I don't want to get into the market socialist debate now, but I am a market socialist because I think markets can do a better job at allocation of many (not all) resources in many contexts than any alternative institutions we know of; and yes, I think that socialist markets would be different from capitalist ones in many ways that I have detailed at other times. Notably they would not have the expansionsit tendencies of capitalist markets, at least if the market relations are among worker self-managed enterprises. Socialist markets will be more self-consciously politicized than capitalist markets, although these are politicized too, a point well made in Cass Sunstein's work.
You ask, Yoshie, whether we can eliminate scarcity by asking what is really necessary labor. I wasn't thinking, though, of inquiring into "real needs," as opposed to "false wants." I had a much more modest point in mind. My thought was just that if we find that we have organized production so that some activity is not producing anything that someone wants, which happened a lot under formerly existing communism, with production that was designed to meet some indicator or target, we should stop doing that and produce things that people want. You know the stories about factories that produced 20 point nails, three inch think sheets of glass, TV sets that didn't work, and the like.
No doubt our attitudes towards aging will change; they did under capitalism. But that won't give us significantly more time. Maybe your idea is that people might come to have a more relaxed attitude about hanging out, schmoozing with friends; that the aged will be better respected, and the like. No doubt. I hope so. But that does not affect my point, that we should not arrange production so that people are doing things they would not otherwise do and which does not benefit anyone else, points you say you agree with.
jks
>Justin says:
>
>>Well, I guess I don't believe in communism: I am a market socialist.
>
>I know you are a market socialist, but under market socialism, the
>market won't be the same as what it is under capitalism, right? The
>existence of markets in itself doesn't say much about the mode of
>production, since markets existed in pre-capitalist societies as well.
>
>>I certainly do advocate reducing the working day so we have more
>>time. I find it interesting how my essentially Marxisn point about
>>taking care not to waste our time was transposed into a charge of
>>neoclassical Gradgrindism. But this is my point. It is a fact of the
>>human condition, indeed, a result of human nature as mortal, that we
>>do not have infinite amounts of time. There are, therefore,
>>opportunity costs with respect to time.
>
>So, you think opportunity costs existed in pre-capitalist societies as
>well?
>
>>Time I spend, yes spend, doing work I would not otherwise do because
>>I have to make a living I cannot pass, or use otherwise. Therefore
>>it would be a crime to organize the economy so that people have to
>>do more of that soirt of thing than necessary.
>
>*>
>In terms of time, capitalism is certainly a crime, representing
>decrease, not increase, in leisure, despite a tremendous increase in
>productivity.
>
>>Moreover, if the effort is pure waste, if it does not benefit
>>society, then the result is a dead loss. This should be avoided if
>>it can be. The economy should not only minimize "necessary" labor,
>>but it should make sure that this labor is _really_ necessary. Do
>>you seriously disagree with any of this?
>
>No, I don't disagree with you on the above, but if scarcity &
>unlimited wants are human conditions, as opposed to capitalist
>conditions, then, regardless of how much you minimize necessary
>labor, scarcity will still loom as large as ever, since there will be
>always new wants that could have been met (= opportunity costs).
>Especially if you take a view that the socialist relations of
>production remove the fetter on productive forces & hence remove the
>fetter on the production of wants as well, you might even argue that
>scarcity will be _a bigger problem_ under socialism than capitalism.
>
>Once you begin to ask what is _really_ necessary labor, though, one
>moves beyond the calculation of opportunity costs, in that one leaves
>behind the idea of infinite substitutability. One enters into the
>realm of politics proper, instead of "economics."
>
>>Maybe it is because I am getting older that at my back I always hear
>>Time's winged chariot hurrying near.
>
>Don't you think human beings can approach the question of aging in a
>different way than how we do now? In many pre-capitalist societies,
>elders enjoyed respect, power, & authority; capitalism, in contrast,
>puts a premium upon youth. Can't socialism bring about an attitude
>toward age different from both?
>
>Yoshie
_________________________________________________________________ Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com