|
I disagree, but only partially. The quote has two implications I have problems with. The first is that there is an unspecified object of transfer--that which is going to and fro. If Marx were to specify the object of transfer as currency, then I would reject the quote. Currency is built upon the notion of the price system, which is inherently capitalistic, and so it cannot be used in order to complete this sort of transfer of power. My second objection stems from an implied manipulator who is transferring this unknown object. This leads rather naturally to a "dictatorship of the proletariat," an idea which runs counter to the slogan it is purported to promote.
I can, however, envision a scenario in which I could accept this maxim. There are some technocratic models of society which I would be comfortable with. These models would use 'energy expenditure' instead of money as he object of transfer, and would allow computers to adjust the fruits of labor equally according to each person's energy expenditure/production ratios. Assuming that they found a way to incorporate job satisfaction, and their claims of sustainable plenty were based upon reality, I would call this the ultimate implementation of Marx's original maxim. Of course, I find claims that there could be plenty with the current population as it is rather dubious, and thus find the socialist motto an unattainable dream.
|