[no subject]

[Rubyg580@xxxxxxx]

In a message dated 96-04-14 boddhisatva wrote:

>       I didn't say "where" capitalists got the money to build the
>factories for further expropriation, because it's obvious.  The point is,
>absent that original expropriation, where will *socialists* get the money.
>
>       I know that capitalism only provides money for a tiny percentage
>of innovators, the question is where will socialists get the money to
>finance a larger number of innovators - especially third world socialists?

Well, the first thing is to expropriate the property of the imperialists and
bureacratic and comprador bourgeoisie (the big bourgeoisie who are
hooked up with the imperialists, as opposed to the small-time local
capitalists, often called the national bourgeoisie)  The second is to
renounce payment of debt to the imperialists.  That frees up the wealth
created in the socialist country to be used to increase the welfare of
the people of the country, and to develop the economy.

This, of course, has to be defended by the armed masses, just as the
ability to sieze power in the first place had to be won by the armed
masses thru People's War.

Money is nothing more than an abstracted expression of value.  Value,
in Marxist terms, is a measure of the amount of socially necessary
labor embodied in an object.  So basically, when you ask "where will
they get the money..." what you're really asking is who will do the labor
necessary to produce the things needed for development of various
basic necessities for the people and of goods that can be exchanged
for things that can't be immediately produced by the people in the
new socialist country.

The fact is, the masses of people have a boundless enthusiasm for
socialism (that is, the transition to classless society, not the "socialism"
practiced in England, Sweden, or those other countries we're told are
"socialist", but are really just imperialist countries with better social
welfare systems than the U.S.) And the masses have a tremendous
creativity, that can be unleashed under a real socialist system, because
they are for the first time working for themselves and their whole society,
instead of just to make a paycheck in the course of creating wealth for
some capitalist boss.

>       I know that socialists don't want to be victims of the modern
>economy, but they will have to figure out how to sell things to people who
>are in the modern economy.  You have  to make things like TV sets.  The
>proletariat wants them, and that's that.

 The main thing the proletariat and the oppressed classes, like the poor
peasants, in the third world countries want is the basic necessities of life
like food, shelter fit for humans, and clothing to suit the weather, and
the ability to live like real human communities rather than see their
families,
friends and neighbors torn apart by the economic necessity to travel far
>from home looking for work, not to mention by the repression from the
official regimes.

The demand for TV sets may or may not be a major issue, depending on
the particular circumstances of the people. (Obviously this is a real
demand within the imperialist countries--that doesn't mean it is in the
oppressed countries.) But whatever the real demands of the people
are, it is also the people who do the work that creates the products
needed, or the goods that can be traded for the needed products.

The story of the diffusion furnace is a good example of this: people
who had not previously engaged in productive industrial work were
able to manufacture an important product that was prevented from
coming into China by the imperialist embargo.  They didn't have to
worry about their efforts making money for some  capitalist.  The
university students were glad to help them--probably for free--and
other people also contributed to the effort in various ways.

The women themselves may well have worked for no pay until they
had actually produced a useable product that could be bought by
factories that would use them.  The fact that they are called "house-
wives" indicates that they were living in households supported by
someone else's pay, presumably a husband.

But they also probably did not have to pay the university for the
training they recieved, or pay some landlord rent for the building
they worked in, or for the raw materials th do their experiments on.
In many cases those kinds of inputs were donated by the industry
that would be using the finished product.  (There are actually many
similar stories like this from Revolutionary China--I'm guessing these
things based on what happened in some other instances). These kinds
of efforts on the part of many sectors of society, and the coordination
between them, would not be possible in a capitalist society.

>       Capitalists may compel workers to labor by oppressive means,
>but, for the most part, it is not at gun-point.  If you are considering an
>economy where TV sets are made at gun-point, you need to give the
>matter more thought.

Where are you getting the idea that socialism makes people work at gun-
point?  Socialism is a system that is won by the masses at the point of
THEIR guns.  They take the productive resources from the old exploiters
at gun-point.  They don't then need to point the guns at their own heads
to take over and use those productive resources for the benefit of themselves
and their class sisters and brothers.  That "forced to work at gun-point"
bullshit is nothing but scare stories to keep folks in imperialist countries
(and, to some extent in the oppressed countries, although there it's a lot
more obvious who forces whom to work at gun-point) from seeing the
real nature and potential of socialism.

> I am interested, if possible in trying to develop a logic whereby third
>world nations can follow something which approximates the pacific
>rim model, but does not require massive capitalist speculation.
>       peace           boddhisatva

Man, if you're serious about this, you MUST study the experience of
revolutionary China.  There is no other Pacific Rim country that went
so far in so short a time, with so little outside help, and most importantly,
without the vast polarization between rich and poor that is the hallmark
of the "Pacific Rim" model, including China today, 21 years after the
overthrow of the socialist system. Mao sain, early on, "Only Socialism
can save China." The same is true of all oppressed societies. No other
system can possibly create the kind of all-around development that is
really needed by the people (as opposed to the distorted and polarized
development of the imperialist "Pacific Rim" model)

In Unity and Struggle,
Gina/ Detroit


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---