Justin wrote:
>Well, the impasse was something we reached while ago. Much of the
>shapre of it involves misunderstanding. There is a deep, underlying
>aspect to--many socialists thinks that markets and competition
>areevil, and would think they were evil even if they could do
>everything I say, and plans couldn't. There is a deep ascetic ideal
>running among the support many people who still support socialism
>have for the ideal: the basic motivation is not that socialism will
>make us rich or happy or free, but that it will transform us and
>make us good. In short, this is a sort of Rousseauean
>socialism--something with a legitimate root in Marx, who answered
>to some of Rousseau's call in various ways. On this worry, the
>concrn with markets is that they do not ake us good, but set us
>against one another. I think the Rousseauean impulse is attractive
>but quite futile. As a liberal, I would be satisfied if socialism
>made us rich, happy, and free, and I think market socialism can do
>that, but planned socialism cannot.
I don't think that folks here are critical of the idea of market
socialism because they are "ascetic." In fact, one might say that an
obsession with "efficiency" (as defined by the market) is a kind of
asceticism. The competitive market, when it becomes _the_ mode of
production & gains power of compulsion over us, makes human beings
work harder than otherwise -- an unpleasing prospect unless you are a
fan of "work ethic"!
Yoshie
