On Thu, 22 Sep 1994 12:56:58 -0700 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>1. In Jim's opening remarks, he says "[Roemer's] scheme doesn't seem
>to deal with the principal/agent problem any better than capitalism
>does."
>
> I believe that Roemer's position on this is
>that his version of market socialism won't deal with the problem any
>*worse* than capitalism does either, and meanwhile it will offer
>improvements in terms of income equality and efficient provision of
>public goods, at least...
Exactly! Despite Bob P's misunderstanding, my point was (1) that
Roemer wasn't solving the p/a problem and (2) one partial solution
was to encourage social conscience, but he (like most other
market socialism schemes) was encouraging the p/a problem to
persist by encouraging atomistic individualism.
>2. Jim's refutation of this "do-no-worse" approach to socialism
>echoes a fundamental dichotomy in debates on possible socialist
>futures. Roemer's vision corresponds to what one might call an
>"egalitarian liberal" approach to socialism, for which the
>fundamental commandment is to change property rights in an
>egalitarian direction, without necessarily changing patterns of
>social interaction. Jim's vision is more in a collectivist
>direction (similar to the proposals of Albert and Hahnel, to whom
>Jim refers), which emphasizes democratic participation at all levels
>of economic decisionmaking.
"Refutation" is *too strong a word*. More accurate is "criticism."
I don't see how anyone could see my message as an attempted
refutation.
BTW, I never presented my vision except via scattered references
to other peoples's work. Among other things,
it should be clear that I didn't endorse A & H's scheme
except to the extent that they addressed the issue I brought up.
I tend toward Pat Devine-no-relation's scheme, at least as an
early stage.
Also, I don't simply go in the "collectivist" direction, since
there are other species of collectivism besides democratic
collectivism.
> Jim suggests the possible superiority of the collectivist
>approach to socialism in terms of "develop[ing] institutions that
>encourage the development of social conscience". Perhaps it is
>possible to engineer this, though Doug Henwood's comment about the
>chicken-and-egg problem is certainly apropos. It is also possible
>that collectivist institutions will excite social antagonism, as
>people get tired of sitting through all those f***ing meetings [cf
>Nancy Folbre's exchange with Albert and Hahnel....the tyranny of the
>anal-compulsive?]
For both of these, I agree that the problems should be addressed;
in fact I addressed the former in a reply to Doug. For the latter,
I also agree that this is a problem; but that's no excuse not to
address the issue of how a society can be structured to promote
social consciousness. For example, the identities of who attends
the f***ing meetings could be chosen at random, as with ancient
Athenian democracy. (This choice excluded slaves & women & metics,
but that's another issue.) We have to develop _new_ methods of
enforcing democratic accountability (at minimum cost of silly
meetings, etc.) if we want to deal with the problem Gil brought up.
>I raise one set of issues related to Arrow's impossibility theorem in
>my URPE conference paper to which Jim refers. Jim suggests that
>the development of social conscience may mitigate against such
>problems, a possibility discussed in part 4 of my paper. But there
>is as yet no telling how much so and under what conditions.
I'd like to hear more about this, as I said before.
>3. Bottom line: there are costs & benefits, broadly understood, to
>both visions of socialism (as well as the "intermediate" approach).
>I agree with Bob Pollin that Roemer's approach should be taken
>seriously by those on the left, if only for pragmatic reasons...
I agree that all such schemes should be taken seriously and contrary
to Bob Pollin, I never said otherwise. However,
it is important to *also* look at schemes that are more closely
related to the actual struggles & proposals of people who are
fighting against the system. That's why "what the Zapatistas
are fighting for" is very relevent, plus the fact that if you're
ever to get something besides capitalism you can't simply say "here's
a nice and efficient plan that provides equity, too." Not only is
a mass popular movement necessary to tip capitalism over, but
that movement needs to be motivated by thinking that they're working
for something they *want* rather than some nice academic plan.
I think that the 2nd & 3rd Internationals overdid their critiques
of utopianism, but the basic fact is that an idea without a
movement goes nowhere (unless it fits with the current balance
of power). The need for a mass movement suggests that "pragmatic"
schemes may not be *practical* because no one really want them.
BTW, the mass democratic movements I've read about and encountered
emphasized the democratic-collectivist direction rather than
the "market system plus reforms" direction.
BTW, beyond current academic plans and popular demands, a good
source of ideas for how to organize socialism comes from novels:
Morris's NEWS FROM NOWHERE and Edward Bellamy's LOOKING BACKWARD)
are also sources of interesting ideas for organizing the economic
future. (Bellamy's plan is more akin to Roemer's BTW.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] or [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
