Jim (Devine),
I liked your post on dumping costs and the idealization of
markets by some market socialists as a magical way to avoid "political"
social choice decisions.
I too like much of Hahnel-Albert's work but feel that their
categorical rejection of all market mechanisms is counter productive and
leaves them open to the wishfull thinking impractical utopian type
criticism to which they have been subjected.
I think pen-l readers (market socialists and non alike) may find
SOCIALISM AFTER COMMUNISISM: THE NEW MARKET SOCIALISM by Christopher
Pierson (Penn State , 1995) of interest. I'm reveiwing for SCIENCE AND
SOCIETY which sent me the book out of the blue - for which I'm grateful.
Pierson who is a political scientist has packed an awsomely
exhaustive survey of market socialism both from economists , but
particualry from policy sci theorists such as Dahl, Held, and Gould,
which is highly relevant to this debate but which we economists rarely
address.
His conclusion: though the market socialists have provoked a much
needed debate on some traditional socialist assumptions, it is not a
viable or feasible program for the future. Among other things this is
because market socialists are not Hayekians who can see the market as an
absolute ideal but rather acknowledge that bad market outcomes must be
corrected politically. This implies an embedding of markets in politics
in a way that Neo-Liberals would dispise, but which means that markets
can only be advocated conditionally for utilitarian purposes by market
socialists so that in the end the issue once again is increased
democratization and accountability of both the state and civil society -
a job which cnnot be reduced to markets.
Pierson argues that in the end
market socialism is also not a FEASIBLE strategy politically as the
changes in ownership it advocates would be fiercly resisted and could not
be implemented without collapsing an existing captialist economy (esp. in
an era of global capitalism) This which is also the problem of social
democratic reforms which led to some of the market socialism ideas IS NOT
SOLVED by market socialism. Pierson seems to lean towards a "wage-fund"
or "pension-fund" staregy which a la Meidner could be implemented
gradually out of growth.
Finally,an era of increasing recognition of "environmental limits"
whatever they may be, implies greater atention to collective control over
resources.
So we're back to social choice, "externalities", and the environment - (my
reading) once again.
You can run but you can't hide (from social choice) behind a market!
Cheers!
Ron Baiman
Economics, Roosevelt Univ., Chicago
