in defense of planned socialism
hagena at mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
Thu Nov 10 02:15:21 MST 1994
On Sun, 6 Nov 1994 tgs at cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu wrote:
> 1) Its not necessary to do away completely with private property.
My point exactly. People will still have their stuff, but with more
restrictions on what they can do with it. These restrictions would be
> 2) It's not necessary right away to do away completely with specialization.
But eventually it is.
> that doesn't mean people won't specialize in something they really love.
Exactly! This is the best argument for communism. Under it, people can do
what they love. And in that sense, you can say people would be
"specialized." But they are NOT specialized in the sense that they have to
be in order to put food on the table.
> It's not necessary to rely upon what Marx would have termed "crude communist"
> measures, homogenizing our interests to make us all virtuous,
Of course not.
> I am not for collectivizing the little guys right away. I am
> for making state loans to them conditional upon greater cooperation among
> themselves, I am for having the large worker owned firms competing against
> them until they learn to cooperate,
Oh, this could never work. Haven't you read the Mises-Hayek critique or
the Arrow theorem recently? ;-)
Seriously, though, your suggestions sound quite reasonable for a possible
interim period in some contexts between capitalism and communism.
> 3) You are absolutely right to insist that we vote every month, at the
> very least. [...] AS for my vote getting swamped in a sea of a million
> others, that's why serious democrat, rather than someone trying to
> strawman democracy, is for decentralization.
I'm not quite sure that decentralization is all its cracked up to be.
Andrew Hagen hagena at mhd1.moorhead.msus.edu
|||fight the power|||||||||[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ Canter & Siegel green card
|||||||||||||||||for love||||||||||||||||||||||||||||finger for PGP key
More information about the Marxism