[OPE-L:4793] Re: opposition to Hayek

Paul Cockshott (wpc@cs.strath.ac.uk)
Tue, 15 Apr 1997 08:11:31 -0700 (PDT)

[ show plain text ]

> > Our argument is that if one basis oneself on the Marxian labour
> > theory of value instead of neo-classical value theory, then the
> > von Mises critique can be shown to be flawed. The labour theory
> > of value treats prices as being determined by values, something
> > which is determined in production prior to sale. It is thus possible
> > to base economic calculation on something other than price -
> > on the labour time necessary to produce things. We then argue
> > that whilst under a market economy this labour time is only
> > indirectly represented in prices, it can, under a different sort
> > of economy be calculated directly.
> This, even it were the case, which, as you know, is not uncontroversial,
> this doesn't deal with the - intrinsically distributed - information
> problem. Planners anyway still need to know *what* to produce.
This can be derived from the Owen/Marx/Lange tradition according
to which labour time accounts would regulate what individuals could
consume. Changes in the stocks of goods would then be used to
regulate levels of production of different goods.
> The Austrian critique of planning cannot be reduced
> to a critique of socialism without further discussion. Because we don't
> like what we see to be the political implications of a body of thought
> motivate but it cannot be the ground of our critique of that body of
> thought.
Get real Michael.

The austrians were quite specific in presenting their critique
of planning as a critique of socialism, and this is how it is universally
presented in politics. They intended it as a critique of socialism,
it is used as critique of socialism, so it is a critique of socialism.