Charles Brown wrote:
------------------
There is enormous division of labor and specialization in the historical
socialist states. It is pretty much the same level of divsion of labor as
the capitalist state it takes over from.
Miners only mine. They don't make steel , by and large. Doctors only don'
t usually do much more than the speciality of medicine. Physics profs teach
physics mainly. Autoworkers make one part of the car .
Socialism is not the return to small , relatively autonomous/self-sufficient
units of production as in precapitalist societies.
By the way, this is why there is still exchange (not the market) in
socialism.
-------------------
Maybe I am just being dense. You defined "private property" (which you seek
to abolish) in your previous post as "Private property has the technical
connotation of ownership of the social productive means that are necessary
to production in a society with an enormous division of labor or
soicalization and specialization of the production process."
According to your definition, then, historical socialist states have not
only extreme division of labor and specialization, but in fact "private
property," because your definition of "private property" includes the
ownership necessary to an enormous division of labor and specialization.
You then say socialism is not a return to self-sufficiency as is typical of
precapitalist societies -- but then that would mean you would not be
abolishing "private property" (if you define private property as the
ownership necessary to enormous division of labor and specialization.)
Thanks,
David Shemano
