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. ^^^^^ CB: I'd say the key is that the fruits of their surplus-labor went largely to the material benefit of the working class , that is they appropriated it rather than some ruling class appropriating it for themselves. This is why it is not accurate to describe the Soviet leadership as a ruling class. As to the decision as to what to do with the fruits, it is not so important who makes the decision but that the surplus value goes to the working masses. The republican form is representative, not direct, democracy. Modern nations with large populations cannot practically have tens of millions making all decisions ( they'd spend all their time making decisions and wouldn't have time to do anything else ;smile) >The Soviet leadership was not privately appropriating.< so what? ^^^^ CB: That's what defines an exploitative ruling class. It's everything. If there isn't private appropriation of social product, it's not an exploitative system. ^^^^^ they enjoyed collective wealth and power. ^^^ CB: Howabout an elite with power , but not wealth. The wealth was distributed. I believe it's a GINI coefficient in your profession. The Soviets would have had a low GINI coefficient. ^^^^^^^ Class rule does not have to be rule by individuals, as under capitalism. ^^^^ CB: OK I see what u are getting at. I interpret a _class_ as not individuals , but a "collective", including 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. ^^^^^ CB: The key difference is social appropriation instead of private appropriation. As Marx and Engels say the goal of Communists is to abolish private property. Private property is private appropriation. They could be mistaken, of course. But I see u are looking at "private" as "individual", which is understandable. I guess I'd say even Henry Ford had other stockholders in the company. But, each enterprise does often have a main _individual_ owner. That might be your point. Of course, a complicating aspect is that the capitalists can't appropriate the millions of use-values that their enterprises produce. Henry Ford , his family and stockholders couldn't drive millions of cars. The exploitation had to be of forms of money and then luxury commodities. Seems that pharoahs had their wealth in pyramids , in part. Interesting that pyramids are on the dollar bill. I wonder if pyramids had any other use-value except as tombs. ^^^^^^^ 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. ^^^^^ CB: If so, then _wasn't_ it a form of communism ? But I'm not sure that that was so in Egypt at any time ( Egypt existed for hundreds of years, for millenia). I guess the question is was there mass poverty and misery in Egypt, as poverty would be defined in their time ? If the Pharoah and retinue, priests, et al, had luxury items and pyramids to be buried in that wouldn't necessarily require that anyone was poor. Private property, i.e. a tiny minority (even if a group and not an individual) appropriating the surplus is the defining characteristic of exploitative productive relations. ^^^^^^^ 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. -- _______________________________________________ pen-l mailing list [email protected] https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
