Definition of socialism

[Lenina Rosenweg]

I recently read "A Cure For Capitalism" by Richard Wolf.He follows a branch or school of Marxism, influenced by Balibar and Althusser, which defines the mode of production of a society not on who owns the means of production but rather focuses on the production and distribution of the surplus (he uses the term "surplus" rather than "surplus value").

I forget offhand the term Wolff used for this. Anyway is this view common with Marxism? Could it be considerd a "tendency", like Trotskyism or Maoism?

I'd appreciate any info on this anyyone might have.

[Ostrinski]

Isn't that akin to Trotsky's view of the Soviet Union? That it was less important how the value of the social suprlus product was extracted, and more important how it was distributed? Not trying to turn this into a DWS thread but that seems to be the underlying premise. Surplus value being extracted in the same way, but in one case being accumulated individually by private enterprises and in the other mostly reinvested into the maintenance of the economy, thus making them different modes of production?

[Aurora]

Ownership of the means of production isn't the whole picture of a mode of production, a mode of production is the combination of the forces of production(means of production and labour) and the relations of production (ownership of means of production: property relations)

It seems to me that production of a surplus is dependent on a high enough level of the forces of production and distribution of surplus on the relations of production

So i don't see the focus as being a whole lot different but maybe i'm misunderstanding, could you provide a quote?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Ownership of the means of production isn't the whole picture of a mode of production, a mode of production is the combination of the forces of production(means of production and labour) and the relations of production (ownership of means of production: property relations)

That's factors of production, not forces of production. That's classical political economy's term to describe land, labour, and "capital."

Richard Wolff has a big point about shifting away from static relations to processes. Before Capital, "capital" itself was described in a static manner: capital assets, monetary investments, and so on, as opposed to being more related to circulatory processes.

[ckaihatsu]

Richard Wolff has a big point about shifting away from static relations to processes. Before Capital, "capital" itself was described in a static manner: capital assets, monetary investments, and so on, as opposed to being more related to circulatory processes.


There's a good conceptual illustration regarding this, at the last post of the following thread:


Capra's Triangle

http://www.revleft.com/vb/capras-triangle-t174738/index.html


(I don't have the discretion to post it here -- sorry.)

[Lenina Rosenweg]

Ownership of the means of production isn't the whole picture of a mode of production, a mode of production is the combination of the forces of production(means of production and labour) and the relations of production (ownership of means of production: property relations)

It seems to me that production of a surplus is dependent on a high enough level of the forces of production and distribution of surplus on the relations of production

So i don't see the focus as being a whole lot different but maybe i'm misunderstanding, could you provide a quote?

Sorry for the delay in answering.On page 104 in the chapter "The major problems of State Capitalism" Wolff discusses Marx's idea of the "distribution of the surplus". "

"Marx is the source of the basic analysis of capitalism in terms of the production and distribution of the surplus. Some major Marxian writers have since further developed that surplus analysis. However Marx's surplus analysis as a basis for differentiating capitalism and socialism never acquired the centrality that property ownership (private versus public) and resource and product distribution (market versus planning) did in the nearly universally shared definition/differentiation of both systems.Here I propose to enrich and and thereby transform that definition/differentiation by adding the organisation of the surplus to the analysis.Moreover, because the surplus analysis has been so long marginalized or ignored in discussions of capitalism and socialism , I foreground and concentrate on it here".

I took socialism to be the "self liberation of the working class" and an economy which is democratically run by the working class for and by itself.It would necessarily entail some sort of democratic planning.

This would probably fit in with Trotsky's idea of "worker's democracy".

I don't know of Wolff's definition would entail a much different version of Marxist thought. I'm not used to seeing things posed as he does.

[Aurora]

That's factors of production, not forces of production. That's classical political economy's term to describe land, labour, and "capital."

Richard Wolff has a big point about shifting away from static relations to processes. Before Capital, "capital" itself was described in a static manner: capital assets, monetary investments, and so on, as opposed to being more related to circulatory processes.
Eh no? I'm not talking about the 'factors of production' which iirc are considered land, labour, capital and entrepreneurship.
I'm talking about the productive forces which are means of production( the objects and instruments of labour) combined with labour.
Am i wrong, could you provide a better definition?


"Marx is the source of the basic analysis of capitalism in terms of the production and distribution of the surplus. Some major Marxian writers have since further developed that surplus analysis. However Marx's surplus analysis as a basis for differentiating capitalism and socialism never acquired the centrality that property ownership (private versus public) and resource and product distribution (market versus planning) did in the nearly universally shared definition/differentiation of both systems.Here I propose to enrich and and thereby transform that definition/differentiation by adding the organisation of the surplus to the analysis.Moreover, because the surplus analysis has been so long marginalized or ignored in discussions of capitalism and socialism , I foreground and concentrate on it here".

Ok that's pretty much what i thought, i don't think there's any difference in looking at where the surplus goes compared to looking at property ownership, although there's nothing wrong with doing so of course.

The completion of the circuit of capital brings ownership of the surplus to the capitalist, if a capitalist buys a share that capital is used to extract surplus value and a share of the surplus value is given back to the capitalist because of his ownership of the means of production.
In socialism when the means of production belong to the whole of society the surplus benefits all, any accumulation of surplus is used to build schools hospitals etc, what the citizen gives in one form they receive in another.