[Marxism] Why didn't Lenin go capitalist-Marx political

DLVinvest at cs.com DLVinvest at cs.com
Tue Jun 15 15:00:06 MDT 2004

In a message dated 6/7/04 3:37:24 PM Mountain Daylight Time, 
cbrown at michiganlegal.org writes: 
> Melvin P.:It is absolutely incorrect to define socialism as a command
> economy or planned economy or define socialism's essence as planning. There
> is nothing in the economic writings of Marx to justify defining socialism
> outside of the ownership rights or "property relations within." 
> CB: This is so fundamental, ABC, and well known, you have to know you are
> contradicting Marxist convention on this. But I don't see where you have
> made the argument for deviating from the Marxist convention. Sure we aim for
> more planning of economic life.

Socialist planning under the dictatorship of the proletariat was meant to 
overcome anarchy of production under the bourgeoisie, not merely to "seize the 
commanding heights" and "exproprate th eexpropriators" but in order to begin 
revolutionizing the relations of production, build up a social fund for 
investment in the productive forces, defend the new workers' state in war, and make the 
social determination of need the criterion for production decisions. But 
means should not be confused with ends: revolutionary poltiics should not be 
reduced or confined to state planning, as coproratist-fascist and wlefare-sate 
capitalists can attest. Besides, the prescription was applied in unique 
circumstances and had unaticipated consequences. What we need here and now may be a 
different formula derived from the accumulated experience of the history of 
accumulation in nominally socialist regimes.

Douglas L. Vaughan, Jr.
for Print, Film & Electronic Media
3140 W. 32nd Ave. 
Denver CO 80211

More information about the Marxism mailing list