These extracts concern the relationship between market and plan, or how to organize an economy to best satisfy demands for efficiency, compassion and freedom. Beginning with Karl Marx, this volume presents the non-market, market and mixed market models. It includes the socialist calculation debate and the experiences of Russia, East-Central Europe, Sweden, the US and China.
Economic analysis of post-war economic developments in Yugoslavia - considers the ideologycal basis and implementation of decentralization, economic recession, and the 1963 economic reforms; looks at the transformation of the industrial enterprise, economic planning, workers self management, role of the state, etc.; analyses the functioning of the financial market, the labour market and the product market; discusses market stabilization and economic growth (incl. Employment, inflation and the balance of payments). References, statistical tables.
Although both China and Vietnam are making a decisive transition to the market economy, they have also insisted on the official ideology of socialism. This book studies fundamental issues concerning the relationship between market, property rights, and the ideology of socialism.
The worldwide spread of neoliberalism has transformed economies, polities, and societies everywhere. In conventional accounts, American and Western European economists, such as Milton Friedman and Friedrich von Hayek, sold neoliberalism by popularizing their free-market ideas and radical criticisms of the state. Rather than focusing on the agency of a few prominent, conservative economists, Markets in the Name of Socialism reveals a dialogue among many economists on both sides of the Iron Curtain about democracy, socialism, and markets. These discussions led to the transformations of 1989 and, unintentionally, the rise of neoliberalism. This book takes a truly transnational look at economists' professional outlook over 100 years across the capitalist West and the socialist East. Clearly translating complicated economic ideas and neoliberal theories, it presents a significant reinterpretation of Cold War history, the fall of communism, and the rise of today's dominant economic ideology.
Capitalism versus Pragmatic Market Socialism: A General Equilibrium Evaluation contains important contributions both to general economic theory and to the evaluation of potential market socialist economic systems. As a contribution to economic theory, the general equilibrium model utilized in the research introduces the concept of `capital management effort' as a third primary factor of production (in addition to labor and saving) provided by private households. Capital management effort represents such things as corporate supervision, investment analysis, entrepreneurship, and related activity by the household which is intended to increase the rate of return on its capital wealth. As a contribution to the evaluation of market socialism, this research sheds powerful illumination on the potential performance of a specific variant of market socialism known as `pragmatic market socialism'. Pragmatic market socialism is a plan of market socialism designed to work `almost exactly' like contemporary capitalism. The key differences would be the enforcement of a profit incentive on the publicly owned corporations by an agency designated the Bureau of Public Ownership, and the distribution of the preponderance of capital property return produced by the publicly owned corporations as a social dividend supplement to the household's wage and salary income. The analysis reported in this book shows precisely under what conditions pragmatic market socialism would perform better than capitalism, and under what conditions the opposite would be true. The fundamental implication forthcoming from the research is that the potential performance of pragmatic market socialism relative to capitalism is an empirical rather than a theoretical question.
Socialism is the watchword and the catchword of our day. The socialist idea dominates the modem spirit. The masses approve of it. It expresses the thoughts and feelings of all; it has set its seal upon our time. When history comes to tell our story it will write above the chapter “The Epoch of Socialism.” As yet, it is true, Socialism has not created a society which can be said to represent its ideal. But for more than a generation the policies of civilized nations have been directed towards nothing less than a gradual realization of Socialism.17 In recent years the movement has grown noticeably in vigour and tenacity. Some nations have sought to achieve Socialism, in its fullest sense, at a single stroke. Before our eyes Russian Bolshevism has already accomplished something which, whatever we believe to be its significance, must by the very magnitude of its design be regarded as one of the most remarkable achievements known to world history. Elsewhere no one has yet achieved so much. But with other peoples only the inner contradictions of Socialism itself and the fact that it cannot be completely realized have frustrated socialist triumph. They also have gone as far as they could under the given circumstances. Opposition in principle to Socialism there is none. Today no influential party would dare openly to advocate Private Property in the Means of Production. The word “Capitalism” expresses, for our age, the sum of all evil. Even the opponents of Socialism are dominated by socialist ideas. In seeking to combat Socialism from the standpoint of their special class interest these opponents—the parties which particularly call themselves “bourgeois” or “peasant”—admit indirectly the validity of all the essentials of socialist thought. For if it is only possible to argue against the socialist programme that it endangers the particular interests of one part of humanity, one has really affirmed Socialism. If one complains that the system of economic and social organization which is based on private property in the means of production does not sufficiently consider the interests of the community, that it serves only the purposes of single strata, and that it limits productivity; and if therefore one demands with the supporters of the various “social-political” and “social-reform” movements, state interference in all fields of economic life, then one has fundamentally accepted the principle of the socialist programme. Or again, if one can only argue against socialism that the imperfections of human nature make its realization impossible, or that it is inexpedient under existing economic conditions to proceed at once to socialization, then one merely confesses that one has capitulated to socialist ideas. The nationalist, too, affirms socialism, and objects only to its Internationalism. He wishes to combine Socialism with the ideas of Imperialism and the struggle against foreign nations. He is a national, not an international socialist; but he, also, approves of the essential principles of Socialism.
In this text, Roemer proposes a new future of socialism based on a redefinition of market socialism. The Achille's heel of socialism has always been maintaining innovation and efficiency in an economy in which income is equally distributed. Roemer points out that large capitalist firms have already solved a similar problem: in those firms, profits are distributed to numerous shareholders, yet they continue to innovate and compete. The author argues for a modified version of socialism, not necessarily based on public ownership, but founded on equality of opportunity and political influence.
Labor regimes under communism in East-Central Europe were complex, shifting, and ambiguous. This collection of sixteen essays offers new conceptual and empirical ways to understand their history from the end of World War II to 1989, and to think about how their experiences relate to debates about labor history, both European and global. The authors reconsider the history of state socialism by re-examining the policies and problems of communist regimes and recovering the voices of the workers who built them. The contributors look at work and workers in Albania, Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, the German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Poland, Romania, and Yugoslavia. They explore the often contentious relationship between politics and labor policy, dealing with diverse topics including workers’ safety and risks; labor rights and protests; working women’s politics and professions; migrant workers and social welfare; attempts to control workers’ behavior and stem unemployment; and cases of incomplete, compromised, or even abandoned processes of proletarianization. Workers are presented as active agents in resisting and supporting changes in labor policies, in choosing allegiances, and in defining the very nature of work.