foucault at eden.rutgers.edu
Fri Jan 27 00:19:24 MST 1995
In response to,
>> "No modification of commodity exchange is possible
>>that will get round this. Only the development
>>of labour productivity in the less developed
>>countries can effect a change."
> The development of that labor "productivity" must include the
>apropriation of the FULL BENEFIT of the work product for workers in those
>underdeveloped places. Otherwise, for whom is it productive ?
In general I agree with the sentiments, but this
of course implies getting rid of generalised
I disagree with this statement. Commodity production and socialism
are not at odds. Workers need only supplant capitalists in control of their
industries to effect their receiving full benefit for their work.
Participation in markets in inevitable. The value of one's work is socially
determined in the market. The efficiency of one's firm is moot to this.
Inefficient third world ventures generally have inefficient markets and
inefficient methods because of atavistic social relations. A move to
socialist economy - real socialist economy - severs feudal bonds in one
stroke, freeing workers to form "entrepreneurial" (we'll have to find a
substitute for that word as socialism removes the "entre" from the "preneur")
groups. Socialism also puts income now in flowing to the feudal rich into
the hands of ready consumers, stimulating markets to be larger and more
The inefficient third world producer is not inefficient because he
wants to be. Nor will he be long sheltered from western firms. He has the
same dilemna as all the proletariat. He has both to revolt AND produce.
Participating in efficient economies can help him do both so long as he has
the resolve and the understanding of his plight.
More information about the Marxism