On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 12:40 PM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
> For a Marxist, the aim is the abolition of private property. "In this
> sense, the theory of the Communists may be summed up in the single
> sentence: Abolition of private property. " ( Manifesto of the
> Communist Party). To the extent that forms of the basic means of
> production, such as water and sewerage systems, are publically owned,
> not the basis for private profit, they are substantially the same as
> they would be in a totally socialist system.
>
> Your focus on government ownership as a false indication of socialism
> is not shared by Marx and Engels; so I'd say that you are not
> espousing a Marxist position below. Again in the Manifesto, Marx and
> Engels note some of the initial steps toward socialism :
>
> 5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a
> national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
> 6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the
> hands of the State.
> 7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the
> State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the
> improvement of the soil
>
>
> You can see by their reference to State ownership that they do
> consider what you call "government ownership" as part of socialism.
>
> As far as working class interests being served by a state still
> dominated by the bourgeois, I think we should look at whether the
> means of production in question do in fact or objectively serve the
> interests of the 99%. In the case of many government functions, such
> as water and sewerage systems, roads and highways, firefighters,
> public lighting, public transportation, Social Security, Medicaid,
> Medicare and others, the _goods and services_ provided certainly do
> serve the working class, the 99%. That will not change when the
> working class dominates and controls the whole government and private
> property is totally abolished in all basic means of production. In
> other words, some institutions existing under a capitalist dominated
> state are the same as they will be come the revolution.
>
> In other words, the working class, the "public" , does have
> substantial and effective of control in its interest of major parts of
> the means of production , which is the Marxist definition of public or
> non-private property. Regardless of the fact that a Mayor or City
> Council get most of their campaign funds from bourgeoisie, they
> conduct the business of a city's water and sewerage system, for
> example, in the material interests of the working masses of a city.
>
> Some of socialism is just dull ole bourgeois civic infra-structure.
> The other point is that there is a contest within capitalism between
> the bourgeoisie and the proletariat over control of the State. The
> proletariat wins sometimes, and some of its wins are institutionalized
> still under capitalism.
>
> It is important for Marxists to make this point to the American
> working class. We already have a significant amount of socialism.
> Socialism is as American as the clean water you drink and wash in
> everyday; as American as the roads and highways you use all the time.
>
> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:45 PM, Gar Lipow <gar.lipow at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 7:41 AM, c b <cb31450 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> As the late, great economist Paul Samuelson indicated, capitalist
>>> economies are mixed socialist/capitalist economies and have been for a
>>> long time. Even the US is a very mixed economy.
>>
>>
>> No. Absolutely No. Let Samuelson equate government ownership with
>> socialism if he wishes. A Marxist should understand that unless the state
>> is owned and controlled by the working class, state ownership is no
>> socialism. (Ok some socialists believe that an undemocratic state not
>> controlled by the working class can be acting in their interests and that
>> public ownership by this kind of state is a type of socialism. While this
>> looks like nonsense to me, I don't think anyone can claim that US
>> government acts primarily in the interests of the working class.) That is
>> not to say that public ownership within a capitalist state cannot be
>> *strongly* in the interests of working people. Just that it should not be
>> confused with socialism. If the various branches of government in a nation
>> control 20% of the GDP or even own 20% of the means of production, that
>> does not make that nation 20% socialist, if the government itself is a
>> capitalist government. Again that does not mean that large scale public
>> ownership and provision of services by a capitalist state can't be very
>> much in the interests of the working class, especially compared to a
>> capitalist state with minimal regulation, minimal taxation, little public
>> provision of public goods, and virtually no public ownership.
>>
>>
>>
>>> The main local
>>> government functions are major socialist enterprises at the base of
>>> the US economy. Water and sewerage, roads and highways, public
>>> schools, etc. Really since Wall Street and GM and Chrysler are insured
>>> by the federal government, the banking system and big industry are
>>> socialized. The fig leaf of paying back the bailouts doesn't hide the
>>> fact that the People remain sureties of the too-big-to-fails in any
>>> failings in the future. Objectively, the US banks have been socialized
>>> whatever name they put on it.
>>> There is a long history of government bailout of large corporations.
>>> Chrysler has been bailed out twice in the last 35 years (History of
>>> U.S. Gov't Bailouts
>>> http://www.propublica.org/special/government-bailouts
>>> :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Too_big_to_fail)
>>>
>>>
>>> Theoretically, the is part of the General Crisis of Capitalism,
>>> wherein capitalism objectively tends to turn into socialism, even
>>> without a socialist conscious Bolshevik party and working class
>>> vanguard seizing state power. Much of the process of socialization of
>>> society is just dull evolutionary rationalization of capitalist
>>> economic functions and institutions, rather than exciting
>>> revolutionary insurrection.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> pen-l mailing list
>>> pen-l at lists.csuchico.edu
>>> https://lists.csuchico.edu/mailman/listinfo/pen-l
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Facebook: Gar Lipow Twitter: GarLipow
>> Solving the Climate Crisis web page: SolvingTheClimateCrisis.com
>> Grist Blog: http://grist.org/author/gar-lipow/
>> Online technical reference: http://www.nohairshirts.com
>> ___________________________________
>> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk