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 ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005