JKS writes>I concede it, marketsa re
BAD, or maybe good in theory but BAD in practice,
whatever. Democracy will make everything great.
Efficiency is a bourgeois notion. <
I never said that anything was "BAD." In fact, that was the point of what I said,
i.e., that I never said that markets were bad.
And I NEVER said that democracy will make everything great. Rather, the only
legitimate way to run a country -- or the world -- has to be based on the active
democratic consent of the governed (and NOT the tacit consent so loved by Locke and
his followers). Rule by elites or markets must be subordinate to democratic
principles. If markets undermine democracy, that's a point against them.
Further, I NEVER said that efficiency was a "bourgeois notion." One thing I do know is
that markets do not encourage efficiency, except following the narrowest definition fo
"efficiency," i.e., minimum _private_ cost, where "private" cost is cost to the
decision-maker (the wealth controller). That definition of efficiency is part and
parcel of bourgeois propaganda. A more sophisticated and more complete definition of
efficiency has been used as part as critique of markets (cf. Albert & Hahnel).
Jim
-----Original Message-----
From: andie nachgeborenen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sat 8/9/2003 4:02 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Cc:
Subject: Re: [PEN-L] The Road to Serfdom
--- "Devine, James" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> JKS refers to > the well worn territory of how
> markets are BAD<
>
> actually, my understanding is that (except for Mike
> B), the main trend of the anti-"market socialism"
> side was not that markets are "BAD." (Could you
> name someone who says that markets are evil?)
Right here, right now, Mike Ballard.
Look, are you trying to provoke me into participating
in this discussion? You know that Micahel P is going
to shut it down immediately. Besides, I am too tired
and busy to do this now. I concede it, marketsa re
BAD, or maybe good in theory but BAD in practice,
whatever. Democracy will make everything great.
Efficiency is a bourgeois notion. Whatever. I don't
care anymore. Leave me alone.
jks
> Rather, it was that real-world markets do not
> correspond to the textbook ideal of markets, which
> doesn't exist in reality, while real-world markets
> have a large number of imperfections that prevent
> them from serving socialist-democratic goals. It's
> the pro-"market socialism" side that puts forth that
> markets are good, or at least better than central
> planning, which is BAD. Frankly, I think that the
> whole plan vs. market discussion misses the point
> (i.e., the need for democracy as part of the
> abolition of class and to avoid the
> inequality-generating characteristics of both
> markets and central plans).
>
> Rather than discussing "market socialism," I think
> it would be worth pen-l's while to discuss Charlie
> Andrews' proposal for competing not-for-profit
> enterprises (in his FROM CAPITALISM TO EQUALITY).
> Maybe Charlie could be dragooned into participating.
>
> Jim
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
