Post-Capitalist Society

[bellyscratch]

I've been in discussions about how a post-revolutionary society would be and there seems to be much reluctance to describe the details of it and often people just say 'that would be for the people to decide at the time'. But surely that shouldn't mean that we can't come up with more ideas on what we think should happen. I know its not an easy thing to do, but communists seem to be a lot better at critising the existing capitalist society than giving the details on their proposed alternative.

Is this just my experience or is this a common thing? and if it is common, surely it about time we explored the what a post-revolutionary society should be? If it is just my experience then would people give their views on what how the society would work?

[Post-Something]

Look up Egalitarianism. Look up Direct Democracy. Look up collective ownership of the means of production. Look up classless and stateless.

What aspects do you need clearing up? Any particular part you don't understand?

[bellyscratch]

Sorry, I was being a bit vague.

I'm meaning more how the economic side would work, like what is the alternative to money, wages, prices and things like that.

[LOLseph Stalin]

what is the alternative to money, wages, prices and things like that.

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". :)

[bellyscratch]

"From each according to their ability, to each according to their need". :)

I understand that, but I still don't see how it will be properly implemented

[Post-Something]

Ahh, good question.

Labour Vouchers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor-time_voucher)

Energy Accounting (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_Accounting)

Centrally Planned Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controlled_economy)

Gift Economy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gift_economy)

ParEcon (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parecon)

Here are a couple. Take your pick :)

[LOLseph Stalin]

I understand that, but I still don't see how it will be properly implemented

Ah, ok. I no expert so I can't help you completely, but I have one word of advice: Don't follow what the Soviet Union did:



The average individual productivity of labor in the Soviet Union is still very low. In the best metal foundry, according to the acknowledgement of its director, the output of iron and steel per individual worker is a third as much as the average output of American foundries. A comparison of average figures in both countries would probably give a ratio of 1 to 5, or worse. In these circumstances the announcement that blast furnaces are used “better” in the Soviet Union than in capitalist countries remains meaningless. The function of technique is to economize human labor and nothing else. In the timber and building industries things are even less favorable than in the metal industry. To each worker in the quarries in the United States falls 5,000 tons a year, in the Soviet Union 500 tons – that is, 1/10 as much. Such crying differences are explained not only by a lack of skilled workers, but still more by bad organization of the work. The bureaucracy spurs on the workers with all its might, but is unable to make a proper use of labor power. In agriculture things are still less favorable, of course, than in industry. To the low productivity of labor corresponds a low national income, and consequently a low standard of life for the masses of the people.
When they assert that in volume of industrial production the Soviet Union in 1936 will occupy the 1st place in Europe – of itself this progress is gigantic! – they leave out of consideration not only the quality and production cost of the goods, but also the size of the population. The general level of development of a country, however, and especially the living standard of the masses can be defined, at least in rough figures, only by dividing the products by the number of consumers. Let us try to carry out this simple arithmetical operation.
The importance of railroad transport for economy culture and military ends needs no demonstration. The Soviet Union has 83,000 kilometres of railroads, as against 58,000 in Germany, 63,000 in France, 417,000 in the United States. This means that for every 10,000 people in Germany there are 8.9 kilometres of railroad, in France 15.2, in the United States 33.1, and in the Soviet Union 5.0. Thus, according to railroad indices, the Soviet Union continues to occupy one of the lowest places in the civilized world. The merchant fleet, which has tripled in the last five years, stands now approximately on a par with that of Denmark and Spain. To these facts we must add the still extremely low figure for paved highways. In the Soviet Union 0.6 automobiles were put out for every 1,000 inhabitants. In Great Britain, about 8 (in 1934), in France about 4.5, in the United States 23 (as against 36.5 in 1928). At the same time in the relative number of horses (about 1 horse to each 10 or 11 citizens) the Soviet Union, despite the extreme backwardness of its railroad, water and auto transport, does not surpass either France or the United States, while remaining far behind them in the quality of the stock.
In the sphere of heavy industry, which has attained the most outstanding successes, the comparative indices still remain unfavorable. The coal output in the Soviet Union for 1935 was about 0.7 tons per person; in Great Britain, almost 5 tons; in the United States, almost 3 tons (as against 5.4 tons in 1913); in Germany, about 2 tons. Steel: in the Soviet Union, about 67 kilograms [2] (http://marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch01.htm#n2) per person, in the United States about 250 kilograms, etc. About the same proportions in pig and rolled iron. In the Soviet Union, 153 kilowatt hours of electric power was produced per person in 1935, in Great Britain (1934) 443, in France 363, in Germany 472.
In the light industries, the per capita indices are as a general rule still lower. Of woolen fabric in 1935, less than ½ metre per person, or 8 to 10 times less than in the United States or Great Britain. Woolen cloth is accessible only to privileged Soviet citizens. For the masses cotton print, of which about 16 metres per person was manufactured, still has to do for winter clothes. The production of shoes in the Soviet Union now amounts to about one-half pair per person, in Germany more than a pair, in France a pair and a half, in the United States about three pairs. And this leaves aside the quality index, which would still further lower the comparison. We may take it for granted that in bourgeois countries the percentage of people who have several pairs of shoes is considerably higher than in the Soviet Union. But unfortunately the Soviet Union also still stands among the first in percentage of barefoot people.
Approximately the same correlation, in part still less favorable, prevails in the production of foodstuffs. Notwithstanding Russia’s indubitable progress in recent years, conserves, sausages, cheese, to say nothing of pastry and confections, are still completely inaccessible to the fundamental mass of the population. Even in the matter of dairy products things are not favorable. In France and the United States, there is approximately one cow for every five people, in Germany one for every six, in the Soviet Union one for every eight. But when it comes to giving milk, two Soviet cows must be counted approximately as one. Only in the production of grainbearing grasses, especially rye, and also in potatoes, does the Soviet Union, computing by population, considerably surpass the majority of European countries and the United States. But rye bread and potatoes as the predominant food of the population – that is the classic symbol of poverty.
The consumption of paper is one of the chief indices of culture. In 1935, the Soviet Union produced less than 4 kg. per person, the United States over 34 (as against 48 in 1928), and Germany 47 kg. Whereas the United States consumes 12 pencils a year per inhabitant, the Soviet Union consumers only 4, and those 4 are of such poor quality that their useful work does not exceed that of one good pencil, or at the outside two. The newspapers frequently complain that the lack of primers, paper, and pencils paralyzes the work of the schools. It is no wonder that the liquidation of illiteracy, indicated for the 10th anniversary of the October Revolution, is still far from accomplished.
The problem can be similarly illumined by starting from more general considerations. The national income per person in the Soviet Union is considerably less than in the West. And since capital investment consumes about 25 to 30 per cent – incomparably more than anywhere else – the total amount consumed by the popular mass cannot but be considerably lower than in the advanced capitalist countries.
To be sure, in the Soviet Union there are no possessing classes, whose extravagance is balanced by an under-consumption of the popular mass. However, the weight of this corrective is not so great as might appear at first glance. The fundamental evil of the capitalist system is not the extravagance of the possessing classes, however disgusting that may be in itself, but the fact that in order to guarantee its right to extravagance the bourgeoisie maintains its private ownership of the means of production, thus condemning the economic system to anarchy and decay. In the matter of luxuries, the bourgeoisie, of course, has a monopoly of consumption. But in things of prime necessity, the toiling masses constitute the overwhelming majority of consumers. We shall see later, moreover, that although the Soviet Union has no possessing class in the proper sense of the word, still she has very privileged commanding strata of the population, who appropriate the lions share in the sphere of consumption. And so if there is a lower per capita production of things of prime necessity in the Soviet Union than in the advanced capitalist countries, that does mean that the standard of living of the Soviet masses still falls below the capitalist level.

[bellyscratch]

Thanks :)

Are there any good books that go into this sort of stuff?

[LOLseph Stalin]

Are there any good books that go into this sort of stuff?

Well the infomation I gave you came from The Revolution Betrayed. It may not explain much in the way of economic theory, but it does talk about the economic failures of the Soviet Union.

[Post-Something]

No worries :)

There are loads of books around. To be honest with you, you can probably get better information online though, for example:

http://www.zmag.org/znet

Marxists.org (http://marxists.org/)

or even just searching on google or here.


However, on the subject of ParEcon, you might want to check out this (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=Ij56T-acvUUC&dq=participatory+economics&printsec=frontcover&source=bl&ots=BTGQfk-urL&sig=9k5Nj-8oaFWXM8glfRaaJFO2AJk&hl=en&ei=BP70SY7KH9u6jAfsg43HDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4#PPA1,M1) book.

On technocracy and energy accounting check out this (http://en.technocracynet.eu/) for some great articles.

I would do a search on here for talks about labour vouchers. There have been some really great threads on it.

On a gift economy, I would check out Kropotkins work. It can be found on Marxists.org

And on a centrally planned economy..well, too much literature to really recommend anything to be honest.


Hope that helps :)

[bellyscratch]

I just prefer reading from books than reading stuff from my laptop. My eyes go funny when i have to read too much on my laptop. Also, my student loan comes into tomorrow so I think I'm going to get around to buying some good books to read through the summer

[Agnapostate]

Try Albert and Hahnel. ParEcon, The Political Economy of Participatory Economics, etc. I'd personally also look into Robert Dahl's A Preface to Economic Democracy.

[ckaihatsu]

I happen to take an interest in fleshing out the details of a future communist society, as much as possible, based on our common conception of what its basic outline would have to be like. Here's a post I just submitted:





Psy, all,

I'd like to extend the part of this thread's topic that deals with the material planning for the future, in a future communist society.

Just as reconciling the past with the present is the underlying basis of the most difficult issues that anyone can face, so too is the basis of planning for the future while limited only to knowledge of the past and present.

To this latter end I prepared this form, the oft-referenced "political balance sheet", here made manifest:


communist supply & demand -- Political balance sheet

http://tinyurl.com/cy5ypy


It is meant to illustrate that efforts not directed towards subsistence or pleasure will *necessarily* have a political component to them -- as well as economic -- and that these politically motivated efforts can *always* be shown to have both *political* and *economic* results, or outputs. I can only address operational efforts in the abstract -- obviously the interplay of many more material factors in the real world makes for both positive (reinforcing) and negative (destructive) forces alongside one's own. ( For a framework of always-constant material factors, I'd recommend 'History: Macro-Micro', at tinyurl.com/2dafgr )

I'd like to point out that I made the political balance sheet in the context of a "communist supply & demand" conception of societal economics. In accordance with this conception I have a "gain / loss in labor credits" column at the end of the row -- this formulation both serves to remove the economic portion from the realm of current, commodity-based valuation, while also recognizing that political forces can result in economic outcomes (and vice-versa) no matter what the mode of production happens to be.

One question arose in my mind as I considered this formulation: Would there be a situation in which political activity in a future communist society would produce a *gain* of labor credits for an individual?

At first glance this seemed like it could be a problem because seemingly in virtually all cases the political efforts of *anyone* would be in the interests of administering the communist material assets and resources *in common*, *for the common good*. Many fellow Marxists and communists might even take exception to the concept of *labor credits* *at all* in a truly communist society, again for this reason.

However, I maintain that even a fully integrated, post-commodity-production communist economy will still have to deal with the ever-present question of how to plan well for the future, for its population *and* for the use of its material assets and resources. *Some* sort of bookkeeping will have to be used, and I happen to advocate a system of labor-hour-based *labor credits* -- with survey-derived *difficulty* -- as a labor-based measure of value. ( Please see 'revolutionary policy *solution*' -- www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=275 )

In terms of an individual's incurring of a *loss* of labor credits in the process of political activity, I think we can easily see that someone could decide to make a *donation* of earned labor credits, towards the cost of a more-speculative, experimental-type political activity -- one that the greater communist society might not be willing to fund in full, or at all. An example could be doing some sort of specialized experimentation in high-altitude, zero-gravity conditions.

Any *benefits* of such experimentation would be collectivized anyway, of course, netting a *loss* of labor credits for the individual (or small group).

But what about the possibility of a *gain* of labor credits for an individual, based on political activity in a fully collectivized, communist society? At first glance the scenario seems absolutely *absurd* -- all *politics* would take place in a fully collectivized context, thus precluding the need for *any* type of purely *speculative*, much less self-serving, political motivations. In a *capitalist* context this kind of politics is commonplace, and fully encouraged by the nature of profit-seeking and commodity production itself.

But -- regarding the rational administration of a collectivized, communist economy going forward into the future, we have to consider the existence of *uncertainty*, or risk, even for the most mundane, consistent operations, like food production. (Unwelcome, fierce weather conditions might still continue to exercise influence over crop yields, at least in the early stages.)

I'll advance a more dramatic -- though still realistic -- scenario here, for the sake of illustration. Consider the question of exploration into new methods of sourcing energy. While a communist administration would be driven primarily by strictly humanitarian-utilitarian motivations, there would exist an outlying edge, or fringe, of legitimate rational inquiry that would concern *itself* with the question of *efficiency*, or *optimal* use of existing resources to *leverage* the *greatest* of energy reserves, for whatever uses the communist society could possibly come up with.

If *more* energy was available than what the current state of society could possibly use, then the *rate* of energy sourcing could simply be decreased to whatever level was appropriate, but this is a separate issue from how *best* to leverage efforts to *access* the *most potent* forms of energy available.

Towards this end there might be a person, or persons, who decide to engage in political efforts, arguing for a mandate within the communist economy to investigate experimental, unconventional forms of energy for possible sourcing. This faction could hypothetically put in a 40-hour workweek in the process of advancing their political position, and they might even gain some traction based on their efforts. Normally, in the context of a communist politics, this political effort would just be incidental, one strand of many in a ubiquitous practice of political involvement at any and all levels of a collectivized, political economy. As such it would be nothing special and would certainly not be compensated.

*However*, if this faction's position rose to prominence and became widely accepted, to the point of becoming a part of official policy, there *might* (*might*) arise the question of *administration* of this particular type of energy sourcing endeavor -- if this were the case, those who *advocated* for this energy sourcing would *also* be the *most qualified* to be a part of its administration -- unlike in the context of capitalism where moneyed interests invariably supplant the expertise of pioneers and inventors who are subsequently pushed to the wayside as enterprises become financed and expand.

The issue of *retroactive* administration could be a valid argument here -- that, without the speculative political efforts of the small group, there would never have been a chance for this better type of energy sourcing to become a reality. In this case the *past* *political* efforts of the small group could very well be accorded the status of *retroactive administration* and corresponding labor credits would be transferred on this basis alone.

This scenario could apply equally well in the domain of *art*, where a particular, large-scale, *planned* artistic endeavor would have to be "lobbied for", and approved, by the larger communist administration -- say, for the example of landscape artwork -- before the project could go forward in reality. The specific political efforts put in towards this approval could then, also, be considered "retroactive administration" and be compensated accordingly.

In this way, either for practical or strictly artistic endeavors, an individual (or group) engaging in routine, though pointed, political activity in a communist society could wind up with {an economic} *gain* on their political balance sheet.

As a disclaimer, I assure the reader that this is merely an exercise in logical extrapolation and is not meant to be a policy argument itself -- as if it could be, considering the circumstances -- !