I've been lurking on this discussion rather guiltily, having contributed to its early stages: 1) a question on Gil's [OPE-L:4753]: he writes >it does not >follow that >large-scale production precludes worker self-sufficiency. >Rather, it says >that workers can generally (not all production is large-scale) >only achieve >self-sufficiency in *groups*, say groups the size of the labor force >required in such large-scale productive enterprises. Really? How are the workers at say General Motors to make themselves self-sufficient in relation to e.g. the workers at Firestone? I suppose you could answer this by saying that the groups have to be *really* large -- completely vertically-integrated enterprises. But given that, indirectly, virtually every commodity-type enters into the production of virtually every other type, I still don't think this strategy would save your point. > Alternatively, >workers might have ownership shares in several different large-scale >enterprises, as envisioned in Roemer's models of market socialism. Or as envisioned by those who would like to abolish public pension provision and force everyone to "save" for their old age by contributing to private investment funds? At the risk of making my point over-pointedly, this seems to say that present-day Chile is a workers' paradise. 2) I wonder how far the various contributors would agree to the following summary (a) to (c) so far: a) If the only tools were acres and mules, and we had enough of them, we could share them out individually and re-establish simple commodity production. b) History has irretrievably destroyed the first premise of (a), and modern tools are "too big" to redistribute to individuals. c) The disagreement is what to do about (b). Gil I understand to say that capitalism can be abolished without abolishing market relations in respect of commodities (presumably including capital goods?) Paul C I know believes in the possibility of replacing market relations of all kinds with (democratic) central planning. What I am not sure about is whether he conceives of the workers' state (as public power opposed to the social power of large-scale production) *owning* the means of production, either short or long term. Julian
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST