Louis writes: >Actually, state ownership is a socialist goal in itself.< I don't want to get into a discussion of "goal in itself" (though maybe pen-l's Kant experts want to do so). My point is that state ownership is necessary but not sufficient to the attainment of socialist ideals. After all, the Pharaoh owned a lot of the ancient Egyptian means of production (including slaves). When state ownership of the means of production is crucial, the question of who controls the state is even more crucial than under capitalism. >The problem of state ownership in Algeria must be understood in the context of the country's failure to break with imperialism completely as China and Cuba did.< I agree that Algeria's failure to break with imperialism is crucial, and find almost all of Louis' contribution on Algeria to fit with my reading. One problem with Algeria is that the French smashed the popular revolt (portrayed in the film, "the battle of Algiers") so that the power that succeeded in bringing forth the anti-colonial revolution was in the end the military that had been operating outside of Algeria's boundaries, led by Colonel Boumedienne, who ended up in charge. >When I was in a debate with a supporter of Tony Cliff's current on the old Marxism list, I made a point of comparing Cuba side-by-side with Algeria.< Cliff and his followers called the old USSR "state capitalist." What do they call Algeria? >I would suggest that China is NOT like Algeria, but has much more in common with Cuba, even if NEP-like measures have been more extreme in China.< I agree that China is NOT like Algeria (and I'm sorry if what I said implied that). I would say that the key difference between China and Cuba is that the latter has always had much more democratic input into politics and economics than China has. Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://clawww.lmu.edu/Faculty/JDevine/jdevine.html
