From: Jim Devine 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: What occurred to me when u mentioned that Sachs' proposals would increase socialization of production was that it's socialization of appropriation or expropriating the private expropriators that is the socialist goal. Increased socialization of production is the normal tendency of capitalism , according to our Boys , M & E ( I get it from them , as I haven't researched economic history). I agree that some state ownership of the basic means of production is not necessarily socialism. ( Like Nazi state ownership of Volkswagen But don't u agree , and bare with me on this , without state ownership of the basic means of production there can't be socialism ? Not all state ownership of the basic m of p is socialism ,but all socialism involves state ownership of the m of p. It's not socialism if there is still private ownership of the basic means of production. In logic, state ownership of the basic means of production is a necessary , _but not sufficient_, condition for socialism. I'm assuming that there must still be a state in the first phase of socialism ( again following M and E) 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. ^^^^^ CB: Sure. I had never heard that _some_ Pharaoh's system had social appropriation. Maybe I misread your post. I thought u said there was social appropriation under some Egyptian system. I was just saying that_ if _there was social appropriation , that would be lack of exploitation. As to Marx and Engels attitude toward pre-capitalist modes of exploitation, I recall Engels saying that the original exploitative systems of slavery were some sort of advance over the pre-slavery non-exploitative form. I agree with u that this contradicts the general sense we get from their discussions of "history as a history of class struggles", but I can find the passage if u want. I take it as a sort of "objective" attitude, and perhaps, afterall, we can't do anything about the pre-capitalist forms. >> 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: I misremembered this from Diop. I'll report what he said later. I was sort of riffing on ur comment that there was some period of social, (not private ?) appropriation in Egypt. That's was an interesting comment. Lack of revolution _could_ be a sign of lack of exploitation or class antagonism, no ? ^^^^^^^^ 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. < Jim D: US production has also increased rapidly, if your time-scale is from 1945 to the present. ^^^^^ CB: Ok, but US production increasing rapidly from 1945 to the present. doesn't mean the Soviet 5 year plans didn't provide some success back then. I'm sure British production increased rapidly during the Industrial Revolution without planning , but rather with capitalist anarchy of production. The assertion that the Soviets had some success with planning is not a claim that capitalism hasn't had rapid growth without planning. I basically was joking about Sachs mentioning 5 years plans after having heavy interaction with post-Soviet society, like he picked it up like virus or something. ^^^^^ 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. ^^^^ CB: Wasn't there an large reduction of private appropriation as well ? The expropriators had been significantly expropriated. Scarcities of commodities occurred because working people were spending so much time waiting in line for scarce goods and so little time actually working. ^^^^^^^ CB: The standing in line that much seems a bit , uhhh, questionable. Why would they stand in line. It also seems doubtful that there was a relative abundance of goods under the Czarist/semicapitalist system. Russia was very poor. WILL CONTINUE LATER _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
