> But how private is that accumulation nowadays? Mitsubishi is a
> quasi-public
> entity with the credit rating and financial might of a European
> nation-state;
> the capital it controls is objectively socialized, i.e. shielded from
> the market
> forces, by layers and layers of cross-ownership links, long-term
> financial
> structures, supplier-contractor relationships, and the discreet hand
> of the
> Japanese government (the postal savings bank). Historically,
> Mitsubishi has
> acted less like a private capitalist and more like a set of public
> networks.
Still, this kind of "socialism" certainly doesn't include popular control over the economy, which I consider a sine qua non of socialism in the true sense. "Socialism" refers to "society" -- ordinary, grass-roots Hanakos and Taros (the Japanese equivalents of Marys and Joes).
Of course, state ownership of the economy doesn't guarantee popular power either, considering the non-democratic nature of the states that have claimed to be "socialist" up to now. To avoid terminological confusion, I think the term "socialism" should be reserved for a system in which the Marys and Joes really do make the major decisions, including economic ones, which affect their lives, to use the good old SDS slogan. Whether or not this is impossibly utopian, I think it is what "socialism" should mean.
Jon Johanning // jjohanning at igc.org __________________________________ A sympathetic Scot summed it all up very neatly in the remark, 'You should make a point of trying every experience once, excepting incest and folk-dancing.' -- Sir Arnold Bax