[OPE-L:4777] Re: redistribution of DOSPA: empirical evidence? (fwd)

From: glevy@pratt.edu
Date: Sun Jan 14 2001 - 23:11:18 EST

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Gil Skillman <gskillman@mail.wesleyan.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:21:26 -0500
Subject: Re: [OPE-L:4775] redistribution of DOSPA: empirical evidence?

Hi, Jerry.  In response to this passage from my [OPE-L:4774],
>> No, I'm saying something much more specific: that if it's legitimate to
>> read Marx as indicating that DOSPA (differential ownership of scarce
>> productive assets) is a necessary condition for capitalist exploitation--a
>> point still being discussed--then it follows that sufficient redistribtion
>> of productive assets would eliminate capitalist exploitation.  The issue
>> here is what *Marx* argues is the systemic basis of capitalist
>> exploitation, and what inferences might be drawn from that argument.

you write

>In Sweden they might say "Been there, tried that" in reference to the
>Meidner Plan. [...]

>Doesn't the Swedish experience re the Meidner Plan suggest some practical
>problems with redistribution of  "DOSPA" and the modern version of
>"evolutionary socialism"?

Two responses: first, the issue in question is theoretical in nature, not
empirical.  Regardless of what Sweden has tried, the question is what Marx
argued as a theoretical necessary condition for the existence of capitalist
exploitation, and what the valid implications of that theoretical argument

But second, I don't see your example as particularly relevant.	Sweden has
had a welfare state involving substantial income redistribution, true, but
in spite of this it is and has been recognizably a capitalist economy in
which the means of production are decidely *not* collectively owned by
workers, either in the form of employee ownership or Roemer-style market
socialism.  It would be much more plausible to say that the downfall of the
Soviet Union says "been there, done that" to the possibility of centrally
planned socialism.  And since I don't find the latter claim especially

>Among other issues, you haven't considered (yet) the *control* of "DOSPA"
>(in addition to ownership) and the nature of class rule vis-a-vis the state.

Well, what do you want me to consider about it?  I do address some aspects
of the meaning of "control" in the exchange with Andrew.  What's your issue?


This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Wed Jan 31 2001 - 00:00:03 EST