Date: Mon, 13 Jan 1997 16:03:42 -0500 (EST)
From: Kevin Cabral <kcabral-AT-freenet.columbus.oh.us>
Subject: Re: M-I: Re: "what went wrong"?


On Mon, 13 Jan 1997, Justin Schwartz wrote:

> As a Schweickartian in a broad sense I want to underline that not all of
> us agree with Kevin on this. K thinks that "all you have ti to do is
> change the laws" and we can make a transition to market socialism with a
> minimum disruption. In a sense this is true, in that MS would require a
> far less great change in the legal structure--although more than Kevin
> thinks, let me tell you from the perspective of law school--than planned
> socialism. But Kevin short-circuits class struggle. Changing the laws is a
> big deal. It will require a socialist government, which requires working
> class power. which requires revolution. The bourgeoisie, especially here,
> will not just go quiet into that good night. We will have to trake their
> property away from them. It is likely not to be pretty.

Justin, 

	You misunderstand my post. Within it I attempted to address Jason's
concern that the economic logic of socialism would require a radical break
>from what people are used to in their everyday lives. For example, a
skeptic might speculate that, in some hypothetical model of socialism, 
everyone might be required to meet in the town square every morning
to eat a community breakfast, or every afternoon to receive the latest
shipment of meats from the queue. Or that they may have to submit a
monthly list of the goods they intend to shop for that month so that
central planners can determine how many groceries are needed for the
district. Or that in a post-revolutionary period workers in
"non-productive" jobs will be shifted elsewhere into the economy, moved
around the country, or whatever else. 
	
	This sort of thing will not be present in a market socialist
economy for the reason that generalized commodity production for the
market will not change. I considered saying something more about the
sort of ruptures that would be necessary to "make a revolution which will
break with the capitalist" but, speaking as I am to a forum of readers
more-or-less familiar with the Marxist theory of class, class interest,
and class struggle, I figured I'd save the time and stick with, what I
interpreted to be, Jason's main question. 		
						
> Nonetheless, we are not so far from them that we can leave class struggle
> and bourgeois resistence out of the equation. Kevin, wake up! Reread The
> Civil War in France. Or a history of modern Chile. Or an account of
> Nicaragua in the 1970s and 80s. 
							
Here is what I said to conclude the letter in question; please read it well. 
	
> > otherwise, with the exception of the role of banks, market socialism does
> > not require a fundamental rupture with normalcy other than that which any
> > revolution must make with the capitalist. So, if you can envision a
> > functional world without the capitalist, market socialism is not abnormal
> > in its economic logic. 

-
Kevin
Cols, Oh





     --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---