We've been here. I don't want to get into this debate again, so I'll just say rather dogmatically: I think Hayek and Mises overstate their case,but they identify real and deep problems with planning. We know from experience that some things can be effectively planned -- health care, utilities, public transportation and common carriers. Investment, at least far more than it is planned in the US. (The Japanese plan it up the wazoo.)
With other sectors, consumer and production goods, labor itself, there is no reason to think that anyone, including C&C, have presented a plausible solution to the calculations problems. C&C seem to think that the answer is just more powerful computers (I oversimplify a good deal.) They fail to notice the epistemological bad incentives target planning gives producers to overstate their needs and understate their capabilities. (Just for one.)
I think C&C do far better than Albert & Hahnel, whose parecon is a Misean-Hayekean disaster in spades, as well as a silly utopian socialist cult. But not good enough. I'll stick with Schweickart and the early Kornai and Brus. Until I see a better answer to the calculation problem, I'll stay a market socialist as described.
--- Jim Farmelant <farmelantj at juno.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, 17 Dec 2006 11:13:24 -0800 (PST) andie
> nachgeborenen
> <andie_nachgeborenen at yahoo.com> writes:
> >
> > What Hillel didn't seem to realize, and I argued
> this
> > point with him fruitlessly for years, is that his
> > point is _exactly_ same point made by Mises and
> Hayek,
> > that roughly attempts at centralized planning of
> the
> > whole economy will fail because of massive
> information
> > distortion and dysfunctionmal motivational
> incentives.
> > M&H conclude that central planning wasn't possible
> at
> > a high level of economic development. Hillel
> concluded
> > that we need some better special kind of real
> > democratic planning that would (Hillel never said
> how)
> > overcome the epistemological and motivational
> problems
> > that crippled Soviet planning past the "intensive"
> > stage where focus on simply measured quantative
> plan
> > targets (more tons of steel or hectares of wheat)
> is
> > adequate.
>
> BTW since you have alluded to the "socialist
> calculation"
> debate, what is your opinion of writers like Paul
> Cockshott and Allin Cottrell who argue that a viable
> form of planned economy is possible? For some
> examples of their writing see:
>
> Allin F. Cottrell and W. Paul Cockshott,
> "Information and Economics:
> A Critique of Hayek."
> http://www.reality.gn.apc.org/econ/hayek.htm
> _________, "Calculation, Complexity and Planning:
> The Socialist
> Calculation
> Debate Once Again."
>
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/calculation_debat...
> f
> ____________, "Socialist planning after the collapse
> of the Soviet Union"
>
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/soviet_planning.pdf
> _____________, "Information and Economics: A
> Critique of Hayek,"
> Research in Political Economy, 1997.
>
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/hayek_critique.pdf
> ____________, Towards A New Socialism.
>
http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/new_socialism.pdf
> http://ricardo.ecn.wfu.edu/~cottrell/socialism_book/
>
>
> >
> > --- Michael Pugliese <michael.098762001 at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/653/ticktin.htm
> > > No more historical abortions
> > > Hillel Ticktin highlights the bogus nature of
> > > planning in the Soviet
> > > Union and locates the central importance of
> Europe
> > > for the transition
> > > to socialism
> > >
> > >
> > > It is clear that we are living through a world
> > > transitional period,
> > > where socialism is wanted. However, just as in
> the
> > > transition from
> > > feudalism to capitalism a number of formations
> came
> > > into existence
> > > that were neither feudal nor capitalist, so in
> the
> > > current period
> > > there have been formations that are neither
> > > capitalist nor socialist.
> > >
> > > Such forms cannot lead anywhere. The Stalinist
> > > countries were, in that
> > > sense, a historical abortion that had to end,
> but it
> > > is perfectly
> > > reasonable to assume that we will see further
> > > examples of such
> > > distorted forms - although the world is in
> > > transition to socialism,
> > > socialism is not actually happening yet. There
> is,
> > > nevertheless, a
> > > demand from below for change.
> > >
> > > What began in 1917 as the natural progress of
> > > society ended up as an
> > > abomination. Trotsky talked about the conflict
> > > between the law of
> > > value and the law of planning under the new
> economic
> > > policy. But this
> > > was brought to an end, in a particular fashion,
> by
> > > Stalin. His
> > > concessions to the peasantry meant the
> destruction
> > > of the rouble,
> > > after which money no longer existed in the
> Marxist
> > > sense of the word.
> > > Goods could no longer be bought without standing
> in
> > > a long queue - the
> > > rouble simply was not the universal equivalent.
> It
> > > was impossible to
> > > buy the means of production. However, the elite
> of
> > > Soviet society
> > > would receive goods either for free or for very
> few
> > > roubles.
> > >
> > > Enterprises were officially based on profit, but
> the
> > > banks would
> > > always supply them with what roubles they needed
> and
> > > in reality profit
> > > was not a factor. I make this point because
> still
> > > today there are many
> > > who believe that the USSR was in some way
> > > capitalist, but this is
> > > clearly not the case.
> > >
> > > A certain social group, however we characterise
> it,
> > > took power
> > > secretly against the majority of the population.
> The
> > > only way it could
> > > maintain power was through force, through the
> > > atomisation and
> > > pulverisation of the population. This was done
> > > through a particular
> > > form of political economy which was neither
> > > socialist nor capitalist -
> > > there is a huge gap between nationalisation and
> > > socialisation, as
> > > could be seen in the Soviet Union.
> > >
> > > The power of the ruling elite was enormous. The
> > > secret police in
> > > Britain or even in South Africa would never be
> as
> > > extensive and
> > > powerful as the NKVD or KGB, precisely because
> of
> > > the nationalisation
> > > of the means of production in the USSR. When
> Marx
> > > talked of "barracks
> > > socialism" he had no idea of what this would
> mean in
> > > practice, and
> > > could never have conceived that nationalised
> means
> > > of production could
> > > give the secret police so much power. However
> many
> > > laws Blair
> > > continues to pass, giving more and more power to
> MI5
> > > and the secret
> > > state, they could not possibly have as much as
> that
> > > enjoyed by the
> > > secret police in the USSR. The reason for this
> is
> > > the existence of
> > > private property, which cannot be completely
> > > overridden under
> > > capitalism.
> > >
> > > That is why the NKVD had far more power than the
> > > Gestapo. With total
> > > economic power, it is possible to control every
> > > aspect of an
> > > individual's life. In the case of Nazi Germany
> > > people were put into
>
=== message truncated ===
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com