Date sent: Thu, 19 Oct 2000 08:38:27 -0700
From: Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject:[PEN-L:3248] Re: Milosevic and privatization
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Send reply to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> I have another
>So how did Slovenia resist the neolib virus? Social democratic
>parties? Strong unions? A developed welfare state?
>
>-- Dennis
Actually, the latest Z Magazine has an article by Michael Parenti that
describes the stubborn refusal of the Slovenes to go whole hog with "shock
therapy". Apparently t
Jim asks:
> thanks for this message. I have a question: wasn't one reason for the
> movement away from workers' control (socialized property?) is that there
> was excessive decentralization, which led to continuous contracting and
> re-contracting even within factories?
>
Under the 1976 Law
I have another question for Paul. Wasn't the decline in workers' remittances a
major factor?
Also, when you think about it, penners, try to remove the re re re's from the
subject line.
--
Michael Perelman
Economics Department
California State University
Chico, CA 95929
Tel. 530-898-5321
E-Mail
Paul Phillips wrote:
>... I would also use this opportunity to respond to some of Chris'
>comments about Serb policy in the late 1980s re the privatization
>of the 'socialist' property system. First, the pressure for the end of
>the 'social property' system came from western-trained
>economists,
On Wed, 18 Oct 2000 [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> Everthing I have heard is that he was personally honest (i.e. non-
> corrupt) though he did not extend his personal standards to those
> around him, including his immediate family.
Well, Bill Clinton hasn't *personally* benefited from slashing cap
Louis, I think both you and Chris are somewhat off base on this.
The Slovenes (I can't speak so confidently of the Croats but I was
teaching and living for extended periods at the time in Slovenia and
in constant touch directly or indirectly with Slovene government
officials) did not resent t
Buford:
>A crucial feature of overall socialist control of an economy would have
>been how to adjust for the differential in growth rates in different parts
>of the country. Block transfer of funds from areas like Serbia to Kosovo,
>may have been only part of an answer, and one open to Serb res
At 21:07 17/10/00 -0400, Michael Hoover wrote:
>Point of all this is to suggest that anti-privatization stance and move to
>control "commanding heights" in recent years was more a pragmatic
>response to circumstances than an indication of commitment to socialism.
>Milosevic or no Milosevic (and I
> [These are typical results of a Lexis-Nexis search done on "Serb" AND
> "privatization" for the years 1996-1997].
> Christian Science Monitor, June 6, 1996
> Milosevic
> is revoking some privatization and free-market measures.
> Louis Proyect
Belated response due to bad habit of placing mess
10 matches
Mail list logo
