On Fri, 11 Mar 1994 15:07:39 -0500 (EST) Gil said:
>
>For example, if a law were passed mandating that all firms be labor-
>owned, Marx's argument of Vol I, Ch. 5 and Vol III, Chs 21-23 would
>lead to the conclusion that the elimination of labor's subsumption
>under capital would lead to the elimination of exploitation.
>
Gee, who said one should derive political conclusions from just a
few chapters in Marx's long and winding book? Marx would totally
agree with Roemer that simply legislating workers' control would
not solve the problem of capitalist exploitation. In fact, it was
from Marx that Roemer got the idea! Marx was very critical of
Proudhon and others who thought that state-sponsored workers'
co-operatives were the way to go. In fact, he shed doubt on
the whole Gil/Proudhon counterfactual: why would the capitalist
state allow such legislation to pass?
In Marx's system, as I said
in a very long missive last year, both micro and macro subsumption
of labor are part of the exploitation story. That is, not only is
the micro subsumption of labor by capital in the production process
important, but so is the macro subsumption, i.e., the separation of
workers from the ownership of the means of production and subsistence.
Like the workers' control dream, Roemer's
solution (have the state take over all of capitalist wealth)
would also be insufficient. Marx saw both workers' co-operatives
and the centralization of capital (in corporations and state hands)
as precursors of socialism. In my reading, both of these need
to be linked. This might be a bit utopian, but that's another issue.
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine BITNET: jndf@lmuacad INTERNET: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ., Los Angeles, CA 90045-2699 USA
310/338-2948 (off); 310/202-6546 (hm); FAX: 310/338-1950
