Mike wrote:
>Blair defines capitalism as the appropriation of surplus value. The only
>way this is true is by tautology: all other forms of "surplus production"
>are not surplus value -- only under captalism are forms of surplus production
>surplus value, therefore... etc. etc. Consider what all of us might agree
>is really a socialist social formation: a democratically controlled
>industrial system where the social surplus is allocated democratically.
>What workers produce over and above what is necessary to replace her/himself
>with two equally qualified/satisfied adult children over her/his working
>life and what is necessary to replace all equipment over the same period
>would be allocated in part to the worker and in part to the rest of society.
>Now --- is that "appropriation" of surplus value: if the word means "taking
>against one's will" one might argue "no" because of the democratic control
>of decision-making. Yet even in that circumstance, the MINORITY's "surplus"
>will be appropriated by the majority. Yet this would be socialism.
>
you have to put in the adjective alienated before the appropriation i think.
workers in socialism would be exploited and their surplus appropriated. the
fact is that if htey choose to do it then they are not alienated.
in a simple two sector model of socialism - consumption goods and capital
goods, the workers in the consumption goods sector have to be exploited in
order that food is available to the capital goods workers. you can't eat
machines.
kind regards
bill
--
#### ## William F. Mitchell
####### #### Head of Economics Department
################# University of Newcastle
#################### New South Wales, Australia
###################* E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
################### Phone: +61 49 215065
##### ## ### +61 49 215027
Fax: +61 49 216919
##
WWW Home Page: http://econ-www.newcastle.edu.au/~bill/billyhp.html
