[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/15/00 11:40AM
Of course they are different. Part of the problem is INCENTIVES to obtain
ACCURATE INFORMATION. And other part of the problem is INCENTIVES to
_produce_ accurate accurate information. Theese are not the same thing, but
we will not have accurate
In addition to my previous comment -- I think you are also including the idea of the
market as an institution for rationing scarce goods, as problem of information. Again
I would submit that while the market does fulfill this function, it is not the only
institutional arrangement that can
In a message dated 7/15/00 12:24:18 AM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Not Latin but gobbly gook. You keep conflating different problems.
Information, Incentives. Hayek was talking about information and calculation.
I said managing information was not a problem, but
Louis Proyect wrote:
One other key element of the demise of AM is the market socialism they
often upheld. When the Gorbachev experiment failed, when the CCP went off
the deep end welcoming in Nike, etc., when Yugoslavia imploded, it made it
more difficult to talk about the benefits of
At 11:49 AM 7/14/00 -0400, you wrote:
The Hayek arguments assume only enough centralization to have a system
count as planned. Democracy would, if anything, make the problems worse,
because there woiuld be more information to coordinate and more pressure
groups to accommodate.
so we're
Brad De Long wrote:
So if in a decade Mexico, Brazil, Poland, Hungary, and the Czech
Republic are in the position that SK and Taiwan are now, you will
conclude... what?
That history has reversed itself? That 5 countries out of over 200 in
the World Bank's World Development Indicators don't
I never denied Michael's point. I don't knwo enough about this. But in the Schweickart
model I advocate, new investment is planned, so if there is a problem there with
markets, we need to worry about it in market socialism of that variety. --jks
In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:27:44 AM
As I dsaid, in the Schweickart model, investment is planned, so this wouldn't be a
problem with socialist markets.
In a message dated Fri, 14 Jul 2000 12:35:07 AM Eastern Daylight Time, Jim Devine
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
At 12:04 AM 07/14/2000 -0400, you wrote:
What system provides
At 03:43 PM 7/14/00 -0400, you wrote:
As I dsaid, in the Schweickart model, investment is planned, so this
wouldn't be a problem with socialist markets.
if investment is planned, then the Hayek critique applies and the
Schweickart model falls apart, right? or maybe the Hayek critique isn't as
I have long troubled over investment planning. It is a weak point in Schweickart's
theory from an efficiency point of view. I think we may have to suffer those
inefficiencies for equity reasons. Without denocratic control of new investment, it is
hard to see how you have socialism at all. But
Rod Hay wrote:
Actually I think the Hayek-Mises critique of planning is quite easy to
answer. The problem is not information. The problem is designing
institutions which provide the incentives for technological
improvements.
The premise that technological improvements (in the abstract)
What? third worldist media? IW? Julia Roberts? I am quite mellow and busy today, just
checking
my e-mails at the moment. You really haven't provoked me yet!
Mine
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
Anthony DCosta wrote:
Wallerstein writes, irrespective of what
No, we are not against democracy. But we have to recognize that not all its effects
are wholly good in every context. In the context of planning, democarcy would make the
calculation problem worse by amplifying the information distortions it involves.
Democracy is not part of the solution to
Ken Hanly wrote:
By the way, why should it not be useful to extend the concept of
social class beyond the capitalist system?
Cheers, Ken Hanly
Ken, hi. Actually, it is very useful to extend the concept of social
class beyond the "nation-state", which is what the world system people
and
I wrote:
the narrow-minded method of orthodox mainstream social science
RD responds:
... there is no such thing as "orthodox mainstream social science" (maybe
in economics but not sociology).
It's true that I was thinking of economics, which is dominated by a single
world-view, that of
himm? I don't see any mentioning of Durkheim,Weber and Marx in the below
post, but Rostow. Being highly critical of Rostow's modernization theory, IW
is a *still* a modernist. You don't need to be anti or post modernist to be a
critical of Rostow, and definitely, I should add, WSA is a radical
On 13 Jul 00, at 11:19, Mine Aysen Doyran wrote:
most notably the thesis that the formation of
a Eurocentric world market in the sixteenth century was the single most
important condition for the emergence of capitalist production in Western
Europe, England included, in the following
Louis Proyect wrote:
One other key element of the demise of AM is the market socialism they
often upheld. When the Gorbachev experiment failed, when the CCP went off
the deep end welcoming in Nike, etc., when Yugoslavia imploded, it made it
more difficult to talk about the benefits of including
And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left?
Doug
Revolutionary socialism and mass struggles that move in that direction.
Eg., Colombia, general strike in Argentina, water protests in Bolivia,
indigenous protests in Ecuador, Israel getting pushed out of southern
Lebanon (Lebanese Marxists
himm? I don't see any mentioning of Durkheim,Weber and Marx in the below
post, but Rostow. Being highly critical of Rostow's modernization
theory, IW
is a *still* a modernist. You don't need to be anti or post
modernist to be a
critical of Rostow...
If I understand IW's main
Lou says that market socialism is finished. If so, so is socialism, since the
Hayek-Mises critique of planning remains without a credible answer on the left. Better
pack it in, then.
As I say, while particular theses and claims of the AMs are debtable, and they cannot
be all right together,
And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left?
Doug
...most of all, revolutionary Cuba
Louis Proyect
There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are
supposed to aim for...
Right.
Brad DeLong
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/00 03:11PM
Lou says that market socialism is finished. If so, so is socialism, since the
Hayek-Mises critique of planning remains without a credible answer on the left. Better
pack it in, then.
)
CB: Speak for yourself.
As I say, while
Brad De Long wrote:
If I understand IW's main criticism of Rostow, it was that Rostow
imagined countries "modernizing" and undergoing similar processes at
different times--but that the structure of the world system
prevented a "peripheral" country from becoming a "core" country
unless it
There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are
supposed to aim for...
Right.
Brad DeLong
For North Americans? Heavens no. But for other countries in the Caribbean.
YES. Here's an excerpt from a profile on Paul Farmer in last week's New
Yorker Magazine. Farmer is a
[EMAIL PROTECTED] 07/13/00 02:16PM
And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left?
Doug
...most of all, revolutionary Cuba
Louis Proyect
There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are
supposed to aim for...
))
CB: But it is a big improvement over
Brad wrote: From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy,
France, and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the
Hong Kong SEZ, Spain, and Ireland are joining the core, and there appear to
be a bunch more lined up behind them...
Doug riposted: That's a rather
I think answering this question would be fruitless. We have been over
that before quite a few times.
Brad De Long wrote:
And so is Soviet-style socialism. So what's left?
Doug
...most of all, revolutionary Cuba
Louis Proyect
There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as
From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy, France,
and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, South Korea, Singapore, the
Hong Kong SEZ, Spain, and Ireland are joining the core, and there
appear to be a bunch more lined up behind them...
Thanks to military dictatorships and
On Thu, 13 Jul 2000, Brad De Long wrote:
There's your answer: 40-year long dictatorship as the *model* we are
supposed to aim for...
It worked for that icon of global competitiveness otherwise known as
Singapore, didn't it?
-- Dennis
Ricardo Duchesne wrote:
We are not there yet, but we are
clearly moving in the direction of such a demise, or if you will permit
my prejudices, a bifurcation. What are the contradictions of
world-systems analysis?
1) The first is that world-systems analysis is precisely not a
Wallerstein writes, irrespective of what others write. He doesn't
listen--to paraphrase some of his students (who are my friends) and
colleagues!
Cheers,
Anthony P. D'Costa
Associate Professor
ran [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:21575] Re: Re: Re: "The Rise and Future Demise
ofWorld-Systems Analysis"
From today's perspective, Rostow looks much better: Italy, France,
and Japan have joined the core. Taiwan, So
Everyone thought that Hayek had died too with his critique of Keynes as well as
socialism! I don't see how the failure of Gorbachev proved anything except that
a lot of the Russian elite including the gangsters thought that something like
capitalism where they owned the productive facilities was
Anthony DCosta wrote:
Wallerstein writes, irrespective of what others write. He doesn't
listen--to paraphrase some of his students (who are my friends) and
colleagues!
Cheers,
ohh, definetly, he is very persistent of his own position. That is expectable from a
sociologist of grand
Brad De Long wrote:
If I understand IW's main criticism of Rostow, it was that Rostow
imagined countries "modernizing" and undergoing similar processes
at different times--but that the structure of the world system
prevented a "peripheral" country from becoming a "core" country
unless it
None of this is in Rostow's theory. His theory is worse than the
crudest of the crude Marxian stage theories.
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
I guess I should say something good about crude Marxian stage
theories (which actually ain't that bad), and about GA
Brad DeLong wrote:
I guess I should say something good about crude Marxian stage theories
(which actually ain't that bad), and about GA Cohen and technological
determinism to boot...
One key problems with the technological determinism that Marx flirted with
in his early days (when he was more
Justin You will have to explain what you mean in more detail. What system
provides incentives to respond to accurate information fast. In my way of seeing
things, large corporations respond slowly and in an imperfect way to market
signals. Those with more reserve resources can delay the respond
At 12:04 AM 07/14/2000 -0400, you wrote:
What system provides incentives to respond to accurate information fast.
In my way of seeing things, large corporations respond slowly and in an
imperfect way to market signals. Those with more reserve resources can
delay the respond for a longer
I had also mentioned before that the Hayek system fails to account for the
allocation of long-lived capital investments. In fact, it more or less
rules out heterogeneous capital.
Justin, if I recall correctly, did not accept my argument, but markets
cannot make any claim to efficiency in this
Perfect competition does not exist, but some markets are more competitive
than others,a nd some are quite competitive. Moreover, although large
corporations often respond slowly--too slowly--they respond faster than
five-years plans; the issue is comparative. Computers will not solve for a
This is exactly on the mark imho
Steve
On Wed, 12 Jul 2000, Jim Devine wrote:
I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly
learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his research.
(In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.)
I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly
learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his research.
(In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.)
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine
Haven't read
I wrote:
I don't think Wallerstein ever claimed to be a Marxist, though he clearly
learned from Marx Marxists and Marxist can learn some from his
research.
(In this, he is very similar to Barrington Moore.)
Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one
M. H. wrote:
Wallerstein's approach is circulation rather than production.
Actually, he does emphasize production. Athony Brewer, in his famous book,
_Marxist theories of Imperialism: A Critical Survey_ classifies IW's world system
theory under the section of_Modern Marxist Theories of
In a message dated 7/12/00 4:48:56 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism, one
responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the 2nd
3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist
In a message dated 7/12/00 8:29:41 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I have a question. I realize that Robert Brenner identifies himself
with Analytical Marxism, but I'm not sure what exactly stamps
Brenner's work as Analytical Marxism (as opposed to other kinds of
Yoshie wrote:
I have a question. I realize that Robert Brenner identifies himself with
Analytical Marxism, but I'm not sure what exactly stamps Brenner's work as
Analytical Marxism (as opposed to other kinds of Marxism).
hi, Yoshie. Bob develops abstract models, like his piece in the
I wrote:
Originally, I'd say that Analytical Marxism was a kind of Marxism,
one responding to dissatisfaction with both the "orthodox" Marxism of the
2nd 3rd Internationals and Althusserian structuralist Marxism. But
combining Marxist propositions with the narrow-minded method of orthodox
Ken Hanly wrote:
I read through this but I fail to see anything that I can identify
with Marxism. I only recall capitalism mentioned once. Capitalism
does not seem to enter as a unit of analysis.
mentioned once?? In the _Modern World System_ and _The Capitalist World
Economy_ capitalism is
Yoshie wrote:
I realize that Robert Brenner identifies himself with
Analytical Marxism, but I'm not sure what exactly stamps Brenner's work as
Analytical Marxism (as opposed to other kinds of Marxism).
here is Brenner/Wallerstein debate by Giovanni Arrighi!
--
Mine Aysen Doyran
PhD
Mine wrote:
World System Marxism overcomes two limitations of Analytical Marxism in
5 *weak* areas 1) methodolological individualism
Steve writes:
I've never heard world system theorists addressing themselves to the AM
question actually...and of course Marxists like Brenner, Petras,..have
Stephen E Philion wrote:
Mine wrote:
World System Marxism overcomes two limitations of Analytical Marxism in
5 *weak* areas 1) methodolological individualism
Steve writes:
I've never heard world system theorists addressing themselves to the AM
question actually...and of course
54 matches
Mail list logo
