One problem that I can see in Paul Cockshott's references to Marx's
comments on communism is that Marx was not always clear as to whether he was
referring to communism as a fully developed organic system (one in which all
its presuppositions in their communist economic form were produced as
results) or whether he was talking about communism as it first appears, when
it is in the process of "becoming"--- a process which consists "precisely in
subordinating all elements of society to itself, or in creating out of it
the organs which it still lacks" (Grundrisse,Vintage/Penguin,278).
Certainly, he makes the distinction in the Gotha Critique but one could
hardly argue that he exhaustively explored the subject there.
We know that the difference he saw between capitalism as an organic system
and capitalism in the process of becoming (which should be seen as including
not only original accumulation but also up to the point of developing a
specifically capitalist mode of production) was profound. So, why should we
not acknowledge a similar divide when it comes to a Marxian view of
communism? Ie., there is no question that in Marx's view of communism-- once
it has developed upon its own foundations-- there is no place for any kind of
exchange relation as such. But before that? Please note that this is not at
all intended as an argument in favour of conceptions of market socialism but
only a cautionary comment about using Marx's statements. Some of my own
thinking along the above lines can be found in "The Socialist Fetter: A
Cautionary Tale," in the SOCIALIST REGISTER, 1991 (edited by Miliband and
Panitch).
in solidarity,
mike
---------------------------
Michael A. Lebowitz
Economics Department, Simon Fraser University
Burnaby, B.C., Canada V5A 1S6
Office: (604) 291-4669; Office fax: (604) 291-5944
Home: (604) 255-0382
Lasqueti Island: (604) 333-8810
e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
