Report from Z Media Institute 98 (fwd)

[James Farmelant]

I think its fair to say that Justin's critique of albert & Hahnel is a
Hayekian
one.  Justin expresses the same skepticism over the ability of A & Hs' 
planning scheme to achieve accurate data collection as did Hayek over
proposed alternatives to the market.  Justin proposes a form of market
socialism as an alternative to both capitalism and varieties of socialism
based either on central planning  or the participatory planning proposed
by A & H.  However, Hayek as I recall did not think much better of market
socialism than he did of the centrally planned varieties (witness his
debates
with Oskar Lange).  Furthermore, as the concept of market socialism has
evolved it seems apparent that its proponents' models have increasingly
come to resemble a reformed capitalism (see John Roemer's *A Future
for Socialism*).

			Jim Farmelant
On Wed, 24 Jun 1998 10:12:15 -0400 (EDT) Justin Schwartz
<jschwart at freenet.columbus.oh.us> writes:
>On Tue, 23 Jun 1998, Peter Kilander wrote:
>
>> I've read both of the Parecon books and am holding judgement.  
>Justin is
>> right in that it depends heavily on computers. Hahnel and Albert 
>want to
>> minimize the power of "coordinators" through democratic planning.
>
>Which they miserably fail to do. At each level, their system requires
>coordinators to integrate the data and formulate a plan optimizing the
>inputs. These individuals will have immense power in view of their 
>ability
>to frame the alternatives from which people choose.
>
>A&H's theory of the "ccordinator" class is essentially Djilas' "new 
>class"
>theory warmed over with a healthy dose of good old Amerricun 
>anti-gummint
>attitudes. Hate them burycrats! 
>
> I guess it
>> shouldn't, but it seems odd to me to see leftists complain about too 
>much
>> democracy.
>
>I think what we see with A&H is the exaltation of "democratic" form 
>over
>democratic substance. I see democracy as popular sovereignty, rule by 
>the
>people. A&H see it as a set of procedures, valuable for their own
>sake-indeed, more valuable than other things people might want to do 
>with
>their time. I would have thought that that itself was a decision that 
>was
>up for democratic control, that if people would prefer not to spend 
>all
>their time inputting their preferencing into computers and debating 
>which
>plans might maximize them thatn they should be able to choose that 
>too.
>Myself, I have a life, and if I had more time, I'd spend it with my 
>kids
>and wife and maybe doing some scholarly research rather than trying to
>plan the economy. I'm quite happy to delegate those decisions to
>professionals (pointy headed burycrats), whom I'd like to have more
>democrat control over, of course, and to the market, which I'd like to 
>see
>dominated by worker managed collectives. 
>
> Obviously, there's a trade off between democratic planning and
>> efficiency, but what do we mean exactly when we say "efficiency"? 
>
>How about what economists mean, maximization of consumer welfare, or
>giving people what they want at a price they are willing to pay? 
>
>Maybe the
>> trick is to steer between the Charybdis of endless meetings and the 
>problems
>> of accurate data collection and analysis and the Scylla of Leninism.
>
>The problem of accurate data collection is, as I said, utterly fatal 
>to the
>A&H project quite apart from the endless demands on our time that it 
>would
>involve.
>
>--jks
>
>
>

_____________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com
Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]