[Marxism] Re: Reply to Tom on the meaning of capitalismandstatecapitalism

Mahmood ketabchi mekchi at verizon.net
Tue Dec 14 22:22:47 MST 2004


Joe Wrote:
"But with state-owned enterprises, say as exist in Cuba, Vietnam, or as 
existed in the former Soviet Union, the key factor is in the re-distribution of 
wealth in the form of social services - education, housing, healthcare, etc."

Although, it is nice to have all these social services, it is wrong to equate them to socialism.  What you are talking about is social democracy.  To my mind, in terms of economics, a socialist state should at the first step not just abolish private ownership of the means of production but abrogate wage slavery, by which I mean people's livelihood should not depend on whether they work or not or the kind of work they have.     I leave alone the concept of worker's control and councils.        
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Octob1917 at aol.com<mailto:Octob1917 at aol.com> 
  To: marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu<mailto:marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu> 
  Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2004 3:03 AM
  Subject: Re: [Marxism] Re: Reply to Tom on the meaning of capitalismandstatecapitalism


  In a message dated 12/13/2004 10:27:00 PM Pacific Standard Time, 
  mekchi at verizon.net<mailto:mekchi at verizon.net> writes:
  True, my position is close to yours.  But why one-sided.  Is it one-sided to 
  say that capitalist exploitation occurs outside of realm of market and 
  exchange?  Only private capitalists exploit people? If not, why is it one-sided to 
  say that exploitation can occur also in state owned enterprises?   


  But with state-owned enterprises, say as exist in Cuba, Vietnam, or as 
  existed in the former Soviet Union, the key factor is in the re-distribution of 
  wealth in the form of social services - education, housing, healthcare, etc. To 
  say that the production of a surplus is exploitative only covers one aspect of 
  the process. If not then every socialist country to date could be said to have 
  exploited its citizens. I don't believe this to be the case. Instead it would 
  be more accurate to state that the means of production in the hands of 
  individuals constitutes expropriation. Means of production in the hands of a 
  socialist state on the other hand, which is trying to achieve socialism and by 
  necessity is passing through a transitory stage from privately owned production to 
  socially owned, is not. 

  'What we have to deal with here is a communist society, not as it has 
  developed on its own foundations, but, on the contrary, as it emerges from capitalist 
  society; which is thus in every respect, economically, morally and 
  intellectually, still stamped with the birthmarks of the old society from whose womb it 
  emerges.'

  Marx: Critique Of The Gotha Programme.


  Joe 
  _______________________________________________
  Marxism mailing list
  Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu<mailto:Marxism at lists.econ.utah.edu>
  http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism<http://lists.econ.utah.edu/mailman/listinfo/marxism>



More information about the Marxism mailing list