Re: state capitalist debate

[Adam Rose <adam@xxxxxxxx>]

>
> Neil writes;
> >
> >Karl C.  says "the elimination of private property form and the
> >retention of the the form of capitalist property is impossible....."
> >
> >Karl is confusing  form with essence. The continued promotion of
> >wage labor and hence capitalism  is the quintessence of all
> >capitalist social relations!
> >
> >Mere nationalisations of means of production are not incompatible
> >with capitalism was seen by socialists from Engels to Bebel  to
> >Bukharin up to present day marxists.
> >
> >Engels states ;
> >"the transformation into joint-stock companies , or into state ownership
> >does not do away with the capitalist nature of the productive forces...The
> >modern state, no matter what its form , is essentially a capitalist machine
> >the ideal personification of the total national capital ..The workers remain
> >wage laboreers, proletarians . The capitalist relation is not done away 
> >with."
> >Anti-Duhring, Pg329
> >
> >Engels also stresses this key point  in "Socialism -Utopian & Scientific,
> Pg39-40
> >International Publ, 1935 ed.
> >
> >There is still much confusion amongst marxists (vs. social democrats
> > & other capitalist refromers) over this issue . This needs to be
> >clarified  that nationalisation does not equal socialization -esp.
> >as carried out by proletarian rev. movements and organizations
> >in mass struggle.
> >
> >Neil
>
> It appears that Neil is correct for a change. Only by expropriating the
> expropriators through the dictatorship of the proletariat can create the
> transitional state on the way to communism..However this does not mean that
> we can,t give critical support to the nationalisation of certain sectors by
> reformists or be against privatisation of the state sector in these times of
> downsizing and restructuring of the economies.
>
> malecki
>

I agree with Neil + Malecki.
Write the date down in your diary.

Adam.



     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---