Tahir,
You wrote:
> The fact is that if an overthrow of capitalism is the only
> salvation of this planet - and I don't see any of the
> protagonists coming up with an alternative vision - then it
> must really entail a return to use values as the basis of
> production. Money means wage labour means markets means
> capitalism means the state. Marx was right - you can't
> separate these. An "overthrow" of capitalism that still
> talks about markets and wages, etc., is just rubbish. If
> that were marxism then I would be happy to trash it. But
> that is not marxism. And if the vision doesn't lead to a
> real anti-capitalist movement of the kind that I'm referring
> to, then we must resign ourselves to a vision of a
> nightmarish, barbaric post-capitalist survival society set
> against, shall we say, a rather desolate landscape as
> backdrop.
Tahir,
> I'm glad you are bringing your original question back to centre-stage.
But surely you will always have markets. Even two people exchanging items
between one another could (at a stretch) be said to constitute a 'market'.
Isn't the issue more a question of markets needing adequate regulation in
the first instance?
John Bunzl
_______________________________________________
Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base
To change your options or unsubscribe go to:
http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
