CB had written: >>> And what about Marx and Engels' observation that
socialization of production is a tendency of capitalism ? ...<<<
me: >> I'm saying that "socialization" may not always be such a good
thing for the working class.<<
CB now: > Who says socialization of production is ever a good thing
for the working class ? ...<
You seemed to imply as much. I don't know about you, but I've run in
to several leftists who confuse state ownership of the means of
production (one kind of socialization of production) with socialism
(in which the working class controls the state). If you're not one of
those, great!
CB then: >>> Marxists say the central contradiction of capitalism is
between socialized production and privatized (centralized)
_appropriation_. It's socialization of _appropriation_ , not
production, that is "progressive" , good quality reform,no ?<<<
me: >> the Egyptian Pharaoh (and the rest of the ruling class)
socialized both production and appropriation. For the socialization of
appropriation to be a good thing (from the left point of view), it has
to go along with democratization.<<
CB: >> I'm not so sure that from Marx and Engels' standpoint what the
Pharoh did wasn't good thing. If there was socialization of
appropriation that would mean there was no exploitation. With no
exploitation there would be no class antagonism and that would be
democratization.<<
The Pharaoh clearly exacted tribute from the direct producers -- among
other things, to produce the pyramids. (The workers in Egypt had no
control over how the fruits of their surplus-labor was used.) Marx and
Engels were clearly opposed not just to capitalism but to
precapitalist modes of exploitation.
>> Cheikh Diop has a whole discussion of why there were no revolutions in Egypt
>> in _Civilization or Barbarism_ <<
There also haven't been any revolutions in the US in the last century
and a half (that's counting the Civil War as one). The lack of
revolutions is not a sign that direct producers control the economy or
the state, so there's no class antagonism or exploitation. It can also
be the result of total control by an authoritarian state. (Orwell's
1984, remember, portrays a world where revolution is impossible.)
CB: >>> The socialization of appropriation aspect of the Five Year
Plan in Soviet Union was a good thing. Executing and imprisoning
many,many, many was bad. Socializing appropriation was good....<<<
me: >> the plans never worked well. Even if they _had_ worked well,
they would have served the Soviet ruling class, not working people.<<
CB, now: > Soviet economic production increased rapidly, so they
worked well in some ways; and the Soviet working class was served very
much by that as the appropriation was social, not private, meaning the
working class got a big cut. <
US production has also increased rapidly, if your time-scale is from
1945 to the present. In addition, just because the connection between
"social" appropriation and the working class getting a big cut can be
explained by other things: the growing scarcities of labor-power bid
wages up. Scarcities of commodities occurred because working people
were spending so much time waiting in line for scarce goods and so
little time actually working. (Labor productivity didn't grow very
quickly at all.) In an effort to increase the supply of commodities,
the plant managers had to increase the amount of labor-power hired. At
the same time, the rural reserves of labor-power were spent. This put
an upward pressure on wages.
Just as in ancient Egypt or the contemporary US, Soviet workers did
not control the fruits of their surplus-labor. A ruling class made
decisions about how that surplus would be extracted and used.
>The Soviet leadership was not privately appropriating.<
so what? they enjoyed collective wealth and power. Class rule does not
have to be rule by individuals, as under capitalism. It's a mistake to
generalize from the nature of class society under capitalism to assume
that reversing just one or two of the elements of that society
produces socialism, democracy, a lack of class antagonism, and a lack
of exploitation of the direct producers by some elite.
After all, the above-mentioned Egyptian ruling class didn't involve
individual property rights in the means of production or individual
appropriation of income from that ownership.
Even though all Jesuits are poor as individuals (having taken a vow of
poverty) it does not follow that all Jesuits live a poverty life-style
or that there aren't some who live a much richer life-style than
others of the order.
--
Jim Devine
"Those who take the most from the table
Teach contentment.
Those for whom the taxes are destined
Demand sacrifice.
Those who eat their fill speak to the hungry
of wonderful times to come.
Those who lead the country into the abyss
Call ruling too difficult
For ordinary folk." – Bertolt Brecht.
_______________________________________________
pen-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
