Hugh Rodwell wrote:
>This is clearly the stumbling block. Joanna sees a kind of transitional
>phase between bourgeois ownership of the means of production and
>proletarian ownership. As if the bourgeoisie would let go of them without
>some other force immediately taking over the reins of ownership. Some
>equally powerful social force that is, that is in a concrete position to do
>such a thing. The petty-bourgeoisie has no chance. No, it's got to be
>either the proletariat through its political representatives or nobody.
>Again, read Trotsky on the actual development of the revolution in Russia
>in 1917.
Let me try to be constructive. Sweden or the U.S. or Australia in the
year 2000 are very little like Russia in 1917. So I don't see why or
how Trotsky can be very enlightening to us today. But let me leave
that old objection aside for now and ask pointedly: what do you mean,
in some degree of detail, by the proletariat asserting ownership over
the MoP? Through a small, and now nonexistent vanguard party? The MoP
are owned largely by institutional investors and run by professional
managers: what happens to them, not to mention their armies and
police? Will there be summary executions of portfolio managers and
boards of directors? Will the rude mechanicals occupy the boardrooms?
How does this proletariat, or representatives of this proletariat
(chosen and accountable by unspecified means, of course), insert
itself into the existing structures of ownership and control? A firm
like Ford or IBM has a vast and complex network of plants, offices,
and suppliers around the world - how would the proles go about
socializing them? Really, Hugh, I'm all ears. Aside from catechistic
invocations, how will this happen?
Doug
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
