Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/15/85; site sdcc3.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!vax135!cornell!uw-beaver!tektronix!hplabs!sdcrdcf!sdcsvax!sdcc3!ec120bgt
From: ec120bgt@sdcc3.UUCP (ANDREW VARE)
Newsgroups: net.politics.theory
Subject: Re: What is "capitalism"?
Message-ID: <2876@sdcc3.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 25-May-85 22:00:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: sdcc3.2876
Posted: Sat May 25 22:00:08 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 30-May-85 00:37:12 EDT
References: <441@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP> <1831@topaz.ARPA> <1008@uwmacc.UUCP> <449@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Organization: U.C. San Diego, Academic Computer Center
Lines: 31

In article <449@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>, carnes@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Richard Carnes) writes:
> From JoSH:
> >> The thing to note is that if you 
> >> iterate the production of capital, using each generation to help
> >> create the next, the result is an *exponential* increase in wealth.
> >> This is why capitalism (in my sense) is such hot stuff.
> 
> Yes; this is a central proposition of Marx's theory of history.
> "Development of the productive forces of social labor is the
> historical task and justification of capital.  This is the way it
> unconsciously creates the requirements of a higher mode of
> production." [*Capital* III]  When these requirements are attained
> and socialism (in Marx's sense) becomes possible, capitalism loses
> its rationale and becomes a barrier or fetter to further human
> development.  Then capitalism is revealed as "merely a historical
> necessity, a necessity for the development of productive power from a
> definite historical starting-point or basis, but in no way an
> *absolute* necessity of production," according to comrade Karl.
> [*Grundrisse*]
> 
> Richard Carnes

The difference then becomes: Does the government know best how to
plan the wealth allocation? Or do we think each citizen is rational
enough to excersize his/her own market decisions? Perhaps more
meaningfully, do we allow the government to control technology
access, means of production, etc. and sacrifice the freedoms now in
our posession for potential economic growth?
Am I making sense?

Andrew T. Vare