I'm an occasional lurker on this list. I can see that the discussion of
models of socialism is not terribly popular, not surprisingly, since it
is contentious and speculative. To say nothing of raising the very tough
problem of the lacunae in Engels' blithe reference to "the
administration of things", such as substantial problems of both
information and accountability.
Discussion of national development models seems to be more popular. I
know it's asking for trouble to characterize the views of a list, but
I'll say there is a general bias in favor of state led capitalist
development, whether inward (Argentina, India) or outward (Korea,
Taiwan) looking. Protection and state leadership are seen as
facilitating more equitable distribution within the country in question.
Plus other virtues, given the right conditions.
What I have missed (and this may be because I am a very *occasional*
lurker: I have to admit that most days I don't take the time to read my
summary) is an analysis of why those models aren't working today. I
mean, excuse me, if the era of Peronist redistribution (and managed
decline) is our model, I'll stick to dreams of cruising Route 66 in a
large Detroit convertible: the period is right, and that road doesn't
exist any more either. The prospects for generalizing the
Japan/Korea/Taiwan strategy are not quite so remote, but still it's not
an active thread.
The tendency on the list seems to be to blame the IMF/WTO/USA for
forcing markets open and requiring one-size-fits-all neo-liberal
policies. Which is true as far as it goes, but why has national
resistance crumbled almost everywhere? Let me suggest (and here I may be
on well trod ground: it is hard to come into the middle of this
discussion) that changes in the organization of production (roughly
speaking, flexible network production as opposed to vertically
integrated mass production) worsen the bargaining position of those in
the lower 70% of the income distribution vis a vis capital. For
instance, it used to be that multi-national manufacturing companies had
more to gain than to lose by cooperating with import substitution
policies: the mass production model was amenable to establishing dwarf
clones of the parent firm (whether by direct operation, partnership,
selling turnkey factories, or licensing technology, depending on the
national model in question) in protected markets, and the protected
markets were ... protected. So a national government could make a deal
with capital that sheltered the country from world markets. ISI doesn't
fit with today's production methods (an elaborate international division
of labor, technological, supply and marketing partnerships between
firms, and so on), however, and as far as capital is concerned that deal
is off. If I may anticipate one obvious response, the new production
model is about more than simply outsourcing for cheap labor (though
that's part of it); if that were the only change, the national option
would still be on offer.
But this comes back to models (socialist or otherwise): if that deal
isn't working, what comes next? If I want a return to the 1950s, I can
watch movies.
--
Fred Guy
Department of Management
School of Management and Organizational Psychology
Birkbeck College
Malet St.
London WC1E 7HX
_________________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
