I would find it helpful if you specified what you mean by 'socialism' and 'socialisied'.
I am skeptical because some of the past uses of 'socialised' in this context do not seem applicable today. There was an argument based on certain isomorphisms of socialist and capitalist production and administrative systems in the heyday of mass production. Hence the convergence literature of the sixties, and some of the arguments advanced by Harrington and Galbraith in the seventies. Since then, the state socialist half of this isomorphism has collapsed, and the capitalist half has moved on. But maybe I'm just out of date. So please expand. Fred Guy Greg Schofield wrote: > My point is that historically this is not so, that the level of socialisation >already established by the bourgeoisie, effectively means there is no great day when >leading elements of capital must be socialisied, as this is already achieved. _________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
