Date: Mon, 7 Oct 1996 20:30:31 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: Re: Marxist theory



I don't defend Roemer's particualr model. I welsome Doug's concrete
critiques of it. If he will explain why R misconceives the way sto9ck
markets work, etc. in ways taht damage the viability of his proposal, and
Doug should indeed know a lot about the stick market, he should tell us. 

What I do defend is the exercise of modeling. Modeling is just thinking
out the conseqiences of explicitly stated assumptions to see how they
work. Like Marx's architect, in the particularly human activity that
distinguishes him from the bee, who can only act, we create in thought our
plan before we create it in action. This way, like the architect, we can
be alert tp the probable consequences of doing things a certain way rather
than another. Obviously modeling involves idealization from actual
featurtes of experience, but taht is in the nature of thought. Obviously
experience will surprise our models, but that is in the nature of the
world. Neither of these things are excuses for going at it either blind,
without having thought ahead, or short sighted, confining ouyrselves only
to solving the immediate problems that confront us. The strength of a
revolutioinary socialistr perspective is the long view and the big
picture. But we will not havea  long view unless we think things out in
the long range. And the big picture requires lifting our sighyts sometimes
>from the task immediately to hand.

Doug makes the remark, unwortht of him, taht because Roemer's models are
technical they are useless to persuade workers of the feasibility of
socialism. If so, we may as well get rid of that most mosterously
technical and opaque work, Capital. The point is that there is a place for
both technical work, as much serious thought must be, and popularizations
of it. The latter will be what persuades workers, but it impossible
without the former. Or at any rate, it cannot be done responsibly, because
without the technical work we won;t have thought things through deeply. 

I'd like to see Doug's critique of Roemer's model. In fact, I suggested a
while back that he devotea  few issues of LBO to discussiing the pris and
cons of various models: Roemer's among them, also Schweickart's, Albert
and Hahnel's (these are main ones on the table); maybe Pat Devine's and Tom
Weisskopf's. That will serve to popularize these ideas among some people
who may be inspired to go back to the workers themselves, do some reserach
of their own, and then popularize their favorite proposals in circles
where people (workers among them) want the answers.

In my own propaganda experience, talking to union meetings, churches
(where a lot workers go), in popular movements, etc., I find that a great
many workers are geberally sympathetic to socialism, described as
something like democratic control of the economy. But they want to know
what this means, because generally they haven't given it much thought. ANd
they havea  lot of concrete concerns about efficiency, democracy, and
fairness that have occupied thea ttention of the modelers. The
discussions--with workers, I mean--get fairly technical fairly quickly in
contexts where people have or make the time to consider the issues for a
couple or so hours. Workers are generally smart people and know a lot
about production, so they raise problems that university students (for
aexample) don't see. I have found a careful study of the modeling
literature invaluable in these contexts. Workers also see when you're
blowing smoke.

So Doug, get technical. Describer Roemer's model and say why it's a
nonstarter.

--Justin

On Mon, 7 Oct 1996, Doug Henwood wrote:

> At 5:14 PM 10/7/96, Justin Schwartz wrote:
> 
> >The most important reason for modelling ang thinking about utopias
> >is this, however. Without answeers to the questions workersa ctullay ask:
> >Why won't this end up like Russia? What reason do we think these chnages
> >will not leave us worse off? we will have no mass movement for socialist
> >change.
> 
> And Roemer-style models will satisfy the workers' questions? Puh-leeze. Of
> course socialists have to devise blueprints for a better future - but with
> reference to actually existing institutions, not crackpot affairs like
> coupon socialism - an idea that shows mostly that Roemer has no goddamn
> idea how stock markets work or what their social function is.
> 
> Doug
> 
> --
> 
> Doug Henwood
> Left Business Observer
> 250 W 85 St
> New York NY 10024-3217
> USA
> +1-212-874-4020 voice
> +1-212-874-3137 fax
> email: <dhenwood-AT-panix.com>
> web: <http://www.panix.com/~dhenwood/LBO_home.html>
> 
> 
> 
> 
>      --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---





     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---