From: "cwright" <cwright-AT-21stcentury.net>
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?Part 2
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2002 09:32:33 -0600


Hey Greg,

> When he does talk about it in the following paragraph, he makes something
of the same point but now in a different context (that of Labour
Certificates) to make a slightly different aspect, he now is not talking
about the absurdity of "Undimished proceeds" but that of equal rights.
Purposefully, unlike the first syllogism, the second is framed within the
first phase of communism (the period of transition), he he makes the point
about the bourgeois nature of right and the absurdity is that this maintains
itself under this first phase and he calls this defect directly derived from
capitalism itself.

Here is a key disagreement between us.  I don't think that Marx conceives of
the first phase of communism as the transition in the sense I have been
taking you to use it (dictatorship of the proletariat.)  Unless we can
resolve that, we may be at an impasse.

> In otherwords persistence is maintained of the very inequalities created
by capitalism of which the proletariat will have to make of it the best it
can, Labour Certificates notwithstanding. He ends both syllogisms in a round
condemnation of starting with distribution at all, which cannot be ignored
as it is the part that returns to the apropreiation of the means of
production as the key to real program.

Except Marx makes the point of saying that even though it is 'in principle'
bourgeois right, there is no longer any contradiction between principle and
practice.  This is very much a change from capitalist society.  Otherwise,
yes, Marx is attacking the notion of 'equal right'.

> It is this last part that requires attention even though it is small. It
is not good enough simply to eliminate profit and private ownership (or
collective private ownership when talking of modern share companies) without
looking at the problem of collectivising the means of production in a
meaningful way.
> Afterall we can get rid of the "owners" and what would change in these big
multinationals? The problem was complex enough in Marx's day the complexity
today is of a much greater magnitude. The challenge for the working class is
not just being the proxy owners of the means of production but in becoming
capable of making it obey its will, to understand every aspect of it
consciously and to know the consquences of its actions, no easy task. Then
at that point when the class could be described as its actual oweners, not
on paper but in effect, then wage-labour would cease to be a reality because
the production would have become unalienated completely.
>
We agree completely on this.  Marx knew enough to realize that a
multiplicity of ways may be found under specific conditions, which forced
him to avoid 'cook's recipes' for what actual communism would look like.

Cheers,
Chris



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