> I think its fair to say that Justin's critique of albert & Hahnel is a
> Hayekian
> one.
Right. That is, correct.
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.
Though not here. I'm open to planned models if they can deal with the problems I raise.
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).
Lange is not, in fact, a market socialist. His system of shadow pricing is an alternative to a market.
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*).
>
But I support a Schweickart worker-controlled market socialism. The Roemer model is a very different story.
However, I don't want a refernfum on MS. I would like to hear how planned socialists deal with the sort of problems I address.
--jks