revolution and proletariat (jim o'connor)

Max B. Sawicky sawicky at epinet.org
Sun Aug 1 20:34:33 PDT 1999


. . . Lenin emphasised out how small a proportion of the working force of Russia, was proletarian. I think the points made here by Jim O'Connor are broadly correct. They suggest the thesis that one reason for the fall of centralised socialism was that it was premature in terms of the development of the relations of production. And was in fact an inappropriate leap from certain primitive communists methods of peasant organisation to would-be socialism.

The alternative strategy would be a mixed market economy of cooperatives, as Lenin suggested in On Cooperation 1923. He spoke in terms of a generation perhaps being needed. To apply it now, we have to consider a century until there is a unified world political system. It would still be possible to make major inroads by global reforms even while a market in goods and services develops, hopefully partly on cooperative lines.
>>

The disadvantages of industrial backwardness for socialism have become obvious enough. But on the other end, the planning problem becomes more difficult, not less, as an economy develops. More products, more production techniques, more innovation, shorter product cycles, etc. I was all for planning until I studied it for a while.

mbs



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list