Dear David
I don't think it is helpful to call other people's views 'pure fantasy';
and I thought that was what we were trying to avoid. However, rather as
you find my views 'pure fantacy' I find your implicit suggestion that
one EITHER has 'Rational, democratic and progressive planning' OR pure
unfettered late twentieth century capitalism, odd - to say the least.
I want 'progressive' removed because in my experience in advising on
social planning in some countries who have experienced a M-L regime, it
is 'associated with Stalinism'. If, by your reference to 'battles long
confined to history' you mean that there are no disputes between
liberarian socialists and any of the 57 varieties of Marxists, then you
must have led and be leading rather a sheltered life.
I don't think 'Rational' is unproblematic when you see the sort of
capers my 'colleagues' in Health Economics get up to (cost-effectiveness
measured through QALYs) in the name of 'rationality'.
And whilst 'democratic' is indeed like green grass (who can object),
'democratic planning' can leave a funny taste in the mouth if you are on
the receiving end.
More seriously - I hope - I repeat that the proposed statement and your
line of argument, as compared to what is inside the front cover of the
Newsletter, misses out several aspects of what RadStats has been about
and forecloses rather than leaves open debate. If you and a few others
want to hijack RadStats to that end, I suppose all I can say is 'I'm
sad, but diverting RadStats into a forum for internecine political
squabbles isn't my scene.' and 'Good luck to you - but without me.'
Why not form your own 'Progressive Socialist Statistics' discussion
list, rather than hijack an already existing list?
"Dave Gordon, School for Policy Studies" wrote:
>
> Dear Roy
>
> The statement calls for "Rational, democratic and
> progressive planning is needed to tackle the injustices of poverty,
> inequality and discrimination, and to help the least powerful groups
> realise their full potential." Your interpretation of this as
> 'Stanlinist' and uniquely associated with a distorted version of
> communism operating in the Soviet Union, is pure fantasy, you seem to
> be trying to fight battles which have long been confined to history.
> Are you really suggesting that the very word 'progress' or
> 'progressive' is 'Stalinist'?, and that rational and democratic
> planning is something that Radical Statistics should be opposed to?
>
> Is it just the word 'progressive' you want removed or are you also
> against 'rationality and democracy' as well?
>
> If so then what other explanation for your position but a Hayekean one
> is there?
>
> Dave
>
> On Fri, 23 Feb 2001 12:24:26 +0000 irss23 <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> > The contrast I made was not with central planning (which is what we had
> > during the era David Gordon appears to think we had a participatory
> > welfare state) but with 'progressive planning' which is uniquely
> > associated with the distorted version of communism operating in the
> > Soviet Union from the end of the 1920s to the end of the 1980s.
> >
> > I've never argued FOR the current version of the 'market'; just insisted
> > that the contrasts promoted by David Gordon are simplistic; and, if I
> > HAD to choose, I would want to remember that only recent example we have
> > had 'progressive planning' was what Stalin was doing in the biggest
> > massacre last century - possibly ever. On a VERY different plane, our
> > own UK attempts at central planning to control the 'market' weren't
> > wildly successful either.
> >
> > Shapiro wrote:
> > >
> > > It was interesting to hear what Roy had to say about health planning in
> > > Africa, which confirmed what I heard from another African source, but I
> > > would like to correct some terminology which is confusing the discussion
> > > about planning.
> > >
> > > quoting Roy
> > > ********************************
> > > For a start, I would fear for my life if I used the term
> > > 'progressive' in many of these countries because many of them suffered
> > > under what had previously were or pretended to be Marxist Leninist
> > > regimes and would rather not hear any more of that thank you very much.
> > >
> > > ********************************************
> > > Central planning as used to convert a low production agricultural economy
> > > such as Soviet Russia cannot be said to derive solely from Marxist Lenninist
> > > philosophy. Many damaging mistakes had been made in the same vein in
> > > transferring mega-scale schemes in Africa by other colonial powers. The
> > > philosophy of carrying out such large scale schemes is consistent with
> > > the reductionist methods of early (hard) OR. These were discredited for
> > > large multi-organisation problems in favour of soft OR, using Systems
> > > Thinking in the 1960's.
> > >
> > > quoting Roy
> > > *************************
> > > And the contrast with a reified 'market' is simplistic: there are all
> > > kinds of exchange economies - including in the UK - which operate
> > > perfectly satisfactorily on a 'market' principle: the issue is the
> > > distribution of market power.
> > > ************************************
> > >
> > > Roy had described that planning used 'ad hoc' methods, very often the
> > > effective and unavoidable pragmatic approach. But the 'market principle'
> > > can often be used to mask unsatisfied need. For schools, the effect of the
> > > market principle supported by statistics in the form of league tables has
> > > been down-right damaging, increasing the inequities of provision.
> > >
> > > I agree with Roy's identification of a useful radical role.................
> > > quoting
> > > **************************************************
> > > At it's simplest, 'radical' (whatever that means) statistics is NOT only
> > > about planning (progressive or otherwise) or about providing data for
> > > the
> > > hoi-poloi out there: it's also about querying what can and what cannot
> > > be
> > > counted, and what the attempt at counting does (including sorting people
> > > into 'ethnic' groups); also about debating the role of numerical
> > > information in a particiaptory democracy; and so on."
> > > *************************************************
> > >
> > > The disagreements seem to stem from how we interpret the history of events
> > > in the last century. Both sides of the cold war divide were probably
> > > making the same mistakes. Just because communism in its most identifiable
> > > enactment 'failed' doesn't mean that market economies will survive or
> > > should survive in their present form.
> > >
> > > Janet Shapiro
>
> ----------------------
> Dave Gordon
> Townsend Centre for International Poverty Research
> University of Bristol
> 8 Priory Road
> Bristol BS8 1TZ, UK
>
> E-Mail: [log in to unmask]
> Tel: (44)-(117)-954 6761
> Fax: (44)-(117)-954 6756
|
