The abolishing of the monetary system.

[sanpal]

All communists from time to time pronounce excellent, brilliant phrases like this:
communist_usa:


All communists are for the abolition of the wage system, it's a pretty basic Marxist tenet.
But none of them did any theoretical model how would go itself the process of transformation of capitalist mode of production into communist mode of production i.e. how to pass from currency, monetary system, commodities, wages, the selling&buying, etc. to non-market, moneyless, non-wages system aka to communist mode of production?
I proposed a variant of such model (multi-sectors economy during the transitional period) but none of communists told ....oh, this is foolish and this model is unworkable because of this reason or another one. I've got an impression that 'all communists' are not interested in this issue at all. Only workers' struggle-ism not more. But it's in vain. Remember communists of past century - were they more silly than modern communists? I don't think so. And they tried to solve the same problems (not only theoretically but practically too) as modern communists intend to do. And as you know they got only as you name it - deformed worker State aka Stalinism. What is made not to repeat the same mistakes? What is an unutopian model of "the abolishing of wages system" in the revleft forum area? What 'all communists' could say about this issue?

[h9socialist]

Comrade Sanpal --

Most true socialists envision the abolition of the monetary system as a good idea, and a goal of socialism. The problem is that for the foreseeable future it's going to be an almost impossible task. A collective socialist conscience has to grow, and human altruism has to seriously challenge selfishness as the prime economic motivation. I agree with and support the long term goal -- I'm just not yet convinced that it's realistic in the next couple of generations.

[h0m0revolutionary]

Comrade Sanpal --

Most true socialists envision the abolition of the monetary system as a good idea, and a goal of socialism. The problem is that for the foreseeable future it's going to be an almost impossible task. A collective socialist conscience has to grow, and human altruism has to seriously challenged selfishness as th prime economic motivation. I agree with the long term goal -- I'm just not convinced that it's workable in the next couple of generations.

None of us who oppose wage-slavery are under any illusions that overnight the successful transformation of the wage system will come about. We all acknowledge there are existing preconditions to this, the most notable being a conscousness of the class that doesn't revolve around the greed is good mentality of modern capitalism.

[h9socialist]

Even Marx struggled with the notion of how to abolish the monetary system. It comes down to developing common humanity as the true currency of human society. While I agree whole-heartedly with the effort, I think it can only come about after a long historical process (that is only now incubating). On the other hand, until money is abolished it will always have the capability of being transformed into capital, and re-igniting capitalist exploitation. Our task is to figure out a just way to move "exchange value" aside as a social consideration. There are theories of "the commons" which I think have the possibility of casting aside "the market" as the main social arrangement of material life. Developing the commons as an institution may be the critical task of 21st century socialism.

[sanpal]

Comrade Sanpal --

Most true socialists envision the abolition of the monetary system as a good idea, and a goal of socialism. The problem is that for the foreseeable future it's going to be an almost impossible task. A collective socialist conscience has to grow, and human altruism has to seriously challenge selfishness as the prime economic motivation. I agree with and support the long term goal -- I'm just not yet convinced that it's realistic in the next couple of generations.

Capitalism will create new greedy generations and I beware of that a couple of generations will be not enough. It is needed not to wait when proper consciousness arise to exchange bourgeois power into proletarian power i.e. proletarian revolution. Not utopian, workable theoretical model of socialist economy of the transition period will be mighty thing for agitation for working class. In my opinion - no waiting of good future is needed if to solve the issue now.

[h9socialist]

I am not ruling out immediate action on the issue. The historical process must proceed. I simply don't think you're going to be able to abolish the monetary system in this generation. The most important contribution to that effort, I think, is begin to decommodify labor. To me that means shorter work time for all, while maintaining a decent modicum existence for all. Achieving that is the first step towards making money irrelevant. Secondly, in order to abolish money you also have to abolish the market as an institution. Consequently, you have to develop the commons as an institution in which each contributes according to ability and consumes according to need. You are not going to go from the age of triumphant capitalism to the age of altruistic communism overnight in one easy step. Such a transformation will be a struggle even without the capitalists involved. This is hardly left-wing heresy, Marx discussed the transitional period in the Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[robbo203]

Comrade Sanpal --

Most true socialists envision the abolition of the monetary system as a good idea, and a goal of socialism. The problem is that for the foreseeable future it's going to be an almost impossible task. A collective socialist conscience has to grow, and human altruism has to seriously challenge selfishness as the prime economic motivation. I agree with and support the long term goal -- I'm just not yet convinced that it's realistic in the next couple of generations.

This is perhaps the primary reason why communism continues to remain just a "long term goal", realisable maybe in a few generations time - because it is continually regarded as a "just a long term goal"!! In other words what we have here is a self fulfilling prophecy

The diverse non market anti-statist sector which is really the only genuine communist movement calling directly and uncompromising for the establishment of a communist society is still relatively small . The Left has largely abandoned the communist project and has been co-opted into supporting capitalism in one form or another. This applies as much to the labourites as it does to the leninists. For the former, communism has simply disappeared over the horizon . When the British Labour Party was formed Keir Hardie could still talk about looking forward to "ending the wages system". All that has completely gone. The Labour Party is capitalist party in every way that the Conservative Party is. The leninists while, very occasionally paying lip service to the communist project, have been more or less comprehensively sucked into supporting state capitalism, advocating vanguardism which steers one directly away from the principle of working class self emancipation (without which communism would be impossible). while vaguely proposing what is incoherently called a transitional society which effectively postpones communism to some indefinite long term future, have likewise to all intents and purposes given up on communism. The leninists are not communists but exponents of what is really just an out-of-date form of capitalism.

The point is that as long as you think of communism as being only realisable in some distant future you are effectively making it impossible to achieve communism at any time. Whats the point in striving to achieve something you will never experience?

It is time to grasp the nettle, grab the bull by the horns of whatever metaphor you prefer to use. Reformism has not worked and cannot work. Capitalism, with or without state intervention, cannot be run in the interest of workers. As the saying goes - Be realistic: Demand the Impossible! And demanding the impossible might quite possibly have very real beneficial consequences for workers right here and now

[h9socialist]

"Demand the Impossible" -- fine -- I'm sure Don Quixote would take it heart. But even if true communist revolutionaries were to come to power, implementing utopia would still be amazingly difficult. In January 1959, Che said, "All we did was win the war -- the revolution starts now." You can step on capitalism's cake all you want to -- but that doesn't mean you're creating socialism. Socialism must be built. The sooner capitalism is out of the way the better. But socialism doesn't fall from the skies like mannah from Heaven. It requires more revolution than simply overthrowing capitalism.

[Dimentio]

Well, there are ideas on what to replace money in. I myself happen to be a believer in Energy Accounting. ^^

[Dave B]

To pick up on Robbo’s point, I think one thing I object to is that even the object of ‘communism’ as it was commonly understood in the 19th and early 20th century is no longer or rarely a point of discussion within the left.

I have even argued with anarchists and of course Leninists who actually reject the idea outright even as a goal to work for.

The idea of what communism was, was much better generally understood and accepted 100 years ago that it is now.


So for instance we have Lenin hismself.

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)


Dare I say it even Kropotkin in 1920 with his ‘The Wage System’ could go along with that as far as it stood.

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/kropotkin-peter/1920/wage.htm)



There was even a time when accusations of not having a goal of abolishing the wages system were considered to be slander even by shits like Hyndman in the ‘social democratic movement’;



A much more serious objection to Kropotkin and other Anarchists is their wholly unscrupulous habit of reiterating statements that have been repeatedly proved to be incorrect, and even outrageous, by the men and women to whom they are attributed. Time after time I have told Kropotkin, time after time has he read it in print, that Social-Democrats work for the complete overthrow of the wages system.

He has admitted this to be so. But a month or so afterwards the same old oft-refuted misrepresentation appears in the same old authoritative fashion, as if no refutation of the calumny, that we wish to maintain wage-slavery, had ever been made. There is evidently, as we might expect from their doctrines, close community of sentiment and method between Anarchists and Liberals



http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html (http://www.marxists.org/archive/hyndman/1911/adventure/chap15.html)

[h9socialist]

I am all for abolishing the wage system and money in general. My point is that in order to abolish money we need to cast aside the market system and replace it with the commons. The commons being free access to all. But of course people will have to refrain from overeconsuming or hoarding, and various mechanisms will have to be in place to ensure access and avoid the re-emergence of money and capital. Building such a framework will take a lot of effort. In the meantime, shorter work time and incomes programs can establish the foundation for decommodifying labor.

[Lynx]

Democratizing the means of production and relegating money to being strictly a means of exchange are important first steps. Do not underestimate the effect these structural changes can have.
A communist gift economy requires trust, based on a record of reliable performance. Until then, most people will require the reassurance of reciprocity, most commonly in the form of 'payment' for work done.

[ckaihatsu]

I am all for abolishing the wage system and money in general. My point is that in order to abolish money we need to cast aside the market system and replace it with the commons. The commons being free access to all.




But of course people will have to refrain from overeconsuming or hoarding, and various mechanisms will have to be in place to ensure access and avoid the re-emergence of money and capital. Building such a framework will take a lot of effort. In the meantime, shorter work time and incomes programs can establish the foundation for decommodifying labor.





Democratizing the means of production and relegating money to being strictly a means of exchange are important first steps. Do not underestimate the effect these structural changes can have.




A communist gift economy requires trust, based on a record of reliable performance. Until then, most people will require the reassurance of reciprocity, most commonly in the form of 'payment' for work done.


Both of these positions are *disingenuous* at their core. While the first part of each sounds promising, both fall flat in their second parts -- they each argue for a kind of reformism.

The evidence is that they focus on "benchmarks" to be looked for in the behavior of labor, by the standards of current trade-based exchange -- this puts the onus on workers to "rise" to a certain level of "acceptability", even "respectability", before their demands for revolution will be "considered".

Notice that there are no calls for workers to immediately take over factories and take power for themselves, or to kick the capitalists into the ocean -- while I'm all for promoting revolutionary theory, I don't think *anyone* should be holding onto a yardstick themselves while they issue it forth.

In this way the entire tone is actually *patronizing* to labor -- action steps should put the spotlight on *capitalists*, with an eye towards how to hold them accountable, to put it lightly.


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


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

[ckaihatsu]

I also have to add that we don't hear calls for a return to "trust" on our highways after a 30-car pile-up, or even after a shooting on the highway -- using expressways is simply how people get from place to place -- it's how things get done.

Likewise, the proletariat's control of the world's factories would simply be how *production* gets done -- we wouldn't need to have workers holding hands or getting all touchy-feely and "trusty" -- either enough workers would have the time and the concern to put in the hours, for whatever's worth producing, or else it most likely just wasn't important enough.

[Lynx]

I also have to add that we don't hear calls for a return to "trust" on our highways after a 30-car pile-up, or even after a shooting on the highway -- using expressways is simply how people get from place to place -- it's how things get done.

Likewise, the proletariat's control of the world's factories would simply be how *production* gets done -- we wouldn't need to have workers holding hands or getting all touchy-feely and "trusty" -- either enough workers would have the time and the concern to put in the hours, for whatever's worth producing, or else it most likely just wasn't important enough.
Most likely workers would be counting their hours and discovering what their efforts can bring for them and their families. It is realistic to presume that for an indeterminate period of time, wages in the form of labour credits will be a standard for measurement.
The use of labour time credits is a transitional measure, to be used until it is no longer desired by workers. It is not a continuation of monetary policy, or of capital accumulation or usury. We can move beyond formal (vulgar) reciprocity, but only after tangible progress is realized.

The use of energy credits is another practical issue.

[ckaihatsu]

Most likely workers would be counting their hours and discovering what their efforts can bring for them and their families. It is realistic to presume that for an indeterminate period of time, wages in the form of labour credits will be a standard for measurement.
The use of labour time credits is a transitional measure, to be used until it is no longer desired by workers. It is not a continuation of monetary policy, or of capital accumulation or usury. We can move beyond formal (vulgar) reciprocity, but only after tangible progress is realized.

The use of energy credits is another practical issue.


Okay -- I don't mean to be accusatory or ultra-left here....

I guess what I'm reaching for is perhaps an understanding of *how quickly* we could move past the system of commodity production and exchange-based relationships *altogether* -- in a revolutionary period wouldn't we prioritize the *revolutionary political struggle* anyway (as opposed to commodity acquisition) -- ?

In this context the struggle could quickly begin to provide the basics to entire neighborhoods, and even cities, once the means of mass production have been firmly secured away from capitalist control. These days it seems like it doesn't really even take that much, in terms of products from factories, to support modern human life -- if we consider refugee tent cities to be a sub-standard existence, we would just have to build on top of that to show *vast* improvements in the standard of living for potentially millions and billions of people.

And how much factory output would *that* require? / How much of a "transitional period" would that require?

[Lynx]

How fast goals could be accomplished would depend on a number of factors. One of the first factors would be whether there was a global revolutionary change. Are we talking about global change or socialism in one or more countries?

A political revolution will have identified some priorities - this would be another factor, an 'initial guiding' one.

p.s. Another consideration would be whether the struggle towards revolutionary change resulted in practical experience for workers.

[ckaihatsu]

How fast goals could be accomplished would depend on a number of factors. One of the first factors would be whether there was a global revolutionary change. Are we talking about global change or socialism in one or more countries?

A political revolution will have identified some priorities - this would be another factor, an 'initial guiding' one.

p.s. Another consideration would be whether the struggle towards revolutionary change resulted in practical experience for workers.


Yeah...(!)

Given a decisive turn of the tide I wonder how long it would take to get humanity's population up to a basic, decent subsistence level -- during that time the more developed parts of the world may very well continue to deal in some kind of worker-controlled, quasi-market system, if only so that material conditions don't devolve into something worse, like fiefdoms.

But as soon as humanity has come up to modern standards the leveling itself could spurt the economics quickly away from commodity production and into more of a quasi-communist system -- after all if everyone's fairly comfortable for a change and there's no (forced) scarcity for the basics anymore then there'd be no basis for profiteering or competitiveness -- it would be a paradigm shift to where cooperation would pay off better....

[h9socialist]

If we could back up a moment: worker control of factories is a fine idea, I agree with it. But by the 2050, it's estimated that only 2% of the global workforce will be engaged in manufacturing. Second, the capitalists have been more than happy to accommodate worker's control of factories -- as manufacturing becomes less profitable they're happy to unload their White
Elephants on the working classes of Europe and America. Finally, as Bill Winpisinger used to say, "the idea of a happy factory is one that would only occur to an intellectual who had never been a factory worker.
My point is simple: the socialism of the 21st Century is not likely to be built around the same core of indutrial labor as in the early 20th Century. The common trait of the revolutionary economic class will be lack of capital and lack of any power over capital. Again, those who have to sell their labor to live. The aim should be disempowering capital, which is what the abolition of money is all about. Worker control in this century will have to concentrate on a macro-level, control of the resource allocation process in general. I'm sure that worker's control of factories is a part of that -- but it is micro-level and applies only to a diminishing part of the global labor force.

[Hyacinth]

With friends like these who needs enemies? Time and again I'm always surprised how many socialists and leftists are eager to join the chorus of the ruling class in declaring socialism impossible, or at least implausible for the time being. Rather than respond to specific posts, I'll make two points against what I see are two prominent trends in the thinking of those who claim that socialism (and all that is entailed by it, such as the abolition of money, commodity production, etc.) is impossible or implausible today.

(1) Some claim that while socialism is the eventual goal, we must make do with markets for economic coordination and planning in the interim because we do not yet have the means by which to effectively coordinate and plan economic activities otherwise. On this point they are simply mistaken, and ignorant of the colossal advancements made in computing over the last two decades, and the implications of said advancement for socialist planning. I've laboured this point before, so I won't go over everything again, but, in summation: (a) we today possess sufficient data gathering and processing capacity to effectively coordinate and plan economic activities without recourse to market mechanisms (and the ever increasing advances in computation will only make this task even easier in the future). And, not only that, but (b) the same computing technology--apart from making coordination and planning possible--also allows for an unprecedented amount of direct input by people into the decision making process, as well as for unprecedented transparency of decision making. I take socialism to consist in not only in a planned economy (one which does not recourse to markets), but, moreover and more importantly, in the democratization of economic decision making. As such, I take (a) and (b) to be jointly sufficient to establish the possibility of socialism today.

(2) The second objection that I see brought up has to do with the consciousness of the masses, and that somehow they are not ready for a socialist mode of production. This sound very much idealist to me. We would all do well to remember, as Marx put it, that it is not the consciousness of people that determine their social existence, but their social existence their consciousness. The sort of behaviours such as greed, hoarding, etc. which might potentially undermine a gift economy are not inborn, but consequences of capitalism. We hoard and attempt to accumulate as much for ourselves because in a capitalist mode of production this is the only means by which we can both guaranteed our economic security, as well as accumulate power and influence. With capitalism abolished, and economic security guaranteed, such behaviours cease to be rational. Now, of course, I'm not claiming that consciousness is not a factor in bringing about socialism, but we do not need people to be angels in order to do so. It is once capitalism stops delivering and once people catch onto this that they will seek out alternatives that can preform better. It won't be because of our good-will that socialism will be brought about, but, quite the contrary, because of our desires and capitalism's failure to satisfy them, as well as the existence and awareness of better alternatives.

[h9socialist]

Comrade Hyacinth --

There is a huge difference between saying that socialism must be constructed, and socialism is somehow impossible. It will take a lot more than computer data systems and data gathering to construct a socialist commons. Modern technology does not provide the moral basis for socialism -- and most modern technology has been designed to accommodate top-down hierarchy. Your discussion brought to mind a quote from Che: "I am not interested in dry economic socialism." His point was that socialism should be concerned with removing profit as the motivation for economic activity, and that ending alienation was as important as redistributing goods and services.

Second, as far as workers "being ready" -- I have no doubt that most workers in the world are ready for revolution. But revolution and socialism are not the same thing. Revolution clears the way for socialism by taking political power, but socialism will still have to be built -- that building of socialism is a revolution all to itself. My points are valid after the capitalists are vanquished -- just because workers take power doesn not mean socialism has occurred. Unless the institutions and underpinnings fall out of the sky in an apocalypse, they will have to be built, and perfected. To ignore this requirement is to assume that socialism is something quasi-religious.

Finally, a socialist must be in this for "the long haul" and accept that the total socialist revolution will not be completed in his or her lifetime. Socialism is human civilization after the chains of exploitation and hierarchy are abolished. That is an effort that will be on-going.

[ckaihatsu]

Wow, as if dealing with libertarians wasn't bad enough, now we have a custom-made "soft"-"revolutionary" here whose job it is to sneak a creeping sense of defeatism and powerlessness into the goal of revolution itself. Incredible!





Worker control in this century will have to concentrate on a macro-level, control of the resource allocation process in general. I'm sure that worker's control of factories is a part of that -- but it is micro-level and applies only to a diminishing part of the global labor force.


So the point here is to turn the focus *away* from controlling the means of mass production, and instead get sidetracked into wild goose chases of trying to hunt down and control where the raw materials are sourced from. No, thanks -- let's stick to the factories...!





My points are valid after the capitalists are vanquished -- just because workers take power doesn not mean socialism has occurred. Unless the institutions and underpinnings fall out of the sky in an apocalypse, they will have to be built, and perfected. To ignore this requirement is to assume that socialism is something quasi-religious.


Again there's the same *patronizing* attitude about what the working class' to-do list must look like, post-revolution. Can't we leave it at the point where the world's working class takes power and then has enough intelligence to work out the details for themselves at that point?!

(And, *no one* here is going to make the argument, or *fall* for the argument from liberals about Marxism being quasi-religious.)





Finally, a socialist must be in this for "the long haul" and accept that the total socialist revolution will not be completed in his or her lifetime. Socialism is human civilization after the chains of exploitation and hierarchy are abolished. That is an effort that will be on-going.


Now it's the go-slow argument -- *another* kind of fatalism and defeatism. Why *shouldn't* there be revolution in our lifetimes? We *know* from history that revolutionary periods can happen *very quickly*, interrupting long stretches of historical quiescence. The overthrow of domination by finance capital could wipe out the balance sheets and record-keeping of exploitation and hierarchy, literally overnight. *That* in itself would be *more than enough* to springboard the *direct control* of factories by the world's working class on a much more level, equitable basis.

[Hyacinth]

There is a huge difference between saying that socialism must be constructed, and socialism is somehow impossible. It will take a lot more than computer data systems and data gathering to construct a socialist commons. Modern technology does not provide the moral basis for socialism -- and most modern technology has been designed to accommodate top-down hierarchy. Your discussion brought to mind a quote from Che: "I am not interested in dry economic socialism." His point was that socialism should be concerned with removing profit as the motivation for economic activity, and that ending alienation was as important as redistributing goods and services.
To say that socialism must be constructed is in a sense trivial, no one denies this, what is being denied is that state capitalism and markets have anything to do with the construction of socialism. Again, in another trivial sense, of course it will take more than sufficient data gathering and processing capacity to construct socialism, such data processing and gathering capacity must be put to proper use under democratic control. I really don't see what more there is to socialism than this: the democratization and rationalization (i.e., planning) of economic decision making. And that modern technology has been employed in a hierarchical way does not mean that it cannot be retooled for our purposes. Technology is a tool, it is in how it is used that determines whether it is oppressive or liberatory.

The moral basis for socialism? Once again, this also sounds idealist to me; morality is a part of the superstructure which supervenes upon the material base. The creation of a socialist superstructure will come about by the change of the mode of production, not vice versa. And, with all due respect to Che, "dry economic socialism" is essential, for it is upon it that any liberatory political project rests.

Lastly, the only way to abolish the profit motive is by abolishing the economic system which gives rise to it, i.e., capitalism. One does not first go about changing people and only then attempting to build socialism, rather, it is the construction of socialism itself that will bring about a change in people.


Second, as far as workers "being ready" -- I have no doubt that most workers in the world are ready for revolution. But revolution and socialism are not the same thing. Revolution clears the way for socialism by taking political power, but socialism will still have to be built -- that building of socialism is a revolution all to itself. My points are valid after the capitalists are vanquished -- just because workers take power doesn not mean socialism has occurred. Unless the institutions and underpinnings fall out of the sky in an apocalypse, they will have to be built, and perfected. To ignore this requirement is to assume that socialism is something quasi-religious.
Yet again, no one seriously thinks this. Of course socialism must be built, but what do state capitalism and markets have to do with the building of socialism?


Finally, a socialist must be in this for "the long haul" and accept that the total socialist revolution will not be completed in his or her lifetime. Socialism is human civilization after the chains of exploitation and hierarchy are abolished. That is an effort that will be on-going.
As stated before, I take socialism to consist in democratic control of the means of production couples with economic planning, the consequence of which will be the abolition of the material conditions which give rise to hierarchy and exploitation, and hence, the abolition of hierarchy and exploitation. I think this perfectly achievable within my lifetime (which isn't to say that I think it will be achieved, only that we have the means to bring it about).

[Hyacinth]

An addendum: I really am bewildered by all this talk of morality which makes it seem as though we somehow must morally perfect people before they are ready for socialism. That we must expunge them of their vices, dare I say, that they must repent of their sins before they can be allowed into paradise. What nonsense. Socialism has nothing to do with this. If it is brought about it won't be because people all of a sudden become selfless and saints, but quite simply because it is in their material interest to do so. Marx quite correctly stayed away from any moralizing in his theoretical works, since he recognized morality as merely a human construct that is a consequence of, and reflection of, the material base of society. We can espouse any and all high-sounding slogans that we want, but morality falls on deaf ears if the listener does not already share one's moral sentiments. The task of those who seek revolution is not to convince the ruling class or even the working class of the justness, and goodness, and fluffyness or whatever of socialism, but rather to convince the working classes that it is in their material interests to overthrow capitalism and bring it about.

[puspendas]

Surely political revolution that is, to overthrow capitalism is the first step towards end of wage slavery as well as moneytory system. Money is the expression that there is privet property. Abolishing privet ownership from means of production the said basis is heavily dislocated. But still it could to continue due to unability to abolishing all privet property first, and requirement to act as basis of distribution as insufficiency to provide all needs of everybody. Certainly developement of production will look after it. But the serious question is is how we should proceed towards it. Should we expliin to the people the prospect of social order if not fettered by capital or engage ourself to chalk out different projects for it. We need not creat any movent , but simply stick to expose the negetive impact of capitl vis a vis prospect of a society without capital. The abolition is the task of working men provided they really recognise its' absolute nessecity. Capitalists do not retain power through force only. It enjoyes ideological superiority. Here is our task to expose it's actios as fetter. So far such theoritical presentation is lacking. We are busy in either the jobs which the working people and only they can perform, or making suitable projects for them. But those who run the whole society by their labour,can and will be able to create or abolish anything they realise to be useful for them. To help them realise the sate of affairs of the present society, the emptyness of the most advanced features of capitalism is the question we should concentrate.:wub:

[Lynx]

Sorry, but I'm not about to discard the Critique of the Gotha Programme as being defeatist or soft.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry, but I'm not about to discard the Critique of the Gotha Programme as being defeatist or soft.


Hey, obviously no one here can tell you what to do, but I don't think we should be so beholden to *any* works from history lest our practice of politics be termed 'quasi-religious'. *That* is the *real* danger facing anyone who routinely embraces a doctrine out of habit -- it risks becoming a *dogma* if the *ideas* within are not exposed to the trials of challenge and real-world practice.

[Lynx]

Hey, obviously no one here can tell you what to do, but I don't think we should be so beholden to *any* works from history lest our practice of politics be termed 'quasi-religious'. *That* is the *real* danger facing anyone who routinely embraces a doctrine out of habit -- it risks becoming a *dogma* if the *ideas* within are not exposed to the trials of challenge and real-world practice.
Real-world practice indicates a long struggle, followed by economic stagnation. The various economic models discussed in this forum have yet to be put into practice. Of the remaining non-capitalist economies, none can be described as Planned, Pareconist or Mutualist. What reforms they have implemented are widely regarded as an inferior alternative to capitalism.
The state of socialism in the world today is an indication of where we are in our journey towards communism. To paraphrase from the Wizard of Oz, "We ain't nowhere near Kansas."

IMO erring on the side of caution is pragmatic. I don't see why this would be viewed as dogmatic, defeatist, soft, etc.

[ckaihatsu]

Real-world practice indicates a long struggle, followed by economic stagnation. The various economic models discussed in this forum have yet to be put into practice. Of the remaining non-capitalist economies, none can be described as Planned, Pareconist or Mutualist. What reforms they have implemented are widely regarded as an inferior alternative to capitalism.
The state of socialism in the world today is an indication of where we are in our journey towards communism. To paraphrase from the Wizard of Oz, "We ain't nowhere near Kansas."

IMO erring on the side of caution is pragmatic. I don't see why this would be viewed as dogmatic, defeatist, soft, etc.


My *concern* is that we, as revolutionaries, *expect* *all* struggle to be long and drawn out, when in fact it could very well be akin to natural evolution's 'punctuated equilibrium', wherein long periods of stagnation are interrupted with sudden and dramatic changes.

Certainly I don't mean to ignore the everyday grind and uncertainties that come with *daily* struggle, nor do I mean to be rash and make any premature statements, but I don't think we should be the least bit *fatalistic* or glib in making predictions about when revolutionary revolt will come about, and how quickly.

Forgive my skepticism, but "pragmatic" smacks a bit of 'realpolitik', or, in other words, in-front-of-your-face political opportunism, or reformism. Revolutionary struggle *shouldn't* have to take a back seat to the status quo, not even in terms of *how revolution is framed*. We *need* to begin with the formulation that workers can run the machinery of society, and society, for themselves, and extrapolate from *that* basis.

[Lynx]

Pragmatism directed towards the future is one of contingency. We try to anticipate possible problems and address them, hopefully with possible solutions. A lack of contingent planning results in 'flying by the seat of your pants' or crisis management scenarios.

The ultimate goal (higher level of communism) remains the same.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Marx quite correctly stayed away from any moralizing in his theoretical works, since he recognized morality as merely a human construct that is a consequence of, and reflection of, the material base of society. We can espouse any and all high-sounding slogans that we want, but morality falls on deaf ears if the listener does not already share one's moral sentiments. The task of those who seek revolution is not to convince the ruling class or even the working class of the justness, and goodness, and fluffyness or whatever of socialism, but rather to convince the working class that it is in their material interests to overthrow capitalism and bring it about.

I think Marx went overboard in criticizing utilitarianism ("greatest good for the greatest number"), though. But yeah, your last sentence is spot on, in contrast to rights-based approaches (utilitarianism vs. "right").

[Hyacinth]

Real-world practice indicates a long struggle, followed by economic stagnation. The various economic models discussed in this forum have yet to be put into practice. Of the remaining non-capitalist economies, none can be described as Planned, Pareconist or Mutualist. What reforms they have implemented are widely regarded as an inferior alternative to capitalism. The state of socialism in the world today is an indication of where we are in our journey towards communism. To paraphrase from the Wizard of Oz, "We ain't nowhere near Kansas."

IMO erring on the side of caution is pragmatic. I don't see why this would be viewed as dogmatic, defeatist, soft, etc.
Learning from history is certainly good, lest we, as is often said, be condemned to repeat it. But we mustn't falsely project the conditions of the past onto the present and the future. While state capitalism, in some form or other, was the only viable alternative in, say, 1917 in Russia, it is not the case that we are today operating with the same constraints. That the proposed economic models have not been tried is, in some respects, a virtue, since they finally offer us a way out of the models that we have tried, and that have been show historically, time and again, to fail. If there is any lesson for the socialist movement to learn from history it is that state capitalism is not the way to build socialism.

Moreover, it is false that some of the proposed models have not been put into practise. The tools necessary to bring about socialist planning are already employed within capitalism, but, of course, for different ends. E.g., Walmart was innovative in introducing barcodes for products, which are used not only to keep track of prices and make it easier to cashiers (something which really wouldn't justify their introduction), but more importantly, to monitor both consumption and stock. Thus, for instance, when a product is purcahsed off the shelf in Walmart this is recorded and the information is transmitted to the storehouse instructing them to restock the product (usually, it isn't quite this simple, they have mechanisms which monitor stock and order restocking only if the existing stock drops below a certain level). As well, they have rather sophisticated models of consumer behavior which allow them to anticipate and predict consumer demand. All of this is put to use to maximize profit, but the very same mechanisms can be put to use for our ends.

Quite apart from being "nowhere near Kansas", we are, if anything, closer to socialism and communism today than ever before, one might even say only three clicks of our ruby slippers away. This is not to deny or diminish the considerable task still before us, but real socialism is within our grasp.

[Lynx]

Well, I wish there were signs of Kansas in Venezuela, Laos, Cuba, and elsewhere.

[cyu]

Capitalists do not retain power through force only. It enjoyes ideological superiority.


Why do I smell a troll? What is this "superiority" you speak of? If you mean capitalism has more people who believe its propaganda in a capitalist society, then yes, that would be true. But if you are saying capitalist ideas are better than all other ideas, then why are you even here?

Capitalists spread their propaganda in capitalist societies in the same way that authoritarians spread their propaganda in authoritarian societies. They use force to maintain their control of the mass media and other lines of communication. In capitalism, this force is just given a different name: "corporate property rights" - the propertied class own and control all the mass media and force is used against anyone that tries to use "their" means of communication for "unapproved" ideas.

[h9socialist]

OK, comrades, I am working on a larger article which I will try to post as a blog. But let me state the two most important points I was trying to make:

1. Capitalism is far different from what it was at thew time of Marx, and the time of Lenin, and from the 1960s. We principles and philosophy from the past, but neither "The Communist Manifesto" nor "What Is To Be Done" is particular timely, and the working class has changed enormously, and the strategies for both revolution and evolution need to accommodate those changes.

2. While I am in complete agreement with wresting power from the capitalists, I do not for a minute believe that that's sufficient. It may be utopian, but Comrade Che Guevara was absolutely right when he talked about "the new socialist man. Eventually socialsim has to head in that direction. You can overthrow and hang all the capitalists from lamp-posts and be no closer to socialism in its full sense. In the United States we are not going from a working class full of NASCAR dads and NBA enthusiasts to the Left wing apocalypse, just because Wall Street collapses to a Leftist-Putsch. Institutions have to develop, and social morality has to change. That doesn't take place because of a moment of revolutionary orgasm. That's why Che said on 1/1/1959: "All we've done is win the war. The revolution starts today!"

Now if that makes me a "soft revolutionary," "condescending," or given to "real-politik," then I suppose I have to plead guilty. But I'd rather not fool myself about the magnitude of the historic challenge.

[Hyacinth]

1. Capitalism is far different from what it was at thew time of Marx, and the time of Lenin, and from the 1960s. We principles and philosophy from the past, but neither "The Communist Manifesto" nor "What Is To Be Done" is particular timely, and the working class has changed enormously, and the strategies for both revolution and evolution need to accommodate those changes.
Yes and no. In a trivial sense it is different, but not so much as to make the insights of Marxism invalid for existing capitalism, the dynamics of the system remains the same despite certain differences. That being said, I wholeheartedly agree that as far as a programme is concerned both the Communist Manifesto or What is to be Done or whatever other programmatic work you want to cite are largely inapplicable today, or, minimally, not as relevant, and certainly not to be treated as doctrine. We need to develop a programme that takes into consideration the material conditions of the present, and not be beholden to the past.


2. While I am in complete agreement with wresting power from the capitalists, I do not for a minute believe that that's sufficient. It may be utopian, but Comrade Che Guevara was absolutely right when he talked about "the new socialist man. Eventually socialsim has to head in that direction. You can overthrow and hang all the capitalists from lamp-posts and be no closer to socialism in its full sense. In the United States we are not going from a working class full of NASCAR dads and NBA enthusiasts to the Left wing apocalypse, just because Wall Street collapses to a Leftist-Putsch. Institutions have to develop, and social morality has to change. That doesn't take place because of a moment of revolutionary orgasm. That's why Che said on 1/1/1959: "All we've done is win the war. The revolution starts today!"
Obviously the abolition of capitalism is not sufficient for the establishment of socialism. The dispute in this thread, as I understand it, is over how to go about building socialism once capitalism has been abolished, once the revolution has been effected. On the one side we have those who would maintain the market and other semblances of the capitalist system in some form of state capitalism or other, and on the other we have those who seek to immediately move away from markets altogether and establish a planned economy.

As well, related to this, I see a dispute between those who (as I perceive it) advocate a idealist position in maintaining that in order for socialism to be brought about we must achieve a change in consciousness first (e.g., by building the new socialist man (sic), or effecting a socialist morality, whatever that means), and those who instead maintain that a change in consciousness is to be brought about only by a change in the material condition first. Socialism will not be a consequence of a new socialist consciousness, but rather socialist consciousness will be brought about by bringing about socialism. Since, after all, "[i]t is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."

[ckaihatsu]

[N]either "The Communist Manifesto" nor "What Is To Be Done" is particular timely


They *are* timely, and the principles within remain relevant today.





In the United States we are not going from a working class full of NASCAR dads and NBA enthusiasts to the Left wing apocalypse, just because Wall Street collapses to a Leftist-Putsch.


In this *one* sentence you're [1] demeaning the working class' intelligence by stereotyping a section of it with demographics, based on their entertainment preferences, [2] introducing a *very* questionable term, the "Left wing apocalypse", whatever the hell *that's* supposed to mean, and [3] characterizing the arrival of the Obama administration as a "leftist putsch" when it is *nothing* of the sort, nor has Wall Street collapsed -- far from it, in fact, since Obama has kowtowed to it with multi-trillion-dollar guarantees of public funds.





Now if that makes me a "soft revolutionary," "condescending," or given to "real-politik," then I suppose I have to plead guilty. But I'd rather not fool myself about the magnitude of the historic challenge.


There are well-educated, scholarly-sounding bourgeois academics to justify the rule of the capitalist elite -- we *don't* need to help them with anything that sounds even slightly hesitant or gee-whiz.

If you're pleading guilty to being a soft revolutionary given to realpolitik does this mean that you'll change your attitude and begin to focus more on the political tasks that must be accomplished in the political struggle? Please note:





The AFP news agency cited a foreign diplomat in Tegucigalpa who reported that Micheletti ordered the violent dispersal of the highway blockades after business leaders complained that they were causing millions of dollars in losses by blocking the movement of manufactured goods to Honduran ports. Some factories have seen a drop in production of 25 percent or more.

http://wsws.org/articles/2009/aug2009/hond-a01.shtml

[Die Neue Zeit]

As well, related to this, I see a dispute between those who (as I perceive it) advocate a idealist position in maintaining that in order for socialism to be brought about we must achieve a change in consciousness first (e.g., by building the new socialist man (sic), or effecting a socialist morality, whatever that means), and those who instead maintain that a change in consciousness is to be brought about only by a change in the material condition first. Socialism will not be a consequence of a new socialist consciousness, but rather socialist consciousness will be brought about by bringing about socialism. Since, after all, "[i]t is not the consciousness of men that determines their being, but, on the contrary, their social being that determines their consciousness."

So what about all that programmatic stuff about organizing class movements, then? :confused: I think that both revolutionary consciousness and socialist consciousness are brought about as the material conditions for workers' power emerge (i.e., I think you stated the wrong set of "material conditions").

[Hyacinth]

So what about all that programmatic stuff about organizing class movements, then? :confused: I think that both revolutionary consciousness and socialist consciousness are brought about as the material conditions for workers' power emerge (i.e., I think you stated the wrong set of "material conditions").
Agitation, education, and organization are, of course, not irrelevant to bringing about both revolution and socialism, but I would argue that their efficacy is dependant upon certain material conditions obtaining. As well, I'm perfectly happy with the view that revolutionary consciousness and socialist consciousness, as you put it, might develop simultaneously, or, at least, that the material conditions for their development are related. That being said, what I was taking issue with wasn't the need for subjective factors (as they have been referred to as) for successful revolution and for a successful development of socialism, but rather with the view, as I perceived it, that somehow maintains that we must make people virtuous or moral or some such in order to bring about socialism.

[h9socialist]

If you abolish the monetary system there sure as hell needs to be some sort of morality or consciousness take hold. If you transition to a "commons" from the market, without destroying profit maximization and selfishness as motivations, the commons will be destroyed and you're back to square one. Does it take some incredible insight or intuition to figure that out?

[robbo203]

If you abolish the monetary system there sure as hell needs to be some sort of morality or consciousness take hold. If you transition to a "commons" from the market, without destroying profit maximization and selfishness as motivations, the commons will be destroyed and you're back to square one. Does it take some incredible insight or intuition to figure that out?

Thats a good point. And it is precisely for this reason that a socialist revolution worthy of the name has to involve mass socialist consciousness and understanding. It cannot be imposed from above by some vanguard. It has to grow out of the desires and wishes of the working class majority which counterposes its values and its morality to that of capitalism

[h9socialist]

I agree. And it is a historical process. But I don't think humanity as a whole is there yet. If socialists do wrest power from capitalism, the task will be to advance the historical process. It need not be a top-down flow, but eventually society will have to come to some sort of reconcilliation on these matters, at least in general terms.

[KC]

I agree. And it is a historical process. But I don't think humanity as a whole is there yet.

What does this mean?

[robbo203]

What does this mean?

It means that the mass consciousness necessary to effect a fundamental change is not yet in place. Not by a long way I may add

[KC]

It means that the mass consciousness necessary to effect a fundamental change is not yet in place. Not by a long way I may add

What do you think the role of revolutionaries today is, then, if "humanity as a whole" isn't at a point in this "historical process" whereby "the mass consciousness necessary to effect a fundamental change" is "in place," and won't be "by a long way"?

[cyu]

It means that the mass consciousness necessary to effect a fundamental change is not yet in place. Not by a long way I may add
The point is to do things to put that in place instead of saying, "Oh we're not ready yet... oh, we're still not ready yet... oh, I've waited 10 years and we're still not ready yet... oh, while I never got to see a revolution in my lifetime, I do hope that one day my grandchildre *hack* *cough* *THHPTT!* ... "

There were good signs of this in Oaxaca, Greece, and even the BBC when people occupied the mass media and put things on the air that would normally never be allowed on the air. Those were only temporary occupations however. So how does temporary control become permanent control? Two primary methods, really: 1) weapons 2) community outreach.

Capitalists currently maintain control in the same way. The have #1 (police) and #2 (the media). By occupying and using the mass media, then you already have #2 - just don't forget to bring #1.

After control has been taken away from capitalists though, your own control won't be legitimate unless it also allows their views to be aired. The main difference is that the old media allowed only the capitalist view to be aired, while the new allows in everyone else's voices as well - and the community will notice the difference.

If your community is made up of 0.5% CEOs and 99.5% non-CEOs, then it would make sense for 0.5% of the air time to be devoted to what the CEOs want and 99.5% devoted to what everyone else wants.

[h9socialist]

No one is suggesting putting off the struggle, nor delaying any movement towards socialism. The point is that getting to the beatific state of socialism will require on-going revolution of human consciousness for an extended period after political power is won. And as relates to the monetary system, society will have to evolve a workable commons (ie. With free access to all and people taking according to need). Thaat hasn't developed in any industrial society, even so-called "communist" nations never got past having a monetary system. Che hated the whole concept of money, but he was still President of the National Bank of Cuba after the revolution. Just ending the institution of money does not mean that the institution of functional sharing of the world's resources has developed to a level that society can use it as a foundation. It won't happen automatically.

[KC]

The point is that getting to the beatific state of socialism will require on-going revolution of human consciousness for an extended period after political power is won.How is political power won if the "mass consciousness necessary to effect a fundamental change is not yet in place"?

[h9socialist]

Good point. The answer is that people can identify their problems and their tormentors a lot more easily than designing and developing institutions that will correct the injustices of hierarchical society. And as you can see, just from this thread, there is a considerable range of ideas on how to proceed even among radicals and socialists. Socialism attempts to put an end to exploitative and hierarchical relations and it's one thing to put together the downfall of an exploitative system, and another thing to guarantee that society won't revert to the old exploitative system or try to develop a new one.

In the area of economics it's even more complicated in our century: as population grows and resources are exhausted the old struggle for survival gets tougher. Marx himself thought socialism was impossible without the ability of society to produce enough. At present we produce enough but don't share it correctly. By the middle of this century there may not be enough, period. To have socialism, society must balance production and consumption, and keep consumption at a "sustainable" level. That's where the Greens have a political advantage in this century. So once power is won, a socialist society will be faced with creating sustainable socialism, and developing a social morality that allows people to frely share the world while maintaining limits on aggregate consumption. Here again, that doesn't come automatically.

[KC]

Good point. The answer is that people can identify their problems and their tormentors a lot more easily than designing and developing institutions that will correct the injustices of hierarchical society. And as you can see, just from this thread, there is a considerable range of ideas on how to proceed even among radicals and socialists. Socialism attempt to put an end to exploitative ands hierarchical relations and it's one thing to put together the downfall of an exploitative system, and another thing to guarantee that society won't revert to the old exploitative system or try to develop a new one.

In the area of economics it's even more complicated in our century: as population grows and resources are exhausted the old struggle for survival gets tougher. Marx himself thought socialism was impossible. Without the ability of society to produce enough. At present we produce enough but don't share it correctly. By the middle of this century there may not be enough, period. To have socialism, society must balance production and consumption, and keep consumption at a "sustainable" level. That's where the Greens have a political advantage in this century. So once power is won, a socialist society will be faced with creating sustainable socialism, and developing a social morality that allows people to frely share the world while maintaining limits on aggregate consumption. Here again, that doesn't come automatically.

But you have not answered my question. You have merely expanded on what the problem is. What I want to know is what you mean when you say "political power is won". How is it won?

[Hyacinth]

If you abolish the monetary system there sure as hell needs to be some sort of morality or consciousness take hold. If you transition to a "commons" from the market, without destroying profit maximization and selfishness as motivations, the commons will be destroyed and you're back to square one. Does it take some incredible insight or intuition to figure that out?
None of that follows. The necessity of some sort of system of regulation for the distribution and allocation of scarce goods can be effected without recourse to changing consciousness as you conceive of it. For instance, if labour credits were introduces as a basis for distribution and accounting, it wouldn't be a complete free-for-all that would allow for the alleged tragedy of the commons. Simply put, if you change the system what is rational also changes; while behaviours such as hoarding and greed are indeed perfectly rational under capitalism, which doesn't provide economic security, they would cease to be so under a non-market system, so the presumption that these behaviours would persist under a new system, even if irrational under it, is unwarranted. If anything, it is precisely people's self-interest that will cause them to change their behaviours.

Moreover, for the sectors of the economy in which abundance can be affected there is no problem with whatever levels of consumption people desire, there can be no tragedy of the commons as there would be no scarcity.

[Hyacinth]

To all of those who insist upon the necessity of developing a certain level of consciousness before socialism can be attained, how, pray tell, do you propose that this be done, unless it is brought about by a change in the material base? For socialist consciousness to emerge, that is, in order words, for the superstructure to change (as morality is part of the superstructure) there must be a change in the base. It is once socialist institutions and power structures have been established, once a socialist economy system has been effected, that people will change their behaviour to accord with it, as what would be rational under such a system is not what is presently rational. There would be no reason for the old superstructure to persist. The primary struggle for the construction of socialism is a material one, the rest will follow as a consequence.

[Hyacinth]

In the area of economics it's even more complicated in our century: as population grows and resources are exhausted the old struggle for survival gets tougher. Marx himself thought socialism was impossible without the ability of society to produce enough. At present we produce enough but don't share it correctly. By the middle of this century there may not be enough, period. To have socialism, society must balance production and consumption, and keep consumption at a "sustainable" level. That's where the Greens have a political advantage in this century. So once power is won, a socialist society will be faced with creating sustainable socialism, and developing a social morality that allows people to frely share the world while maintaining limits on aggregate consumption. Here again, that doesn't come automatically.
Marx was quite correct to claim that socialism, or, in more contemporary terminology, communism (if we take communism to consist in a system of distribution that accords with the "from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs" system of distribution) without abundance. You are correct to point out that at present the issue isn't producing sufficient quantities of most goods to meet demand, but rather the failure of the capitalist system to distribute it in such a way as to maximize the satisfaction of wants and needs.

But the notion that there won't in the future be enough is incorrect, on the contrary, quite the opposite, a socialist economy is capable of ourpreforming capitalism, where outpreforming is to be understood not only in terms of satisfying more wants, but, and related to this, also outproducing capitalism. The world is not in want of resources, the scarcity that exists is, in large part, a consequence of the irrationality (from the perspective of maximizing desire satisfaction) of capitalism. Consumption doesn't have to be curtailed, nor should it be curtailed. We might change how we consume things, and what things we consumed, as, for example, developing massive public transit systems to meed our transportation demands in contrast to private vehicles, or some such, but none of the changes that would be made under socialism would require a curtailment of consumption.

You seem to concieve the building of socialism to consist, in part, with training people to abide by certain socially imposed constraints, in effect, to want less. I dare say that sounds like a reactionary view. It isn't for socialists to tell people what they should want, much less how much they should want. On the contrary, the task of the socialist economy is to maximally satisfy people's desires, whatever they be, consistent with equal enjoyment for all. This is to be effected not by curtailing consumption, but by increasing and improving production.

[ckaihatsu]

Capitalists currently maintain control in the same way. The have #1 (police) and #2 (the media). By occupying and using the mass media, then you already have #2 - just don't forget to bring #1.


These are important symbolic victories, but in the longer term it must have the broad support of the workers, through general strikes and a public sentiment that lays blame squarely on the shoulders of the capitalists. And, then, of course, there must be a continuous push through to the occupation and co-management of major industrial (and financial) assets by rank-and-file workers, with no vacillations, so as to displace capitalist control permanently.





After control has been taken away from capitalists though, your own control won't be legitimate unless it also allows their views to be aired. The main difference is that the old media allowed only the capitalist view to be aired, while the new allows in everyone else's voices as well - and the community will notice the difference.


This is a topical subject right now, since Hugo Chavez is currently being villified in the bourgeois press for his regulation of the opposition media. I've even seen some labor militants jump on this bandwagon, which is an inappropriate line to have. (In the past Chavez *has not* supported worker takeovers of factories as pro-actively as he could have, so *that*'s a legitimate critique against his helmsmanship, but *not* in regards to how he deals with the bourgeois opposition media.)

[robbo203]

What do you think the role of revolutionaries today is, then, if "humanity as a whole" isn't at a point in this "historical process" whereby "the mass consciousness necessary to effect a fundamental change" is "in place," and won't be "by a long way"?

The role of revolutionaries is to aid the development of this mass socialist consciousness and emphatically not to capture political power ahead of it in the shape of some vanguard - even if this were possible - which would inevitably come to serve as a substitute ruling class diametrically opposed to the interests of those its claims to speak for - the working class.

Socialist ideas sping from the material conditions of capitalism but their dissemination can be facilitated by revolutionaries through propaganda work and, to quote William Morris, "making socialists". In fact this process of conscious intervention. of putting the socialist case is absolutely vital. People dont mechanically become socialists as a mere reflection of their material circumstances. Those same circumstances can equally lead one to become a fascist or aspire to become a capitalist.

When Marx said philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways and the point is to change it, he was not at all suggesting the role of ideas is unimportant. The task of socialist revolutionaries is to provide a socialist interpretation of reality with a view to changing it but we cannot possibly change it in a significant without the mass of of our fellow workers thinking along the same lines

[Hyacinth]

I ought, for the record, state that I am in no way advocating a crude economic determinism here. I'm quite sympathetic to the position outlined by robbo203 in the above post on the role of revolutionaries. That being said, I fail to see what educating, agitating, and organizing the working class has to do with morality or virtue or anything of that sort. It isn't our task to construct a new socialist man, nor will the working class overthrow capitalism because of its virtue, but instead because it is in their interest to do so. Our task is to assist them in doing this, and getting them to realize that it is indeed in their interest to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism, to overthrow the conditions of their oppression so as to permit for the general emancipation of humanity.

[h9socialist]

Comrade Hyacinth --

1. If you go to a system of "labor credits" how do you propose preventing the exchange of those credits from developing into a monetary system? What's to prevent the accumulation of labor credits from becoming a new form of capital?

2. What do you propose for those who are unable to work?

3. Your tag line says you live in Canada -- how much interaction do you have with labor in the U.S.? If you don't think that a lot of consciousness changes needs to occur, I suggest you you visit North Carolina or Texas and tell us just how socialist the working class in the U.S. is.

[cyu]

These are important symbolic victories, but in the longer term it must have the broad support of the workers, through general strikes and a public sentiment that lays blame squarely on the shoulders of the capitalists. And, then, of course, there must be a continuous push through to the occupation and co-management of major industrial (and financial) assets by rank-and-file workers, with no vacillations, so as to displace capitalist control permanently.

Agreed (except I would replace "co-management" with "self-management"). I was actually thinking of media occupation as one of the tactics to use in defense of workplace takeovers by employees. For example:

1. Employees assume democratic control of their company.

2. Employees and their supporters defend the democratic company from those who try to harm them.

3. Employees and their supporters take over local media outlets in order to gather support for employee democracy from the local community.

4. More employees assume control of their companies.

5. Goto step 2. Domino effect =]

[Hyacinth]

1. If you go to a system of "labor credits" how do you propose preventing the exchange of those credits from developing into a monetary system? What's to prevent the accumulation of labor credits from becoming a new form of capital?
It's not hard, it can already be, and is, done today under markets. You have non-transferable credits assigned directly to a person's identity, non-transferable here being that they can only be redeemed for goods or services at accredited institutions, and hence wouldn't circulate. As for prevention of accumulation, you can have credits that expire. For instance, a certain portion of credits can be allocated toward food and other perishable good consumption, and can be set to expire in whatever period of time is deemed appropriate. Not to mention, labour credits would presumably only be redeemable for finished goods and services, and not for the means of production. A system of credits such as this couldn't serve the same purpose as money does under markets.


2. What do you propose for those who are unable to work?
Those who are unable to work will simply be given consumption rights; we have ample labour and resources to produce sufficient abundance as to accommodate both a decrease in labour time among the working population, as well as an equivalent standard of living for those unable to work, or those we deem not required to work (youth, seniors, disabled, etc.).


3. Your tag line says you live in Canada -- how much interaction do you have with labor in the U.S.? If you don't think that a lot of consciousness changes needs to occur, I suggest you you visit North Carolina or Texas and tell us just how socialist the working class in the U.S. is.
Apart from being somewhat more receptive toward social democracy, and even then not when couched in those terms, I don't particularly find the Canadian working class to be more amenable to socialism or communism than the American. At least not when couches in those terms. By this I mean that I have found people to be quite receptive to socialist ideas as long as one does not call them "socailist" or "communist" or "Marxist" or whatever. This is likely a product of the long, and seemingly effective, propaganda on the part of the bourgeois state to discredit these ideas. I would cite the relative popularity of the Zeitgeist movement as a sign of exactly this, that there is dissatisfaction with the current system among the masses, and that they are receptive to socialistic proposals when they dissasociate those proposals from the propaganda that they've been fed about socialism. Of course, countering the effects of capitalist propaganda is quite difficult given their control of the mass media, but it is far from impossible.

[ckaihatsu]

Yeah, absolutely, cyu, and Hyacinth.

[h9socialist]

Comrade Hyacinth --

I must admit to being intrigued by your ideas on labor credits. I have only two concerns:

1) If the credits are not transferable "fund" production? People would still be exchanging labor for a medium of exchange. It seems that you're leaving production to an accounting system at another level.

2) If workers work for labor credits, won't this likely be viewed as another, more esoteric, form of wage labor?

On the whole I think this is a very useful idea -- but it needs historical practice to transcend capitalism.

[ckaihatsu]

1) If the credits are not transferable "fund" production? People would still be exchanging labor for a medium of exchange. It seems that you're leaving production to an accounting system at another level.


I'd like to jump in here to ask you (and anyone reading this) to consider that the *essence* of politics is issues -- it could be issues about usage, or labor, or -- currently -- money, but it *always* boils down to *issues*.

So, if we can get to a process that frees us from all of the showmanship and power politics of the current system, then we can have more labor-based participation in the politics of *labor* and asset / resource utilization, since that's what's at the heart of it all.

We can keep track of labor input primarily as an *issue*, instead of as an abstract, numerical money-based quantity. I'd say the only two types of numbers / quantities we'd have to track concerning labor value would be labor hours and labor difficulty. I outlined this priority-issue-oriented politics a few months ago:





The administration [...] would be directly and transparently staffed by the prioritized demands of the locality's population. This administration would only *reflect*, or *administer to*, the demands of the locality -- it could not *substitute* for the will of the population.

If there was a shortage of some goods or services -- based on outstanding demand -- then that would make work hours (labor credits) that much more available for anyone who wanted to accumulate labor hours / credits. If the work involved in producing those goods or services was particularly difficult, or required a high degree of education or training, or was particularly distasteful, then the *multiplier* attached to the labor hours for that kind of work would go up, as a section of the locality's population would become impatient enough to re-issue their demand -- this time at a higher multiplier, and at a new priority level.

This offering of more labor credits would be a debit to the locality's economy, because they would subsequently have to provide compensatory goods and services, as valued by labor credits, to fulfill those issued labor credits. Note that labor credits *would not circulate* -- they would simply be credits made to individuals who fulfilled the labor requirements to receive those credits from the locality.

Those goods and services that are produced through automation -- that is, highly leveraged labor power -- would most likely be so easily provided -- like drinking water, for example -- that they would fall *outside the system* of labor credits. Once goods and services became so plentiful as to be available in a *surplus* there would no longer be any demand for it -- again, demonstrating that they would fall outside of the formal, official system of labor credits by being commonly available on a daily, ongoing basis.





2) If workers work for labor credits, won't this likely be viewed as another, more esoteric, form of wage labor?


The opposite meaning of 'esoteric' is 'tangible' -- and the utilization of tangible resources can be tracked over time. A better output of finished products and services, per unit of time, for inputs used, is called 'greater efficiency'.





Efficiency can be determined by a balance sheet of what goods and services are being produced by a given project or production run, divided by what assets, resources, and labor are going into the project or production run. These data can be tracked over time, with adjustments made to either make the process *more* efficient (fewer resources used for the same output), or not, depending on the prioritized demands of the locality.

[Hyacinth]

1) If the credits are not transferable "fund" production? People would still be exchanging labor for a medium of exchange. It seems that you're leaving production to an accounting system at another level.
Labour credits would indeed be only one part of the accounting and planning process for production, since, after all, labour is only one input in production among many other diverse, and dissimilar, inputs. As such, what is needed is calculation in kind (for a more extensive discussion of this see: http://www.revleft.com/vb/new-economic-system-t110476/index.html).

That being said, the primary task of labour credits would be as a fair system of distribution and allocation of scarce products, insofar as each would be given the right to consume in accord with their input. Labour credits wouldn't be a medium of exchange, as such, but rather representations of contribution to the production process which can be redemed for something of equal value.

As a note, labour credits as such would be required only under scarcity, given that there would be no need to ration consumption of goods which are abundant. So, even in early stages of socialism they might only be required for products for which we cannot create abundance.


2) If workers work for labor credits, won't this likely be viewed as another, more esoteric, form of wage labor?
Labour, under such a socialist system, wouldn't be a commodity that is sold on the market in exchange for a wage. The labour credits aren't a wage that is paid to a worker in excahnge for his labour, out of which surpluss value and profit is extracted, but merely a reflection of his or her contribution to the production process that grants them the right to withdraw equivalent value.

I think we're getting bogged down in thinking of any abstract representation of value in terms of money. Currency of some sort allows us to get along in the world without recourse to barter. So rather than exchanging goods and services in kind for other goods and services we develop some sort of system which allows us to abstractly represent the value of a good or service, which allows us to make do without carrying around chickens in our pocket. In the case of a socialist economy, rather than giving workers ownership rights to whatever products they directly produce, as this would be quite useless and would result in a recourse to a barter economy, one instead would give them the right to command their labour, and withdraw from the common pool of production in accord with their contribution. This does not imply waged labour in the sense of selling of labour power, and the corresponding extraction of surpluss value. As well, there would be no exploitation under such a system, given that there is no extraction of surpluss value, except perhaps some sort of tax that is levied for social purposes and agreed to by the whole throughout a democratic process.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I ought, for the record, state that I am in no way advocating a crude economic determinism here. I'm quite sympathetic to the position outlined by robbo203 in the above post on the role of revolutionaries. That being said, I fail to see what educating, agitating, and organizing the working class has to do with morality or virtue or anything of that sort. It isn't our task to construct a new socialist man, nor will the working class overthrow capitalism because of its virtue, but instead because it is in their interest to do so. Our task is to assist them in doing this, and getting them to realize that it is indeed in their interest to overthrow capitalism and replace it with socialism, to overthrow the conditions of their oppression so as to permit for the general emancipation of humanity.

Your previous post (# 39 (http://www.revleft.com/vb/abolishing-monetary-system-t113897/index.html?p=1507928)) had Wilhelm Liebknecht's slogan in the wrong order ("agitate" before "educate"). ;)

[Seriously, for programmatic reasons the ordering is important (http://www.revleft.com/vb/why-trotskyists-hatedi-t113458/index.html?p=1497703). As for Robbo and the SPGB/WSM lot, they're stuck in "educate, educate, educate," I'm afraid. :( ]

[h9socialist]

I think we're getting bogged down in thinking of any abstract representation of value in terms of money. Currency of some sort allows us to get along in the world without recourse to barter. So rather than exchanging goods and services in kind for other goods and services we develop some sort of system which allows us to abstractly represent the value of a good or service, which allows us to make do without carrying around chickens in our pocket. In the case of a socialist economy, rather than giving workers ownership rights to whatever products they directly produce, as this would be quite useless and would result in a recourse to a barter economy, one instead would give them the right to command their labour, and withdraw from the common pool of production in accord with their contribution. This does not imply waged labour in the sense of selling of labour power, and the corresponding extraction of surpluss value. As well, there would be no exploitation under such a system, given that there is no extraction of surpluss value, except perhaps some sort of tax that is levied for social purposes and agreed to by the whole throughout a Idemocratic process.

Comrade Hyacinth, please realize that I am on your side in the struggle. And I think labor credits would make a good early stage of socialism. But I think that any system of labor credits alters the words of Proudhon that Marx quoted in "The Critique of the Gotha Programme" -- it seems to imply: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work." I'm not trying to create a polemic here, or antagonize an argument. My idea is simply that in the fully developed stage of socialism (or communism, depending on your preference) that the market and all exchange processes must be swept away completely and replaced by what I have called "the commons" or "the economic commons" -- which is free access for all to their needs. I know that implies a certain bit of utopian altruism. But in the long run I think that our goal is a society with relative abundance, and no need of accountancy -- except for monitoring the necessary volume of production of good and services and trying to match it to the aggregate need. To me, I think that that would be the only way to fulfill the inscription on society's banner that we're looking for.

[Hyacinth]

Comrade Hyacinth, please realize that I am on your side in the struggle. And I think labor credits would make a good early stage of socialism. But I think that any system of labor credits alters the words of Proudhon that Marx quoted in "The Critique of the Gotha Programme" -- it seems to imply: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his work." I'm not trying to create a polemic here, or antagonize an argument. My idea is simply that in the fully developed stage of socialism (or communism, depending on your preference) that the market and all exchange processes must be swept away completely and replaced by what I have called "the commons" or "the economic commons" -- which is free access for all to their needs. I know that implies a certain bit of utopian altruism. But in the long run I think that our goal is a society with relative abundance, and no need of accountancy -- except for monitoring the necessary volume of production of good and services and trying to match it to the aggregate need. To me, I think that that would be the only way to fulfill the inscription on society's banner that we're looking for.
On this I fully agree; labour credits—used as a system for distribution and allocation of scarce products—are only necessary, and desirable, insofar as scarcity exists. Once abundance has been effected we can do away with it. My only point was that the mere existence of labour credits does not make for markets. The abolition of the market and the abolition of scarcity are, while related, not the same.

[h9socialist]

Okay, I'm cool with that. My last caveat, here, though, is that I would emphasize the term "relative abundance." In my opinion we passed the point of "absolute abundance" a long time ago, and the capitalists have been devising ways to create "relative scarcity" to shore up market prices. To a certain extent, I think part of "relative abundance" will be reigning in the capitalist consumption pattern. As a race of beings we are consuming our planet far too rapidly. I think nature can still afford us relative abundance, but not "relative or absolute extravagance." In this way I see socialism as the only viable system for an economy that respects the ecology.

[Hyacinth]

Okay, I'm cool with that. My last caveat, here, though, is that I would emphasize the term "relative abundance." In my opinion we passed the point of "absolute abundance" a long time ago, and the capitalists have been devising ways to create "relative scarcity" to shore up market prices. To a certain extent, I think part of "relative abundance" will be reigning in the capitalist consumption pattern. As a race of beings we are consuming our planet far too rapidly. I think nature can still afford us relative abundance, but not "relative or absolute extravagance." In this way I see socialism as the only viable system for an economy that respects the ecology.
On this point we disagree, though it would be well off topic to get into it, but I will just say that the problem, as I see it, isn't on the consumption end of things. We can easily continue to consume what we in the West consume today, and then some. The issue is on the production end of things, and on how we consume; e.g., instead of personal vehicles for transportation, we can develop extensive public transit networks that can provide the same, if not better, service, and, as such, rather than cutting back consumption of transportation, we would simply be restructuring how we provide it. Or, if consumption of petroleum is a problem, either environmentally or economically, there are alternative means of generating energy. Etc.

[JJM 777]

Rationing of goods and services, be it done by monetary value or other mathematical calculations, is necessary as long as we are not willing and able to produce so great masses of everything possible what a person may need, that everyone will certainly find enough of everything no matter how much anyone takes.
Economically and ecologically utopistic with 7 billion people roaming on the planet.

Monetary value is a useful tool for evaluating the relative "value" of limited resources, and all resources what we ever have are always limited. So I don't see any reason, and certainly no absolute necessity, to "abolish the monetary system". I see it as a handy statistical tool which will be helpful in Socialism for rationing limited resources equally to people.

[ckaihatsu]

Rationing of goods and services, be it done by monetary value or other mathematical calculations, is necessary as long as we are not willing and able to produce so great masses of everything possible what a person may need, that everyone will certainly find enough of everything no matter how much anyone takes.


This is *ludicrous* -- the U.S. government has put up *trillions* of dollars in guarantees to back up the largest banking institutions -- where's the rationing there???

There are trade barriers going up over steel production because it's been so overproduced that domestic (U.S.) markets are feeling threatened. And we all know that the U.S. government pays its farmers to *not* grow food, in order to create artificial scarcity and prop up the prices.

So are you admitting here that (capitalist) rationing is no longer necessary, given this prodigious productive capacity?





Economically and ecologically utopistic with 7 billion people roaming on the planet.


7 billion is just a number -- what counts is if we have 7 x 3 billion *meals* per person, per day -- ditto for housing materials, urban transport, education, health care, etc.





Monetary value is a useful tool for evaluating the relative "value" of limited resources, and all resources what we ever have are always limited. So I don't see any reason, and certainly no absolute necessity, to "abolish the monetary system". I see it as a handy statistical tool which will be helpful in Socialism for rationing limited resources equally to people.


You're slandering socialism here, just as you've done on other threads -- you are purposely associating 'rationing' with "Socialism", to create a boogeyman Stalinistic misrepresentation of what socialism is -- especially considering today's age of runaway productivity.

We *don't* need to abolish the monetary system, or even the profit motive, as mechanisms, as much as we need to overthrow the capitalist elite that keeps tight control over society's vast accumulated wealth, and the means of mass production.

[cyu]

Rationing of goods and services, be it done by monetary value or other mathematical calculations, is necessary as long as we are not willing and able to produce so great masses of everything possible what a person may need, that everyone will certainly find enough of everything no matter how much anyone takes.

This is based on an assumption that is highly debatable: that it is "natural" for people to want more stuff. From the vast diversity of human behavior, it's easy to see that people can want all sorts of different things: some take vows of poverty and join convents, some intentionally cause themselves pain while trying to finish a marathon, and of course some become suicide bombers.

Excerpt from equal pay for unequal work (http://everything2.com/user/gate/writeups/equal+pay+for+unequal+work) -

In today's system, you convince people to work by offering them money. You convince them to want money by advertising goods they can buy. Without product advertising, would people still want those goods (or money) as much? What then is the purpose of it all? To create a "desire" that wouldn't have existed otherwise, so you can fill that desire – it seems to me to just be a system of creating unnecessary work. Now before you make the argument that advertising isn't all that effective in getting people to buy what they don't want, consider this: why spend so much effort on advertising? It supports all of network television – million dollar salaries for the cast of Friends. Companies wouldn't spend so much if it didn't work. If advertising is just informative, then why spend all that money on slick ads? Why not just a simple, boring blurb about your product? The answer, of course, is that "boring" doesn't sell.

So let's turn this around. Instead of trying to convince people to want things they don't want, instead convince them to want to do things that actually need doing. Seems like a much more direct method to me and a much better use of the skills of our great advertisers.

[Paul Cockshott]

All communists from time to time pronounce excellent, brilliant phrases like this:
communist_usa:
But none of them did any theoretical model how would go itself the process of transformation of capitalist mode of production into communist mode of production i.e. how to pass from currency, monetary system, commodities, wages, the selling&buying, etc. to non-market, moneyless, non-wages system aka to communist mode of production?

Good question. I tried to answer it last year in
http://21stcenturysocialism.blogspot.com/2007/09/venezuela-and-new-socialism.html
and also in the preface to the Czech edition of Towards a New Socialism

[Paul Cockshott]

Comrade Hyacinth --

1. If you go to a system of "labor credits" how do you propose preventing the exchange of those credits from developing into a monetary system? What's to prevent the accumulation of labor credits from becoming a new form of capital?
.

With electronic accounts it is simple to prevent credits being transferable between private individuals.

[JJM 777]

With electronic accounts it is simple to prevent credits being transferable between private individuals.
This is exactly how I -- and many others -- would prefer to organize a "monetary" system in Socialism.

Its weak point are the moments when we don't have electricity or data connections. And the data systems need to be carefully programmed and back-upped, and secured against any unauthorized editing, also against "unauthorized" editing by a corrupt office worker.

Problematic situations should be quite rare in densely populated areas of the planet, where people (nearly) always have a mobile phone and a wireless data connection. "Gift economy" will cover the grey moments when no data connections or control mechanisms are available.

It is very probable that some individuals would try to fool the system by using property as "transferable assets between individuals".