Date: Tue, 13 Feb 1996 07:19:21 -0500 (EST) From: Justin Schwartz <jschwart-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us> Subject: Re: Democracy and Planning: [WAS] Re: Young Liberal Fascist (XII) Brian, you came in late. I am a market socialist. I've been defending the points you raise below at some length in a socialist context. The debate seems to be over for the present, but if you are interested, ask Chris B in London how to get it the archive. Or read, e.g., David Schweickart's brief account of MS in the Fall/Winter 1992 issue of the Rev. of Radical Political Economics. Of course I believe in more planning than you do. And I agree that the market by itself is anti-democratic. That's one reason I'm a socialist and not a defender of capitalism. But I also agree that market constraints are probbaly economically necessary. --Justin Schwartz On Mon, 12 Feb 1996, Brian Carnell wrote: > 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 --- --- from list marxism-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- ------------------
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005