So what is left, or I mean what remains, of analytical marxism..? And is this the future of "socialism"? Why is that word still used at all to describe such a travesty of anything remotely resembling socialism? Cheers, Ken Hanly Rosser Jr, John Barkley wrote: > --- Begin Forwarded Message --- > Date: Thu, 11 Feb 1999 13:05:57 EST > From: Hayek-L List Host <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: [HAYEK-L:] H-WEB: R Hahnel on Roemer, Socialism & > Hayek > Sender: Hayek Related Research > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Reply-To: Hayek Related Research > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Message-ID: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> Hayek On The Web << -- Socialism / Roemer > > Robin Hahnel, "A Review of _A Future For Socialism_ > by John Roemer", on the web at: > > http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hahnel.htm > > Hyperlink: <A HREF="http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hahnel.htm">A Review of > A Future For Socialism</A> > > >From the review: > > "In the introduction, Roemer graciously surrenders, posthumously, for Oscar > Lange, the original proponent of managerial market socialism, to Friedreich > Hayek, the arch-conservative critic of market socialism: "Lange argued that > what economists now call neoclassical price theory showed the possibility of > combining central planning and the market, and Hayek retorted that planning > would subvert at its heart the mechanism that gave capitalism its vitality. > Hayek's criticisms of market socialism, and more recently those of Janos > Kornai, are for the most part on the mark." No matter that Lange's model was, > essentially, a pure market model without anything resembling planning, much > less central planning. No matter that Roemer's own model reduces to a minor > variation on Lange's model. I'm sure Lange along with Abba Lerner, Frederick > Taylor, and other proponents of managerial market socialism -- as well as all > who have objected to the tautological equation of efficiency and freedom with > free market exchange and private ownership preached by Hayek's disciples in > the ultra-conservative Austrian school of economics -- will appreciate that > Roemer has spared them the trouble and embarrassment of running up their own > white flag ,,, > > It is fascinating how fast a tactical retreat urged on us by our academic > fellow travelers turns into a complete rout. In response to the collapse of > communism some self-styled radical economists at the Socialist Scholars > Conference in New York five years ago argued that market "rejectionism" should > be reconsidered, and perhaps markets could be a useful part of a socialist > economy provided they were properly "socialized," to use a phrase coined by > Diane Elson. Now Roemer is congratulated by the likes of Samuel Bowles and > Erik Olin Wright for admitting that Lange was wrong and Hayek was right, for > pointing out that the only corrective needed to free market allocations is > indicative planning modeled on Japanese Keiretsu and MITI, German investment > banks, and investment planning in Taiwan, for over throwing capitalism by > making every citizen a capitalist -- everyone must play the coupon market > poker game and you can't even cash out--and for chastising socialists for > demonizing private ownership and fetishizing public ownership. Market > socialists have, indeed, "come a long way, baby." > > Robin Hahnel, "A Review of _A Future For Socialism_ by John Roemer". > _Z Magazine_. http://www.zmag.org/zmag/articles/hahnel.htm > > Hayek On The Web is a regular feature of the Hayek-L list. > --- End Forwarded Message ---
