'Socialist' Mode Of Production?

[sanpal]

I see only two mistakes with his line of thinking:

1) His omission of the socialist mode of production (capitalist then communist modes); and
2) That socialism occurs within the capitalist mode of production (hence his equation of proletocracy with outright socialism).



So what are these two "mistakes" which were designated for my line of thinking?
Do these mistakes really exist or it has a place erroneous judgement by opponent?
In other words: is there any "socialist mode of production" as such or it is only a convenient words construction?

I see artless logic of opponent: if capitalism exist so capitalist mode of production also exist and
then analogicly if socialism exists hence socialist mode of production exists as well.
When we draw this line of thinking further we could get analogically the whole spectrum of socialist
modes of production : "bourgeois socialist mode of production", "petty-bourgeois socialist mode of production",
"proletarian socialist mode of production", "stalinist socialist mode of production", "priest socialist mode of production", etc. etc.

Indeed, we could do a number of alterations in the line of social transformation from
standard non-regulated capitalism towards kinda the more or less full social protection:
- to increase a tax on capitalist profit and redistribute it for unemployed people as aid,
for state medicine service or nonpaid education, etc.
Would it be a capitalism? Yes, why not, something what look like capitalism "with human face",
or maybe socialism as social-democracy?
Perhaps it would be full or partial nationalization which forms any state capitalist structure
where profit (tax) could be turned into working people benefits, theirs needs and services, and so on.
I think it's not complete list of various combinations of market (pinched market)economy and
means of influence on social protection of working class.
What is characteristic for all political economic constitutions is some sort of social policy
practiced by ruling class. Terminological aspect is in point when social policy (social protection
for most part of society who is mainly proletariat) has reached definite degree in comparison with capitalist society
which has no social protecting laws for working people . I see there is no threshold level for considering society
as socialist or nonsocialist. It depends mainly from subjective opinion of one or another theorist:
someone is positive that bourgeois social-democracy society is socialism and he/she is partly right,
someone proclaims state capitalism with full nationalization as socialism and he/she is almost correct too,
someone considers the low stage of communist society as socialism and he/she is more than close to truth.
Who could refute them? Formally they all are correct because of presence of purposeful social policy.
Thus for this spectrum of socialisms the 'socialist mode of production' seems something vague, indistinct, variable.

But as we see in marxism if it is a science the mode of production must be determined clearly,
for example as a "capitalist mode of production", you know it better me. The mode of production
must have definite structure, components, algorithm of functioning, aim and mechanisms to solve them, etc.,
i.e. not only distinctive signs but principled differenses not to confuse one with another.
What i mean is for example in rude view:
1) capitalist mode of production include
- governing -> by State
- market economy
- monetary system
- institute (State protection of owner) of private property on the means of production
- the mode of exchange -> the trade act
- labour power is as a commodity
- satisfaction of needs -> through a demand/supply market mechanism
- etc.
2) Communist mode of production include
- governing -> by self-management
- planned economy
- institute of common (communal) property on the means of production
- the mode of exchange -> as act of contribution of labour power to the society in exchange for needs
- satisfaction of needs -> through the participatory planned economy and the following production/distribution
with the special structural mechanism
- using of LTN (LTV) system for calculation of exchanging needs according labour power
- etc.

If to imagine a mode of production as single atom so the capitalist mode of production could look like
"an atom of definite substance" and in the same way communist mode of production could look like
"an atom of another substance" different from the first one.
Let's try to look for "socialist mode of production", that "atom" as third substance different from
the two above (capitalist MOP and communist MOP) fundamentally.

Socialism as modern social-democratic nations? No, they have typical capitalist MOP.
Market Socialism? Socialism as Lenin's NEP or NEP with Chinese specific character now-a-days?
Socialism as combination of the state-capitalist sector with cooperatives and other independent
workers collectives? No doubt if to look at list of signs (1) they all have all signs of using of capitalist MOP
in theirs economies.
Socialism as classless, moneyless but with LTN (LTV) calculation, self-management society? Yes,
this kind has all signs of (2) type and hence it means communist MOP.
Eh where is specific "socialist MOP"? Where?


If to reason from backward, the capitalist MOP doesn't mean a society has certainly to be capitalist one.
When capitalist MOP causes capitalism always in every cases - such type of reasoning could be peculiar to those
who are extremely left-wing with theirs primitive logic. Currency cannot be abolished from night to day
and it must be used during Socialism, during transition period from capitalism to full communism.


Here we came to the most interesting point:
how to pass from currency and capitalist MOP to moneyless economy and communist MOP?


Here a big temptation is appearing: not discretely but fluently to do the transformation of monetary system
into moneyless economic system, to do something with money, using for it an uncertain condition of
monetary system ... something like 'this money is money (real money for exchange) and simultaneously
this money is not money (only like labour time notes)' or in other words "neither fish nor fowl".
This sort of experiments with money is very dangerous and it leads to inevitable logic end - to full
revival of normal functioning of money as money according of the immanent nature of money i.e.
regardless of wishes and attempts of experimentators who proclaimed this mode as 'socialist' mode of production.
There is Engels' quote ("Anti-Duhring", Socialism; IV "Distribution"):

" ... In the first place, such a misuse of Owen's labour-notes would require their conversion into real money,
while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise
than as mere labour certificate. While in Owen's scheme there would have to be a real abuse,
in Dühring's scheme the immanent nature of money, which is independent of human volition, would assert itself;
the specific, correct use of money would assert itself in spite of the misuse which Herr Dühring tries
to impose on it owing to his own ignorance of the nature of money. "


So this scheme was the great theoretical mistake of mr. Duhring. This was the great mistake of comrade Stalin
who closed Lenin's NEP and realized Duhring's scheme in practice. This was the mistake of 'revisionist' comrade
Kruschov who didn't risk to return to NEP policy (how today's China did) though he recognized and denounced
Stalin's repressions.

Kruschov, Brezhnev, Andropov, Gorbatchov were trying only to improve the same (Duhring's) scheme
but they didn't know how (how to adapt money for socialist/communist calculation).
This was the great mistake of leaders of block of socialist countries who mimiced and copied
the political-economical scheme of the USSR.
And finally this is the great theoretical mistake of 21 century 'communists' who draw different models
of how to break in such wild mustang as MONEY and to adapt money for classless moneyless society for the equal fair exchange.
The name of all these conceptions is duhringism aka stalinism.


What is to be done to answer the above question: how to pass from currency and capitalist MOP
to moneyless economy and communist MOP?
Firstly it needs to recognize that there is no socialist mode of production as 'single atom of definite substance'
but socialist MOP could be authorised as 'molecule' which is structured with two different 'atoms':
these two are capitalist MOP and communist MOP within the Proletarian Socialist society.
This multi-sectors economy (the State-capitalist sector, traditional capitalist sector and communist sector)
has to be installed during all transition period. The development of Socialist society towards communism
could be expressed in next slogan: the less capitalist MOP - the more communist MOP.
What i mean is dialectical competition between two ideologies, two MOPs, which of two are more attractive
for working people and where, what sector labour power will move to, If to the communist sector which will grow
more and more then the State-capitalist and the traditional capitalist sectors will decrease, the State will 'wither away'.
The scheme could be looked at on this link: http://www.revleft.com/vb/album.php?albumid=252&pictureid=1849

[Die Neue Zeit]

Did I post the quoted remarks? :confused:

[sanpal]

Did I post the quoted remarks? :confused:
This what you have asked about is less interesting than your thought about "socialist" mode of production;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Well, I was under the impression that the "higher phase of communism" is usually interpreted to mean a free-access, gift economy without LTVs. Cockshott stated disagreement in his Czech preface, though.

[sanpal]

Well, I was under the impression that the "higher phase of communism" is usually interpreted to mean a free-access, gift economy without LTVs. Cockshott stated disagreement in his Czech preface, though.

Hm, i'm not familiar with Cockshott's works and don't know his arguments but i have come to the belief that is that during the period of "higher phase of communism" the economy will stay to be multi-sector though ratio between sectors could be other than in the transition period of DOTP namely sizeable communist sector might be divided in subsector(s) with gift economy (mass production of small goods) and in subsector with LTN (LTV) calculation for production of things which need complex efforts (cars, furniture, etc.). Much less State capitalist sector and private sector, using currency will stay for indefinite time as long as it is possible to imagine it but it won't play any perceptible role.

[Dave B]

On post 4, I would be inclined to agree with Jacob and Lenin, so;


V. I. Lenin, From the Destruction of the Old Social System, To the Creation of the New; April 11, 1920


"Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism."


http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm)


Surprisingly perhaps this kind of thing even managed to survive in praxis into 1919, although perhaps then he was really taking the piss;

V. I. Lenin, SPEECH DELIVERED AT, THE FIRST CONGRESS OF AGRICULTURAL COMMUNES AND AGRICULTURAL ARTELS DECEMBER 4, 1919


To bear this out, I would refer to what in our cities has been called subbotniks. This is the name given to the several hours' unpaid voluntary work done by city workers over and above the usual working day and devoted to some public need………….. that they may set an example of real communist labour, i.e., labour performed gratis.

http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/FCAC19.html (http://www.marx2mao.net/Lenin/FCAC19.html)

[RebelDog]

"Communist labour in the narrower and stricter sense of the term is labour performed gratis for the benefit of society, labour performed not as a definite duty, not for the purpose of obtaining a right to certain products, not according to previously established and legally fixed quotas, but voluntary labour, irrespective of quotas; it is labour performed without expectation of reward, without reward as a condition, labour performed because it has become a habit to work for the common good, and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism."

Then why was labour so alienated in the USSR?

[Dave B]

It may have had something to do with the next sentence I think;



…………..and because of a conscious realisation (that has become a habit) of the necessity of working for the common good—labour as the requirement of a healthy organism.

It must be clear to everybody that we, i.e., our society, our social system, are still a very long way from the application of this form of labour on a broad, really mass scale



http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1920/apr/11.htm)


It was probably undergoing a transition to the ‘necessity of working for the common good’ of the Bolshevik party ruling class. Even if you don’t think it did from the beginning and that seed hadn't been sown 20 years earlier.



Incidentally Trotsky said something similar;

The Revolution Betrayed, Chapter 3, Socialism and the State




"The material premise of communism should be so high a development of the economic powers of man that productive labor, having ceased to be a burden, will not require any goad, and the distribution of
life's goods, existing in continual abundance, will not demand – as it does not now in any well-off family or "decent" boarding-house – any control except that of education, habit and social opinion. Speaking frankly, I think it would be pretty dull-witted to consider such a really modest perspective "utopian."

Capitalism prepared the conditions and forces for a social revolution: technique, science and the proletariat. The communist structure cannot, however, immediately replace the bourgeois society. The material and cultural inheritance from the past is wholly inadequate for that.

In its first steps the workers' state cannot yet permit everyone to work "according to his abilities" – that is, as much as he can and wishes to – nor can it reward everyone "according to his needs", regardless of the work he does. In order to increase the productive forces, it is necessary to resort to the customary norms of wage payment – that is, to the distribution of life's goods in proportion to the quantity and quality of individual labor."




http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch03.htm)

[robbo203]

Hm, i'm not familiar with Cockshott and don't know his/her arguments but i have come to the belief that is that during the period of "higher phase of communism" the economy will stay to be multi-sector though ratio between sectors could be other than in the transition period of DOTP namely sizeable communist sector might be divided in subsector(s) with gift economy (mass production of small goods) and in subsector with LTN (LTV) calculation for production of things which need complex efforts (cars, furniture, etc.). Much less State capitalist sector and private sector, using currency will stay for indefinite time as long as it is possible to imagine it but it won't play any perceptible role.


How do you envisage a communist sector - with its free access and LTV subsectors - coexisting with a small capitalist sector (state capitalist plus private capitalist) using currency . I cant see that happening myself. For instance, how would people be induced to work for a wages when both large or small goods were either for free apropriation of exchangeable against LTVs. It seems to me that beyond a certain degree, the existence of communist relations of production makes capitalism impossible. Theoretically, capitalism could only survive by holding onto certain key parts of the economy e.g. large scale industry but this you suggest could succumb to a LTV scheme

[sanpal]

How do you envisage a communist sector - with its free access and LTV subsectors - coexisting with a small capitalist sector (state capitalist plus private capitalist) using currency . I cant see that happening myself. For instance, how would people be induced to work for a wages when both large or small goods were either for free apropriation of exchangeable against LTVs. It seems to me that beyond a certain degree, the existence of communist relations of production makes capitalism impossible. Theoretically, capitalism could only survive by holding onto certain key parts of the economy e.g. large scale industry but this you suggest could succumb to a LTV scheme

Good question. But I'd like to say of two point before: 1) MOPs and 2) period of DOTP (transition period = low phase of communism)
It is necessary to differ a bourgeois society/ bourgeois State as notion from capitalist mode of production as notion. Of course the bourgeois society is using capitalist MOP. But not only the bourgeois State, the Proletarian State (DOTP) as class society is using capitalist MOP as well. But if the Proletarian society solves to confine its aims with the limits of capitalist MOP, it inevitably, soon or later will lead to degeneration of the Proletarian society and to revival of the bourgeois society. The main reason to install Proletarian State is to organize communist sector with using communist MOP (plan/moneyless economy) where the real emancipation of working class will happen, where proletariat ceases to be proletarians. So the Proletarian State is using both capitalist MOP in capitalist/state-capitalist sectors and communist MOP in communist sector of economy.

To mention the original post i.e. what could be named as "socialist" MOP, of course it concerns period of DOTP, "socialist" MOP is combination of both capitalist MOP and communist MOP like one molecule which consists of two different atoms.

But it doesn't mean that a person if he/she is not a member of communist sector could be allowed to profit by goods/services of gift economy or LTV scheme of communist sector. The Proletarian society is the Society of Freedom: every person, is he/she either a proletarian, or lumpen, or bourgeois, or petty-bourgeois, all have freedom to choose either the capitalist/state-capitalist sector and to work for wages or communist sector and to work on communist principles. What is important: both communist and capitalist/state-capitalist sectors have different economies in principle so they are not mixed but they interact. So a mechanism to convert money into LTV and back must exist as long as capitalist and state-capitalist sectors exist.

Now the answer on your question is: in higher phase of communism, when capitalist sector would be 'not bigger than a walnut', the same principle is demanded - if someone is not a member of huge communist sector he/she stay to be banned for benefits of communist sector. Here i would agree with you: the State (capitalist/state-capitalist sectors) very likely will 'wither away' completely.

[ckaihatsu]

revolutionary policy *solution* (SOCIALIST SUPPLY & DEMAND)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=275


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh


communist supply & demand -- Economic balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/c6wzw9


communist supply & demand -- Political balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/cy5ypy


Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://tinyurl.com/yvn2xq




--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[Paul Cockshott]

What Sanpan is saying reminds me of what Amadeo was writing in the 50s.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In what way, exactly?

[sanpal]

What Sanpan is saying reminds me of what Amadeo was writing in the 50s.

If you mean the left communist Amadeo Bordiga then you are not quite correct. As far as i know Bordiga defended an idea that in the USSR under Stalin it has been the state capitalism. But i protect the idea that the state capitalism was only during the period of Lenin's NEP. Stalin has "closed" the NEP and organized" the "duhringism" (utopian socialism a la Duhring) instead of the state capitalism. Arguments are in some my posts.

[sanpal]

There is Engels' quote from his work "Anti-Duhring",( Socialism; IV "Distribution"):


" ... In the first place, such a misuse of Owen's labour-notes would require their conversion into real money,
while Herr Dühring presupposes real money, though attempting to prohibit it from functioning otherwise
than as mere labour certificate. While in Owen's scheme there would have to be a real abuse,
in Dühring's scheme the immanent nature of money, which is independent of human volition, would assert itself;
the specific, correct use of money would assert itself in spite of the misuse which Herr Dühring tries
to impose on it owing to his own ignorance of the nature of money. "

There is Stalin's quote from his work "Economic Problems of the USSR" in its part "Reply to Comrade Alexander Ilyich Notkin", The third point:


http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch12.htm




"It appears from your argument that you regard the means of production, and, in the first place, the implements of production produced by our nationalized enterprises, as commodities.
Can means of production be regarded as commodities in our socialist system? In my opinion they certainly cannot.
A commodity is a product which may be sold to any purchaser, and when its owner sells it, he loses ownership of it and the purchaser becomes the owner of the commodity, which he may resell, pledge or allow to rot. Do means of production come within this category? They obviously do not. In the first place, means of production are not "sold" to any purchaser, they are not "sold" even to collective farms; they are only allocated by the state to its enterprises. In the second place, when transferring means of production to any enterprise, their owner - the state - does not at all lose the ownership of them; on the contrary, it retains it fully. In the third place, directors of enterprises who receive means of production from the Soviet state, far from becoming their owners, are deemed to be the agents of the state in the utilization of the means of production in accordance with the plans established by the state.
It will be seen, then, that under our system means of production can certainly not be classed in the category of commodities.
Why, in that case, do we speak of the value of means of production, their cost of production, their price, etc.?
For two reasons.
Firstly, this is needed for purposes of calculation and settlement, for determining whether enterprises are paying or running at a loss, for checking and controlling the enterprises. But that is only the formal aspect of the matter.
Secondly, it is needed in order, in the interests of our foreign trade, to conduct sales of means of production to foreign countries. Here, in the sphere of foreign trade, but only in this sphere, our means of production really are commodities, and really are sold (in the direct meaning of the term).
It therefore follows that in the sphere of foreign trade the means of production produced by our enterprises retain the properties of commodities both essentially and formally, but that in the sphere of domestic economic circulation, means of production lose the properties of commodities, cease to be commodities and pass out of the sphere of operation of the law of value, retaining only the outward integument of commodities (calculation, etc.).
How is this peculiarity to be explained?
The fact of the matter is that in our socialist conditions economic development proceeds not by way of upheavals, but by way of gradual changes, the old not simply being abolished out of hand, but changing its nature in adaptation to the new, and retaining only its form; while the new does not simply destroy the old, but infiltrates into it, changes its nature and its functions, without smashing its form, but utilizing it for the development of the new. This, in our economic circulation, is true not only of commodities, but also of money, as well as of banks, which, while they lose their old functions and acquire new ones, preserve their old form, which is utilized by the socialist system.
If the matter is approached from the formal angle, from the angle of the processes taking place on the surface of phenomena, one may arrive at the incorrect conclusion that the categories of capitalism retain their validity under our economy. If, however, the matter is approached from the standpoint of Marxist analysis, which strictly distinguishes between the substance of an economic process and its form, between the deep processes of development and the surface phenomena, one comes to the only correct conclusion, namely, that it is chiefly the form, the outward appearance, of the old categories of capitalism that have remained in our country, but that their essence has radically changed in adaptation to the requirements of the development of the socialist economy."
If to compare and analyse these two quotes objectively and impartially, it could be done of interesting conclusion about similarities of Duhring's scheme in theory and Stalin's explanation of his practice.

[Paul Cockshott]

In what way, exactly?
I thought he was advocating Bordigas theory of state capitalism In his book on the USSR in 57 Bordiga was one of the few people to take seriously the notion of a social formation being a combination of modes of production -- emphasised by Althusser and Balibar later

[Die Neue Zeit]

I thought he was advocating Bordigas theory of state capitalism In his book on the USSR in 57 Bordiga was one of the few people to take seriously the notion of a social formation being a combination of modes of production -- emphasised by Althusser and Balibar later

Did those three individuals take into consideration the gulag economy?

I think the Soviet Union under Stalin specifically was a combination of modes of production: socialist planning (as you mentioned), money-capital circulation, and slave labour (a statist, industrial sibling of the Confederate-capitalist utilization of agrarian slave labour). The third either disappeared or became irrelevant under Stalin's successors, who then instead established some sort of property control rights (as opposed to ownership rights) regime for the enterprise managers:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1328440&postcount=29

[Paul Cockshott]

Some nice diagrams

revolutionary policy *solution* (SOCIALIST SUPPLY & DEMAND)

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=275


communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca


Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://tinyurl.com/5mjhhh


communist supply & demand -- Economic balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/c6wzw9


communist supply & demand -- Political balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/cy5ypy


Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://tinyurl.com/yvn2xq




--




--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162)

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Of all the Marxists in a roomful of people, I'm the Wilde-ist. --

[sanpal]

Some nice diagrams


ckaihatsu:

communist economy diagram

http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca (http://tinyurl.com/bom9ca)



What "nice" is in this strange diagram? And why does a component "politics" is presented in "communist economy"?

[Die Neue Zeit]

How do the diagrams pertain to the three-part social formation under Stalin? :confused:

[Paul Cockshott]

Look at the rest of his website and you see that he is concerned with the production of conceptual works of art, they should be understood in this sense.

[ckaihatsu]

Some nice diagrams


Thanks.





What "nice" is in this strange diagram? And why does a component "politics" is presented in "communist economy"?


The idea is that the *economics*, or material accounting, as inscribed in the circle is *limited* to that system of *tangible* elements like assets, resources, and labor. *Outside* of that formalized system politics would necessarily have to take place in order to formalize anything additional that's not already included within the circle.





Look at the rest of his website and you see that he is concerned with the production of conceptual works of art, they should be understood in this sense.


Well, this is a *contradiction*, Paul -- a moment ago you acknowledged that they're *diagrams*, meaning that they have instructive value, since that is indeed what they are. I have a section for 'diagrams' and one for 'photoillustrations' at the site, so as to make a distinction -- it's in my .signature which follows here....


Chris



--


--
___

RevLeft.com -- Home of the Revolutionary Left
www.revleft.com/vb/member.php?u=16162

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

3D Design Communications - Let Your Design Do Your Footwork
ckaihatsu.elance.com

MySpace:
myspace.com/ckaihatsu

CouchSurfing:
tinyurl.com/yoh74u


-- Better than all the rest in humility --

[Die Neue Zeit]

Look at the rest of his website and you see that he is concerned with the production of conceptual works of art, they should be understood in this sense.

What does art have to do with Bordiga and the Soviet social formation under Stalin? :confused:

[SubVersion]

I must admit that I have not read all of these posts, only the original point, to wit:

"…if capitalism exist so capitalist mode of production also exist and then analogicly (sic) if socialism exists hence socialist mode of production exists as well. When we draw this line of thinking further we could get analogically the whole spectrum of socialist modes of production : ‘bourgeois socialist mode of production’, ‘petty-bourgeois socialist mode of production’, ‘proletarian socialist mode of production’, ‘stalinist socialist mode of production’, ‘priest socialist mode of production’, etc. etc."

If the means of production are in the hands of a class representing the working class, however bad that representation may be, it is socialism. The only question to ask is whether those means of production are in private or public hands. If the answer is the latter, then it is socialism. Just as the economic engine of capitalism can take many forms, from fascist dictatorship to liberal democracy, so too can the superstructure of socialism. The form that superstructure takes is in the hands of the people who make the revolution. The author of the original article confuses the political superstructure with the economic infrastructure. His analysis is deficient in the application of class analysis.

[thesmokingfrog]

I don't think that state-ownership or planning are central to socialism. Not even the abolishment of the market (the 'exchange' orbit). I think that the integration of the big capital enterprises to the civil society under worker's control (not even the expropriation of small capital enterprises) is the only necessary condition of the beginning of a ‘socialist mode of production’. The state should be reduced and give up power to the civil society organizations thou.

[ckaihatsu]

Just as the economic engine of capitalism can take many forms, from fascist dictatorship to liberal democracy, so too can the superstructure of socialism. The form that superstructure takes is in the hands of the people who make the revolution. The author of the original article confuses the political superstructure with the economic infrastructure.


Agreed.





If the means of production are in the hands of a class representing the working class, however bad that representation may be, it is socialism.


A "class representing the working class" -- ??? And what "class" would that be? And why wouldn't the working class just *represent itself*???

Or, if the representation is particularly bad, as is the case from nationalistic bureaucracies, then you have *Stalinism*.





The only question to ask is whether those means of production are in private or public hands. If the answer is the latter, then it is socialism.


Or Stalinism.





I don't think that state-ownership or planning are central to socialism. Not even the abolishment of the market (the 'exchange' orbit). I think that the integration of the big capital enterprises to the civil society under worker's control (not even the expropriation of small capital enterprises) is the only necessary condition of the beginning of a ‘socialist mode of production’. The state should be reduced and give up power to the civil society organizations thou.


I find that I'm more and more open to this kind of formulation, especially in the short-term.

Given the centrality of the role that currency plays in the workings of a (capitalist) economy, I've developed a model that would take your description as a short-term, transitional stage towards the transformation into full communism.

With big capitalist enterprises (major industries) under workers' control I would advocate the use of a 'syndicalist currency' to facilitate the *measurement* of full-labor-value surplus labor value, which would be outside of capitalist control or initiatives. It would be compatible with the scenario you describe. (Please see the graphic attached, a "Syndicalism - Socialism - Communism Transition Diagram".)





[I advocate] a global syndicalist currency that would be worker-controlled, cut across national boundaries, retain full labor value, and provide a broad range of trans-national goods and services through regular distribution channels.

All labor provided towards supplying the currency would necessarily be revolutionary acts, and could take place on a variety of scales, in a mixture of patterns of participation, gradually growing in size as cities once did. Transparency of accounting and operations would provide ongoing credibility, with worker-controlled decision-making -- call it stochastic soviets, if you like...!

[thesmokingfrog]

Also, the social surpluses could be reinvested into productive activities, like research in greener and environment friendly technologies (if those enterprises are civil society organizations, they could work beyond the blatant ‘naked-self-interest’ and ‘competition’ logics), and not left to speculations of financiers. The neoliberal economist often forget to mention how inefficient are financial bubbles to allocate resources (a lot of surplus value is ‘eaten up’ by those means in New York and London).

I don’t know if I understood you well, by syndicalist currency you mean fiat money (maybe gold backed if u want it to retain its value. If that was the case, you might just use commodity money) controlled by an international syndicalist organization?

Any way, (societies are not only its 'modes of productions' in the abstract) i find that a healthy civil society is absolutely essential for a socialist society to develop. i.e: no censorship, no ‘democratic’ centralism. The socialist society, and in general no healthy and progressive society is made out of a plan of an illuminated minority.

[ckaihatsu]

Also, the social surpluses could be reinvested into productive activities, like research in greener and environment friendly technologies (if those enterprises are civil society organizations, they could work beyond the blatant ‘naked-self-interest’ and ‘competition’ logics), and not left to speculations of financiers. The neoliberal economist often forget to mention how inefficient are financial bubbles to allocate resources (a lot of surplus value is ‘eaten up’ by those means in New York and London). .


Absolutely.





I don’t know if I understood you well, by syndicalist currency you mean fiat money (maybe gold backed if u want it to retain its value. If that was the case, you might just use commodity money) controlled by an international syndicalist organization? Any way, (societies are not only its 'modes of productions' in the abstract) i find that a healthy civil society is absolutely essential for a socialist society to develop. i.e: no censorship, no ‘democratic’ centralism. The socialist society, and in general no healthy and progressive society is made out of a plan of an illuminated minority.


No, this part of what you're suggesting is actually *incompatible* with your first part. Fiat money, gold-backed money, and commodity money are essentially all the same thing, just in different forms. They are all used in a method of formalizing and legitimizing the *extraction* and *expropriation* of surplus labor value, into the hands of those who own and invest capital. (The wealthy could be based in New York, or London, or anywhere else in the world.)

If you'll recall, 'necessary labor' is that *minimum* labor which is *required* to maintain the worker's life and livelihood, and to reproduce and grow future generations of workers. Anything *more* than this is a *surplus* of material production to society. Under capitalism this surplus goes *disproportionately* to the owners of capital, *not* to the worker in the form of wages. (See the attached graphic, 'Labor & Capital, Wages & Dividends'.)

So, my syndicalist currency model can *only* work under the collective workers' control of the means of mass production so that *none* of the surplus is expropriated by capitalists. By controlling production and the working-class politics of production the workers can *also* administer their own currency by which to *keep track* of this surplus in the non-exploitative economy.

Finance and financial operations would be rendered obsolete since a working-class-based system of production wouldn't require any of it, but all the complexities of (full) labor value, valuations, and complex trading networks (including local ones) could *all* be integrated with circulation based on the syndicalist currency.

Perhaps an easy way of visualizing this would be to imagine an entire world production system run exclusively by the workers, with all production, distribution, and transaction information taken care of through the newspaper (or equivalent) medium. Even *numerical* / *quantitative* measures could be done away with *altogether*, since the capitalist trick of value-abstraction would no longer be needed or tolerated.

[Paul Cockshott]

Finance and financial operations would be rendered obsolete since a working-class-based system of production wouldn't require any of it, but all the complexities of (full) labor value, valuations, and complex trading networks (including local ones) could *all* be integrated with circulation based on the syndicalist currency.

If you have circulation you have money, whether you call it syndicalist money or not.
As soon as you have money you have the potential for the circuit c->m->c to be halted in phase m. This is the basic origin of all recessions and commercial crises, so as it stands your system would be as prone to recession as the curent one.

[ckaihatsu]

If you have circulation you have money, whether you call it syndicalist money or not.
As soon as you have money you have the potential for the circuit c->m->c to be halted in phase m. This is the basic origin of all recessions and commercial crises, so as it stands your system would be as prone to recession as the curent one.


Paul -- with assets seized and resources originating from the earth, the only variable left is *labor*. Keeping track of manifests and inventories doesn't require the use of commodities or commodity-based systems of valuation.

Only *labor* and *labor-hours* would really be the independent variable here, which would be the basis of the syndicalist currency. This would make it *not* a commodity since it would be free of capitalist financial dynamics.

[Paul Cockshott]

It is a currency if it circulates, and if so it is money. This was the basis of Engels critique of Duhring. The difference between this and labour accounts of the type proposed by Owen is that these are non transferable, do not circulate and are cancelled once they have been used to purchase something from the publicly owned shops.

If paper notes were used for labour vouchers, these would circulate, but with electronic accounts this is easily prevented. Even with paper systems it would have
been easy to prevent circulation by having the labour vouchers made out to specific named workers, and have them only spendable when producing an matching ID card.

But such labour vouchers are not a currency.

Capitalist finance is not relevant here. Marx showed that the origins of commercial crises are already there in simple monetary circulation without any banks.

[ckaihatsu]

It is a currency if it circulates, and if so it is money. This was the basis of Engels critique of Duhring. The difference between this and labour accounts of the type proposed by Owen is that these are non transferable, do not circulate and are cancelled once they have been used to purchase something from the publicly owned shops.

If paper notes were used for labour vouchers, these would circulate, but with electronic accounts this is easily prevented. Even with paper systems it would have
been easy to prevent circulation by having the labour vouchers made out to specific named workers, and have them only spendable when producing an matching ID card.

But such labour vouchers are not a currency.

Capitalist finance is not relevant here. Marx showed that the origins of commercial crises are already there in simple monetary circulation without any banks.


Yes, well, let me put it to you this way, then, Paul -- what kind of valuation system do *you* think would be most pragmatic, in the direction of a communist abundance?

I tend towards labor vouchers myself, with the 'labor credits' ('socialist supply & demand') model I've developed, but I find that I'm also open to a non-commodity *circulating system* -- the 'syndicalist currency' -- in the short-term, as an intermediate step away from the current market-based economic system.

I think the *determining factor* would be the extent of consolidated political control that the masses would have pulled together, at any given point, over the economy -- more conscious, collective political control would equate to a *lessened reliance* on the "invisible hand"....

[Die Neue Zeit]

I tend towards labor vouchers myself, with the 'labor credits' ('socialist supply & demand') model I've developed, but I find that I'm also open to a non-commodity *circulating system* -- the 'syndicalist currency' -- in the short-term, as an intermediate step away from the current market-based economic system.

I wrote about this transitional currency myself at one point:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/understanding-economic-calculation-t92043/index.html?p=1296110


Some recent material on "transitions" got me thinking on a intermediate "currency" between $$$ and the social-abolitionist labour credit. I don't really care much about what to call this "currency" - consumption credits or even socialist credits (since the term "socialism" has, I think, been irreparably associated with the maintenance of wage slavery, from the bourgeois "state socialism" known as "social democracy" to even the prevailing revolutionary interpretation of "socialism") - but this transitional "currency" system would be designed to abolish the formation of money-capital (non-circulation) but not wage slavery (since the "socially necessary labour-time" planning apparatus would still be set up during the transitional period).

Could this transitional "currency" system replace all forms of $$$ immediately after the social-proletocratic political revolution?

And a comrade replied:


1. Money can be made electronic and personally identifiable (linked to the individual). This can replace 'anonymous cash' quite readily.
2. The ability of money to earn interest can be eliminated.
3. Other structural changes regarding currency could be implemented.

[ckaihatsu]

but this transitional "currency" system would be designed to abolish the formation of money-capital (non-circulation) but not wage slavery (since the "socially necessary labour-time" planning apparatus would still be set up during the transitional period).



Since we *know* that a revolutionary movement would be headed up by a self-selected revolutionary leadership, or vanguard, it follows that the revolutionaries would have to provide a functioning economic system that is removed from capitalist control -- this would be to keep everyday supplies running smoothly and to demonstrate its political legitimacy.

The *political* struggle would essentially consist of having the authority to determine work roles -- those functions no longer needed in a revolutionary transition would be formally ended, with the tacit backing of the mass working class.

While revolutionaries would do everything they / we could to encourage the politicization of the workforce, this process could *not* be *forced* -- many workers might decide to be a-political and would want to just continue in their conventional work roles (if the positions continued to exist), seeing the overarching political struggle in progress as just being the "new management".

It's for this reason that the economic-system transition should be unobtrusive to this segment of the workforce -- those used to receiving wages should continue to do so, but the background to providing these wages in a revolutionary period would be removed from the capitalist exploitative mechanism.

A *syndicalist* currency would be a suitable *replacement* for the everyday commodity-based cash that we're all used to using these days. Freed from the market mechanism, prices could be deliberately determined based on a matching of supply costs for a basket of staple goods and services to the cumulative labor hours typically worked for that basket of goods and services. In this way the political leadership would approach a tentative formalized *equilibrium* of prices-to-labor-hours that would enable the furtherance of *political* objectives, with human health and welfare at the fore.

The labor hours worked for the maintenance of a past experienced standard of living could be roughly considered to be the de facto definition of 'necessary labor'.





['Necessary] labor' is that *minimum* labor which is *required* to maintain the worker's life and livelihood, and to reproduce and grow future generations of workers. Anything *more* than this is a *surplus* of material production to society. Under capitalism this surplus goes *disproportionately* to the owners of capital, *not* to the worker in the form of wages. [...]

So, my syndicalist currency model can *only* work under the collective workers' control of the means of mass production so that *none* of the surplus is expropriated by capitalists. By controlling production and the working-class politics of production the workers can *also* administer their own currency by which to *keep track* of this surplus in the non-exploitative economy.

Finance and financial operations would be rendered obsolete since a working-class-based system of production wouldn't require any of it, but all the complexities of (full) labor value, valuations, and complex trading networks (including local ones) could *all* be integrated with circulation based on the syndicalist currency.





Syndicalism -- economics -- wages system based on full labor value, surplus value goes into global syndicalist currency

Syndicalism -- politics -- local workers' collectives, economic and political labor network built on global syndicalist currency with transparent, published accounting, possible physical confrontations with defenders of capital


I've attached *another* diagram, the Affinity Group Workflow Tracker, which can serve as the political "bookkeeping" process for *any* level of collective workers' self-determination. The template and process together is a handy way to "boil down" political discussions into a concise, accurate log of political *intention* and/or *fulfillment*, continuously updated. It could be used for the revolutionary political determination of pricing equilibriums, as described above.

As the political and economic revolution completes there would be a *second* discrete transition, from the use of the syndicalist currency to the use of labor-hour-based labor credits. This would signify a solid step to a society that is providing a humane standard of living for *all* people on the planet, on a consistently continuous basis. For many this would be equivalent to a successful revolution, and it would feature the material means to transition to a decidedly *socialist* mode of production:





Socialism -- economics -- labor credits reward uncoerced labor according to difficulty of work, surplus value builds up communist infrastructure

Socialism -- politics -- political economy based on workers' collectives controls all assets, resources, goods, and services, baseline health and welfare for all, regardless of work status

[Paul Cockshott]

I lean towards the use of labour credits, maintained electronically to prevent transfer and the rise of speculative activities, and with the planning board adjusting global prices up and down to ensure that total issues of credits are balanced by sales.

[ckaihatsu]

I lean towards the use of labour credits, maintained electronically to prevent transfer and the rise of speculative activities, and with the planning board adjusting global prices up and down to ensure that total issues of credits are balanced by sales.


Paul, I agree with you on the labor credits part, but I have a concern: If a planning board *intervenes* to *make* the prices cancel out the labor credits then you've effectively *banned* the existence of a surplus, by dictate.

To illustrate -- what if a production run happened to produce a slight *excess* of computers, as compared to the actual number of computers requested and paid for by labor-credit orders? There would be computers lying around, but what would their formal price be? Without actual demand their "market" price should be around *zero*, but the planning board would still have the price set at whatever amount of labor credits was *last* paid for, for computers.

Anyone would be *wasting* their labor credits by paying artificially *inflated* prices set by the planning board -- in this scenario it *would* be preferable to have a market-based system, unfortunately.

Or, if the planning board adjusted in realtime to *lower* the *new* rate of labor credits paid for computers, then it would be *sharply different* from what was paid just moments ago.

This configuration would also make a mockery of the labor activity itself since your independent variable is *sales* -- if enough orders are put in, and a *minimal* amount of labor done, then the planning board would still rubber-stamp the arrangement, even if *actual productivity* was insufficient to cover the supply needed to fulfill sales orders.

I've been critical of fellow communists on these economic particulars before *because* of the lack of appreciation for an -- I would argue -- *inevitable* surplus. Attempting to shoehorn the numbers to cover up an *unconsumed* surplus is a disservice to the surplus, to the labor that produced the surplus, and to the economic accounting of it all.

Yes, we could argue that the planning board should take steps to *plan against* and *prevent* a surplus from forming in the first place, but if this could be done impeccably then we *wouldn't need* labor credits *whatsoever* -- it would be a wholly *political* economy run on pure collective intention and *descriptive* accounts.

This would be fine, as far as I'm concerned -- I'd imagine that that would be the very definition of *communism*, but we should consider if the quantification of labor value *at all* -- as into labor credits -- might provide more ground-level, a-political opportunities for small-scale, more individualistic initiatives, outside of the formal political economy proper.... The formal political economy, even if well-suited for the large-scale running of society, could feel somewhat *paternalistic* and too-formal to the average person for their day-to-day matters.

Obviously I'm speculating here, but I think what it comes down to is how much surplus should be *politically decided* en masse versus how much should be left to *individual* prerogative and control.

[Paul Cockshott]

Paul, I agree with you on the labor credits part, but I have a concern: If a planning board *intervenes* to *make* the prices cancel out the labor credits then you've effectively *banned* the existence of a surplus, by dictate.

To illustrate -- what if a production run happened to produce a slight *excess* of computers, as compared to the actual number of computers requested and paid for by labor-credit orders? There would be computers lying around, but what would their formal price be? Without actual demand their "market" price should be around *zero*, but the planning board would still have the price set at whatever amount of labor credits was *last* paid for, for computers.

I was too brief. What I mean is that in this case the planning board has to
write down the selling price of computers below their actual value to ensure that there is no unsold stock and thus problem of overproduction.

If the price of computers is consistently less than value then the plan targets should also be directed downward to remove excess production.






Or, if the planning board adjusted in realtime to *lower* the *new* rate of labor credits paid for computers, then it would be *sharply different* from what was paid just moments ago.

This configuration would also make a mockery of the labor activity itself since your independent variable is *sales* -- if enough orders are put in, and a *minimal* amount of labor done, then the planning board would still rubber-stamp the arrangement, even if *actual productivity* was insufficient to cover the supply needed to fulfill sales orders.

Good point.

This implies that there should be more than one publicly owned factory producing the computers.
The planning board then directs the additional orders to the factory which has the lowestnper unit labour consumption.



I've been critical of fellow communists on these economic particulars before *because* of the lack of appreciation for an -- I would argue -- *inevitable* surplus. Attempting to shoehorn the numbers to cover up an *unconsumed* surplus is a disservice to the surplus, to the labor that produced the surplus, and to the economic accounting of it all.

You are quite right, there will be a surplus, but this must be divided into two sorts: long term surplus, and temporary surpluses or shortages.

The long term surplus has to be absorbed in two broad ways:

1. Reducing the working week if too much labour is being used
2. Raising taxes on labour income to pay for additional free services.

The short term surpluses are largely balanced by short term shortages
which arise from misallocation of labour.

[ckaihatsu]

I was too brief. What I mean is that in this case the planning board has to write down the selling price of computers below their actual value to ensure that there is no unsold stock and thus problem of overproduction.

If the price of computers is consistently less than value then the plan targets should also be directed downward to remove excess production.


Paul, I'd like to respectfully counterpose an alternative here. I think it's fairly easy for any of us to simply *reproduce* the patterns of exploitation and oppression that we've been *conditioned* to view as "normal" in our current exploitative and oppressive society.

Through a Marxist materialism we can shift our life's attentions to *automating* the production and distribution of material goods and services, thus *freeing* us from the tedious, neverending task of continuously *tending* to the *caretaking* of material things.

And, we're *already* past the point -- arguably -- of *having* to cater to others' whims, since the bourgeois revolutions overthrew direct slavery and brought about commodity production in its place.

So this is to preface my point that we *shouldn't* *have* to manage material goods and services *at all* through the bourgeois-abstraction of *prices* in a post-capitalist system.

With land, natural resources, industrial assets, and personal time all completely liberated it would fall back on us, collectively, to decide how best to make use of the ultimate independent variable -- *labor*.

Instead of continuing to imbue assets and resources, goods and services with the dignity of formal prices, we should begin to view them as mere *attachments* onto the driving force behind *all* of them, at any given time -- *labor*.

By the labor-credits model I've devised we would see a post-capitalist economy revolve and somersault forward based on credits and debits of *labor hours alone* (multiplied by a difficulty multiplier to form labor credits).

What this would *enable* is a highly flexible, dispersed yet centrally cohesive administration over the pools of accumulated labor credits, and labor debits, respectively.

Those who have taken goods and services (beyond the baseline public staple) from society's bounty would incur a personal deficit for such, with no questions asked. However, that deficit would then raise their status of labor availability in the economy, for *anyone* to request, for small-scale projects, or for the larger administration ("community") to tap into, alongside numerous other workers, for large-scale projects.

Conversely, a *buildup*, or *credit* of labor credits (attainable only from past work put in) would entitle the bearer to *partake* of *any* labor, or goods and services, available throughout the entire economy. The credits could even be combined with credits from other people in the furtherance of collaborative (small-scale) projects.

In this way, *everything* would be measured in terms of *labor credits* (labor-hours-based) alone -- there would be *no need* for arbitrary pricing mechanisms whatsoever. If some products, like computers, fell out of consumer favor, their labor-credit (labor-hour) inputs would be *visible* to *everyone*, showing *exactly* how much of people's work time (life-time) was *lost* due to poor planning.

(More to follow....)

[ckaihatsu]

Good point.

This implies that there should be more than one publicly owned factory producing the computers.
The planning board then directs the additional orders to the factory which has the lowestnper unit labour consumption.


Yes, absolutely -- I agree here, and I outlined the same in a past posting:





My concern with [an] insistence on a leveling of labor rates across the board is that it might very well be too top-down, or bureaucratic, and miss out on the particulars of this-or-that local economy. Perhaps being a firefighter in a city is a much more demanding position than being one in the suburbs. Production of shoes at one plant may be much more efficient than the same shoes at a smaller, less advanced factory with resources spread further out.

[I think] that we might want to have a floating system of labor rates, *after* the world's assets have been collectivized and put under workers' control (no private property). Keep in mind that in this kind of economy all of labor's claims to certain labor rates would implicitly be political demands against the communist state, so it would play out politically anyway.

If one particular city seemed to have extraordinarily high labor rates, due to successful political demands, that might play at the local level, but when it came to larger projects that city might get passed over by central planning in favor of a group with relatively lower labor rates. (This *is* still materialism, after all...!)

The overall administration (central planning) would be bottom-up, in terms of pooling workers' political initiatives together into an overarching, societal policy.

The overall *execution* of that administration would be top-down, in terms of coordinating among the industries into a single network of social planning, by project, tapping local assets in a rational manner to effect policy.





You are quite right, there will be a surplus, but this must be divided into two sorts: long term surplus, and temporary surpluses or shortages.

The long term surplus has to be absorbed in two broad ways:

1. Reducing the working week if too much labour is being used
2. Raising taxes on labour income to pay for additional free services.

The short term surpluses are largely balanced by short term shortages
which arise from misallocation of labour.


I agree with you here in spirit, but not on the model, or particulars, since I've developed an alternative.

[Paul Cockshott]

The overall administration (central planning) would be bottom-up, in terms of pooling workers' political initiatives together into an overarching, societal policy.


Why not a planning supervisory board drawn by lot from the working population.
A bottom up tiered system of representation is made to measure for domination by an avant guard party group.

[ckaihatsu]

The overall administration (central planning) would be bottom-up, in terms of pooling workers' political initiatives together into an overarching, societal policy.


Why not a planning supervisory board drawn by lot from the working population.
A bottom up tiered system of representation is made to measure for domination by an avant guard party group.


The idea is that the structure would be based on the industrial workplace since that's where the workers would control the means of mass production. I *don't* think that there should be *representative* politics *at all*, if at all possible. *Everything*, at all levels, could be discussed and decided by the working population itself, for each respective workplace and collections of workplaces.

Think of it as RevLeft for all workplaces, everywhere -- everything could be out in the open and participants could come and go -- what would *count* is the policy developed at each production center by its *own* workers. With widespread use of automated production processes and computerized routines I would think that *most* of a worker's work time would be with the political tasks involved therein.

[thesmokingfrog]

Well, it took me a while (i'd a hard time last week in the university) but i finally have the time to reply.


Fiat money, gold-backed money, and commodity money are essentially all the same thing, just in different forms. They are all used in a method of formalizing and legitimizing the *extraction* and *expropriation* of surplus labor value, into the hands of those who own and invest capital. (The wealthy could be based in New York, or London, or anywhere else in the world.)

It is different because fiat money is the exclusive monopoly power of the organization that controls (prints) it. The control of the currency, freed from the constrains of production of commodity money (it has 'labor' value on its own as any other commodity). Under fiat money the ‘law of value’ can easily be broken down.
I still don’t understand your syndicalist currency. What the difference with any other currency on earth? It seems to me just like money functioning without the capitalist relations of production.

[ckaihatsu]

It is different because fiat money is the exclusive monopoly power of the organization that controls (prints) it.

The control of the currency, freed from the constrains of production of commodity money (it has 'labor' value on its own as any other commodity). Under fiat money the ‘law of value’ can easily be broken down.


Plenty of select corporations have monopolies or near-monopoly control over their respective industries -- defense contracting comes to mind, as does agribusiness, pharmaceuticals, and car manufacturing in former years....

The printing of money is just like these other major financial titans -- while the company that handles it may be a private concern it is *far* from being able to exercise complete secrecy, as the term 'fiat money' implies. The Federal Reserve is *regulated*, and the numbers regarding the money supply are in the public record.

What matters to us as Marxists is the 'necessary labor' component of labor value -- this is a meaningful measurement from a working class perspective because it is the percentage of the revenue received from the sale of work product that goes towards maintaining the worker's life and livelihood, and the reproduction of the worker (through the raising of offspring) into the future.

Once this 'necessary labor' component has been returned to the worker as wages for work done the remainder of the revenue is *surplus* and contains the *surplus labor value* that the worker put into it, whether goods and/or services, by laboring. (Without the worker's labor there would be *no* value whatsoever.)

This *surplus labor value* is *not* handed over to the worker -- rather, it is *extracted* and *expropriated* by capital ownership and paid out as dividends, if applicable. It *doesn't matter* what the *type* of currency is -- the process is *still* *exactly* the same, with the particular currency in play just being a mere technicality.

Furthermore, once a certain currency-based economy has fully industrialized it will find itself at a *disadvantage* in respect to its manufacturing competitiveness on the global markets, due to its generally raised standard of living -- newcomers that are still industrializing will be leaner and tougher, but with less of a slice of the pie due to being new to the game.

*Any* economy that is unable to remain competitive in manufacturing / industrialization will have to shift to financialization, the service sector, and power politics, for better or for worse. For an advanced, imperialist economy this would mean neo-colonialism, or, for a still-undeveloped economy this would mean hyperinflation and re-colonization.

I hope you don't get hung up on the currency mechanism itself since that is just falling for the smokescreen propaganda from the likes of libertarians.





I still don’t understand your syndicalist currency. What the difference with any other currency on earth? It seems to me just like money functioning without the capitalist relations of production.


The *difference* is *where* the surplus labor value goes -- under capitalism it goes to private capital ownership, but with a *syndicalist* currency, the *workers* would be the "owners" (the controllers), as the term implies. The surplus labor value would remain under the control of the workers, collectively, in the currency, to be channeled as the workers see fit, through their collective decision-making.

With full transparency and published accounts this syndicalist currency could be a financial-*like* currency *replacement* that provides incentive for trans-national worker collectivism and mass political involvement over its use, away from capitalist interference.

[thesmokingfrog]

so basically is a parallel currency of a 'socialist exchange orbit'?

[ckaihatsu]

so basically is a parallel currency of a 'socialist exchange orbit'?


Well, obviously the *implementation* wouldn't be up to *me* -- I'm just one guy here, and it's a *model* I developed. For the best efficacy, though, it should be based out of individual industrial manufacturing centers that are under collective workers' control, that are free from state harassment, and that are networked to each other. It's meant to be part of a worldwide revolutionary movement that can challenge and ultimately usurp the domination of capitalist finance.

[thesmokingfrog]

Well, it is hard for two currencies to coexist in a same economy and for the same circulation functions (Marx talked about this in 'capital', the case of silver and gold). The syndicalist money would probably be of no use until the ‘socialist’ circulation orbit is extensive enough to sustain its own parallel currency. Otherwise, it would just subtract the ‘socialist’ producers of the economic region (as an integral part of the social division of labor) where it organically developed

[ckaihatsu]

Well, it is hard for two currencies to coexist in a same economy


It's not "hard" -- it's *impossible*. If you haven't noticed already I do *not* defend capitalism. The *point* of the syndicalist currency is to *challenge* and *displace* the capitalist financial functions.





and for the same circulation functions (Marx talked about this in 'capital', the case of silver and gold). The syndicalist money would probably be of no use until the ‘socialist’ circulation orbit is extensive enough to sustain its own parallel currency. Otherwise, it would just subtract the ‘socialist’ producers of the economic region (as an integral part of the social division of labor) where it organically developed


The syndicalist currency would be part of a consciously *revolutionary* movement to overthrow capitalist rule.