Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms

I agree with Howard that Marx almost certainly did not expect
unlimited free consumption of goods that require substantial
natural and labour inputs. But Nove was not tilting at windmills.
This is a common misinterpretation of Marx, that you encounter
both among western leftists, and which, as Spufford's new book
brings out, was official doctrine in the USSR at the start of the
1960s.

On 11/06/10 00:50, howard engelskirchen wrote:
>> On 2010-06-10 19:46, Alejandro Agafonow wrote:
>>
>>> This higher phase of communist society where all the springs of
>>> co-operative wealth flow more abundantly, to recall Marx, literally
>>> requires a *replicator* like the one in Star Trek in order to
>>> synthesize goods at infinitely zero labor costs. As long as we don’t
>>> have it, we have to think in a feasible socialism able to deal with
>>> scarcity at least as good as capitalism does.
>>>
> The canard about zero opportunity costs exploited especially by Nove in
> FEASIBLE SOCIALISM is right up there with the MudPie Theory of value
> Brendan Cooney deconstructs. You can attribute infinite silliness to Marx
> if you presuppose bourgeois ideological assumptions on reading him, and Nove
> does that. Nove’s vision of socialism is feasible because it doesn’t
> challenge the defining features of capital – he doesn’t challenge the
> separation of productive entities and he doesn’t challenge the separation of
> working producers from their conditions of production. To do either of
> these, he thinks, would be utopian and romantic, not to say irresponsible.
> So, as he acknowledges, his feasible socialism likely is not really any
> different from capitalism with a human face. But actually there is no
> evidence that latter is feasible.
>
> So Marx is supposed to anticipate a world with zero opportunity costs. Now
> how does such a world come to be except in someone’s fevered imagination?
> Thinking that this was Marx’s idea supposes an astonishing philosophical
> shallowness on his part. If I type this post there is, believe me, an
> opportunity cost. Nove recognized that. But then why suppose Marx is in
> search of zero opportunity costs? What Marx says is that the springs of
> productive wealth will flow *more* abundantly. But Nove supposes he
> imagines a society where an individual -- notice, a completely isolated
> individual who lacks altogether associational ties with his neighbors that
> are worth mentioning, and acting alone, that is, without any discussion or
> consultation with them about alternatives -- goes to the common store and
> takes what she or he wants. Endlessly. Yes, that is indeed some other
> planet, but it is not Marx, who recognized that the social metabolism we
> live certainly engages a material nature that is finite. Where then does
> the vision of infinite abundance come from? How about the wet dreams of
> bourgeois imagining – M-C-M’-C-M’ and on and on without limit and now no
> longer as the imagined use values the coin in my pocket can stand in for but
> instead as actually accessible use values without any conceivable reality
> check, – oh yeah!
>
> Do salads of pearls capture Marx’s vision of socialism, or did that have
> something to do with his critique of money economies?!
>
> It’s interesting to compare all this with how the bourgeoisie reacts when
> there actually is abundance. Ideas are abundant and can be shared virtually
> cost free. But in that case the bourgeoisie drops all conversation about
> the fantasy of zero opportunity costs and insists instead on privatizing the
> commons. Through the miracle of ideology it creates scarcity where there is
> abundance and imagines infinite abundance where there is scarcity.
>
> howard
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Dave Zachariah"<davez@kth.se>
> To: "Outline on Political Economy mailing list"<ope@lists.csuchico.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, June 10, 2010 2:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [OPE] socialist planning in capitalist firms
>
>
>
>> On 2010-06-10 19:46, Alejandro Agafonow wrote:
>>
>>> This higher phase of communist society where all the springs of
>>> co-operative wealth flow more abundantly, to recall Marx, literally
>>> requires a *replicator* like the one in Star Trek in order to
>>> synthesize goods at infinitely zero labor costs. As long as we don’t
>>> have it, we have to think in a feasible socialism able to deal with
>>> scarcity at least as good as capitalism does.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I would agree with this. The 'higher phase' as a general idea is a
>> reflection of 19th century optimism more than anything else. That said,
>> a realistic scenario the point is to let the citizens collectively
>> decide what should be distributed according to that principle, e.g.
>> healthcare or digital music.
>>
>> //Dave Z
>> _______________________________________________
>> ope mailing list
>> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>>
>>
> _______________________________________________
> ope mailing list
> ope@lists.csuchico.edu
> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
>

_______________________________________________
ope mailing list
ope@lists.csuchico.edu
https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/ope
Received on Fri Jun 11 06:12:28 2010