At 13:37 16/08/99 -0400, you wrote:
>Noam Chomsky on Socialism: A Critique
>by Li'l Joe ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and Connie White ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
>
>Noam Chomsky says: "One can debate the meaning of the term 'socialism,' but
>if it means anything, it means control of production by the workers
>themselves, not owners and managers who rule them and control all decisions,
>whether in capitalist enterprise or an absolutist state. ***** To refer to
>the Soviet Union as socialist is an interesting case of doctrinal double
>speak."
I think that the fallacy starts in the first sentence. It implies the
unmarxist proposition that managers are not part of the necessary forces of
socialist production. Indeed one of the progressive things about capitalism
is that it prepares the ground for the separation of capital from the
management of production.
I suppose Chomsky could with pedantic logic defend this statement as saying
he means manager *who rule and control workers* but this misses the point.
He is implying an ultra-democratic model of socialism.
The democratic control over socialised production is a highly contradictory
process, but whatever problems occurred in the struggle to build socialism
in the Soviet Union, having managers was not one of them.
I would rather stick to this point than to get into detailed discussion
about whether Chomsky was or was not more correct than these two critics on
various aspects of the history of the Soviet Union.
Chris Burford
--- from list [EMAIL PROTECTED] ---
