On 12/4/06, Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
There are some utopian tinges to CAPITAL, but they aren't really about what social will or should be. Marx saw socialism as arising from the actual, concrete, process of history. Specifically, that meant from the laws of motion of capitalism (which was, and is, conquering the world). The two main elements in CAPITAL that are "precursors" are (1) worker-managed cooperatives; and (2) the centralization of capital (into the corporate form) which allowed the separation of ownership from management. Methinks these go together rather than be separate: he was looking for a worker-managed centralized economy. But again, it sprung not from his imagination (as with utopians) but from the normal inner workings of capitalism.
Jim, If I understand you correctly you are saying KM *predicted* (rather than advocated) that some form of "a worker-managed centralized economy" would evolve from the natural progression of capitalism? Louis wrote:
As far as "alternative systems" are concerned, Marx had little interest in discussing them and me even less.
What is wrong with discussing "alternative systems"? When you post an article about the hypocrisies of the agri-food multinationals for instance, are you not implicitly calling for reform of the agri-food business? It seems to me, you are only claiming "little interest in alternative systems", because you want to avoid being criticised for utopianism. And in any case, an utopian vision seems to me to be better than no vision at all. -raghu.
