in defense of planned socialism (and just a little science fiction)

wesley david cecil wcecil at ucs.indiana.edu
Thu Nov 3 22:18:37 MST 1994


I would argue that Marx is not much of a socialist at all.  An exact
quote from the Econ and Phil Manuscripts: "even the equality of wages
demanded by Proudhon only transforms the relatiosnhip of the present day
worker to his labor into the relationship of all men to labor. Society is
then conceived as an abstract capitalist."
And wages, in the following passage, are linked directly to the notion of
private proerty.  So, if by socialism you mean a society without wages
and without private property then ok, marx was interested in socialism.
Further, Democracy just does not work out because self-possesion is, for
Marx, the fundamental form of private property and thus any sense of
representative subjectivity becomes a real problem.  My general sense of
socialism is that it does not mandate the elimination of either wages or
private property and is often linked with notions of democracy and,
therefore, is not at all what Marx had in mind.

Wes

On Thu, 3 Nov 1994 tgs at cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu wrote:

> Wes,
> I don't think that's exactly an exact quote.  This guy Marx was for socialism,
> right?
>
> Tom
>



     ------------------



More information about the Marxism mailing list