[ show plain text ]
>I thought the Mensheviks argued for an interpretation of Marx which
>emphasized capitalism's historical role as preparing the ground for
>socialism by developing the forces of production, which was what I had in
>mind on a world scale. Didn't the Mensheviks argue for critical support of
>the nascent Russian bourgeoisie in the 1917 crisis?
Does the 'menshevik scenario' have something to do with a view you
expressed in your (1982) piece on the 'transformation problem'? I seem to
remember you suggested (in my view, correctly) that the existence of
surplus product doesn't imply capitalist social relations, the form in
which the surplus is appropriated; but from this you drew the conclusion
that workers should forget about trying to eliminate the former, and
concentrate on getting rid of the latter.
So, 1) how does the market socialism you now envisage differ from other
visions - say John Roemer's? and 2) which national bourgeosie will you be
supporting through the various crises of the new millenium; or does the
'world scale' create a small problem?
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 31 2000 - 07:00:05 EST