[ show plain text ]
I agree with the responses of Mike W [OPE-L:3258] and Alfredo ,
but some issues remain:
1) It seems to me that if we create a model/illustration in which
essential, defining characteristics of capitalism do not appear,
then we have *mis-specified* the model/illustration to the point
where it does not describe what it claims to describe (i.e.
capitalism). Thus, to create a model of a capitalist economy in
which the major classes (capitalists; wage-workers) are not
present or in which categories like commodities and money do
not have a role should cause us to reject said model. This is
the case *even if* there are pragmatic reasons (e.g. mathematical
convenience and simplicity) for the under-specification of the
model. What other categories are required to create a meaningful
model/illustration of a capitalist economy?
2) All 3 of us agree that a economy in which the production of all
things (including services) is accomplished by "universal
robots" can not be accurately described as a capitalist
economy. But, nontheless, isn't it at least a possibility?
I.e. even though it is not a possibility at present, isn't
it a possibility for this (the 21st) century or the next
I.e. isn't it at least a possible scenario for the future?
Note that in this scenario capitalism ends not when the
expropriators are expropriated and when there is the
"negation of the negation" but when the production of
commodities by wage-labor ceases. No happy ending with
that scenario! Indeed, aren't there a significant number
(perhaps an infinite number!) of future scenarios in which
capitalism ends not through working-class revolt and the
creation of socialism? Perhaps one might say, paraphrasing
Shakespeare, that there are more possibilities for the
future than were dreamt of in Marx's philosophy?
In solidarity, Jerry
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 31 2000 - 00:00:10 EDT