markets

Randy,

I am not sure what research you are referring to, but as far as I know
capitalist markets are governed by very different norms from
pre-capitalist markets. On the latter, see Marshall Sahlins' "On the
Sociology of Primitive Exchange" in *Stone Age Economics*.

In Capital Marx tried to explain the logic implicit in the norms
governing capitalist exchange as a theory of historical development. He
envisioned a society, communism, where human beings would govern their
social relationships by rational plan (in the German Ideology he called
this the full form of self-activity, a theme he continues through the
Grundrisse and Capital).

If I am right about this, then it is still important for someone who
agrees with me about the importance of replacing markets by planning to
explain how we will overcome the problems cited in an earlier post in
making planning work.  I agree that it is not enough to show that
capitlaism makes life miserable.  We have to show how communism
(centalized planning) can work despite the problems in its earlier
implementations.

Paul

On Tue, 30 Nov 1999 John_R_Groves@ferris.edu wrote:

> Andy wrote: "On markets. I am not sure that markets have always been a
part of
> human existence, but I did not think we were talking about markets in
the
> abstract, transhistorically. I thought we were talking about
*capitalist*
> markets. Moreover, it seems reasonable to characterize markets as
inventions in
> the sense that they are the products of organized human activity. To
deny this
> elevates markets to a suprahistorical status."
>
> Andy, I agree markets are not suprahistorical, but they do go farther
back than
> previously supposed. One result of World Systems Theory's letting go
of a
> dogmatic Marxist philosophy of history is the development of the view
that
> markets exist long before capitalism. Markets don't need much in terms
of
> invention--they spring up spontaneously. But the virtue of
markets--that they
> are highly productive, is also its vice since high production in a
system of
> private property leads to a concentration of power that can then
deform the
> democratic process. (We see this clearly in the way Bush's backers are
basically
> buying the presidential election.)
>
>  How can we invent a democratic market, one responsive to political
concerns
> without losing too much of its productive and distributory power? In
my view,
> the key political problem is how to integrate these two basic
conceptual
> institutions: democracy and markets.
>
> Randy Groves
>
>