[ show plain text ]
Paul wrote in [2559]
>If one posing the question this way, the Soviet Union would not be a class
>society because workers 1) did "own" the means of production (at least
>seemingly, at least "de jure"), but 2) surely did not "control" the means
>of production. Paul
In my opinion the SU was a capitalist society, precisely because: 1) the
workers were controlled and exploited by virtue of the obligation to
obedience they undertook by accepting the employment relation, 2) the goal
of production was capitalist accumulation.
In solidarity
Ernesto
>
>***********************************************************************
>Paul Zarembka, supporting RESEARCH IN POLITICAL ECONOMY
>******************** http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/PZarembka
>
>
>Gerald Levy <glevy@PRATT.EDU> said, on 03/18/00 at 11:52 AM:
>
>>I don't think that the issue is whether class is defined in terms of
>>ownership *or* control (since no one has suggested that class can be
>>defined _only_ in terms of ownership of the means of production) but
>>whether it is to be defined in terms of ownership *and* control (or not).
>
>
Ernesto Screpanti
Dipartimento di Economia Politica
Piazza S. Francesco 1
53100 Siena
tel: 0577 232784
fax: 0577 232661
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Apr 21 2000 - 09:47:57 EDT