Tradition, command or the market?

[trivas7]

Robert Heilbroner in 'The Worldly Philosophers' argues that throughout its history mankind has discovered only three ways to organize society economically: tradition, the whip of authoritarian rule and the market system. Of the three the market system was the most revolutionary in shaping modern society. Do RevLefters agree w/ this?

How do you argue against the view that socialism is a regression to a command economy? A planned economy is a controlled citizenry.

[Kassad]

Well, Marxists and most other socialists (I would think) realize that the free enterprise system is a step in economic development. Feudalism, which still rules in many places today, is one of the most primitive stages of society's development. Tibet experienced feudalistic rule under the Dalai Lama. The United States clung to feudalistic oppression with the manipulation and oppression of the black and indian communities under slavery. Capitalism, or some form of market economy, is usually the next step. Capitalism promotes incredible technological and economic innovation and capitalism is great if you don't care about the millions it leaves to starve. Regardless, this stage of economic development is necessary.

Capitalism is usually the stage that tosses feudalism aside and the ruling class, instead of relying on actual slavery (there's a better word than 'actual', but the term is slipping me, but I'm referring to people being forced to work for little to no pay, usually being sheltered and fed, such as the United States before the Civil War) turns to wage slavery. This brings about class struggle, which will bring the next stage of revolutionary socialism, though how this is brought about is debated.

This is, of course, incredibly broad, but it's the general economic development of society. Socialism is the final destruction of feudalism for it ends economic, social and political exploitation of humanity and, instead, formes a collaborative society with a planned economy. The force that drives revolutionary fervor to authoritarianism is the hand of imperialism. Because the Soviet Union was incredibly impoverished, but was still required to formulate defense due to threats from Germany and the United States. Because of this factor, Soviet leaders were unable to properly move their struggle forward. Authoritarianism became inevitable, as it was either a choice between rapid industrialization or the total destruction of all revolutionary gains. Counterrevolution and imperialism fueled division in the Soviet Union. As we can see, who was the oppressor? Was it the Soviet government, or was it the imperialist forces that threatened them? We see that the failure of revolutions past has come from an inability to properly provide due to oppression from more industrialized bourgeois states.

[Demogorgon]

He is wrong because in reality there is a mixture of all three wherever you look and moreover a broad definition of the market encompasses the other two anyway.

This board is majority anarchist, so I doubt many here favour a command economy anyway, but for the non-anarchist minority like myself, let me point out that "the market" is not a homogenous entity, but can be divided into three quite distinct forces, the market in goods and services, the market in capital and the market in labour. The first has its plus points to be sure, though market fundamentalism certainly doesn't work as it needs to be tamed to address widespread market failure, but using the success of the former to justify the exploitation of the labour market and the concentration of power in the hands of the elite by the market in capital is just dishonest.

[trivas7]

This board is majority anarchist, so I doubt many here favour a command economy anyway

Exactly why anarchism can never work. How does it provide for an economy?



He is wrong because in reality there is a mixture of all three wherever you look and moreover a broad definition of the market encompasses the other two anyway.

Can a broad definition of socialism -- socially owned means of production -- also include markets and tradition IYO? Can competition for goods and services exist in socialism as e.g., Ben Seattle argues for competition between production units to discover the best methods of raising the productivity of labor (http://struggle.net/proletarian-democracy/related.htm#some)?

[Demogorgon]

Exactly why anarchism can never work. How does it provide for an economy?
Well you are targeting that at the wrong person. I don't want to get into the merits of anarchism here.


Can a broad definition of socialism -- socially owned means of production -- also include markets and tradition IYO? Can competition for goods and services exist in socialism as e.g., Ben Seattle argues for competition between production units to discover the best methods of raising the productivity of labor (http://struggle.net/proletarian-democracy/related.htm#some)?
Probably. David Schweickart for instance has come up with a compelling model of commonly owned means of production devolved into autonomous units run entirely by their workforce competing in an open, albeit regulated, market to sell their goods and sharing the proceeds. His model involves abolishing private property and allocating capital collectively according to certain formulae (not altogether divorced from the way the Japanese and South Korean Governments allocated resources in the post war years, though in a socialist framework. It also abolishes wage labour of course.

To me it looks like the most credible model that we could actually move to in the foreseeable future, so the short answer to your question is "yes".

[Bud Struggle]

Communism/Socialism up to now (at least) has been spot on on for it use of the "whip of the authoritarian."

Promises to the contrary have been made, of course. :rolleyes::lol:

[mikelepore]

The term "command economy" in reference to socialism is very odd, because, if the process is democratically controlled by the people, that is, if it's actually socialism in the first place, then there isn't anyone at either end of such a "command" transaction. There's no one giving the command, and there is no one receiving the command.

Suppose the industries were run on a nonprofit basis, so that a computer algorithm (or, in old days, we would have said the formulas used by bookkeepers) calculated the exact cost of production of every product, then set the prices of various products to be their respective costs of production. Whereas the capitalist decides what to put on the price tag by first calculating the cost of production, and then adding a profit margin to that, this method simply refrains from the final step of adding another term.

Who is giving the "command" - the electronic tabulating device that runs the cost accounting algorithm?

And what does the "command" consist of -- the act of refraining from adding an unnecessary term to the price tag?

And who is on the receiving end of the command, that is, who is being commanded to do something? The buyer -- who is "commanded" to pay only the lesser amount, just the cost of production, instead of having the "freedom" to pay a greater price for the identical product, the cost of production plus an unnecessary profit term?

God, what a nebulous and poorly defined concept, this "command economy" critique. This is the gibberish that we get from college professors -- theories that are as vaguely defined as astrology.

[trivas7]

The term "command economy" in reference to socialism is very odd, because, if the process is democratically controlled by the people, that is, if it's actually socialism in the first place, then there isn't anyone at either end of such a "command" transaction. There's no one giving the command, and there is no one receiving the command.

Then socialism does what has never been done before in economic history. I'll believe it when I see it. For the nonce, TomK's comment is historically apt.

[jake williams]

It's probably worth pointing out, as has been suggested, that the terms are sort of silly - capitalism is a much more authoritarian system than socialism. However, much of its authority is masked - one of the main reasons for the invention of capitalism as an ideology is that it masks the control of society by capitalists as simply the consequence of natural, inevitable "market forces". As mikelepore said, socialism is about the democratic control of production (as well as distribution etc.). Capitalism is about the totalitarian control of the economy by capitalists.

[Jack]

[QUOTE=trivas7;1415525]Exactly why anarchism can never work. How does it provide for an economy?QUOTE]

Gift economy.

Now go to hell.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Robert Heilbroner in 'The Worldly Philosophers' argues that throughout its history mankind has discovered only three ways to organize society economically: tradition, the whip of authoritarian rule and the market system. Of the three the market system was the most revolutionary in shaping modern society.

I don't see how this distinction between "tradition, command or the market" is either valid, meaningful or even useful at all. I have absolutely no idea what is meant by the statement "Of the three the market system was the most revolutionary in shaping modern society", despite this, any marxist would agree that capitalism was a progressive and revolutionary force in overcoming pre-capitalist modes of production and paving the way for communism.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Feudalism, which still rules in many places today, is one of the most primitive stages of society's development.

Feudalism neither "rules in many places today" nor is it one of the "most primitive stages of society's development". Capitalism today is a world system, whilst extra-capitalist markets and relations of production including feudal remnants still exist, feudalism proper is a thing of the past and extra-capitalist markets are they are in very short supply.


The United States clung to feudalistic oppression with the manipulation and oppression of the black and indian communities under slavery.

What is this even supposed to mean?


Capitalism, or some form of market economy, is usually the next step.

Markets and commodity production are not unique to capitalism. Commodity production and extra-capitalist markets have existed throughout history in even the most primitive of societies including primitive communist, "Asiatic", Slave and Feudal modes of production.

I'm having trouble of making anything of this next part.


Capitalism is usually the stage that tosses feudalism aside and the ruling class

Capitalism tosses aside the ruling class?


instead of relying on actual slavery (there's a better word than 'actual', but the term is slipping me, but I'm referring to people being forced to work for little to no pay, usually being sheltered and fed, such as the United States before the Civil War) turns to wage slavery.

The word you are after is "chattel" as in "chattel slavery". With regard to slavery and modern capitalism, the chattel slavery of the US South was not pre-capitalist, slavery in this case was a pre-capitalist form of exploitation that survived as an anomaly (one that was characteristic of the rise of capitalism) but remained a fundamentally capitalistic relation.


This brings about class struggle, which will bring the next stage of revolutionary socialism, though how this is brought about is debated

The rise of capitalism and the dissolution of feudalism bring about the class struggle!? Quite the contrary, Marx recognised that "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman...". Capitalism does not invent the class struggle, rather it means its continuation of a new level.


Because of this factor, Soviet leaders were unable to properly move their struggle forward.

When I hear people say this, alarm bells start ringing in my head.


Authoritarianism became inevitable, as it was either a choice between rapid industrialization or the total destruction of all revolutionary gains.

You present us with a false dichotomy. The choice for the working class of Russia was not a choice between industrialisation or military defeat, the real choice facing the working class and humanity as a whole, then and now was a choice between socialism or barbarism.

[trivas7]

It's probably worth pointing out, as has been suggested, that the terms are sort of silly - capitalism is a much more authoritarian system than socialism.

Who in capitalism wields absolute authority?


I don't see how this distinction between "tradition, command or the market" is either valid, meaningful or even useful at all.

Then why do you avow to overthrow capitalism if these distinctions are meaningless?



I have absolutely no idea what is meant by the statement "Of the three the market system was the most revolutionary in shaping modern society", despite this, any marxist would agree that capitalism was a progressive and revolutionary force in overcoming pre-capitalist modes of production and paving the way for communism.We live in a global market system, no? Posit something else that comes closer to shaping modern civilization.

[Niccolò Rossi]

Then why do you avow to overthrow capitalism if these distinctions are meaningless?

Because we are proletarian political militants. As Marx noted in the Communist Menifesto: "[Communists] have no interests separate and apart from those of the proletariat as a whole". Today, in an era of capitalism's decadence, an era of "Wars and Revolutions", when the fundamental choice facing humanity is between "Socialism or Barbarism", as communists we fight for the former as the only means of defending the interests of the proletariat as a class.

Being "avowed to overthrow capitalism" has nothing to do with an acedmic and arbitary classification of the ways to organise society.


Posit something else that comes closer to shaping modern civilization.

I haven't and I won't. I don't see any reason why doing so would be, to repeat myself, either valid, meangiful or useful.

[RGacky3]

Every economy is a command economy, Capitalism is a command economy and that command is controlled through the market which is controlled by the rich and the Capitalists.


Who in capitalism wields absolute authority?

The Capitalist class, the rich.


Then socialism does what has never been done before in economic history. I'll believe it when I see it.

It has been done, and its not very hard.


Exactly why anarchism can never work. How does it provide for an economy?

Economy is simply the production and movement of goods and resources. Its a means to an end. Anarchism, changes who controls the economy. People ate and produced before economic theory you know. Economics ultimately boils down to power, who controls what.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

False premise, unless by "market" the author is lumping all voluntary activities together under one umbrella. I don't think of gift exchanges as market exchanges, for example.

RGacky is exactly right. You, a capitalist *enthusiast*, believe in a command economy. A "free market" capitalist (based on your past defenses of the word) is just someone who thinks dictatorships are superior to democracies on a smaller level.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

And as a side note: socialists don't all oppose a free market, debasing the (initial) purpose of this thread. That trichotomy you clutch to is false. Unfortunately, quite a few socialists are turned off by the term "market" entirely and respond to its usage in a very juvenile manner.

However, it's understandable, in consideration of how capitalists see a "free market" as a collection of dictators/command economists voluntarily sharing the products of their slaves' labor.

[trivas7]

Economy is simply the production and movement of goods and resources. Its a means to an end. Anarchism, changes who controls the economy. People ate and produced before economic theory you know. Economics ultimately boils down to power, who controls what.
No, I'm sorry, there's nothing simple re it. And you don't know what absolute power is if you think that capitalists wield it.



You, a capitalist *enthusiast*, believe in a command economy.

And as a side note: socialists don't all oppose a free market, debasing the (initial) purpose of this thread. That trichotomy you clutch to is false. Unfortunately, quite a few socialists are turned off by the term "market" entirely and respond to its usage in a very juvenile manner.

However, it's understandable, in consideration of how capitalists see a "free market" as a collection of dictators/command economists voluntarily sharing the products of their slaves' labor.

This is all bollocks. If you had lived in Stalin's Russia in the 20s and 30s you would have easily made the distinction bt a command and a market economy.

[Dejavu]

And as a side note: socialists don't all oppose a free market, debasing the (initial) purpose of this thread. That trichotomy you clutch to is false. Unfortunately, quite a few socialists are turned off by the term "market" entirely and respond to its usage in a very juvenile manner.

Yes, it seems vulgar socialists and vulgar libertarians feed off each other.

Anyway; I am still not sure what is meant by 'traditional economy.' People should be careful not to conflate terms and play semantic word games. The way I understand a 'command economy' is the state having some ( usually large) degree of intervention within the economy.

The capitalist system is a type of command economy IMHO since it depends on the state to legalize property and titles. The state also plays a major role in subsidies of all types. A market economy scarcely exists in any large scale today. When we speak of currently existing economic models we are really talking about varying degrees of command economy.

[PRC-UTE]

Robert Heilbroner in 'The Worldly Philosophers' argues that throughout its history mankind has discovered only three ways to organize society economically: tradition, the whip of authoritarian rule and the market system. Of the three the market system was the most revolutionary in shaping modern society. Do RevLefters agree w/ this?

How do you argue against the view that socialism is a regression to a command economy?

We don't bother arguing against the view that socialism is a regression because we don't come out of that idealist school of thought that puts all economies into one of three contrived categories.

The development of capitalism was an historic step forward according to Marxists. But we don't believe history ends there.

Planning requires a degree of sophistication and development lacking in early market capitalism. All economies have been heading towards more planning post WWII, anyway. It's hardly a regression, except by some liberal moral standard.


A planned economy is a controlled citizenry.

A planned economy is a citizenry in control.

[trivas7]

Anyway; I am still not sure what is meant by 'traditional economy.'

Feudalism, the divine right of king and pharaoh, Emporer Hirohito, Brahminical rule in India that enforced a caste system based on birth and presumably elder councils whose authority came from tradition in pre-capitalist tribes (e.g. Pashtuns in Pakistan) are all examples of rule by tradition.



The capitalist system is a type of command economy IMHO since it depends on the state to legalize property and titles. The state also plays a major role in subsidies of all types. A market economy scarcely exists in any large scale today. When we speak of currently existing economic models we are really talking about varying degrees of command economy.

Who wields absolute power over the state? No one (but this exactly what Hobbes championed). Roman dictators (e.g. Julius Caesar), and Pharaohs of Egypt held absolute power. The state is an institution, absolute power resides in a personal sovereign. I find your assertion that a market economy scarcely exists amazing. If we don't exist within a global market economy what is it you think all the RevLefters on this forum want to bring down?

[RGacky3]

And you don't know what absolute power is if you think that capitalists wield it.

Who said anything about absolute power? They wield a lot of power, unjustifiably, as a group its vast, and over certain things its absolute.

Also, why not respond to actual points I made instead of making up your own points to respond too.

[mikelepore]

Communism/Socialism up to now (at least) has been spot on on for it use of the "whip of the authoritarian."

Promises to the contrary have been made, of course. :rolleyes::lol:

This is mistake of classifying things, or trying to understand the essence of things, according to some of the names that people have given them. Are you against all of the ideas whose names were adopted by those authoritarian regimes? Are you against justice, freedom, liberty, progress, a republic, etc.? Those authoritarian regimes applied all of those terms to themselves. Why do you select just one or a few names that they used, socialism or communism, and judge only these principles based on the behaviors of those who have claimed to represent them, and not do the same with the other terms that they use?

[trivas7]

This is mistake of classifying things, or trying to understand the essence of things, according to some of the names that people have given them.
I don't take your point. How do you suggest Communist regimes be classified? I, too, hate it when I hear Lou Dobbs always refer to "Communist" China, but it's pretty fair to state that in general Communist inspired regimes have imitated Stalin's authoritarian ways, no?

[Dimentio]

Robert Heilbroner in 'The Worldly Philosophers' argues that throughout its history mankind has discovered only three ways to organize society economically: tradition, the whip of authoritarian rule and the market system. Of the three the market system was the most revolutionary in shaping modern society. Do RevLefters agree w/ this?

How do you argue against the view that socialism is a regression to a command economy? A planned economy is a controlled citizenry.

I would object and state that energy accounting is a forth possible model.

[mikelepore]

I don't take your point. How do you suggest Communist regimes be classified? I, too, hate it when I hear Lou Dobbs always refer to "Communist" China, but it's pretty fair to state that in general Communist inspired regimes have imitated Stalin's authoritarian ways, no?

I'm not sure about the word "inspired" there. If you also say that the Inquisition and witchcraft trials were Jesus-inspired, that is, the name was used, a historical link is asserted by those in charge, then, okay, the authoritarian regimes are communist inspired.

Marx, before he even thought about economic systems, started out as a activist supporting the replacement of monarchies by Locke-style republics. After his conversion to socialism, he kept pushing the democratic content, "to win the battle of democracy" (Communist Manifesto), "all forms of state are untrue insofar as they are not democracy" (Critique of Hegel's Rechtsphilosophie), etc.

Besides that, it seems like a one-step proof to me, a tautology, that you can't have control of the means of production (or of anything else) by the people unless you also have unrestricted debates, contested elections, the right to form associations. So the undemocratic character of the authoritrian governments precludes them from having socialist characteristics.

I don't think I'm very stingey about awarding a designation like socialist, classless, etc. I'm not one of those who would require a system to be "stateless", or feature "to each according to his needs", or any such idealization, before I think a system deserves to be called socialist or similar terms. But, as the barest minimum, it must have the people freely electing the administrators, including the workers electing their own managers and supervisors. If it doesn't even have that most fundamental socialist element, then it has class rule.

How to classify the pseudo-socialist totalitarian states, then -- let's see, how about a word like "hypocrites"? Their government officials said that they were going to enact control of the means of production by the people, but then they didn't. Nothing in the world stopped them from doing so -- they just declined to do it. Too bad those countries didn't start out with Locke-Jeffersonian style representative governments, so that the people could have ousted their leaders.

[Bud Struggle]

This is mistake of classifying things, or trying to understand the essence of things, according to some of the names that people have given them. Are you against all of the ideas whose names were adopted by those authoritarian regimes? Are you against justice, freedom, liberty, progress, a republic, etc.? Those authoritarian regimes applied all of those terms to themselves. Why do you select just one or a few names that they used, socialism or communism, and judge only these principles based on the behaviors of those who have claimed to represent them, and not do the same with the other terms that they use?

Well I understand your point. You are right it was't "Communism" or "Socialism" per say that was authoritarian. But it was the way they were "applied" in the world. China, the USSR, the various Eastern Block countries all were VERY authoritarian. All of the major incarnations of Socialism in the world up to now were authoritarian.

And you are right it was't the "Communism" that was authoritarian--but it behooves us all to think of a new approach to Communism that won't fall back on those old models. And even if there were some good things that Stalin or Mao did--let's face it, in the REAL WORLD, those people's reputations are so tainted--it's best just to forget those people and move on.

[trivas7]

Besides that, it seems like a one-step proof to me, a tautology, that you can't have control of the means of production (or of anything else) by the people unless you also have unrestricted debates, contested elections, the right to form associations. So the undemocratic character of the authoritrian governments precludes them from having socialist characteristics.

I don't think I'm very stingey about awarding a designation like socialist, classless, etc. I'm not one of those who would require a system to be "stateless", or feature "to each according to his needs", or any such idealization, before I think a system deserves to be called socialist or similar terms. But, as the barest minimum, it must have the people freely electing the administrators, including the workers electing their own managers and supervisors. If it doesn't even have that most fundamental socialist element, then it has class rule.

By this criteria then there has never existed a socialist government, no? This doesn't inspire much confidence in my mind that socialism is anything other than utopian. OTC, IMO Lenin inaugurated a genuine socialist regime that quickly failed. Just as pure capitalism doesn't exist, imperfect socialism will emerge from less than perfect historical conditions.

Not saying that you do so, but I don't understand the general reluctance in this thread to admit that socialism is mainly a command economy. E.g:

I would object and state that energy accounting is a forth possible model.
IMO, this is pure utopianism. Economies -- like computers -- don't run themselves.

[Hit The North]

Robert Heilbroner in 'The Worldly Philosophers' argues that throughout its history mankind has discovered only three ways to organize society economically: tradition, the whip of authoritarian rule and the market system. Of the three the market system was the most revolutionary in shaping modern society. Do RevLefters agree w/ this?


Firstly, Heilbroner confuses forms of organising the economy with forms of organising power and authority. There is no definite 'shape' or content attached to these labels. "Tradition" merely tells us that the source of authority appealed to by rulers is based on tradition and little about the mode of production and exchange. "Authoritarian rule", again, describes in very indefinite terms, that the direction of power is top down, applied by elites against the ordinary citizenry. It, too, discloses no necessary description of the mode of production. On the other hand, the term "market system" illuminates the mechanism of exchange of commodities but discloses neither the relations of production which underpin this distribution, nor the property relations between the various 'actors' within this production and exchange. It tells us nothing about the means of power and authority existing within any particular "market system".

In short, his categories for describing particular social epochs are confused, empty and abstract.

A poor substitute for historical materialism.

[Robert]

By this criteria then there has never existed a socialist government, no? This doesn't inspire much confidence in my mind that socialism is anything other than utopian.

If I knew how to "say than you for this post," I would. Maybe it's true that I and the other reactionaries here "just don't understand" socialism and how you plan to see it established without it being forced on the majority and consolidated by despots. But what about everybody else? Are they all idiots, too? Maybe the workers just prefer reformation of the status quo to revolution. I respect that choice. Do you?

You are trying to sell an idea to a willing public (or force it on an unwilling public, one or the other). Think salesmanship: If you go to buy a guitar or a car or a piece of furniture, and the salesman tells you you are stupid for not liking his product ("you just don't get it, do you, asshole?"), will this induce you to buy the thing or walk out of the store?

[trivas7]

If I knew how to "say than you for this post," I would. Maybe it's true that I and the other reactionaries here "just don't understand" socialism and how you plan to see it established without it being forced on the majority and consolidated by despots. But what about everybody else? Are they all idiots, too? Maybe the workers just prefer reformation of the status quo to revolution. I respect that choice. Do you?

I suggest you educate yourself as to the meaning of socialism. Socialism is democratically chosen by society or it is nothing. It will come when the means of production and social conditions for its adoption make sense to the majority of citizens on earth. Like LSD has written elsewhere -- that is likely no time soon.

[trivas7]

Firstly, Heilbroner confuses forms of organising the economy with forms of organising power and authority. There is no definite 'shape' or content attached to these labels. "Tradition" merely tells us that the source of authority appealed to by rulers is based on tradition and little about the mode of production and exchange. "Authoritarian rule", again, describes in very indefinite terms, that the direction of power is top down, applied by elites against the ordinary citizenry. It, too, discloses no necessary description of the mode of production. On the other hand, the term "market system" illuminates the mechanism of exchange of commodities but discloses neither the relations of production which underpin this distribution, nor the property relations between the various 'actors' within this production and exchange. It tells us nothing about the means of power and authority existing within any particular "market system".

In short, his categories for describing particular social epochs are confused, empty and abstract.

A poor substitute for historical materialism.
Well, if historical materialism isn't the idea that the economy is the form that organising power and authority under specific historical conditions takes, I don't know what it is. Anyone w/ historical knowledge can see that these categories have historical validity and that they do indeed take definite material forms. I realize Heilbroner speaks as a bourgeois economist, but historical materialism is a philosophic, not an economic category.

[Hit The North]

Well, if historical materialism isn't the idea that the economy is the form that organising power and authority under specific historical conditions takes, I don't know what it is.

But historical materialism doesn't judge the identity of a mode of production by its system of governance. For example, the collectivist and authoritarian, militaristic society of Sparta and the democratic civil society of Athens are not different modes of production, but both belong in the category of ancient, slave-based society.


Anyone w/ historical knowledge can see that these categories have historical validity and that they do indeed take definite material forms.

No they don't. As other posters have pointed out, in any mode of production we may find all these categories existing in relation to each other. Capitalism also calls upon tradition (in the form of its human nature argument) in order to legitimate itself. Feudalism expanded market relations, appealed to tradition in the form of it social and political reproduction and often maintained itself through armed terror of its peasant populations. Meanwhile, even the most liberalised, free-market economy can have strong elements of authoritarianism, even if the agency of that authority is the corporations, rather than the government.

So, actually, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, Heilbroner's categories do not have historical specificity.



I realize Heilbroner speaks as a bourgeois economist, but historical materialism is a philosophic, not an economic category.

Who's argued that HM is an economic category? It's a particular method of historical analysis which prioritises the means and relations of production in its narratives.

Btw, it is interesting that Heilbroner excludes social democracy as a form of organising the economic relations of a society. As we know from recent experience, to subsume the concept of democracy within the concept of the free market is inadequate as the free market is anti-democratic substituting the will of the people for the dictatorship of market forces.

Our mission remains to create a society whereby the democractic will of the producers harnesses the full fruits of the forces of production to the benefit of all.

If Heilbruner excludes this as a possibility, so much the worse for him.

[trivas7]

As other posters have pointed out, in any mode of production we may find all these categories existing in relation to each other. Capitalism also calls upon tradition (in the form of its human nature argument) in order to legitimate itself. Feudalism expanded market relations, appealed to tradition in the form of it social and political reproduction and often maintained itself through armed terror of its peasant populations.

So, actually, in spite of your protestations to the contrary, Heilbroner's categories do not have historical specificity.

But one or another of these category predominates in any given mode of production. They have nothing to do w/ history per se. DejaVu makes the argument above that the market economy scarcely exists today -- surely you're not going to buy that, are you?


Btw, it is interesting that Heilbroner excludes social democracy as a form of organising the economic relations of a society. As we know from recent experience, to subsume the concept of democracy within the concept of the free market is inadequate as the free market is anti-democratic substituting the will of the people for the dictatorship of market forces.

Our mission remains to create a society whereby the democractic will of the producers harnesses the full fruits of the forces of production to the benefit of all.
Heilbroner is as a matter of fact sympathetic to communism, but "The Worldly Philosophers" is simple history of economic thought, not re something that has never been tried on a large scale. I suspect that the real reason you don't like these prima facie categories is simply b/c it forces you to admit that socialism -- however democratic -- is essentially a command economy.

[Hit The North]

I suspect that the real reason you don't like these prima facie categories is simply b/c it forces you to admit that socialism -- however democratic -- is essentially a command economy.

Not at all. In fact it has been pointed out to you that a democratised command economy is, in actuality, a demand economy.

[trivas7]

Not at all. In fact it has been pointed out to you that a democratised command economy is, in actuality, a demand economy.
You're quibbling w/ words.

Your utopian idealism is duly noted, Bob! :)

[mikelepore]

By this criteria then there has never existed a socialist government, no? This doesn't inspire much confidence in my mind that socialism is anything other than utopian.

Then you have to say the same about all goal-oriented values, such as democracy, liberty, etc. For two thousand years beginning with Pericles people had to say, "Oh, that radical idea called democracy -- every time they try it, the 'citizens' get to vote, but there are still slaves, and the slaves can't vote." This doesn't make democracy a crackpot idea. It means it's a good idea about which there are many ways to be hypocritical and merely pretend to implement it. Likewise, socialism.


OTC, IMO Lenin inaugurated a genuine socialist regime that quickly failed.

I say no. The Soviet Union never for a single day used what I would call a majority vote process as the method of industrial management. They didn't start out with it and then see it "fail."


Just as pure capitalism doesn't exist, imperfect socialism will emerge from less than perfect historical conditions.

I believe the idea of "pure capitalism" is meaningless. There's nothing to be pure about. Capitalism has no principles. It's just the act of hiring people to produce something that you can sell, and then paying them less than the equivalent of their work, so that the employer gets away with a profit, or attempts to do so. All theories related to this act were tacked on after the fact. There's nothing about capitalism that needs to be done "genuinely" for it to be capitalism.

The various conceptions of socialism are different in this respect -- all of them began on the drawing board. It makes sense to say that supposed implementations didn't follow the blueprint.


Not saying that you do so, but I don't understand the general reluctance in this thread to admit that socialism is mainly a command economy.

I thought a "command" was when somebody orders somebody to do something and they are compelled to obey it.

In a specific 1994 event at IBM, one handsome guy named Lou, who happened to be the CEO -- I reiterate, it was one guy -- gave the order for the layoff of 100,000 workers, and upon the dissemination of this order 100,000 people were escorted to the building exits by the security guards. Was this a "command"? It seems that it meet the definition. Is capitalism a command economy?

How are operation of facilities for public use rather than on a profit basis, or the election of the directors by the workers or by public constituencies, instead of election of those directors by stockholders, etc., examples of someone issuing "commands" to someone? Please explain that to me.

[mikelepore]

And you are right it was't the "Communism" that was authoritarian--but it behooves us all to think of a new approach to Communism that won't fall back on those old models. And even if there were some good things that Stalin or Mao did--let's face it, in the REAL WORLD, those people's reputations are so tainted--it's best just to forget those people and move on.

I'm part of a small branch of Marxism that rejected Lenin and the Bolshevik system as fraudulent as early as 1918, so I agree with much of what you said there.

But it wouldn't be impossible to do it right. You have to include what Rousseau originally suggested, and is called in the study of the U.S. constitition, a "balance of power" among "independent branches" of government, to see to it that the written constitution will actually be enforcable (unlike the "freedom of speech" and "freedom of religion" supposedly guaranteed by the Soviet constitution, but which there was never any serious attempt to enforce). The constitution has to require bottom-up election of all administrators and managers, and prohibit the existence of any appointees in any decision-making position. It has to require that all administrative meetings and communications be open public records, and prohibit any secrecy surrounding them. It has to include recall procedures for all elected offices. I'm sure that I'm overlooking some other criteria that are needed to ensure that the administrators don't become a new ruling class, but, whatever they are, the criteria have to be identified, put in writing, and made mandatory.

[trivas7]

In a specific 1994 event at IBM, one handsome guy named Lou, who happened to be the CEO -- I reiterate, it was one guy -- gave the order for the layoff of 100,000 workers, and upon the dissemination of this order 100,000 people were escorted to the building exits by the security guards. Was this a "command"? It seems that it meet the definition. Is capitalism a command economy?

How are operation of facilities for public use rather than on a profit basis, or the election of the directors by the workers or by public constituencies, instead of election of those directors by stockholders, etc., examples of someone issuing "commands" to someone? Please explain that to me.
Re an economy I'm sorry that you don't distinguish bt Stalin's Russia and the USA. And if you think any economy can function without someone w/ the authority to issue a command to someone else, IMO you're just wrong.

[synthesis]

And if you think any economy can function without someone w/ the authority to issue a command to someone else, IMO you're just wrong.On this, I don't think anybody here disagrees with you in reality. The difference is that we want the authority to be democratic ("public") as opposed to autocratic ("private").


Just as pure capitalism doesn't exist, imperfect socialism will emerge from less than perfect historical conditions.Again, I don't wholly disagree with you here. Like pretty much everything else, the absence of wage slavery may never be fully achieved. But just because you can't expect to find a cure for every disease doesn't mean you shouldn't try.


Who wields absolute power over the state? No one (but this exactly what Hobbes championed). Roman dictators (e.g. Julius Caesar), and Pharaohs of Egypt held absolute power. The state is an institution, absolute power resides in a personal sovereign."Absolute power" has only ever existed in rhetoric. Real autocrats inhabit a system, which is in turn a process, and those who are good at what they do will adapt accordingly.


I don't take your point. How do you suggest Communist regimes be classified? I, too, hate it when I hear Lou Dobbs always refer to "Communist" China, but it's pretty fair to state that in general Communist inspired regimes have imitated Stalin's authoritarian ways, no?It's more that Communism was being used as an excuse for authoritarianism than the other way around. When the political climate does not allow for authoritarianism, socialism always assumes a more libertarian character... same with capitalism.

[RGacky3]

And if you think any economy can function without someone w/ the authority to issue a command to someone else, IMO you're just wrong.

why? Why cannot people live comfortable lives and have what they need without someone w/ the authority to issue a command? I only care about economy as long as it funtions for that, giving people comfortable lives that allow them to aquire what they need. So why do you need that type of authority for that?


Like pretty much everything else, the absence of wage slavery may never be fully achieved.

Why not? Its not that unnatainable, they achieved in in spain in the 1930s, its pretty much that way in the communal farms in the Zapatista territories. Communism is'nt some magical unnatainable utopia.


"Absolute power" has only ever existed in rhetoric.

I agree, no one has absolute power, the State does'nt have absolute power, the legal system is only as good as the States ability to impliment it, don't think official power is always where the power lays, remember, officially in the USSR the power layed in the peoples congress. Officially in hte US it lays with elected officials, but in both cases, thats not where the real power lays.

[mikelepore]

Wow, two examples of bypassing the points made and instead trying to read between the lines into what the writer was thinking, and guessing wrong both times, in one very short paragraph.


Re an economy I'm sorry that you don't distinguish bt Stalin's Russia and the USA.

There are important differences between between Stalin's statism and the U.S. form of capitalism.

One major differences that under Stalin's monarchy there was no political democracy. If someone said that they disagreed with official policy they were just dragged away to a death camp. In the U.S. the people get to vote on their institutions. In the U.S. the ruling class has to make use of the fact that most will people believe whatever they have been told most often. They use the schools and media to promote a habitual support by the majority of the population for continuing their own oppression, and then they let the people go ahead and vote in it.

Another major difference is that economic class division in the U.S. is based strongly on inheritance, and, as a secondary factor, gambling luck. But class division under statism, including Stalin's regime, is based on the luck of who you know and the luck of being offered promotions by friends in an organizational hierarchy, similar in many ways to the cardinals of the Catholic Church.


And if you think any economy can function without someone w/ the authority to issue a command to someone else, IMO you're just wrong.

Very odd. How could you think that's my concern, when my posts were about how silly it is for supporters of capitalism to point around and use a meaningless phrase like "command economy"? It is they who are worried about the evil of some intangibility they call "command", without regard to the source of the authority, whether democratic or oligarchic.

For human beings to exist is to have mandatory rules to live by. There are several ways to derive those rules. To have full-time leaders dictate the rules unilaterally is probably the worst way, and the one that has dominated since the age of the ancient city-states. Representative democracy is a newer and a good method, but to date we have achieved only political democracy, and the workplace -- where the most momentous decisions in society are made -- is still an absolute dictatorship. Socialists are people who think that the workplace should become a republic.

[RGacky3]

Wow, two examples of bypassing the points made and instead trying to read between the lines into what the writer was thinking, and guessing wrong both times, in one very short paragraph.


Please stop doing that trivas7, its really really hard to have a real discussion when you use dishonest sophostry like that.

[Bud Struggle]

One major differences that under Stalin's monarchy there was no political democracy. If someone said that they disagreed with official policy they were just dragged away to a death camp. In the U.S. the people get to vote on their institutions. In the U.S. the ruling class has to make use of the fact that most will people believe whatever they have been told most often. They use the schools and media to promote a habitual support by the majority of the population for continuing their own oppression, and then they let the people go ahead and vote in it. But all the other information is out there, too. No one is shuting down RevLeft. (No one is shuting down Stormfront, either.) Here in the US--people, if given reasonable living conditions are easily sated. What Capitalism has found here in the US is that if you give the people plasma TVs and a thousand channels, ample sports programs and enough to eat--people have pretty happy lives. It seems thay RATHER NOT take control of their lives if that could be avoided.


Another major difference is that economic class division in the U.S. is based strongly on inheritance, and, as a secondary factor, gambling luck. But class division under statism, including Stalin's regime, is based on the luck of who you know and the luck of being offered promotions by friends in an organizational hierarchy, similar in many ways to the cardinals of the Catholic Church. In the Stalinist Soviet Union there was a bourgeoise. Sons of generals became commissars. High party officials begat high party officials. People did move up--as in Capitalism, but for the most part good jobs went to sons of people with good jobs.

[RGacky3]

What Capitalism has found here in the US is that if you give the people plasma TVs and a thousand channels, ample sports programs and enough to eat--people have pretty happy lives.

No, what Capitalism has found is that you can make money with those things, providing them for some people, at least in your country. It has nothing to do with keeping epople happy, remember too, Capitlaism is global, so that only works if most everyone lives like that, which they don't. But believe me if Socialism gets big here in the US again, there is no reason to believe they'd act any diferent than in the 10s and 20s.

[trivas7]

Here in the US--people, if given reasonable living conditions are easily sated. What Capitalism has found here in the US is that if you give the people plasma TVs and a thousand channels, ample sports programs and enough to eat--people have pretty happy lives. It seems thay RATHER NOT take control of their lives if that could be avoided.

You confuse complacency w/ happy lives, TomK. Sports is the real opium of the people.


Please stop doing that trivas7, its really really hard to have a real discussion when you use dishonest sophostry like that.
I notice that you don't take mikelepore to task for suggesting that for human beings to exist there has to be mandatory rules to live by.