Jim D. writes > Yes, I agree. But I think we should be very careful with the word > "extra-economic." It asks the question: what in heck do we mean > by "economic"? One of the good points that Herb Gintis made > before he went off the deep end was that the "economic" part of > the society involves political, economic, sociological, and > cultural practice (it reappears in his book with Sam Bowles, > CAPITALISM AND DEMOCRACY). (The economic site is not identical to > economic practice.) This point, which according to Lucio Colletti > is in Marx (and I agree), suggests that we have to be more > careful in our use of terms. > > Also, "extra-economic coercion" is unnecessary under capitalism > only in _normal_ time, when the system is working well for > capitalists. In crisis times (Italy during the 1920s, Germany > during the 1930s, Chile during late 1973 and after, etc.) > extra-economic coercion was used in ways aimed at saving the > system. These are good points. In reply to this and other missives, I have to admit an underlying theoretical agenda. It is an argument that there are only four modes of production. Communist (Collective/Communal appropriation of surplus labour) Slavery (appropriation based on the ownership of the direct producers) Capitalist (appropriation based on the exploitation of wage labour) Feudal (appropriation through the application of political or ideological coercion) I will admit that the last category is somewhat catchall and thats why this restricted taxonomy works. The dynamics of the systems are crucially affected by the institutional framework within which the particular kind of appropriation is organized. (See SSA theory, Regulation theory, etc. for capitalism, Anderson establishes both the manorial system and the absolute state system as feudal, but the dynamics are quite different). On classes in socialism. I recognize there are classes under socialism. It's why socialism isn't yet communism. For this reason socialism cannot be defined at the level of the economy. Socialism at the level of the economy is transitional between class and non-class society and will look very different at different points in the (probably non-linear) transitional process. What defines socialism is what keeps this transition process in place: the exercise of decisive political power by the proletaritat. [Which is what Marx meant by the dictatorship of the proletariat, rather than Stalinism, non-democracy, etc.] In defending the xUSSR as socialist much argumentation has contended that classes didn't really exist or if they did they had no decisive influence on the dynamics of Soviet society. I suppose this might boil down to defending the existence of proletarian political control of the state, but its hardly a prima facie argument. Terry McDonough
