On Mon, 28 Oct 1996 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > Max S writes: >> it pays to be cognizant > of the limits of collective political action, > including the capacity of the working class or > their representatives (much less anyone else) > to make virtuous, disinterested decisions when > given the power to do so. In other words, there > are proper limits to government. Obviously what > that means in practice leaves a lot to the imagina- > tion. For me it reinforces the premise that the > US public sector should be larger than it is now, > but not as large as, say, Sweden's.<< > > While I agree that there should be limits on the size of the > "public sector" (i.e., the central government), it's important to > remember that there are other ways of attaining socialist goals > (and, more generally, of attaining collective goals) than just > government. In fact, the overemphasis on the central government > has been a major flaw in both social-democratic and > Marxist-Leninist thought. > > Besides central government, ways of attaining collective goals > include tradition and decentralized, grassroots, democracy. (For > ideological reasons, the last is left out of Econ. textbooks, > including, surprisingly, that of Bowles and Edwards.) Clearly, > tradition won't serve socialist goals (and anyway, capitalism > abhors, undermines, and destroys tradition). But decentralized > democracy (worker co-ops, community co-ops, etc.) have been > central to alternatives to social-democratic and Marxist-Leninist > statism. The old US Socialist Labor Party (is it still around?) > used to be good on this issue (though sometimes they were > dogmatic or utopian). Some of the non-social-democratic and > non-Marxist-Leninist thinkers implied that no central government > was needed at all, but we don't need to go to that absurd extreme > (at least not right away). > > The point is that we can have a very large non-capitalist sector > without it being a central-government sector. It can work with, > be complementary to, a democratically-controlled central > government. > > BTW, I wonder: should we really favor an expansion of the size of > a central government like the one in the US, which is so > insulated from democratic control? > > (Speaking of such, the US central government does an excellent > job of spending on war, preserving capitalism, and subsidizing > business profits. That is, it serves its masters well. That > suggests that maybe, in theory, it might do a good job of serving > socialist goals, too. Of course, as Max notes, we have to be > afraid of it getting too much power.) > > PS: On Krugman's personal habits: he's a nice guy. > > in pen-l solidarity, > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] > <74267,[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ. > 7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA > 310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950 > "Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way > and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A. To these interesting comments I would like to add the following: At this time, sovereignty is not vested in the broad masses of the people. Indeed, the members of the polity are effectively marginalized and ghettoized by the present political and economic system of the rich. It is the super-rich in the U.S. and internationally who hold supreme political decision-making power, not the people. The present system of the rich, which rests on 18th and 19th century considerations, is designed to prevent the masses from coming to power. It is designed to preserve the old and prevent the new from emerging. But an entirely new system is needed at this time. Society needs to be renovated and modernized. Since the time of Plato, the elitist and defeatist view that the people are too ignorant, stupid, uneducated, uncultivated, incapable, etc. to rule and move society forward has held sway in many sections of society, especially academe. Back in the 19th century, for example, social "theorists" such as Auguste Comte and Herbert Spencer put forward the view that the masses are unfit to rule, they lack the intelligence. Jefferson and his cohorts, for example, dedicated themselves to developing a system which disempowers the people, prevents them from coming to power. This is the very system we have in place today. Robert Dahl and other products of elite U.S. universities have been dictating for years that democracy is extremely difficult, even impossible, to have when large numbers of people are involved. He opposes efforts at direct democracy. Yet he is regarded by many as an extremely progressive thinker. Today the objective concrete conditions are screaming for democratic renewal and socialization of the process of production. The present system is not consistent with modern requirements. Inequality and poverty have reached unprecedented levels in the U.S., Canada and the U.K, to mention a few imperialist states. The highest form of direct democracy is the order of the day. By advancing the spurious notion of "reasonable limits," the financial oligarchy hopes to postpone their inevitable demise by keeping the people enslaved. It will never accept the reality that people have rights by dint of being human, nor will it accept direct democracy. Political power must arise out of the fact that it is the people of a country who are sovereign and it is they who must have political power by dint of their being. This is the right, by virtue of being, to establish the political system of their choice. The present state is the state of the financial oligarchy with a worked out arrangement among big business, big government and big labor. They have devised a political process that elects their agents to govern in their interests. >From being the preserve of bourgeois political parties and their leaders, the political process will become the preserve of the people and will be in their service. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
