Kornai and Hayek

[Sam Pawlett]

"Market socialism proper, insofar as it can be visualized...does not imply the
abandonement of a number of basic socialist values-equal opportunity, major
concern for full employment, social care and so on...the concept of MS..retains
the belief in the existence of an overall interest of society which cannot just be
reduced to a sum of individual self-interests. In this sense it is still exposed
to criticism from the extreme liberal positions. Whether this criticism will prove
correct... is, in our view, too early to say. However, what is appealing in the
concept of market socialism-and this point we do not refrain from taking sides- is
its evident openendedness, which may allow it to move along flexibly enough with
pragmatically validated exigencies" Brus&Laski,MTM,p151-2.
A tepid commitment, but a commitment nonetheless. I agree with B&L that the
feasibility of socialism is an empirical question.The appropriate form of
socialist economy will be worked out through practice. Alternatives to capitalism
will be born through the ant-capitalist class struggle-a unity of opposites. If
you assume socialism won't work, it won't. A self-fulfilling prophecy.It may be
that any kind of socialism will not work very well at all, but we just don't know.
If you assume it will work, it might. A chance worth taking,imho. I am not an MS
but appreciate the strength of the Austrian critique.Schweikart's work woke me
from trotskyist slumber. His book is a goldmine of arguments and information and
contains a lot of original,clear thinking. Have read your(JS') work in Nous,
Phil.of Sci.,Econ.&Phil., and Phil. and Public Affairs. Brilliant work.
Sam Pawlett.
JKSCHW at aol.com wrote:


> In a message dated 98-11-28 06:11:23 EST, you write:
>
> << t could be that Brus and Laski are now Friedmanites. I was referring to
> their
>  position in the book "From Marx to the Market" which was published what? 5
> years
>  ago?
>
> That was the book I was thinking of. Where in it do they assert their
> continued commitment to socialsim?
>
> > [You are} A Hayekian Marxist eh? Well I'm a capitalist communist.
>
> Engels was in fact. But "capitalist" is a class position, not a political
> position.
>
> >So you accept a Marxist
>  critique of capitalism and a Hayekian critique of planning?
>
> Right.
>
> >It surprises me that
>  someone as philosophically sophisticated as you are, would accept Hayek's
>  subjectivist epistemology. In my very limited knowledge of Hayek, it seemed
> that
>  Hayek's critique of planning depended on his epistemology. His critique of
>  planning would fall if his epistemology was refuted. Or am I way off the
> mark?
>
> Hayek's critique of planning is epistemological, but it doesn't depend on any
> deep or controversial positions about epistemology, such as a subjectivist
> epistemology, whatever taht would be. H's main point is that planning requires
> the planners to know too much, whatever we mean by "know." Knowledge could be
> analyzed in externatlist reliability terms, to use the ugly jargon of
> analytical epistemology, a very objective account of knowledge, and Hayek
> could still be right.
>
> --jks