Ken H writes
Why is this necessarily so? First, even if a country should
try to foster a system that is relatively independent and thus not
subject to control by world market forces, this does not mean that there will
be no trade. US treatment of CUBA is an exception rather than the
rule. If there is an opportunity for profit, trade will exist and trade
that may reduce to some extent technological backwardness. Much would seem
to depend upon the size of any socialist bloc. Although in some
respects the former commmunist countries were technologically backward in
other respects they were not. Certainly capitalist countries are happy
enough to hire Soviet programmers I gather.
COMMENT: Size may be important, but I was thinking NZ sized as it was
Bill R's question. Certainly a "bloc" is ruled out by the conditions
on the hypothetical question. Trade may take place in such a
situation, but international investment and technology transfer would
not.
Ken continues:
Secondly, why should we expect a socialist utopia anyway. If a
country should eliminate poverty, provide a reasonable education and health
care system for all its citizens, have political institutions that give people
real power and a legal system that protect basic civil rights why should we
worry that it is classified as technologically backward and as having a low GDP
as measured by present methods? Is this unfeasible in a country with
ample resources to feed its people if properly managed and that could
develop some products for export--as for example Cuba?
COMMENT: I would certainly be willing to trade socialism for
technological dynamism, which I don't regard as a good in and of
itself in any case. Under current conditions a- relative- lack of
dynamism is one consequence of an autonomous strategy. Recent
history ala the XEastern Europe indicates this is a potential
problem.
Ken continues:
This must be some post-modern concept of socialism. If
there is no collective ownership or at least socialisation of capital how can
it be socialism. I always thought socialism implied that capital would be
used to maximize production for the public good and distribution would be
on the basis of need. I don't see how egalitarianism in income distribution
has anything directly to do with socialism. Marx says somewhere in the
Manuscripts if there were (contrary to fact) equality of wages under capitalism
this would not change the basic feature of wage slavery. Socialism
abolishes capitalism it doesn't aim to create equal income
distribution. It will cost more to educate the slow learner or those with
learning disabilities to treat those with diseases costly to cure or control.
It will cost more to develop the talents of the gifted. The socialist goal is
to distribute to people according to their needs not to distribute
equally. Perhaps there is a sense in which you could speak of the goal as
equity as long as there is scarcity. This would mean not equal distribution but
distribution<br>
that would attain the same relative degree of development of each
person's talents.
Finally it would seem that to concentrate upon income
distribution is to miss the fact that many needs under socialism would be
provided collectively not upon the basis of individual choice in a market
based upon purchasing power. Unless you are some sort of market "socialist" that
is.
COMMENT: The problem with the comments above is that they confuse
socialism and communism. Socialism is a transition phase between
capitalism and communism. As such it has no necessary manifestations
among economic instititions. As I have argued before, socialism is
rather defined at the political level by the dictatorship of the
proletariat, or the class character of the state if you don't like
the word dictatorship. What the proletarian state should be doing is
transforming the economy from a capitalist one to a communist one as
fast as is practicable. Bill R 's challenge can be seen as asking
what limits a global capitalism would place on this process. If the
accumulation process is truly global it cannot be nationalized
effectively in one small place. It must either be dealt with on an
ongoing basis or sacrificed in favor of the autonomous strategy
discussed above. If capitalist relations remain on a global scale,
priority could be placed on eliminating class contradictions (and
hence classes) within the citizenry of the socialist state. Since
moderating the division of labor is a long term process, this would
first manifest itself in a more egalitarian division of income. This
is an interim and not an ultimate goal. Of course capitalist
exploitation would still go on due to the socialist economy's
insertion into the international capitalist accumulation process, but
continuing capitalist exploitation is one of the things which
distinguishes socialism from communism. Perhaps one conclusion of
this train of thought is that while socialism in one country is
possible, communism in one country is not.
I'm not sure either what a strong solidaristic response to the
exigencies of the world capitalist market might be but a commitment
to full employment regardless of capital movements would certainly be
one part of it.
Terry McDonough
