>>> Max Sawicky <sawicky at epinet.org> 05/03/00 05:33PM >>>
. . .
I have suggested a different alternative, market socialism--roughly, public
ownership of the means of production, worker self-management in industry,
and market competition among production units. This alternative moots the
question of how to retain the advantages of markets by keeping them. It
shifts the challege back to Brad and other defenders of capitalism to
explain to us exactly what it is that capitalists do that is so necessary
that we have to let them privately own productive assets. Brad, your
urn. -jks
Not quite I think. Many objections to capitalism could also apply to market socialism. I think the latter would probably be an improvement, but how much is open to grave doubt. I think you need to say something about the purported benefits.
For instance, there is no reason why the crises envisioned by Marx could not occur under MS. Instead of accumulation driven by individuals, you have it driven by groups. If capital is owned external to the enterprise, you have to go some way to define the sort of ownership that is implied and note the horrendous problem of how capital is allocated and accumulated in that setting. In this sense, "market socialism" is a question masquerading as an answer.
______________
CB: Agreeing with Max, the price "mechanism" seems like pretty much the same thing as the Invisible Hand. The mechanism is held in opposition to planning, in the sense that the former purportedly contains an unconscious (to humans) and mechanical guide that automatically balances supply and demand. Planning implies a price "committee" or living group of humans, who consciously balance them. It is difficult to see how keeping the price "mechanism" santized of direct human consciousness is key to guaranteeing its successful function.
CB