C'mon Hugh!
I argue that a socialist economy might need the market mechanism (for I can
see nothing else that would do the particular job of producing and
distributing use values) and you tell me there's going to be abundance, that
"there is *no* scarcity", that "Market socialism is no socialism. If
you have the power to coerce the market to behave in a socially responsible
way, then you have the power to dump the bourgeoisie and its relations of
production, and you don't need half-measures," and that "Market socialism is
a cowardly utopian cop-out."
And now you seem to be saying you always agreed with me on substance, but
that the mere reliance upon the market mechanism for the little matter of
allocating use values does not constitute 'market socialism'! That's a
pretty dry old argument about semantics, I reckon, and I'm too busy a boy.
>Cop-out.
I've criticised everything from the April Theses to the NEP on this very
list. Ask Chas'n'Dave! They went to no small effort in trying to put me
back on the straight'n'narrer on this stuff. Good on 'em, too. But it
didn't take.
>"A role to play in regulating some aspects etc" sounds fine, but does it
>constitute Market Socialism?? What about all the Bruno Bauers and
>Austro-Marxists etc with their virulent hatred of Bolshevism -- how would
>their kind of Market Socialism ever bring about the necessary transfer of
>ownership to the organized working class?
It's not theirs I was suggesting. Not that I'm a Bolshevik. But I do hold
we'd need something of the magnitude of a revolution to attain market
socialism, yeah.
That's my lot, I'm afraid. I've a lecture to write and a bed to crawl into
- in that order, alas.
Cheers,
Rob.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
