I don't like to toot my own horn in public, but in this case maybe I should. I've been writing about socialism in a non-Marxian (and non-neoclassical) vein for almost 20 years (sporadically). My first piece was published in 1980 (a critique of Castoriadis' "On the Positive Content of Socialism"). My most recent was two years ago (in Legal Studies Journal). There's been a lot of evolution. In general, I don't claim any great originality, except insofar as I try translate into economics the arguments of my preferred brand of new leftists. FWIW, the central point of attack is the corporation; the goal is to socialize capital. State power in this model serves primarily an enabling, not instrumental role. (The state doesn't plan the economy, it establishes rules and provides resources that help communities, democratic enterprises, etc. plan....more or less.) The hard part, for me, is not envisioning a delightful utopia (although, god knows, we need more of that these days), but thinking through how it can be approached through specific, viable, incremental measures. Without doing that, we have no way of determining whether it's attainable or not, unless we are willing to stake everything on a giant leap of faith. Surprise: most people aren't willing to do that. Peter Rob Schaap wrote: > > Just thought I'd clarify: > > I meant the issue has been dressed up as two 'opposites' neither of which we > need necessarily embrace - but if we don't embrace 'em, our discourse isn't > in the frame - the frame constituted for economic debate today is one of > Hayekian freedom plus price as optimal communication versus some > quasi-Stalinist bureaucratic system by which political and economic power is > reputedly even more concentrated and allocation decisions are reputedly > necessarily sub-optimal. There's gotta be room opened up beyond this pair, > no? > > Is there any new literature on this question? > > Cheers, > Rob. > > ---------- > > >G'day all, > > > >Seems to me that the coherent critique we lefties have available to us has > >four other political problems, too: > >1) it has easily been dressed up as the optimal but problematic 'hidden > >hand' versus the demonstrably spotty history of the social democratic state > >as corruptible and bureaucratic 'dead hand'; > >(2) it is difficult to sustain it empirically [although if it were right, I > >reckon the world would look a lot like it actually does]; > >(3) it suggests a revolutionary politics insofar as the differential > >ownership and control of the means of production must be stopped [which > >involves expropriation, which might involve coercion - but maybe another > >decade or two of mega-mergers and super-privatisation might see the whole > >lot of us in a very different relationship to the MoP], and > >[4] one critique doesn't necessarily lead to one programme [market > >socialists like Nove and Schweikert would disagree with councilists like > >Albert and Hahnel, who would disagree with Leninists - who are always > >bagging each other, like the Trots and the Stalinists]. As we know, these > >disagreements are often extremely intense and often definitively impossible > >to resolve. > > > >The defenders of the status quo need defend but one order, but progressives > >have the difficult job of proffering competing scenarios. Solidarity, the > >left's only realistic modus operandi, is actually a lot easier for the > >individualistic right - and an economic position that does not offer > >currently dominant notions of freedom and the individual, neat numbers, > >untraumatic programmes and a solid linear prescription, is pushing shit > >uphill. > > > >And then we have the problem of rhetorical association, eh? Everyone's > >convinced the leftie critique is the thin edge of the gulag archipelago > >wedge. We are nipped in the bud, because people are convinced the flower > >will be bureaucratic centralism, I think. > > > >And maybe we do need to do a little work on some of our common premises. > >Doug O. suggested the other day, for instance, that we could best keep the > >law of value by allowing for Schumpetarian moments of innovation and > >associated fleeting moments of non-labour-endowed value. Would such an > >approach, for instance, defeat widely accepted wholesale rebuttals of the > >law of value (eg. Stigler and Boulding)? > > > >Yours musing incoherently, > >Rob. > > > > > >---------- > >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Tom Walker) > >> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >> Subject: [PEN-L:6859] RE: Old "foggies"/"fogeys" > >> Date: Sat, 15 May 1999 07:06:33 -0700 > >> > >>The winnowing of the left from economics is hardly surprising if one steps > >>back for a moment from who or what economics claims to be and do and > >>considers instead how economics is historically situated as a discipline > >>within the university and within society -- that is to say, if one takes a > >>historical materialist view of economics. Economics is a sub-genre of > >>history. It has appropriated to itself the authoritative posture of the > >>natural sciences, from which position its objects of study -- the > >>historical relationships in society -- necessarily are recast as > nature-like. > >> > >>If one accepts a priori that private property, wage labour and market > >>exchange are *essentially* natural, rather than historical, features of > >>economic life, then one is reduced to higgling over their contingent > >weights > >>and prices. The mathematics is seductive. It begins soothingly, "if we > >>bracket out [for the sake of argument] history . . ." and it concludes > >>sternly with a taboo against bringing history back in. But the real > scandal > >>occurs later with the supplementary concession that history may be > appended > >>to the [supposedly 'real'] analysis. Thus for economics, history is a > >>contingent appendage while private property, wage labour and market > >>exchange are essential. > >> > >>One need only read Lionel Robbins' Essay on the Nature and Significance of > >>Economic Science to see precisely how and why historical materialism is > >>banished as *non-economics*. "Marxist economics", however, is permitted to > >>play the game by the rules, the first of which -- the very definition of > >>the object of "economic science" -- is to concede the universality of > private > >>property, wage labour and market exchange. > >> > >>Michael Perelman wrote: > >> > >>>Peter is correct that radical economics is not reproducing itself. The > >>>space for new left economists is limited to a few liberal arts colleges, > >>>Catholic institutions, and less prestigious state colleges. For the most > >>>part, these do not have graduate programs. > >>> > >>>During the '60s, students demanded something other than standard > >>>neoclassical fare. In order to maintain majors, departments had to hire > a > >>>few lefties to make their programs more interesting. I was hired for > this > >>>purpose. > >> > >>regards, > >>Tom Walker > >>http://www.vcn.bc.ca/timework/covenant.htm
