Re: socialism

On Sat, 29 Apr 2000, Richard N Hutchinson wrote:

>Are you defining socialism as an intermediate stage to communism, which
>would represent the "higher stage" of the abolition of alienated wage
>labor, the attainment of a society of "free cooperative individuals"?

If by socialism I mean the lower stage of communism in the spirit of Marx
then I am still talking about worker ownership. Ownership brings income
based on one's productive contribution and hence inequality will still
exist. To counter this an extensive social welfare system is advocated.
This is why a progressive income tax scheme is advocated. This "stage"
represents the aftermath of the abolition of capitalism where the means of
production are turned over to the workers. But this is only the beginning.
>From these circumstance the struggle continues to build a society in which
distribution of the social product is based on need rather than effort.

On the question of the operation of the law of value, I will have to get
back to you on this, as I am in the final stages of my dissertation
writing and cannot engage in a technical discussion right now. I will say
that I believe these societies represent something other than capitalist
societies. I do not believe they are "state capitalist" societies. (I
believe I have explained this in previous posts.) I think the term state
socialist without quotes is an adequate one, but I recognize the
difficulties with this and the controversies surrounding the question of
the law of value.

Andrew Austin
Knoxville, TN