[ show plain text ]
Maybe it would be better to say that "socialism is the transcendence of
private property in the means of production". I frankly don't believe that
a system of centralized planning could make an economy based on
sophisticated technology and a complex division of labor function
adequately. So maybe what is needed is a "moral equivalent of the market"?
Duncan
>In [OPE-L:2055] Duncan wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure I want to sign on to this concept, but I think it's worth
>> discussing. I am puzzled as to how to imagine a society operating an
>> advanced division of labor economy without recourse to the market, and I
>> think we should be thinking about how to adapt Marxist thinking about
>> socialism to Hayek's point that markets are more important as
>informational
>> than as allocational mechanisms. (Of course, they also redistribute...)
>>
>
>Isn't it true that, theoretically, if socialism means the abolition of
>private property of means of production, there can no longer be a market,
>since this implies the sale and purchase of commodities, hence a commodity
>producing society. Things that are sold are private property.
>
>The market is the capitalist mechanism for the distribution of use values,
>but it is also the way through which social labor is distributed. Once
>there is no longer a market, this means that the distribution of social
>labor and of use values has to be made in another way, i.e., through
>previous planning of production and distribution. If we admit that the
>market should still have a role in the distribution of commodities,
>shouldn't we also admit the same role for the distribution of the labor
>force? This would imply wage labor .... Or not?
>
>I think Lenin wrote something about this - maybe it was in State and
>Revolution -, arguing that in order for socialism to exist, there has to be
>a previous development of the techniques of social accounting of needs and
>distribution, and that this is something for which the development of large
>scale production and distribution in capitalism prepares the ground. This
>may be connected with Duncan'sr mention of the "Menshevik scenario", which,
>in the terms in which he put it, seems to me to be Marx's point of view
>
>> The points from my 1982 paper (which are also in Understanding Capital)
>> aren't mine, but Marx's. He makes this point in criticism of "utopian
>> socialists", and is particularly clear about the issue of the continued
>> existence of a surplus product in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.
>>
>
>I don't see the problem. If the society is expected to continue expanding
>the well being of its members, there has to be a surplus product, which is,
>however, appropriated by the social body, not only by a part of it, i.e.,
>it is no longer surplus value.
>
>
>Claus Germer
>cmgermer@sociais.ufpr.br
>Departamento de Economia
>Universidade Federal do Paraná
>Rua Dr. Faivre, 405 - 3º andar
>80060-140 Curitiba - Paraná
>Brasil
>
>Tel: (041) 360-5214 - Ufpr
> (041) 254-3415 Res.
Duncan K. Foley
Department of Economics
Graduate Faculty
New School University
65 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10003
(212)-229-5906
messages: (212)-229-5717
fax: (212)-229-5724
e-mail: foleyd@cepa.newschool.edu
alternate: foleyd@newschool.edu
webpage: http://cepa.newschool.edu/~foleyd
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:06 EST