[PEN-L:28689] Re: Re: Re: The need for planning

[miychi <miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On 7/28/02 05:46 AM, "ken hanly" <khanly@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I was just joking! .
>
> Cheers, Ken Hanly
>
> PS> Thanks to Michael for the article.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Michael Perelman <michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> To: <pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> Sent: Saturday, July 27, 2002 9:12 AM
> Subject: [PEN-L:28664] Re: The need for planning
>
>
>> I accidentally erased Justin's post.  It has not appeared on the archives.
>> Lou should not have ridiculed Justin's post.
>>
>> We have been over and over the question of whether market socialism gives
>> more variety of consumer goods.
>>
>> Quality of consumer goods is a minor reason to want socialism.
>>
>> Capitalism probably produces more variety than capitalism.  If you want
>> variety, why bother with socialism?
>>
>> Of course, some of this variety is meaningless.  We have also discussed
>> how markets (say, tv or radio) limit variety.
>>
>> The Soviet Union is not a fair test of planning.  We have been over that
>> before.  The threat from the Cold War was a lot more serious than the
>> terrorist threat to the US.  Look how the post 9-11 policies have screwed
>> up the economy.
>>
>>
>>  --
>> Michael Perelman
>> Economics Department
>> California State University
>> Chico, CA 95929
>>
>> Tel. 530-898-5321
>> E-Mail michael@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Let's cite Capital
>
"Let us now picture to ourselves, by way of change, a community of free
individuals, carrying on their work with the means of production in common,
in which
         the labour-power of all the different individuals is consciously
applied as the combined labour-power of the community. All the
characteristics of Robinson's
         labour are here repeated, but with this difference, that they are
social, instead of individual. Everything produced by him was exclusively
the result of his own
         personal labour, and therefore simply an object of use for himself.
The total product of our community is a social product. One portion serves
as fresh means of
         production and remains social. But another portion is consumed by
the members as means of subsistence. A distribution of this portion amongst
them is
         consequently necessary. The mode of this distribution will vary
with the productive organisation of the community, and the degree of
historical development
         attained by the producers. We will assume, but merely for the sake
of a parallel with the production of commodities, that the share of each
individual producer in
         the means of subsistence is determined by his labour-time.
Labour-time would, in that case, play a double part. Its apportionment in
accordance with a definite
         social plan maintains the proper proportion between the different
kinds of work to be done and the various wants of the community. On the
other hand, it also
         serves as a measure of the portion of the common labour borne by
each individual, and of his share in the part of the total product destined
for individual
         consumption. The social relations of the individual producers, with
regard both to their labour and to its products, are in this case perfectly
simple and intelligible,
         and that with regard not only to production but also to
distribution. "

            " As soon as this process of transformation has sufficiently
decomposed the old society from top to bottom, as soon as the laborers are
turned into proletarians,
         their means of labor into capital, as soon as the capitalist mode
of production stands on its own feet, then the further socialization of
labor and further
         transformation of the land and other means of production into
socially exploited and, therefore, common means of production, as well as
the further expropriation
         of private proprietors, takes a new form. That which is now to be
expropriated is no longer the laborer working for himself, but the
capitalist exploiting many
         laborers. This expropriation is accomplished by the action of the
immanent laws of capitalistic production itself, by the centralization of
capital. One capitalist
         always kills many. Hand in hand with this centralization, or this
expropriation of many capitalists by few, develop, on an ever-extending
scale, the co-operative
         form of the labor-process, the conscious technical application of
science, the methodical cultivation of the soil, the transformation of the
instruments of labor into
         instruments of labor only usable in common, the economizing of all
means of production by their use as means of production of combined,
socialized labor, the
         entanglement of all peoples in the net of the world-market, and
with this, the international character of the capitalistic regime. Along
with the constantly
         diminishing number of the magnates of capital, who usurp and
monopolize all advantages of this process of transformation, grows the mass
of misery, oppression,
         slavery, degradation, exploitation; but with this too grows the
revolt of the working-class, a class always increasing in numbers, and
disciplined, united, organized
         by the very mechanism of the process of capitalist production
itself. The monopoly of capital becomes a fetter upon the mode of
production, which has sprung up
         and flourished along with, and under it. Centralization of the
means of production and socialization of labor at last reach a point where
they become incompatible
         with their capitalist integument. Thus integument is burst asunder.
The knell of capitalist private property sounds. The expropriators are
expropriated. "

miyachi9@xxxxxxxxxx