RE: What is uneconomic under capitalism does not become economic under socialism.

[Mark Jones <markjones011@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

At 14-12-02 22:28, you wrote:


>  I mean the work that objectively needs to get done so that you get your
> breakfast, lunch and dinner, petrol for your vehicle, power for your PC and
> domestic appliances, equipment for your home, condoms, haircuts, medical
> attention, toiletries and so forth. You take all that for granted now, in a
> reified world, but upon a social revolution you cannot take those "things"
> for granted. Their provision must be organised, and for this we need
> organisers, not people who think they can live on their back for the rest of
> their days.

Which will you be, one of the organisers or one of the organised, just out
of interest?

Engels was right about revos being authoritarian, but we were talking about
socialism as a settled and dominant social order, not about the conditions
under which it comes into existence. Of *that* Engels said there would be
"the administration of things rather than the administration of people".
I'd be happy with that definition. Your scheme which is full of
'organisers' ie bureaucrats smells of that old pop song by the Who: "Meet
the new boss, Same as the old boss".

I haven't finished with the Grundrisse yet, or prices of production either.

Mark


~~~~~~~
PLEASE clip all extraneous text before replying to a message.