Ken, I find the Modragon societies and success very interesting. Did a weekend seminar with Terry Molner on this. Have read "We Build The Road as we Travel" I forget the author at the moment. I believe the author and Terry split on their take on these Modragon societies, although I am not sure I pin-pointed what that point is/was. Third way. My attraction precisely to them(In Modragon) They prove there is certainly A THIRD WAY. NOT just another form of Socialism, or another FORM of Capitalism. So that being the case, I am only marginally interested in talking about the obvious failures, when I am looking for successful alternatives to the MESS!!! And yes there is a silence and I too sense ' intellectual sparring, to what purpose?'.jo* On Sat, 12 Aug 2000 18:41:14 -0700 "[EMAIL PROTECTED]" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >Tom, > >Thanks for your refreshing "wake up and smell the coffee" post. I join >you as a "neo-malthusian." I also join you as one who rejects, as you >apparently are wont, the "two-value" logic presented by many marxists. >Here is my post from 7 August, which received no response at all: > > >Tahir, > >I was hoping that this two-value logic ended with the Cold War. You >are >unarguably right that money exists for the purpose of mediating >exchange values, >or as you put it, to facilitate the exchange of "commodities." But I >am >convinced that it is just this word "commodity" that requires a >working >definition just now, because I maintain that your other argument, that >wage >labor is presupposed by commodities, is not true. In fact, this is >just the >essence of the "Third Way" approach, or what is sometimes termed "free >market >socialism." Producer cooperatives like Mondragon have been >demonstrating for >many years that commodities can be produced by associations of >producers who >simply split uup the proceeds among themselves, without an exploiting >class to >put their heavy fingers on the scales of division of "surplus value." >It is >rather capitalist production alone that presupposes wage labor. But >markets and >commodities get along just fine without it. >Peace, >Ken > >Tom, This is significant in that it demonstrates a "third way" between >capitalism and the "planned economy" approach of socialism which yet >corrects the problem of capitalist exploitation, which even according >to Marx is the besetting problem of the capitalist scheme of things. >I find it revealing that no one on this list chose to respond to this >challenge, despite its empirical, verifiable nature, either by way of >affiramtion or refutation. > >Soviet-style socialism has been shown unworkable, yet when a viable >model of transcending capitalist relations such as Mondragon is >presented, no one has anything to say. I suggest that many on this >list are dedicated to playing a game called ideological "gotcha," and >no one that I have read yet has shown the slightest interest in >delineating a practical program that will enaable us to overcome the >flaws of capitalism in a way that suffers no loss of efficiency such >as that attained by the market principle of determining demand. > >Peace, >Ken > > > > >------------------------------------------------------------ >((( GREAT DEAL: Home Depot: Home Improvement 1-2-3 on CD-ROM ))) >Get it FREE! at: http://nettaxi.free-irewards.com ( plus S&H ) > > > >_______________________________________________ >Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base >To change your options or unsubscribe go to: >http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist _______________________________________________ Crashlist resources: http://website.lineone.net/~resource_base To change your options or unsubscribe go to: http://lists.wwpublish.com/mailman/listinfo/crashlist
