Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 14:33:44 +0200
From: Ilan Shalif <gshalif-AT-netvision.net.il>
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?


Hi People
It is fine to dissect old scripts.
It may even reveal some old wisdom...

However, the clame about the need for a two stage solution
for social change from capitalism to communism as a result of this
analyzes is not in place.

cwright wrote:

> However, I tend to think that, even now we might find achieving the free
> association of producers easier than the time it will take to remake the
> whole world where 'from each according to her abilities, to each according
> to her needs' can be the sole basis of life.

The above imply that the power in the society can be in the hands
of associations of producers who will distribute the fruits of work
in a different way than from each according to ability and to each
according to needs.

Of course one can compose a model in which social solidarity
is minimal, and people will get according to a different way of
distribution. However, in order to give to each according to contribution
or other non equal method you will need a system of measuring and decisions
who will get how much.

And of course you will have to convince people that others deserve
more for the same amount of time of work. Or for less physical efforts,
or for more convenience environment.

And you will have to tax people for social consumption and for
support to those who are not fully able...

And to manage all this in society built on unequal base....

And of course the question of "to each according to need"
is problematic. But, it is not so much if you add to it the obvious:
according to the level of plenty in that time.

Thus, in low level of development, there is very small amount
of luxury above the basic needs available for distribution, with very
limited spectrum. And this, by all the work hours one can possibly
contribute.

In more developed and affluent times, the proportion of luxury
may be very big, and the spectrum of option huge, so there
will be need to distribute it in equal way - as luxury is not answering
needs that can be measured or assessed. And in such society

the need for work is diminished so the question of freedom
may be involved in the option to work more for more luxury...
without conflicting the basic solidarity of to each according
to needs - from each according to ability.

By the way, in a modern society where the "producers"
are the minority of the adult people, what does it mean
" free association of producers" and in what it is different
from "the world commune of grass root communities" ?
Ilan




     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---