[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy



dlj@inforamp.net (David Lloyd-Jones) wrote for all to see:

[edited]

>Again this is not true.  Socialists have been aware of the necessity
>for signalling systems in the economy since the twenties -- and have
>invented all the equivalents which are used in such socialist
>economies as Sears Robuck, the US armed forces, US Steel, GM and so
>on.

I have a problem with using the word "socialist" with regard to the
entities you list above.  Possibly I should insure you know my
definition of socialism: "a social system in which the means of
producing and distributing goods are owned collectively".  Socialism
is then an economic system, one of several which is collectivist in
nature.

If you are talking about management problems encountered in a large
organization, or the solutions utilized, we may have something to talk
about, but I do not see that the, say customers or employees of Sears
or the US Army, for example, own the means of producing or
distribution.  They also differ in that, if they disagree with
superiors, they can leave fairly readily if they desire (at least they
can when their enlistment is up, for soldiers).

I would disagree, in fact, with the idea that either the US Army or
Sears constitute an economy at all, certainly not in the meaning of
your phrase "in such socialist economies as Sears Roebuck", etc.  In
the cases you mention, the range of economic activity by these
entities is simply too limited.  Sears is essentially a retail
distributor of items manufactured by someone else.  The US Army is a
minimal producer of anything, and usually hires private organizations
to move the massive amounts of food, clothing and other items
purchased from the private economy.

>The Soviet Union was not a disaster of existing socialism, Ronald
>Reagan's vain claim.  It was the disaster of centralism, tyranny,
>price fixing, censorship, and the warfare state: anti-socialism five
>ways.

Possibly in some sense, you may say the USSR was not Socialist, but if
you simply use the standard criteria from the dictionary, as I quoted
above, the USSR certainly fits into the niche of owning the means of
production and distribution for society.




References: