ABSTRACT
The most serious problem, observed Bahro in his writing on socialism, is the reconciliation of partial and general interest.20 This is correct, and applies also to the model outlined here. It is only in fairy-tales that people live happily ever after, it is only in utopia that all agree (in a pseudo-utopia all are made to agree). It is nonsense to assert that fundamental disagreements occur only because of private ownership of the means of production. The assumption of relative scarcity, and thus of opportunity-cost, is enough to ensure the certainty of some conflict. The state, its democratic institutions, will be there to resolve disputes, to settle competing claims on resources, but trade union and other interest groups (regional, or national in a socialist federation of several nations) could make trouble, and in particular cause an overcommitment of resources, excessive incomes, inflation. Some may regard all this, and the presence of markets and competition, as showing that the proposed model is not viable, or not socialist, or both at once. They would doubtless wax sarcastic about ‘socialism in one country’. On this last point, I would again stress that a socialist federation, common market, economic community, would be highly desirable (perhaps even essential, certainly for mediumsized, let alone small, countries). But to define ‘socialism’ as necessarily worldwide, to dismiss any other kind, is to depart from the realm of the feasible within the time scale of the present exercise. In the longer run, ‘one world’ is a possibility, and it may be that the destructive powers of nuclear weapons are such that the survival into the next century of sovereign states make the survival into the next century of the human race somewhat less than probable. All that is put forward here is the notion that a state or group of states with a legitimate claim to call themselves socialist will be undertaking foreign trade.
