-----Original Message-----
From: Eva Durant <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: Ed Weick <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Cc: list futurework <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Thursday, September 03, 1998 3:21 AM
Subject: Re: Tactical seperation of free trade in goods and finance capital?
Eva:
>> I've read the review and have gone back to reread parts of the Manifesto
>> itself. What incredible idealism the Manifesto contains! And what
>> perversions in the name of that idealism have actually occurred!
>>
>ok, I slept on it and I cannot leave it... what is more Idealism
>in the manifesto, than any belief that the capitalist
>framework would bring solutions to the problems
>still aptly described and still persisting, with
>the added closup to environmental catastrophy?
>Socialism or barbarism still well describes the scenario.
>
Good point. It has me thinking hard about whether I've ever seen any single
work idealize capitalism in the same way as the Manifesto idealizes
communism. Perhaps "The Wealth of Nations"? But it's a long time since
I've looked at it. Anyone?
The point that the review article makes is that Marx (and we shouldn't
forget poor old Engels) accepted the necessity and benefits of capital, but
not its ownership by a particular class, nor the uses that this class, the
bourgeoisie, put it to. Capital should be owned and used by its producers,
the workers of the world. I wonder what Marx would have thought of the
state capitalism of the Soviet Union?
Ed Weick
