The ideas below are distinct from those expressed in my previous message. (Question: should we start a new list called Herb-l?) Let me hit the ball in Blair's side of the court for a second. I'm an agnostic humanist: I THINK (but I'm not entirely sure) that capitalism fails to permit people to fully develop their potential and, so, I desire a switch to a different type of economy. Why exactly, in the world of Wolff/Resnick, does one desire a transformation to socialism/communism? I understand that in such a theory one is not permitted to invoke anything like "human essences" or unfulfilled human essences; why then desire socialism? I've heard it claimed by some within the Wolff/Resnick camp that they once played around with the idea that the move to socialism was motivated by "aesthetic" reasons. But this was many years ago and I imagine they now have a more fully realized idea of their motivation. This is particularly important because their rejection of essentialism also led them to reject the idea that various social processes that we might dislike (say, gender discrimination) were not CAUSED by capitalism (why?: simply invoke the notion of overdetermination). Therefore, it is theoretically possible that a transformation to socialism might MAKE WORSE bad things like gender/racial/ethnic discrimination. "Our theory does not permit us to make the claim that a transformation to socialism will have NECESSARY consequences on other rhelms of society" it might be said. I long ago reached the conclusion that my theories MUST BE a bit essentialist AND economistic. A change in the way things are produced and distributed will have NECESSARY (and positive) consequences on the achievement of human potential and on other rhelms of society. Otherwise, why care about a transformation to socialism? Eric .. Eric Nilsson Department of Economics California State University San Bernardino, CA 92407 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
