what about inequalities between firms (market socialism)

tgs at cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu tgs at cunyvms1.gc.cuny.edu
Sat Nov 5 23:40:32 MST 1994


I try to read your responses.  I just may not agree with them, NOR have the
time to address them all.  There are many many things we do not and will
not agree on: I try to stick to the basic points.  For my part, I don't
hear you acknowledging these, either--fully enough for my satisfaction.
But that is in the nature of argument.  Please don't expect your opponent
to simply roll over and submit, simply because you come up with the magic
words.  My postings are just as much, if not more, for those in the crowd
who are close to my position, so we can firm up our thinking, than for
you exclusively.  I'm fading fast as to hopes for converting you.  But
that doesn't mean I plan to stop talking to you, or that I hold a grudge.

One point I want to make in response--again, that's my style.  The reason
why the democratic planning state is not as corruptable (nothing is of course
perfect) is because (a) while there will still be market relations, which
will only fade away gradually, these will no longer predominate (b)
The state will be only the working class
(or in less advanced societies, the producing classes,
with the working class enjoying intellectual but not coercive

The "market socialist" state, however, MUST place itself ABOVE society, because
private individuals/groups cannot be trusted to form a public space spontaneously.
I.e., the market and the abstract state are flipsides of the same coin (forgive
the pun).  It is the abstract state which naturally supports inequality,
entrenched social
conflict, and the most economically powerful strata of society.  Just as it
was the abstract state created by the Bolsheviks which quickly reintroduced
inequality and corruption (against which the Kronstadt mutineers fought,
with tragic results).



 organized, as Marx says in the Communist


More information about the Marxism mailing list