From libertarian communism to corporate socialism 22:58 Dec 20 10 comments Las promesas rotas de Vietnam 18:08 Jun 17 0 comments Vietnam : les promesses brisées du Vietnam 19:33 Jun 11 0 comments The State and the power of Business 02:15 Mar 08 0 comments Elementos sobre el salario mínimo para 2021 02:22 Jan 26 0 comments more >> |
Recent articles by Robin Hahnel
Planificación anarquista para las economías del Siglo XXI: Una propues... 0 comments Recent Articles about International EconomyThe State and the power of Business Mar 08 21 Shock en el Mercado Petrolero. Caos en el Laberinto Apr 30 20 Here Comes Bourgeois Socialism – Again Apr 28 20 A Reply to "Anarchist Economics, Marxist Economics, and Pareconist Economics."
international |
economy |
debate
Saturday July 07, 2012 03:04 by Robin Hahnel
Robin Hahnel's response to Wayne Price's article "Anarchist Economics, Marxist Economics, and Pareconist Economics". A Reply to "Anarchist Economics, Marxist Economics, and Pareconist Economics."
In his review of three essays by supporters of “participatory economics” published in The Accumulation of Freedom: Writings on Anarchist Economics Wayne Price distinguishes between the nature of capitalism, how best to go about overthrowing capitalism, and how best to organize a desirable post-capitalist economy. On the third issue – other than some methodological quibbling -- he offers no substantive criticism of the model of a “participatory economy” originally developed by Michael Albert and myself. One can even read his own essay on that subject in The Accumulation of Freedom as mildly complimentary toward our attempt to make the left libertarian alternative to capitalism more concrete and therefore more compelling. Price is correct, however, that we disagree about the nature of capitalism as well as what we are going to have to do to overthrow it. |
Front pageUpdate on the Campaign for the Sudanese Anarchists Malatesta’s Revolutionary Anarchism in British Exile Encuentros Ácratas: Miradas anarquistas sobre el libertarianismo de derecha. An Anarchist View of Trotsky’s "Transitional Program" A volunteer from Kharkov was tortured by the military after trying to leave Ukraine FORO CONVERSATORIO: A 50 AÑOS DEL GOLPE CÍVICO MILITAR Los desafíos y tareas del anarquismo Anarchists in Rojava: Revolution is a struggle in itself An Attempted Marxist-Anarchist Dialogue Taller de Estudios Anarquistas: La experiencia de los paros nacionales en Colombia Comunicado Público a 50 años del Golpe Cívico-Militar A Talk on the Ukrainian-Russian War Sürgündeki Sudanlı anarşistleri destekleyin Υποστηρίξτε τους Σουδανούς αναρχικούς |
View Comments Titles Only
save preference
Comments (2 of 2)
Jump To Comment: 1 2Robin Hahnel is correct that my current essay does not talk about "how best to organize a desirable post-capitalist economy." It said so. And it did not criticize "the model of a 'participatory economy' " which he and Michael Albert had first developed, and that I have been "mildly complimentaryi" about their effort to develop this model. Our disagreement, as he writes (and I had explained) is "about the nature of capitalism as well as what we are going to have to do to overthrow it."
He is alsi right that, in my brief essay, I did not go into detail about my disagreements with his analysis. I did state that he ignores the long term slowdown of the world capitalist economy from about 1970 onward, as the real background to the Great Recession and the continuing problems of capitalilsm, for which I gave a bunch of references for people to look at if they want further information.
I did claim that he has no real theory of where profit comes from (except that more useful things are made) or what exploitation consists of (except an imbalance in power between the workers and capitalists). I am basing this both on the essay I reviewed, on Spannos' essay which I was reviewing, and on Hahnel's book, The ABCs of Political Economy.
He states that I get from Kliman that he holds prices constant in the model by which he attempts to disprove the tendency toward a falling rate of profit. This is not true. I had noted that Kliman had made this criticism of those who make this argument (such as Okisho) and that Hahnel made this same exact error in his book, The ABCs (on page 124).
Hahnel criticizes me for raising the same old tired program which was raised by revolutionary libertarian socialists in the past. To a degree, this is true. We still live in capitalism, despite all its changes, and certain fundamental things remain true. But Hahnel argues that this approach did not succeed in the past and (therefore) will not work now. Instead we need "creative new thinking abut political strategy." But my criticism of his approach was not that it was too new and creative. It was that his program was the same old liberal/social democratic program which liberals such as Krugman and The Nation are arguing for right now and have argued for for a hundred years or so. And the same goes for Michael Albert's reformist program, which I discussed. The issue between us is not "old thinking vs. new thinking" but "revolutionary program" vs. "reformism."
For people who want further information about what Hahnel means by "creative new thinking" and my views on his ideas, see my review of his book on political and economic programs, Economic Justice and Democracy. http://www.anarkismo.net/article/737?search_text=Wayne+...Price