<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 5.50.4616.200" name=GENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=ª>>>If socialism means "the ownership or control of the
means of<BR>>>production by the workers, or by the people generally",
it<BR>>>certainly starts with (economic) class. If it doesn't
mean<BR>>>this, what does it mean?<BR>>><BR>>>--
Gordon<BR>><BR>>whathefuckever! if you can't figure out what i was saying,
as long <BR>>as you've been on lists, then i can only conclude that you're
aren't <BR>>as smart as i thought you were or you're trolling. not to mention
<BR>>that you're subscribed to a list that has as its mission an attempt
<BR>>to get over the economism of traditional marxism... ! i'll go with
<BR>>the latter as an explanation for this question. in the meantime,
<BR>>consider the way joanna worte that sentence: she very nearly
<BR>>apologizes for being concerned with gender issues and not just class
<BR>>issues. please. i mean, she seriously thought she might not be
<BR>>considered a socialist if she concerned herself with such
matters.<BR><BR>Weird, Gordon. It's as if you're saying gender has no bearing on
<BR>access to the means of production, or one's place in the division of
<BR>labor.<BR><BR>Doug<BR><BR></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=ª>Greetings from a newbie. Gordon said socialist
analysis starts with economic class. He didn't say "begins and
ends". I would take economic class to mean _all_ factors,
impediments and advantages in access to the means of
production. So gender/race/sexuality/etc are "economic" when
they have a bearing on access to the means of production. It
isn't the case that they _always_ do have a bearing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=ª>I think as well, if we accept the "quantity theory of
socialism", such as that offered by Martin Schiller (on a parallel
thread) then we have a situation where everyone to the left of (say) Hayek
and Nozick is partly "socialist". And as the (global) neo-liberal
experience of the '80s showed us, this is a "socialism" which is
easily rolled back. It doesn't seem like much to aim for,
really.</FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>