Carrol Cox:
> There of course is a technical need for a surplus (not of surplus
> value, which is anothe matter), as a reserve in case of difficulty
> (such as a disastrous year in agriculture, whatever), and productive
> forces must be renewed. If the population is increasing, that has
> to be allowed for. If it is decreasing, that too may well demand
> a reserve. But in general I think you are right. Under socialism,
> even in its fairly early moments, there would cease to be any
> *necessity* for a surplus, and there may well be for ecological
> reasons a strong need to reduce not only the surplus but even
> many forms of consumption.
You don't have to say "would." If you examine contemporary communes and cooperatives, you'll find that when they achieve a certain reasonably comfortable state of internal affairs, they stop expanding, unlike capitalist enterprises, whose appetites can never be quenched. This difference has often appeared to be a serious problem -- the socialist entity is forced to choose between imitating capitalist competitors or being overpowered by them.
> As to "labor," I think Hannah Arendt's distinction between
> labor and work is useful. There will always be a need for
> work as an end in itself. Labor will be reduced to the
> absolute minimum, even if that means reducing consumption.
>
> But -- such speculations re socialism should never be considered
> as providing motives for *becoming* socialist. That would be
> millenarianism or utopianism. One becomes a socialist out
> of a need to fight against capitalism, *not* out of hope for a
> future world. There can be no certainty of achieving that
> future nor that those who have it will find it desirable. We only
> know that capitalism must be destroyed or it will destroy us.
> The only reason to try to work out a rough conception of a
> classless society is to provide a historical perspective on the
> present -- to understand capitalism better.
But we (almost) all plan to _use_ capitalism to get rid of capitalism. So this is somewhat paradoxical.
Gordon