> I guess that the Marxist answer would be something like this:
well, me thinks one marxist answer...
> All societies produce a surplus over and above subsistence.
yes.
> The problem is not the surplus, but the form that the surplus takes
> under class societies, ie that the surplus is under the exclusive
> control of one class.
yes and no. the problem i think with the connection between the first part and the second part of this sentence is that the recognition of the first (that of the specific form of the curplus in capitalist society) is fudged a little in the second part, where it's not the form that this surplus takes, but the distribution of this surplus that becomes the sole issue.
> As long as the allocation of society's resources (principally,
> productive labour itself) is decided by the spontaneous and unplanned
> operation of the market, then the surplus will always have the form of
> an external coercive force.
and here, that reduction of the issue from the _form_ of the surplus in capitalist society gets reduced down again into the issue of conscious planning (by the state?) versus the spontaneity of the market. and, by this time, marxism becomes transformed into social democracy: a critique of the market but not of capital.
> Marx's putative communism is the reappropriation of the surplus
product
> by the producers. As such it is not the abolition of the surplus, but
it
> is necessarily the conscious regulation of social relations.
to begin by saying that marxism is a critique of the specific form of the surplus in capitalist societies and then to end by saying that communism is not the abolition of the surplus but its regulation enshrines the slippage in a rather mischeivous way me thinks. if marxism is a critique of the specific form of the surplus (ie., surplus value), then there is a vast difference between saying that communism is the abolition of this surplus value and saying that it is not the abolition of a surplus, is there not? so, what is it to be? either surplus value is to be abolished or not?
> If it were
> not, then the surplus product would escape to re-constitute itself as
> capital.
and, the threat that the surplus product 'escapes' to reconstitute itself as capital is only possible insofar as it is already the product of _wage labour_, hence surplus value. so, socialism perhaps -- but not communism which, otoh, in my readings would be the abolition of the _form the surplus takes as capital_, which includes, by definition, wage labour.
[btw, on a different issue: me thinks the turkish working class will shift into some serious radicalism over the next three years, tops. unless of course, the authorities can manage the crisis by blaming some 'externality'. there's always the kurds; but it will be difficult to blame them.]
Angela _________