>Iíve come to this conclusion as well. The social
>product of labour *should* belong to the associated
>producers.
I'm not at all clear what many people are saying. For instance, the above is slightly ambiguous. Do you mean that any association of producers (perhaps at an industry level, perhaps even at an enterprise level) ought to be entitled to ownership and control of the full value of their labour? Or are you saying that the social product of labour should belong to society as a whole?
With some other people, it is not clear whether they might not even be arguing that individual workers should be entitled to the full value of their labour.
> That it doesn't within the legal confines
>of contracts and justice as put forward by the
>capitalist State's system of laws, laws which
>legitmize the marketplace of commodites, is something
>I concede. I think Marx conceded it as well.
I agree that "The worker is not entitled to the SV he produces merely because he produces it." I believe believe that, all production being the product of society as a whole, it is most natural that it ought to belong to society as a whole. To be distributed as society sees fit But in one sense that is the case already. It is just that society sees fit to distribute the social product inequitably. Socialists like myself may disagree violently, but in the main our society seems to consent quite happily with the arrangement where the employing class appropriates the lion's share of value produced by the working class. That consent is what needs to change.
I have to say that Carrol is utterly mistaken to believe that such change isn't "...going to be brought about by sweeping moral or pragmatic condemnations of capitalism". A change in public sentiment is exactly what will change how wealth is distributed by society. Such a change in public sentiment requires those who regard the current system as unjust to convince others and to condemn the present system. I'm not sure how Carrol imagines change being initiated otherwise.
> Justin
>agrees that the wages system must be abolished, but
>wishes to go on with some kind of market commodity
>production. I donít know why anybody would argue for
>such a society, but so be it.
Justin simply believes that markets are an efficient means of distribution, he doesn't grasp that markets nurture exploitation and are inextricably linked to production for profit. He thinks there is some way to separate markets from these bad apples. Oh, and of course Justin's thinking is something of a prisoner of the protestant work ethic, he fears that without some system of coercing people to do productive work, that nothing will be produced at all and we will all starve.
As always, it all comes back to how we see human nature.
I agree with him that "The worker is not entitled to the SV he produces merely because he produces it" though. The meek will not inherit the Earth, they will slave on to the end like faithful sheep. The capitalist is entitled to SV because the capitalist takes it, but mostly because the working class let them. Likewise, the sheep cocky is entitled to the wool off the sheep's back because the cocky takes it and the sheep doesn't stop him.
If we want to stop being shorn like sheep, we have to stop acting like sheep.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas