[lbo-talk] The SMB in a socialist economy?

[Charles Brown]

 I may have lost some of the thread, but 
FYI , for the vast majority of time of human 
society's  existence, production was for use, 
not for exchange. Kwakiutl, and Northwest Coast 
 dentalia trades 
and the like are not commodity exchange, but 
social and symbolic connections, for example. 
"Wampum" is not money. 
 Production for exchange, 
that is commodity production, 
only arises about 12,000 years ago, and then 
it is confined to the margins of society and between societies 
until the rise of capitalism 500 years ago. In 
other words, even when commodity production 
arises, the majority of society's productive 
activity is not of commodities, but for use or the 
producers and 
'abuse" or exploited surpluses for ruling 
class exploiters. 
  
 For 180,000 years humans were communists 
or cooperative, social, non-selfish producers, and 
obviously they survived, or we wouldn't be here. 
  
Yes we can do it again, i.e. live (and innovate 
when necessary) without competition or 
the threat of deprivation to motivate us. 
  
On the other hand, Marxist theory doesn't 
contemplate abolition of a division of labor 
in future communism, so there would still be 
exchange, but cooperative, not capitalist, 
 exchange. It would be more like the 
exchanges that go on within a productive 
unit today. No more cash nexus. 
  
The example of the Soviet Union is 
not dispostive because for its whole 
existence the SU was under the gun, 
Big Guns literally, of imperialism, and 
this forced them to drive themselves 
to produce industrially and militarily 
on a scale and at a pace 
 that would not be necessary 
in a world communist system, ie.a 
world with no capitalist,imperialist, 
militarist, bellicose states. The leisurely 
pace of production in a communist whole 
earth system would make qualitative, ie. 
revolutionary, changes in the questions 
of motivation to work, selfishness/socialness 
etc. 
  
Capitalism is a historically specific mode of 
production and exchange, not an 
expression of immutable human nature. Ask Carrol. 
  
Charles 
  
^^^^^^ 
  
The usual argument goes: "Economic life will always be marked by selfishness as long as there is commodity exchange." It sounds like you're now amending that argument to read: "Economic life will always be marked by selfishness as long as there is commodity exchange or 'bureaucratic' planning or 'crappy data' or 'unreasonable hopes.'" I'm sure the list could be lengthened ad infinitum. All societies have flaws, no? Where does that leave Charles Brown's plea?: 


>Couldn't there be competition but not 
>motivated by getting money ? Amateur 
>sports have competition 
>without money rewards to the winner. 
>It is conceivable that a whole 
>new system of motivation for 
>innovation could be developed. 

SA