On Mon, Nov 10, 2025 at 05:33 AM, hari kumar wrote: > > and more fully on "Economic Problems...." > https://ml-review.ca/aml/BLAND/EconProbs.htm >
Thanks for the fascinating background, hari. The great irony is that the Grundrisse was republished in East Germany in 1953, parts of which could even be titled Economic Problems of Socialism. Since the first edition was published in Moscow in 1939 and 1940, it is physically possible that it could have come to Stalin's attention, although I have never seen any evidence of that. Lukács's argument in Demokratisierung Heute und Morgen could be seen as a reprise of Voznesensky's position, although I am only going by the scant characterization in the Bland outline. It boils down to whether or not the law of value prevails under socialism. If the law of value prevailed, there could be no socialism because the law of value IS capitalism. So in this respect, Mészáros (and I) would have to agree at a very high level of abstraction with Stalin that it doesn't universally apply, that its "sphere of operation... is strictly limited." The devil, however, is in the details. Literally. Stalin's argument that where it doesn't apply is in the proportions of investment in light industry as opposed to heavy industry. As the chronology in the Bland outline demonstrates, the alleged "diversionary activity," "slanderous allegations," "traitorous plots, "sabotage," and "subversion" originated at the highest level of the State Planning Committee (gosplan). If we take the allegations at face value, there would appear to be a major flaw in the "lawless" operation of State Planning. The "cream" rises to the top. If we take the allegations with some skepticism, there is another possible explanation that is equally troubling. Bureaucrats, state planners, technocrats have a tendency to think in terms of "pragmatic solutions" to problems. Pragmatism is a synonym for instrumental rationality, which has narrow applicability. When these means ends "solutions" fail, which they often will under complex circumstances, those officials change their focus to covering their asses and gaming the numbers to get at least the appearance of policy success. Corruption is just a step away. So even if the laws of value don't apply, the limits of instrumental rationality do. Mészáros's critique of Lukács was deeply grounded in Marx's Foundations of the Critique of Political Economy (Rough Draft). "Grundrisse" is German for foundations. In the Grundrisse Marx first articulated his mature theory and critique of the law of value, which he further refined in Capital. What he didn't do in Capital, because it wasn't the subject of the book, was look beyond the law of value. He did in the final chapter titled "Primitive Accumulation," discuss before the law of value, which he had covered at greater length in the Grundrisse. I would welcome any leads to a refutation of Mészáros's critique or a refutation of Marx's claims about disposable time. Why was Marx wrong in notebooks IV and VII about the role of disposable time in the building of socialism? Where does Mészáros err in his presentation of Marx's argument? -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#39213): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/39213 Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/116214508/21656 -=-=- POSTING RULES & NOTES #1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message. #2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived. #3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern. #4 Do not exceed five posts a day. -=-=- Group Owner: [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/13617172/21656/1316126222/xyzzy [[email protected]] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
