Date: Sun, 28 Apr 96 9:06:44 EDT
From: boddhisatva <kbevans-AT-panix.com>
To: marxism-AT-jefferson.village.Virginia.EDU
Subject: Re: Reply to: Re: Capitalist collectivizatio






		Rahul,




	Why you and Louis Proyect cannot fathom the idea that a person may
disagree with you on one thing, like the market, without disagreeing with
you on everything is beyond me.  You are relentless in your bourgeois social
categorizing of people.  (previous post you called me a "flag waver"?  me?  
what the hell are you talking about?  Are you nuts?) 



	First, I said that the Chinese/Soviet model of economic reform
through political compulsion was inadequate.  Now, maybe I didn't go on for
half a page about the horrors of starving Russian peasants, but I am trying
to keep my arguments a little more intellectual than that.  Obviously you
can't drag people from the land.  At the same time, attempts to prop up
antiquated agricultural methods have not exactly been a stunning success,
have they?


	"Getting people off the land" is not the idea.  Giving people a
reason to get off the land is the idea.  As for history, how does South Korea
grab you?  Indonesia?  Japan?   Obviously these are capitalist versions of
the goal, with their own, peculiar histories.  The trick is to get similar
results but more peaceful, egalitarian, environmentally sound and socialist. 
Your groundless presumption that I profer " outright capitalism after some
slight redistribution of capital" clearly shows the lack of intellectual
rigor in the "command economy/market economy - socialism/capitalism" 
dichotomy that you were fed in school - and swallowed whole.  



	Especially in land reform, I am talking about all out seizure of
landowner holdings.  I am talking about creating co-ops with those holdings,
tended by professional agricultural workers (who used to be peasants) who are
shareholders in both the land and sister industries which are manned by
industrial workers (who used to be peasants).  They sell their wares in 
the market, yes, but keep, as a community, all the profits.  




	The interesting point you make is about currency and its meaning 
in an imperialist world.  Panama pegged its currency to the US dollar.  
I've often wondered what effect that might have on a country trying to 
overcome capitalist prejudice against socialized economies.  Of course 
when capitalists give the third world the money whose value they enforce 
with imperialism, they do give them the right to purchase western goods 
for trade within their own country.  




	
	peace






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