Jim heartfield wrote:
> "This parallels a similar argument going on in lbo-talk, where the Left-
> Keynesian defenders of the former USSR defend it on the non-Marxian
> grounds of "technical efficiency", or the provision of "free" medical
> care (as if many capitalist countries did not have it). Nothing is said
> about what the workers may have wanted, probably for the very good
> reason that there was no way of finding out what they actually wanted."
This is surely senseless. What does Lew, or James, suppose the workers wanted? Is anyone suggesting they want what they've got now? The problem Lew/James have is that their cheerleading for hurrah-capitalism and its 'progressive' potential (this is James's leitmotif), flies in the face of bitter realities. Why does a plurality of Russians hanker for the past, according to the polls?
Mark Jones http://www.geocities.com/~comparty