* 이 책의 PDF 정보
|
| ▒ Political Economy and Soviet Socialism |
|
| Alec Nove 지음 |
| 출판사 - george allen & unwin |
| 초판일 - 1979-00-00 |
| ISBN - |
| 조회수 : 1376 |
|
|
|
● 책 소개
The papers printed in the present book have in common the fact that they are about Russia, past and present, and/or about socialist theory and practice. They were written at various dates in the past ten years. To my own surprise, there is very little overlap between them. In preparing them for this collection I made a few amendments here and there, brought some statistics up to date, put in some cross-references and mentioned certain relevant books published since the original was written. But with very few exceptions the papers have been reprinted unaltered. I am most grateful that permission to reprint has been so readily given.
Would the papers have been different had I written them today? Of course some would. Thus the long quotation from Rakovsky which I have included in 'Trotsky and the left opposition' would have been included in 'Is there a Ruling Class in the USSR?', had I got around to reading Rakovsky in the original at the time the former paper was being written. The article on 'Planners' Preferences' was written at a time when economic reforms were promulgated, and these have been largely frustrated, and so it should be read in conjunction with 'The Politics of Economic Reform'. The paper on Bukharin was written before the appearance of the excellent political biography by Stephen Cohen, and its text would certainly have reflected my reading of this biography. The discussion on 'Market Socialism' would certainly have drawn on important ideas expressed recently by Wlodzimierz Brus and Radoslav Selucky, among others, as well as on subsequent work by Bettelheim himself, but the essentials of the argument would not have been greatly afflected.
My 'philosophy' for the study of the Soviet Union and of socialism is set out, by implication at least, in the last article in this collection, on 'Criteria'. It stresses the importance of a realistic approach to the limits of the possible, in the past and in the present. Such limits exist, and to point to them is not to attack either Marxism or any other doctrine. It may be that highly desirable actions, or institutional arrangement, or policy, happen to be impracticable. One is reminded of an old story from the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon ordered that church bells be rung in every town entered by French troops during a campaign in Germany. His troops march into a town and - no bells rang. He callcd in the Burgomaster. 'Why no bells?’exclaimed the Emperor. 'Well, your imperial majesty,' replied the Burgomaster, 'there are five reasons. The first is that we have no bells.' 'Stop!' shouted the Emperor. We too should remember that it is little use discussing whether something would be (or would have been) advisable if, in cold fact, it could not be done. It is also important to note, as Kolakowski recently had occasion to point out, that certain objectives could prove to be mutually incompatible, which is one reason why the outcome of human effort is so often at variance with the original objectives of the actors.
The author is well aware of the fact that there are many legitimate and opposed viewpoints on many of the questions discusscd here. Debate is highly desirable. Out of argument and contradiction comes a closer proximation to understanding - or so we must hope. But we must all avoid the temptation to substitute eloquence or verbiage for hard-headed analysis. Let us cite three assertions which could be made:
(1) Most of the working class favoured Trotsky in 1923.
(2) Most of the working class was opposed to Trotsky in 1923,
(3) Most of the working class was passive and did not care one way or the other in 1923.
All the above statements are 'disqualified' as academic discourse, unless, of course, their author(s) give reasons for their answer. And there could, needless to say, be more than one defensible answer, and some of the evidence may be contradictory.
In the days when I was a student, Professor Laski used to warn repeatedly against analyses in which 'the conclusion is in the premises'. One must not eliminate problems by defining them out of the way. This is not by any means an attack on any one 'ideology'. Thus, as is made dear in the paper on economic thought, illegitimate abstraction from the relevant aspects of reality is a disease to which mainstream ‘bourgeois’ economics is particularly prone, as are also those Marxist fundamentalists for whom socialism represents (by definition) the elimination of all the perplexing contradictlons which beset all existing industrial societies. The planner with perfect foresight and perfectly competitive markets are both impossible, if only because, as Loasby has been pointing out, freedom of choice implies ignorancc about what others' choices will be.
Of course it is easy to criticise others, more difficult to live up to one's own academic principles. I can only hope that I have done so.
Finally, I would like to thank Elizabeth Hunter for invaluable help in putting these papers into 'printable' shape.---본문중에서 ⓕ
 맨위로
|
● PDF 원문 파일 정보
 PDF문서를
보기 위해서는 개발사인 Adobe사에서 제공하는 소프트웨어인 Adobe
Reader(한글판)를 다운받아 설치하셔야 합니다. |
| ● 이 도서에 대한 의견들
|
맨위로 |
|
댓글을 남기려면 로그인하세요.
|
처음으로 > Foreign Language ( 43 권) 
하위 카테고리 