In response to this passage from my discussion with Paul C., >>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. Julian writes: >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. "Self-sufficiency" is Paul's term, Julian, not mine. But I wasn't referring to "autarky", as you seem to suggest here, and I don't think Paul was either. "Self-sufficient" was rather used in the sense of "free of the necessity of working for capitalists." The point of reference here--and the starting point for this discussion--is Marx's analysis in Volume I, Ch. 33, where Marx discusses just this issue. He's clearly *not* saying that the alternative to working for capitalists was autarky--indeed, in his view the capitalists' problem in the colonies is that would-be employees became market competitors. >> 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? No. This is not at all comparable. One could have Roemer's system, for example, along with "public pension provisions," if desired. >At the risk of making my point over-pointedly, this seems to say that >present-day Chile is a workers' paradise. See above. >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. To individual workers perhaps, but not to collectives of workers. See my responses to Paul C and John E., which the above comments about Chile and abolishing public pension provisions don't really engage. >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?) No, I'm saying something much more specific: that if it's legitimate to read Marx as indicating that DOSPA (differential ownership of scarce productive assets) is a necessary condition for capitalist exploitation--a point still being discussed--then it follows that sufficient redistribtion of productive assets would eliminate capitalist exploitation. The issue here is what *Marx* argues is the systemic basis of capitalist exploitation, and what inferences might be drawn from that argument. Gil
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST