Re: [OPE-L] Robert Owen

From: Dogan Goecmen (Dogangoecmen@AOL.COM)
Date: Sat Oct 21 2006 - 13:48:58 EDT

Hi Rakesh,
I thank you very much for the references. I am very excited about Zelling  
Harris' book.
Owen is one of the first scholars to recognise utopian (socialist) aspects  
in Adam Smith's work. Saint-Simon praised Smith's work because Smith,  
Saint-Simon said, enabled me to understand society and the state. But as we gave  up 
our utopias we left Smith to neoliberals.
Warm regards,
In einer eMail vom 21.10.2006 18:21:52 Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt  

Falling  further behind. Welcome Dogan. Not sure whether anyone has
commented on  Marx's discussion of the cooperative movement in what I
believe to be his  first speech as General Secretary of the International.
If I remember  correctly, he both praises the movement and criticizes
interest in it in  his own time.
An important work in Owen's tradition would be the posthumous  work of the
mathematical linguist Zellig Harris The Transformation of  Capitalist
Yours, Rakesh

> Hi Jerry,
>  I agree with you. Since Marx's Capital (4 volumes) is about the
>  contradictory nature of capital one has to read the whole work to have  a
> complete picture
> of the issue. But I think the very nature  of 'give me that  and I will
> give
> this' is essentailly  analysed in the first chapter. I have  discussed the
> nature of  the market and its relation to a more or less developed
> socialism.  I
> agree with you that some elements of the market can be tolarated  in  a
> transitory
> period from capitalism to socialism. But  in the long term market as  such
> must be overcome because it is  the negation of socialism.
> Fraternite,
>  Dogan.
> In einer eMail vom 21.10.2006 13:11:35  Westeuropäische Sommerzeit schreibt
>  Gerald_A_Levy@MSN.COM:
> Hi Dogan:
> If the issue  is whether markets are part of the emancipatory
> mission of Utopian  societies, I think one has to go _at least_
> a few chapters _beyond_  Chapter 1 of Volume I of _Capital_.
> In the formula M - C - M' one can,  for instance, see problems
> for such utopias: i.e. the outcome of   'market utopias' are
> different for different segments and hence there  tends to be
> increasing differences in income and wealth  distribution.  Yet,
> surely,  solidarity and equality are two  of the hallmarks of  Utopias,
> so the market produces outcomes  which come into conflict
> with these socialist principles.  This  does not mean that  markets
> can not be tolerated in socialist  societies but that the  dangers
> (of which there are many,  including what mainstream economists
> call "market failures") have to  be recognized and there have to
> be workable policies to ensure that  emancipatory principles are
> preserved and reinforced.
>  In solidarity, Jerry
> By  'market in itself' I mean that  we can develop an objective
> understanding
> of  market  independently from what all sorts of ideologies say about and
>  ascribe  to it. I mean the question we have to pose is this: what is  the
> nature of
> market. Based on this objective grasp we can  then judge about these
> ideologies whether they are right or wrong.  Market is an institution where
>  humans get
> in touch with  one another for a certain purpose: the exchange of
> commodities. That  is to say that human relations on market are mediated by
>   commodities -
> either directly or indirectly by means of money. So,  the  question what is
> the nature of market changes into the  question what is the  nature of
> commodity
> and money.The  analysis of commodity and money must then  be analysed in
>  terms
> of human relation because commodities are being  exchanged  by human
> beings.
> These questions are profoundly posed  and  analysed, I think, in the first
> Chapter of the Capital of  Marx. This is my  reply to your two questions in
>  short.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue Oct 31 2006 - 00:00:03 EST