Jim D. writes > > Though all class societies involve the appropriation of > surplus-labor, not all ruling classes appropriate surplus > _value_. For surplus-labor to be surplus-value, the > surplus-product has to be in the form of commodities. Though > Southern U.S. slavery produced a surplus of commodities, > feudalism (e.g.) didn't. > This is a subject I've wrestled with a bit. In our Research in Political Economy (1994)(plug) Eamonn Slater and I argue that 19th century Ireland was predominantly feudal (reliant on the extra-economic extraction of feudal rent). Nevertheless the rent was paid in money form and because of the integration of Ireland into the capitalist market goods presumably exchanged at their values (as much as they ever do). Is the surplus in value form then "surplus value". We split the difference and called it rental value. Any comments appreciated. > agreed: I would call it "bureaucratic socialist," though the > exact term used isn't very important. (BTW, it's important to > remember that Marx & Engels often used the term "socialism" to > refer to ideas they didn't like, as in the discussion of other > socialisms in the MANIFESTO.) Speaking of feudalism, couldn't the bureaucracy be said to be extracting the surplus through extraeconomic coercion, using the central planning mechanism. This looks a lot like the centralization of rent collection under the absolute state. Why not call the xUSSR feudal rather than proliferating modes of production which to be valid must be based on distinct modes of surplus extraction. A more general question, why has much of the left while disavowing the USSR as an ideal, model, etc. gone to such great lengths to defend it's socialist, that is classless, character? Terry McDonough
