Youse might like to skim my article on planning/market
called 'Marxism Deformed: the default into market socialism' which
is on my webpage www.geocities.com/davebedggood. tho its now
a few years old. I just mention it.
Dave
On 28 Mar 00, at 18:00, Hugh Rodwell wrote:
Rob huffs and puffs a
G'day again Thaxists,
Quoth Hugh:
a) that Trotsky is in fact arguing for market socialism as an *alternative*
to the dictatorship of the proletariat with centralized planning and
centralized control of finance and foreign trade;
No, he's arguing for market socialism as crucial part of 'the
C'mon Hugh!
I argue that a socialist economy might need the market mechanism (for I can
see nothing else that would do the particular job of producing and
distributing use values) and you tell me there's going to be abundance, that
"there is *no* scarcity", that "Market socialism is no
Rob huffs and puffs a bit:
C'mon Hugh!
I argue that a socialist economy might need the market mechanism (for I can
see nothing else that would do the particular job of producing and
distributing use values) and you tell me there's going to be abundance, that
"there is *no* scarcity", that
Hi again, Hugh.
Just a quick reprise on the ol' chestnut at hand:
You:
Market socialism is a cowardly utopian cop-out. Anything to avoid the
life-and-death confrontation with the bourgeoisie that creating the
preconditions for real socialism will involve.
Me:
Market Socialism ain't gonna
Doug Henwood quotes me:
This is clearly the stumbling block. Joanna sees a kind of transitional
phase between bourgeois ownership of the means of production and
proletarian ownership. As if the bourgeoisie would let go of them without
some other force immediately taking over the reins of
Rob quotes important bits of Trotsky relating to the market. This doesn't
mean that Trotsky in any way viewed the system he is talking about as
*market socialism*. He's talking about a dictatorship of the proletariat in
which the smooth running of central planning depends to a great extent on
Dave B writes:
Further to Hugh's.
Isnt capitalism generalised commodity production which includes
labour-power i.e. wage-labour?
Very much so.
Prior to capitalism commodity production was secondary to use- value
production, and typically not by means of wage labour. Therefore the
socially
But to say this is to say that productivity is a purely bourgeois concept.
Yes, it is.
Which is crap.
No, it isn't.
The whole driving force behind history according to Marx's perspective is
the development of the forces of production bursting the fetters placed
upon them by the various
But to say this is to say that productivity is a purely bourgeois concept.
Yes, it is.
Which is crap.
No, it isn't.
Oh yes it is!!!
Bourgeois productivity is a purely bourgeois concept. Productivity as such
isn't at all. Smallest possible input of materials and labour time for
greatest
In article l03130310b503b2b94ad8@[130.244.216.248], Hugh Rodwell m-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Not mine, Marx's!
Why? Well, I wrote:
Yes. With the rider that productivity will need to be higher than that
attained by capitalism (at least with respect to the economy as a whole) in
order for the
G'day Thaxalotls,
Was cleaning out my backlog when it suddenly occurred to me that George
might have a point (although I don't know how important a point it need be).
Is a 'commodity' something that distinguishes itself from its hypothetical
being under another economic system purely on the
Well, I didn't mean that he was a fascist, just "to the right " of Marx. But also, it
was a joke.
CB
Rob Schaap [EMAIL PROTECTED] 03/13/00 09:50PM
G'day Chas,
CB: I could go with you are right and Marx is left.
I don't agree with George at all, but I do reckon a leftie is not obliged
to
George misses the point of Marx's comment. All wealth takes the form of
commodities. The fact that something is not being sold at that moment
does not stop it from being a commodity. (More to the point, George only
recognises consumer goods and not capital goods as commodities).
George: I never
In message 005d01bf8d20$a4928980$53fe869f@oemcomputer, George
Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
George: I never said that the fact that something is not being sold at the
moment does not
stop it from being a commodity. What I said was much more modest: Marx is wrong
when he
claims that the
G'day Chas,
CB: I could go with you are right and Marx is left.
I don't agree with George at all, but I do reckon a leftie is not obliged
to agree with Marx, nor with others' interpretations of Marx. And I don't
reckon there's anything particularly right-wing about refuting the
predominance of
A factory when used as a factory is a use value that is
not a
commodity. It is only a commodity when it is sold.
George misses the point of Marx's comment. All wealth takes the form of
commodities. The fact that something is not being sold at that moment
does not stop it from being a
In message 008a01bf8ac3$db08b520$dffe869f@oemcomputer, George
Pennefather [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes
Much of the wealth of capitalist
society is
in the form of factories. Factories are forms of capital but not commodities.
The
factories are a form of fixed capital. Fixed capital is not a
Jim is making a mistake. A factory when used as a factory is a use value that is not a
commodity. It is only a commodity when it is sold. Factories can exist for years and
years -indeed for their entire life span-- as use values --as forms of fixed capital.
The dirty hanky in my pocket is a use
Below is a brief response to the many responses to my very brief piece on Marx's
Capital.
I wrote:
"In the opening paragraph of Capital Marx proclaims:
The wealth of those societies in which the capitalist mode of production prevails,
presents itself as "an immense accumulation of
20 matches
Mail list logo
