR, but you are still adopting 
the position that we should artificially limit production and investment to 
a few basic ideas.

This history of technological progress especially is a history of a few 
individuals or corporations who overcame the huge consensus that their 
ideas/inventions/techniques would fail.

If you have any sources for how a socialist economy overcomes the problem of 
imperfect knowledge about the future, I'd be *very* interested in it.

>PS When are you going to answer the 3 posts I
>sent you explaining why libertarianism is hogwash
>Mr Carnell?

Oh yes, I will answer them.  I liked the title -- at least you don't beat 
around the bush.  I don't know when I'll be able to answer them, but it is 
on my list of things to get done before the end of the month.



---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Brian Carnell
briand-AT-carnell.com



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

     ------------------