>But whatever, I don't see how this provides any evidence for Louis'
>bald statement that this proves the non-viability of market
>socialism. It is the same as saying that the collapse of the Soviet
>Union is proof in the non-viability of central planning and/or the non-
>viability of socialism.
>
>Paul Phillips,
>Economics,
>University of Manitoba
I'm sorry. I was a little bit rushed when I posted the Estrin recap, so I
couldn't really flesh out my admittedly reductionist conclusion. What I
meant to say is that market socialism collapsed in Yugoslavia for extrinsic
rather than intrinsic causes. That is to say, Yugoslavia was subjected to
market capitalist forces from outside her border that effectively
undermined the market socialist experiment within. The problem is that
despite the best of intentions there is a dialectical relationship between
the two types of market. What gives a market socialist economy a certain
kind of elan in its early stages is exactly what will destroy it in the
long run. For instance, there is little doubt that access to Western bank
credits provided a lift-off to China in the 1980s. However, in the process
of integrating with international funding institutions both private and
public China is creating a new set of relationships that will weaken her
economy. It seems unlikely that Yugoslavia would have enjoyed the kind of
success she had in the 1960s without the ties to the West. By the same
token, it was these ties that eventually destroyed the economy. That is the
reason I continue to be pleasantly surprised by Cuba's survival as a
socialist nation. It is a demonstration that a socialist economy can
interact with the capitalist world and not be swamped.
Louis Proyect
The Marxism mailing-list: http://www.marxmail.org
