Sei sulla pagina 1di 13

AlecNove's"DevelopmentalSocialism"

AlecNove's"DevelopmentalSocialism"

byJayR.Mandle


The following ad supports maintaining our C.E.E.O.L. service

Source: PRAXISInternational(PRAXISInternational),issue:1/1986,pages:7081,onwww.ceeol.com.

70

Praxis International

ALEC NOVES DEVELOPMENTAL SOCIALISM


Jay R. Mandle In praise of Alec Noves book, The Economics of Feasible Socialism1, it is not necessary to do more than repeat Perry Andersons fulsome welcome: the book is a work of luminous freshness and clarity, common sense and good humour, analytic logic and empirical detail. Nove, writes Anderson, has put to rest a century of unexamined preconceptions and illusions about what might lie on the other side of capital and awakened us to our first real vision of what a socialist economy, under democratic control might look like. The resulting image of a possible society is so sensible and winning, he goes on, that it is likely to do more to create converts to socialism than any other recent work, from a more conventional or committed background on the Left.2 Despite the fact that Noves model of feasible socialism is ultimately concerned with an industrialised modern country (p. 155) he pays attention to efforts underway to construct socialism in the Third World as well. He writes that developmental socialism has a strong attraction since one sees, in varying degrees, the social-political unacceptability of rapid transformation of societies in the name of private profit. In countries under-going capitalist development, highly imperfect markets and uneven development enable some individuals to grow very rich indeed while the very poor remain very poor. (p. 6) Nonetheless Nove remains cautious concerning the prospects for socialism. It is not simply that developmental socialism is bound to be underdeveloped socialism that worries him. (p. 154) In practice he acknowledges the effort to implement a non-capitalist order often turns into a disastrous blind alley. (p. 6) Nove addresses both the dangers and possibilities of this third world phenomenon in his study, and it will be this part of the book which will be examined here. Socialism in a third world context, argues Nove, fills a dual function. First, its ideology provides the basis for consensus with regard to the political and economic basis of society, without which there could be chaos or organized repression . . . (p. 7) But, at the same time, it also serves a more specifically instrumental role as well. It is through socialism that an equitable development process might be achieved. In contrast to the inequalities associated with capitalist development, Nove writes that the object of policy of a socialist government must surely be to improve the lot of the masses, to assimilate them more closely in political and economic life and at the same time to accumulate and invest capital. (p. 194; emphasis in original) Nove, of course, is nothing if not aware of the pitfalls which await this socialist path. Difficulties, he writes, are bound to be severe, but he writes they are not necessarily insuperable. Socialism, for all its problems, he affirms, is Redigitized 2004 by Central and Eastern European Online Library C.E.E.O.L. ( www.ceeol.com )

Access via CEEOL NL Germany

Praxis International

71

preferable to the extreme inequalities that accompany the kind of route recommended by Friedman and Hayek . . . (p. 195) Fundamental to Noves stance is his view that even a Third World country which seeks to develop under socialist auspices will clearly have to face the fact of dependence on foreign trade. Indeed, in many instances it will be a growing dependence as its import requirements increase. (p. 189) In this, Nove is in fundamental disagreement with much of the Left which typically urges a policy of increased self-reliance and a de-coupling from world markets as a means of promoting development. Nove does not avoid the conflict. He writes, socialists or indeed any serious analysts, must surely reject both the historical analysis and practical implications contained in the doctrines of Samir Amin and, he adds later, Andre Gunder Frank, (p. 185) With regard to underdevelopment, Nove rejects the view that the metropolitan countries have underdeveloped the Third World the view long associated with the Monthly Review School. Nove does not deny that colonial policy in the past delayed or obstructed economic activity. But what he does deny is that the historical experience of, for instance, the slave trade, in the Caribbean or the exaction of tribute from India in the nineteenth century is of use in addressing development policy today. Nove does not believe that Jamaica or India is poor today because of their links with the West today or that socialist governments in these countries would improve their peoples lives by cutting off these links. (p. 186; emphasis in original) Nove furthermore argues that dependency is inevitable; it is too late for disengagement. He writes, . . . the taste for the consumable fruits of industrialisation has extended far beyond a small group of landlords and capitalists. (p. 185) The working class wants cars and refrigerators and the under-employed want urban jobs. Since the people of the Third World aspire to the Western way of life it becomes simplest to buy Western products, or, if engaged in import-saving, and industrialising under cover of import restrictions, to buy Western technology and know-how, and/or let Western multinationals in to do the producing. (p. 185) In arguing for participation in international trade and taking advantage of the international division of labor, Nove writes because these countries are poor, their intellectuals are not entitled to waste the peoples resources on reinventing what has already been invented elsewhere. (p. 186; emphasis in original) There is a danger in all of this that Nove might be misunderstood. He knows that a state development plan can be set at naught by the decisions of multi-nationals and other foreign interests. His position is not that such corporations should be given unbridled access to the resources and markets of the third world: a government of socialist tendency should have control over the purposes for which foreign investment is undertaken, making it attractive for projects that fit into its development plan, disallowing others . . . Furthermore, the adopting of labor-displacing modern technology too might be discouraged. Nonetheless relations with international firms must not be shunned: experience shows that they can be negotiated with, that foreign capital and the know-how it brings is essential. (p. 191) In light of this essentially welcoming attitude towards foreign private

72

Praxis International

capital, it is not surprising that Nove too adopts a benign attitude towards the domestic private sector. He prefers a mixed economy in which the market would play a major role. The commanding heights, large-scale industry, the big mines, the marketing abroad of the principal products, banking ... could be in the hands of the state. Specifically exempted from state control would be small-scale industry, trade, restaurants, miscellaneous services, Thus there would be some large state enterprises and a great many private and cooperative ones in towns and villages. (p. 193) Failure to follow these guidelines would cause grave discontent and great inefficiency, frustrating grass-roots enterprise and causing a mushrooming growth of petty (and probably corruptible) bureaucracy. In agriculture, while affirming the desirability of cooperation, Nove is at pains to insist that in no circumstances should it be enforced upon an unwilling peasantry. (p. 193; emphasis in original) Agriculture in general should be accorded priority attention, contrary to the practice of many developing countries. Thus a policy of coercion would not only come at a high cost in human misery but the loss in agricultural productivity associated with the use of force would harm the development effort generally. Obviously, with these arrangements, prices will have to be the principle allocator of resources: ... the delicate balance can so easily be wrecked by the wrong kind of price control. (p. 193) In this, the government will have to resist the temptation to set maximum prices, an approach which would create black markets, a phenomenon which in turn would tempt political authorities to crack down, reinforcing a counterproductive pattern of evasion and suppression. Nove knows that developmental socialism will not be an easy path. Indeed the prominence of the state would bring accumulation into the political realm directly and consciously, and with that would emerge problems for a socialist government. Since investment can only be carried out if consumption is deferred, socialists in power might be rendered vulnerable by an opposition which could exploit politically the desire for immediate benefits. It is in this context that Nove remarks that in many if not most Third World countries it is unrealistic to expect to be able to govern effectively while observing democratic procedures. Nonetheless he appears hopeful for his version of developmental socialism, arguing that with its egalitarian bias appeals in the name of national development and socialist aims might result in adequate levels of investment and therefore growth, (p. 195) There is, of course, much good sense in all of this, as there is generally in Noves discussion of feasible socialism. He is correct concerning the pernicious effects both political and economic of attempting to administer, on an extensive basis, a program of price ceilings in conditions of scarcity. So too is he accurate in identifying the confusion which surrounds the concept of planning in third world settings. A lack of conceptual clarity in combination with a shortage of competent planners and administrators has made planning in these settings more frequently than not an exercise in frustration. Finally, Noves identifying the dependency implications of the fact that it is too late to expect a non-industrial resolution to underdevelopment points to a major complicating issue in policy-making efforts. It is true

Praxis International

73

that aspirations to Western patterns of consumption tend to predetermine structures of output. It is the attractiveness of Western lifestyles to the people of the Third World, not just technological prowess and financial strength which provides multinational firms with their most important competitive advantage. They know how to produce what consumers want, It is in this regard that Nove scores his more telling points against Amin, Frank and the Left generally in arguing that disengagement from international trade typically is not a viable policy option. Noves lifetime of study of the socialist bloc serves him well in this regard. He effectively points to the fact that Hungary was forced to emerge from an autarchic strategy because many of the machines, materials and fuels it needed were unavailable from domestic sources. (p. 189) Similarly, Cuba, because of the limited size of its domestic market is required to participate extensively in international trade. Nove undoubtedly is correct when he writes there is no doubt that not only the Cubans but also the USSR would be pleased if Cuba could trade with the USA: it is primarily American policy which prevents this. (p. 190) But it is at this point that Noves discussion falls short. It is not that he is unaware that there are problems associated with dependency. He is critical of the fact that the flow of foreign investment is often out of the control of the recipient nation and cites cases from Mexico, Bolivia and Brazil to illustrate the need to correct this problem. But he is not very helpful in this regard, simply reminding poor nations that while these things have to be paid for, they should try to secure the best possible terms, to ensure that the advantage exceeds the expenditures, whether the latter take the form of profit remittances, interest payments, cost of know-how or whatever. (p. 191) Nove is obviously right to argue that these costs associated with foreign investment, this extraction of surplus, should be minimized. If these reverse flows are not themselves the cause of underdevelopment, their existence clearly is not helpful in the promoting of growth. The loss of repatriated income reduces the availability of savings and therefore may constrain investment. This is the reason that production by an indigenous firm, if comparable in volume, efficiency and quality is preferable to that of an international firm. With a local company the likelihood of such leakages is smaller. Despite this, however, Nove is right that production by a multinational may be necessary. If so, it is, as he points out, the countrys problem to gain access to the resources that the company represents at the lowest cost possible. It is a major shortcoming of Noves presentation that the determinants of strength in negotiations with such firms are not clearly identified. In effect he offers an admonition to socialist governments of poor countries to be strong, and on the basis of that strength to gain access to the capital, technology and markets which are available through multi-national firms. But he fails to provide advice on just what those nations need most: recommendations precisely on how to improve their strength. The fact is that in negotiations with international corporations it is crucial that a country be able to say no. Only the ability to terminate negotiations can work to encourage serious bargaining and to induce corporate concessions.

74

Praxis International

That ability, in turn, ultimately depends on attributes present in the indigenous society. It is testimony to Noves insight that, though he does not set the problem up in this way, each of the elements which are essential to such a strategy, are, in fact, mentioned in his discussion. These are an agricultural sector which can provide an adequate food supply for domestic consumption, a technically well-educated group of managers and administrators, and a literate population. Underlying all of this, must be a business environment, both in agriculture and local industry, which encourages the development of entrepreneurial talents. There is, of course, a profound irony in the fact that it will be a socialist government which will be encouraging a petty bourgeois environment, but that is precisely the lesson that Nove is trying to teach. Avoiding the capitalist path does not mean that socialist development can be accomplished without capitalist traits. A vibrant local business community is essential to the mixed economy which is the only kind of socialism feasible in the third world. More to the point, it is also fundamental to successful dealings with the outside world. Nowhere is the need for an unleashing of entrepreneurial energies greater or more important than in the agricultural sector. If it is taken as a general rule that the stronger the local economy the greater its bargaining power, then it follows that a buoyant agricultural sector is an important key to successful developmental socialism. In most cases in poor countries, agriculture remains the sector dominated by local interests. Its strength, therefore, will be a good index of the general performance of the national economy. The problems for socialists in this regard, however, are well-known. On one hand the dynamism associated with the establishing of a system of private farmers might be beneficial economically. It risks, however, unleashing a process of rural differentiation which not only could create substantial differences in incomes, but might tend as well to create a rigid class stratification system. On the other hand a collectivist restructuring of the agricultural sector, while perhaps avoiding the problems of class associated with the emergence of successful commercial farmers, could well encounter opposition and resistance from members of the rural community. As we have seen, Nove himself warns against the imposition of collectivization. But even he affirms that agricultural cooperation is a desirable aim and agrees that toward the goal peasants should be led, encouraged, warned, but not coerced. (p. 193; my emphasis) The most important experiment currently underway to reconcile these competing claims is occurring in China, a country to which Nove devotes only 3 pages. With the dismantling of the commune system the new responsibility system is recreating the Chinese peasantry, though under constrained circumstances with regard to land ownership. The hope is that by introducing a proprietory interest in production the energies of the people of the countryside might better be stimulated than was the case under the previous large-scale collectivist organization. At the same time the Chinese leadership also hopes that through the restrictions which remain in the responsibility system, the process of rural differentiation might be limited to acceptable levels. To date the output response to the new approach has been dramatically

Praxis International

75

successful. Whether the social structure which will emerge will also be acceptable depends both on what happens in Chinas rural areas, and also on the ideological preferences of the ruling party. Not only must an appropriate organizational form for agriculture be identified, but it is important in developmental socialism to decide as well what that sector should produce. This too is a source of contention. Seen in the framework employed here, where the local economy is viewed as providing leverage in dealing with foreign firms, institutions, and governments, a food first or food self-reliance orientation is highly desirable. To be sure, in producing for domestic consumption as a priority matter, there is the possibility that even higher levels of income, available from export markets, might be foregone. The benefits of producing according to the dictates of comparative advantage could be lost. Because of this, food first is a strategy for which no consensus exists even among socialists. In the Caribbean, for example, Cuba continues an export orientation in its agriculture, while a leading socialist theorist of development, C. Y. Thomas advocates a domestic orientation for the regions agriculture.3 The argument for a domestic emphasis is based on strategic considerations. It centers on the proposition that maximizing income is not the only and is not necessarily even the most important means to gain access to productivityraising technology from abroad. In this regard, Joseph Collins and Frances Moore Lapp have argued that export agriculture serves to generate economic and political vulnerability. Dependency on food imports for survival means that a country can never hold out for just prices for its exports.4 The food dependence associated with an agricultural export orientation in short weakens a countrys bargaining position at precisely its most vulnerable point, its populations nutrition. The loss of bargaining strength associated with food vulnerability might be even more significant than the lost opportunity to consume associated with foregone income. With an export orientation in agriculture, rejecting the proposals of a foreign company might be very difficult. Such a rejection might well mean the loss of the foreign exchange necessary to provide food to the people. On the other hand, with the domestic food supply ensured from local sources, a country might better be able to hold out for concessions promotive of its development. This new-found strength might exist despite the fact that the income earned from domestic markets could well be less than what might have been available in foreign ones. There is thus a presumptive case that, if it is feasible, a socialist government should choose to concentrate its agricultural sector on the providing of domestic foodstuffs. Strengthening agriculture may in this way make it easier for a poor country to gain access to the technology essential for its development. Such agricultural growth will help it, as Nove puts its, to employ one of the late-comers few advantages, the ability to utilize the experience and technologies, and learn from the mistakes of those who came before. (p. 186) But the enhanced bargaining strength associated with an improved agricultural sector, though necessary, is surely not a sufficient condition for the adopting of modern production methods. A substantial degree of technical

76

Praxis International

competence must be present locally if only to take advantage of the bargaining power provided by the agricultural sector. In the direct negotiations with representatives of metropolitan interests, engineering sophistication is indispensible to make certain that the interests of the receiving country are adequately represented. There must be no surprises when the project finally is made operational in the host country. This same technological competence is also essential in dealing with the issue of appropriate technology. Nove is correct in pointing out that frequently inappropriate labor-saving methods of production really do turn out to be economically advantageous even in labor-surplus situations. Similarly, there are a range of production processes which, if they are to be engaged in at all, necessitate expensive capital-intensive operations. Sometimes, as Nove explains, such projects may produce substantial social external diseconomies, (p. 191) such as impossibly large-scale emigration from rural areas, and will have to be rejected. But Nove gives the impression that rejections should be infrequent and that technologically sophisticated operations should be accepted on the best terms obtainable. Nove fails, however, to discuss the possibility that an indigenous technical competence is necessary to adapt imported technology to local circumstances. This, after all, is the process which the Japanese are widely credited with and which, it is argued, substantially contributed to the pace of development in that country. The Japanese did not reinvent products and processes. But very frequently they modified both in light of factor availabilities in their country and market size. Technological adaptation allows the process of innovation to be organic rather than external to the economic life of a receiving nation. Not only does an adaptive capacity allow resources more efficiently to be used. It also permits local decision-makers to influence the pace and pattern of the use of new methods of production. In this regard, at least the rudiments of a capital goods sector, a component of an economy not mentioned by Nove, is critical. A full-fledged machine tool sector may not be required. But the ability to be a technological innovator, at least in the adaptive sense, does require the ability to work with metal-cutting and shaping equipment.5 Lying behind this kind of technical competence must be education and training. Not only must there be present people capable of designing, adapting and innovating, but there must be available as well a skilled and literate work force, able to engage in the production of new or redesigned outputs. Thus there is an urgency to be attached to education in the development effort, an urgency not sufficiently underlined in Noves presentation. He does say that one thing to be learnt from Cuba is the possibility (evidently also the high priority) of a drive for universal literacy where illiteracy is widespread. (p. 197) The same lesson, only this time as a cautionary tale is to be derived from the Chinese experience with its Cultural Revolution. In this case Nove is forceful. The damage and disruption inflicted on the countrys educational system and the fact that an entire cohort of students was deprived of schooling not only harmed those individuals, but was a cause of serious economic damage. (p. 150) Despite these remarks,

Praxis International

77

however, Nove does not provide a full appreciation of the importance of training in raising the productive capacity of the labor force of a poor country. As a result he does not sufficiently underline the fact that developmental socialism to be successful will have to deal with educational expenditures as an investment item, with all of the priority attention attached to that category of spending, rather than merely as an item of consumption and thus not integral to the development process. It is particularly important to emphasize this point in light of recent discussions on the Left of the process of deskilling in association with capitalist development. Here again, though Nove generally takes a common sense approach and is sceptical of the Lefts arguments, his analysis is not as strong as it could be. The general argument of deskilling is that the direction of technological change under capitalism has as much been concerned with depriving the labor force of control and autonomy in production as it has been with achieving efficiencies and reducing costs. The deskilling of labor then, is seen as part of the effort by capital to minimize the need by management to be dependent on labors competencies. Nove traces the argument back to Marx, who, in Noves paraphrasing, believed that, machinery replaces skilled workers and so to speak homogenises the rest into a pool of universal unskilled labor. (p. 158) Taken literally, this argument simply cannot be correct. One of the best statistical correlations known to social science is the association between levels of economic development and levels of educational attainment by country. The need to design. install and work with advanced technology in production is not a set of processes which can be undertaken by an uneducated and unskilled population. Obviously no one designing a development program under either socialism or capitalism could possibly accept this hypothesis as a serious basis upon which to formulate policy. Failure to provide education to the population to leave it unskilled if not deskilled is a certain way to ensure the perpetuation of under-development. Ultimately Nove does reject the deskilling hypothesis. He writes in opposition to it that while machines eliminate some skills, they create the need for others. (p. 158) But even he only identifies the causal flow between technology and skills in one direction. While he believes that the effects on skills of technical progress are indeterminant, he does not reverse the causal flow to discuss the effects on technical progress of skills. And yet it is this which is fundamental in assessing the role of education in development. If Nove had addressed the question in this way, he almost certainly would have arrived at a stronger conclusion than he did. Furthermore he would have provided greater depth to his discussion of the content of a successful strategy of developmental socialism. Nove, of course, is critical of great leaps forward as a means of promoting development: Soviet experience in the early 1930s, Chinas in the late 1950s, point to the acute dangers of over-enthusiasm, of plunging into unsound projects at the cost of much disorganization, waste and human suffering. (p. 192) But he also argues that conventional economic decisionrules, concerned as they are with incremental allocative decisions, are of only

78

Praxis International

limited use in this regard. Thus it is that he argues that it is a major challenge to the economics profession to devise long-term criteria to promote development, (p. 192) Disliking sharp discontinuities, he also worries about complacency: it is unrealistic to assume that the planners, politicians., managers of any Third World country . . . will not need prodding and cajoling. In this regard he points to the mobilizing function of planning. It has an important public relations aspect . . . Enthusiasm is an important element for success; hence the value of ideological appeals and socialist phraseology. (p. 192) This last concedes rather more to demagoguery than one would have expected from Nove. Plainly he is concerned that his model has not been specified sufficiently to ensure that the development process has been made endogenous and continuous in developmental socialism. That concern accounts for the need to make exogenous ideological appeals. The problem here is that Nove, despite his own inclinations to the contrary, has fallen prey to the excessively centralizing bias characteristic of socialist thought. Very little of his attention is directed to farmers, plant managers, office administrators and blue and white collar employees. Yet it is at this level, in the actual behaviour of the labor force, not at the top levels of planning and national policy-making, that economic development occurs. It is the managers and administrators, in collaboration with the work force who account for production. This collaboration determines if production is done efficiently and whether new and improved methods of production are introduced. Similarly, farmers on units of production of adequate size, in concert with extension officials, other farmers and representatives of transportation, storage and distribution sectors are the determinants of the efficiency of the agricultural sector and whether agricultural productivity will advance. Thus what properly should be the concern of Nove, and all others who address the development problem, is the structure of incentives and opportunities which confront people in their everyday lives at work. For it is here that the decision to develop or not ultimately is made. The critical issue is whether the work environment sufficiently promotes the kind of behaviour which produces development. It is the creation of that work context which principally should be seen as the role for planners and policy-makers. The goal, fundamentally, is to routinize productivity increases. Policy should be directed to providing adequate training and education while facilitating and rewarding innovative behaviour. With that done the fundamentals of development will have been put in place. It is no secret that the socialist legacy in constructing the institutions promotive of development is a mixed one. On the favourable side is the success socialist nations have experienced in educating their populations and in providing employment to their labor forces. The gross inequalities and immense underutilization of labor characteristic of so many poor capitalist nations simply is not present where socialism is under construction. The provision of basic needs such as health care in socialist countries exceeds that of capitalist countries at comparable levels of development.6 This superiority in its turn is a potential source of future economic development. The talents

Praxis International

79

and energies of a very high proportion of the population which lives under socialism are available to contribute to the economic growth of those countries. On the other hand, there have been some debilitating aspects of the socialist legacy as well. Indeed, Noves book can be read as a long discourse on just that subject. The catalogue of such problems includes two which are of immediate relevance: an overemphasis on centralized economic planning and wide swings in policy. Each contributes to the problem which worries Nove, that of sustaining technological dynamism in a socialist economy. The bureaucracy associated with centralization tends to bog down the economy; swings in policy tend to reduce risk-taking and innovative behavior. Nove himself, in his discussion of socialism in the advanced countries, points to an important tool in overcoming these problems. That same tool can be used in developmental socialism as well. It is competition, particularly competition among producing companies. This need for competition is rooted in the fact that to try to include the whole economy in an all-embracing disaggregated central plan is impossible, self-defeating and inefficient. (p. 203) Nove knows, of course, that competition is not a word that appeals to most socialists, and is no part of Marxist ideas on socialism. (p. 41) Yet, given the impossibility of planning comprehensively, only competition can provide consumers with choice and ensure efficiency in production. It is competition, then, not an assumption of high-minded altruism (p. 206) which drives feasible socialism forward in the developed countries. This is Nove at his best and it takes only a further extension of this decentralist line of thought to endow developmental socialism with the dynamic which it requires. For, the fact is that market place competition, with the rewards which it implies for success and the sanctions which it holds out for failure, represents a powerful source of economic dynamism. Indeed, it might be in a socialist context that the market could best fill this productivity-spurring function. On the one hand the market creates incentives for innovation. On the other hand, the fact that the rewards for success would accrue broadly to all members of the firm, and not be received disproportionately by owners could act to encourage all participants to work to achieve such advances. To be sure, competition cannot be employed in a vacuum. Provision for income maintenance and the recreating of defeated firms must also be present. With these in place, however, it is entirely likely that competition can serve a technologically progressive function, even as the welfare of the population is sustained. Competition in a socialist context may well prove to be a far more effective tool in creating an environment conducive to productivity advances than will ideological exhortations. Finally, there is absent from the discussion of developmental socialism something that Perry Anderson found missing in Noves consideration of socialism in the developed countries. There simply is not enough attention paid to the external opposition which will be mounted against the effort to construct socialism in the third world. Anderson only slightly exaggerates when he writes, the lessons of the past sixty-five years or so are in this respect without ambiguity or exception: there is no case . . . where the existence of

80

Praxis International

capitalism has been challenged and the furies of intervention, blockade and civil strife have not descended in response.7 Whatever were the weaknesses of the Grenada Revolution and the reasons for its internal collapse., it nonetheless was the case that the United States applied continuous and unconscienable pressure on a country whose total population was not equal to half that of a moderate sized city in America. Similarly it is simply impossible to know what the Sandinista Revolution in Nicaragua would look like in the absence of unrelenting pressure from the United States and the latters financing of a war against the Managua government. This larger context of hostility and opposition is absent from Noves discussion of developmental socialism as it is also absent from his discussion of feasible socialism. Anderson is acute in pointing to the irony that Nove, whose enterprise is to be resolutely realistic at every point, would omit this fundamental fact of life facing those who would construct socialism in the Third World. It is not that this omission makes Noves arguments wrong. It still, for example, is the case that a poor socialist nation will have to participate in international trade and gain access to modern technology from abroad. But it will not be able to do so as if it were just any other under-developed nation. Pressures, subtle and otherwise, will be applied both to the country itself and those who would do business with it. Such pressures will not only raise the price and reduce the availability of the items the country wishes to purchase. Perhaps even more important the external threat will drive domestic politics away from decentralist thinking and thus away from a model of developmental socialism which would be truly efficient and humane. In short, external opposition may reinforce just those aspects of socialist thought which Nove so effectively polemises against. Unhappily, however, the source of that tendency will not be found in Noves analysis. Developmental socialism is not the principle subject of Noves book. But what he has to say on this subject is lucid and challenging. It is informed by the same good sense which underlies his conceptualization of feasible socialism, but in this case his analysis is tailored to the circumstances of the poverty of the third world. Noves discussion is an excellent place to start in an attempt to learn what kind of socialism is possible in todays third world.

NOTES
Alec Nove, The Economics of Feasible Socialism, (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1983) Page references to this work will be in parentheses in the text. 2 Perry Anderson, In The Tracks of Historical Materialism (London: Verso Editions, 1983) pp. 100, 104. 3 Clive Y. Thomas, Dependence and Transformation, The Economics of the Transition to Socialism (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1974). 4 Joseph Collins and Frances Moore Lapp, Food Self-Reliance, in John Galting, Peter OBrian and Roy Preiswerk, Self-Reliance: A Strategy for Development (London: BogleLOuverture Publication Ltd., 1980), p. 140. 5 Jay R. Mandle, Caribbean Dependency and Its Alternatives, Latin American Perspectives, Issue 42, Vol. 11, No. 3, Summer 1984, 111-124. 1

Praxis International
6

81

See my Patterns of Caribbean Development: An Interpretative Essay on Economic Change (New York: Gordon and Breach, 1982), Chapter 3, Economic Development and Human Welfare for a further discussion. 7 Perry Anderson, In The Tracks of Historical Materialism, p. 103.

Praxis International 6:1 April 1986

0260-8448

Potrebbero piacerti anche