>Currently I'm paying a grad student $18 an hour to read to me March,
>Moishe Postone's _Time, Labor, and Social Domination_, i.e., I'm paying
>a bit over $1 a page. I think it's going to be money well spent (and I
>would suggest that anyone who values the _Grundrisse_ owes it to
>him/herself to get Postone's book and read it). Both implicit and
>explicit in Marx as Postone interprets his work is that socialism
>represents not the realization of the working class but the abolition of
>the working class,
Yes.
> and that the essence of capitalism is NOT private
>property plus the market, and that it cannot be transcended by merely
>abolishing private proprty and the market but that the industrial
>organization of production must be eliminated.
I don't know what "industrial organization of production" means. Socialism is the social ownership and control of the means of production, however it it does seem to me that implies a whole lot of other changes as well. Just like capitalism is private ownership and control of the means of production, but markets are inevitably implied for it to actually work. And political government of people is also necessary, as it is in any class society.
In the same sense the whole political organisation of society would have to change for socialism to actually work. To have a class-less society, political government of people has to be made redundant. And markets can't be used to distribute goods and services to people where there is no scarcity of such goods and services.
You also can't (as many people seem to imagine) just substitute some kind of political control of the people who do the work, for the capitalists' economic control of workers. Work has to be contributed freely, without any coercion, or else a new privileged class is inevitably created to enforce that political power.
It may be that this is what you are referring to as "industrial organization of production". Or what? You are being quite vague.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas