M-C-M' and surplus value under capitalism and socialism (answers and questions)

["Charles Brown" <CharlesB@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>> jkschw@xxxxxxxxxxx 12/01/00 02:22PM >>>

>
>Justin, perhaps you could name similar leftists who would recommend that
>everybody be brought down to poverty in the name of equality.
>
>

It's a natural implication from the rejection of the desirability of
creating and satisfying new needs, rejection of the desirability of
promoting efficiency and reducing waste, the attacks on technical
innovation, remarks like Charles' that the issue is satisfying existing
needs, not expanding them, etc. Including renunciation of the idea of
unfettering the forces of production (in the face of market socialist
attacks on the ineffiency of planning).  This isn't _described_ as embracing
poverty, but that's what it amounts to. I would say on the basis of pasy
discussions that every advocarte of planned socialism on this list fits the
bill.

(((((((((((((

CB; Let me say flat out that I don't believe in bringing everybody down to poverty, and that Justin is in error if he denies  that focussing on fully satisfying existing needs is key to overcoming poverty as we know it.

The constant expansion of needs that Engels and Marx refer to is a objective spontaneous process in history , not a goal for conscious socialists.

The fetter on the forces of production that Marx and Marxists are concerned with breaking IS the market.  So, it is Justin's market "socialism" that amounts to embracing poverty. What a philosopher standing on his head.