I think your approach is more dialectical than mine. You are correct that after our experience with the first effort at socialism, we must be more concerned about the details of the residue of the operation of the law of value in the transitional phase of communism (socialism). With the principle "to each according to work", the value to each is still determined by the law of value, I guess, as you imply. Would seem you put some life through critique in the flat terms I use below.
Charles Brown
(((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((((
chaz asked:
>Private property is a certain form of relation of among people
regarding ownership >of the means of production. Technology is MEANS
of production. By Marxism, >socialism comes when the working class, a
group of people, make it not when it is >"automatically caused" by
somekind of technology or means of production.
my reservations are these: until such time as someone can convince me that the phrase 'private property' does not entail a specific moment in capitalist society -- ie., one in which the degrees of personalised command and ownership by capitalists over/of labourers was still not only operative but decisive -- as distinct from capitalism defined as the law of value (both exchange and use values as double moments of the value form) then i prefer to distinguish it as such, if only to distinguish communism from social democracy and socialism. where the latter are defined as more or less by changes in the distribution and ownership of exchange values.
angela