If market socialism is such an attractive alternative, and vastly to be
preferred to party dicatatorships, and capable of arising more or less
spontaneously in periods of mass mobilization, then why
a) did it not arise spontaneously in the wake of the collapse of the Soviet
Union, either there or in any of the other ex-workers states?
b) this in spite of the convictions of such political leaders as Havel in
ex-Czechoslovakia that it was realistic and that they could actually create
a third way similar to but better than the Swedish model?
Could it just be that it's an impossible illusion?
Or is it that the real world is just too rough and polarized a place, and
needs to be civilized to resemble the neatness of Karl Kautsky's desk
before humanity will be able to make any progress worth the name?
In that case, how long will we have to wait?
Cheers,
Hugh
PS I'm referring to market socialism as a power alternative here, neither
the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie we have today, or the dictatorship of
the proletariat, the workers state, that has hitherto replaced it in actual
historical developments in certain countries. I'm not referring to the
greater or lesser use of market mechanisms made by a workers state in
drawing up and refining the centralized plan.
The question of the role of planning and conscious allocation of specific
labour under capitalism (ie in the public sectors of certain welfare states
and in the military and research establishments of even neo-liberal
imperialist states), as a kind of superseding of capital within its own
bounds is a related discussion but not directly relevant to what is usually
meant by market socialism.
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
