NO socialism without socialists!

[robbo203]

Ive increasingly become aware, lately, of a fairly widespread belief among some posters on Revleft that socialism is not something particularly dependent on the mass conscious understanding and desire for it among workers. The argument seems to be that socialism is about what is vaguely termed "working class empowerment" and class consciousness and is not really about understanding in broad terms what kind of society it is that you want to bring about to replace capitalism with. Socialism has been loosely called by these people a "process" rather than a goal.

The first thing to be said here is that working class consciousness and socialist consciousness are not two separate things. It is a totally false dichotomy to suppose that they are. Marx differentiates between a class-in-itself and a class-for-itself. The consciousness of a class-for-itself corresponds, in my view, to a socialist consciousness. To put it differently, socialist consciousness is the awareness of a class of its own subject or (wage) slave status, an awareness that necessarily entails what Keith Graham calls an "escape interest" (Karl Marx: Our Contemproary Social Theory for a post-Leninist world). By this he means you cannot be aware of your subject status without wanting also to escape it and therefore of the circumstances that would enable you to escape your subject status through your self abolition as a class. In other words class consciousness pushes you inevitably in the direction of wanting to transcend class society.

It is important to understand this point. It seems to me that there is a kind of unresolved tension between the need to develop class unity within capitalism and the revolutionary desire to escape our status as wage slaves. The workerist attitude which celebrates the working class for its own sake, which sees socialism as being nothing more than working class empowerment, is I believe a deeply reactionary belief which ironically keeps workers chained to capitalism. Instead of calling on workers to unite to abolish ourselves as a class, it remains simply at the level of calling on workers to unite for its own sake.

This never was the perspective of the socialist movement in the early days. Back in the 19th century you got revolutionaries like William Morris who constantly reiterated the importance of "making socialists". Fred Engels likewise argued that
The time of surprise attacks, of revolutions carried through by small conscious minorities at the head of unconscious masses, is past. Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul]. The history of the last fifty years has taught us that. But in order that the masses may understand what is to be done, long, persistent work is required, and it is just this work which we are now pursuing, and with a success which drives the enemy to despair (Introduction to Class struggles in France). Note the emphasis on understanding. The complete transformation of society can only be accomplished if workers know what this involves.


Socialism, prior to Lenin, always used to be understood as a synonym for communism. A moneyless wageless stateless society based on common ownership of the productive wealth of that society. How is it remotely possible for such a society to come about without people knowing in advance what it entails? By that I dont mean a detailed intimate knowlege but a general or broad understanding of the rules that would govern such a society. People who argue against this "impossibilist" perspective on the grounds that we cannot really know what a socialist society will be like until we live in it are taking up a rather absurd and extreme position which incidentally traps them in catch 22 situation - how are we ever going to get to live in a socialist society if we dont know what it is in advance of creating it? Indeed, how would we even know that what we created was socialism at all!!??

As Keith Graham cogently argues, the very nature of the future society is such that it must be sustained by people clearly aware of what they are doing, actively and voluntarily cooperating in social production. It is literally unthinkable that a population should organise its affairs according to such principles without be aware that this is what they are doing. People can be coerced or duped into doing what what they themselves do not comprehend or desire but they cannot be coerced or duped into doing what they voluntarily choose to do (op cit p134-5)

When people like me argue on this list that the Bolshevik Revolution was not a socialist revolution since it did not establish socialism in the above sense and nor was it ever likely to because, amongst other things, there simply was not the mass conscious understanding of socialism among the workers , let alone the broader population, I come in for a lot of flak from some quarters. Ive been accused, among other things, of being a "Menshevik" and "elitist" and so forth - all of which betrays a total misunderstanding of the basic point I am trying to make. It is quite possible to support the worker councils and the factory committees in Russia without succumbing to the naive illusion that they were necessarily driven by the desire to radically overthrow capitalism and install a genuine socialist society. Under the circumstances, what the Russian workers did was completely commendable even if in the end it was crushed by the rising state capitalist regime. Had I been a Russian worker at the time I would have been with them 100% in their efforts to set up worker councils and in opposing the capitalist measures imposed on them by te Bolsheviks.

However, it was not socialism, not by a long chalk - any more than cooperative ventures like Mondragon today exemplify "socialism" - and we should not kid ourselves into thinking otherwise. Though, of course, the idea of a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism did have some currency within the workers movement as it did in the West at the time , this was very limited. It is pretty clear that the great majority of Russian workers, like the counterparts in the West, did not actually have any real desire to establish, of even have an understanding of, that alternative. Indeed Lenin, of all people, made this very point several times.

I cannot understand the reluctance of some people on this list to accept this elementary fact. For daring to state it I have been accused of being elitist? But why? I have never said , as Lenin said, that workers by their own efforts are only capable of reaching a trade union consciousness. In my view every worker, unless they are mentally incapacitated, are fully capable of knowing all they need to know about socialism in order to bring it about - that is, a gneral understanding of the basic rules or expectations of such a society.

TO conclude, I think we need to move towrards a more realistic appraisal of the conditions under which socialism is likely to be created. Holding on to a kind of romanticised notion of worker militancy or the belief that socialism will somehow be magicked out of thin air and behind the backs of workers, is unhelpful and diversionary. Socialism requires the mass consciousness and desire to establish it among the working class. The role of socialists, as I see, it is to help propagate an awareness of the socialist alternative to capitalism.

This is not at all to denigrate or downplay the importantce of class struggle,or worker militancy - economism as Lenin called it. The two things go hand, the one reinforcing the other. A working class imbued with socialist consciousness would also be a more mililtant and effective force within capitalism as well as being more capable of bringing this system to an end than any amount of straightward "anti-capitalism".

"Anti-capitalism" in itself can never succeed in overthrowing capitalism. To bring capitalism to an an end we need to have a viable alternative to put in its place. And this is an alternative that we need to be conscious and desirous of before it can ever be put in place.

[mikelepore]

Before the working class can be emancipated, each member of the revolutionary working class organization, and a majority of the working class generally, must know certain fundamentals:

* The capitalist system isn't a failure due to bad leaders or bad policies, but because of the kind of system that it is.

* The goal of social ownership and democratic control of the industries has to be articulated directly. It is not advisable to recruit members because they are "angry at the fat cats", or similar protestations that lack depth of analysis.

* To seek political improvements to the capitalist system is a distraction from what needs to be done.

(The above is not intended to be complete list.)

When we insist that the working class has to be educated before it can make progress, some people on the left who have good intentions say that they "don't want to wait that long." But this isn't an option. A "revolution" carried out by people who are angry at the injustices of the old social system, but unclear about what to replace it with, or not sufficiently dedicated to the democratic structure of the new system, is the road to a new dictatorship.

[robbo203]

Before the working class can be emancipated, each member of the revolutionary working class organization, and a majority of the working class generally, must know certain fundamentals:

* The capitalist system isn't a failure due to bad leaders or bad policies, but because of the kind of system that it is.

* The goal of social ownership and democratic control of the industries has to be articulated directly. It is not advisable to recruit members because they are "angry at the fat cats", or similar protestations that lack depth of analysis.

* To seek political improvements to the capitalist system is a distraction from what needs to be done.

(The above is not intended to be complete list.)

When we insist that the working class has to be educated before it can make progress, some people on the left who have good intentions say that they "don't want to wait that long." But this isn't an option. A "revolution" carried out by people who are angry at the injustices of the old social system, but unclear about what to replace it with, or not sufficiently dedicated to the democratic structure of the new system, is the road to a new dictatorship.

I couldnt agree with you more, Mike. You cannot just be opposed to capitalism and vaguely hope that something will come along and takes its place. The future is a conscious and collective creation. Without knowing where we are heading we will not be heading anywhere but will remain indefinitely trapped within capitalism

[sanpal]

"Anti-capitalism" in itself can never succeed in overthrowing capitalism. To bring capitalism to an an end we need to have a viable alternative to put in its place. And this is an alternative that we need to be conscious and desirous of before it can ever be put in place.

The golden words!

mikelepore:

A "revolution" carried out by people who are angry at the injustices of the old social system, but unclear about what to replace it with, or not sufficiently dedicated to the democratic structure of the new system, is the road to a new dictatorship.

The golden words!

So everyone can see that the necessity in creation of the working model of transitional period from capitalism to communism which is not contradict to marxism must be realised by socialist theorists.
But there is the question: what to do with persons who don't accepted communist mode of production, who stay to be adherent of wage system, etc.? And if in global scale? Btw, they could (as minority) consist of 1/3 (for example) of global population ...it could be about ... 1 or 2 or 3 billion(s) humans. To move them to Mars? Or to restore gas furnaces? Or to organise GULAGs? I believe the thought inevitably will come to the multy-sector of economy of the transitional period (DOTP) with capitalist mode of production in the state capitalist and private sectors in one side and with communist mode of production in another side, coexisting side by side.

[robbo203]

The golden words!

mikelepore:


The golden words!

So everyone can see that the necessity in creation of the working model of transitional period from capitalism to communism which is not contradict to marxism must be realised by socialist theorists.
But there is the question: what to do with persons who don't accepted communist mode of production, who stay to be adherent of wage system, etc.? And if in global scale? Btw, they could (as minority) consist of 1/3 (for example) of global population ...it could be about ... 1 or 2 or 3 billion(s) humans. To move them to Mars? Or to restore gas furnaces? Or to organise GULAGs? I believe the thought inevitably will come to the multy-sector of economy of the transitional period (DOTP) with capitalist mode of production in the state capitalist and private sectors in one side and with communist mode of production in another side, coexisting side by side.

The ends and the means have to be in harmony. There is absolutely no way you can force communism on a reluctant population that doesnt want or understand it. You will just have to accept that until a majority desire it we are stuck with capitalism

[Ben Seattle]

I believe the thought inevitably will come to the multy-sector of economy of the transitional period (DOTP) with capitalist mode of production in the state capitalist and private sectors in one side and with communist mode of production in another side, coexisting side by side.

From: Politics, Economics and the Mass Media when the working class runs the show (http://struggle.net/ALDS/essay_153_content.htm)
• Will there be elections and competing parties?
• The three economic sectors (private capitalist • state capitalist • gift economy)
• The evolution of the mass media (commercial media • state media • free media)

http://struggle.net/ALDS/transition_economies.gif

[robbo203]

From: Politics, Economics and the Mass Media when the working class runs the show (http://struggle.net/ALDS/essay_153_content.htm)
• Will there be elections and competing parties?
• The three economic sectors (private capitalist • state capitalist • gift economy)
• The evolution of the mass media (commercial media • state media • free media)

http://struggle.net/ALDS/transition_economies.gif

Ben,

I am interested in this graph but perplexed. It commences with the "overthorw of bourgeois rule" yet the capitalist sector - state and private - still constitutes over 95% of the economy 5 years later on. It doesnt sound to me like the bourgeois have been overthrown at all! What is the point in having this transition if we already have the technological potential for communism here and now , a potential which only capitalism stands in the way of realising.

I also question the percentage attributed to the moneyless gift economy at the start of this "transition" which appears to be at or near zero. As you know the non/market unofficial "grey "economy is, even today, massive and there have been studies done which demonstrate that in terms of labour hours it is larger than "white" and "black" economies combined. Im talking about the household sector, charities, volunteer organisation, the internet, mutual aid projects, LETS and so on and do forth.

A far more plausible transition would be something that happened before the formal enactment of communism - namely the growth of the communist movement and a corresponding growth in the moneyless gift economy to the point when, once the communist movement is large enough, residual capitalism in the form of both the state and private sectors, can be completely eliminated in one fell swoop. The culimination of the communist revolution as it were.

[Pyotr Tchaikovsky]

Sorry, but this line of reasoning is nothing more than naïve idealism. If we wait for every worker to attain 'class consciousness,' I am afraid we'll have to wait forever, give or take a few weeks;). Workers simply don't have the time or inclination to study all the intricacies of political economy; they're too busy working for a livelihood, competing with their rivals at the workplace, and so forth.

On the other hand, the class-conscious members of the working class could carry the cross, so to speak, and do the thinking for the rest. The masses are essentially sheepish, and they'll follow the latest fad without question. In 1915, the masses in Russia worshiped the Czar, took out a huge procession honoring him. Just two years later, the same people started following Lenin as the leader! It's almost as if people don't have the ability to think for themselves and will parrot ruling class ideas. So if the vanguard becomes the ruling class and implements socialism, the masses are going to follow; it's that simple. Convincing people is useless...people want to be led.

All this may sound a little harsh, but one need only look at Bush's approval rating after he declared war on an innocent country...that will give us an idea as to how much knowledge that the masses have. Here's hint: not much.

[robbo203]

Sorry, but this line of reasoning is nothing more than naïve idealism. If we wait for every worker to attain 'class consciousness,' I am afraid we'll have to wait forever, give or take a few weeks;). Workers simply don't have the time or inclination to study all the intricacies of political economy; they're too busy working for a livelihood, competing with their rivals at the workplace, and so forth.

On the other hand, the class-conscious members of the working class could carry the cross, so to speak, and do the thinking for the rest. The masses are essentially sheepish, and they'll follow the latest fad without question. In 1915, the masses in Russia worshiped the Czar, took out a huge procession honoring him. Just two years later, the same people started following Lenin as the leader! It's almost as if people don't have the ability to think for themselves and will parrot ruling class ideas. So if the vanguard becomes the ruling class and implements socialism, the masses are going to follow; it's that simple. Convincing people is useless...people want to be led.

All this may sound a little harsh, but one need only look at Bush's approval rating after he declared war on an innocent country...that will give us an idea as to how much knowledge that the masses have. Here's hint: not much.

You are making several unwarranted assumptions.

The first of course is your point that "Workers simply don't have the time or inclination to study all the intricacies of political economy". Why do you suppose that workers need to study the "intricacies of political economy" in order to arrive at an understanding of what socialism is broadly about? Ive encountered this argument and I find it utterly baffling. It seems to me to be nothing more than a self-serving excuse of some intellectual elite to justify their existence.

There is nothing difficult to understand about socialism. Ive met fellow workers in my line of work as a gardener-cum-general labourer who have a better grasp of socialism than many university professors. Ive stood in queues and eavesdropped on "ordinary people" talking about the absurdity of the capitalist money system . They might not come out with the labels but - by god - the grasp the essentials well enough.

It is ridiculous to claim that in order to be a socialist you need to be well versed in political and economic theory, to have read your Marx or to have waded though Engels' Dialectics of Nature. Marx learnt his socialism from oridinary Parisian workers. Socialism - a moneyless, wageless society of free access to goods and service and volunteer - is a pretty simple straightforwad idea well within the grasp of any worker, barring those who might be seriously mentally incapacitated

The other highly questionable assumption you make is that people can somehow unwittingly be led to socialism. They can be led to do many things - up to a point - but this is one thing they certainly cannot be led to do! As Engels rightly said Where it is a question of a complete transformation of the social organization, the masses themselves must also be in it, must themselves already have grasped what is at stake, what they are going in for [with body and soul].

The working class who will create a socialist society must also know how to operate it. They need to understand what the basic rules of the game are, so to speak. There needs to be a widespread consensus about what to expect of people if a socialist society is to properly function. This is not something that can be left to a tiny elite.

Elites in any case can only operate within broad parameters set by public opinion in the first place. Unless of course you subscribe to the Great Man theory of history. Then that really would be a naive idealist notion

[MarxSchmarx]

Sorry, but this line of reasoning is nothing more than naïve idealism. If we wait for every worker to attain 'class consciousness,' I am afraid we'll have to wait forever, give or take a few weeks;). Workers simply don't have the time or inclination to study all the intricacies of political economy; they're too busy working for a livelihood, competing with their rivals at the workplace, and so forth.

On the other hand, the class-conscious members of the working class could carry the cross, so to speak, and do the thinking for the rest. The masses are essentially sheepish, and they'll follow the latest fad without question. In 1915, the masses in Russia worshiped the Czar, took out a huge procession honoring him. Just two years later, the same people started following Lenin as the leader! It's almost as if people don't have the ability to think for themselves and will parrot ruling class ideas. So if the vanguard becomes the ruling class and implements socialism, the masses are going to follow; it's that simple. Convincing people is useless...people want to be led.

All this may sound a little harsh, but one need only look at Bush's approval rating after he declared war on an innocent country...that will give us an idea as to how much knowledge that the masses have. Here's hint: not much.

I'd echo Robbo203's critiques, and add a few.

First, there is no such thing as "the masses". The masses consist only of individuals. And an individual can be thoughtful and class-conscious, as well as find the time and inclinations.

Second, we have to understand that this "herd mentality" that is often cited is conditioned by objective material conditions.
In the progress of the division of labour, the employment of ... and generally becomes as stupid and ignorant as it is possible for a human creature to become. Now, you touch on this when you note

Workers simply don't have the time or inclination to study all the intricacies of political economy; they're too busy working for a livelihood, competing with their rivals at the workplace, and so forth.
Which has some truth. But this cannot be the reason for our persistent failures. For instance, many of these same workers (at least in the developed world) that we sneer at still seem to find time to go to the movies, visit relatives, join facebook and myspace, and get drunk. A lot of that is escapism, but it also means that we have opportunities to reach them outside of their workplace. Part of the reason they don't spend their precious free time reading Žižek, much less "Revolutionary Worker", instead of celebrity gossip is that most of our propaganda is dry and accessible mainly to people who have time to read that stuff as part of their jobs (i.e., students and academics) or are already convinced of it. This is a failure of our propaganda efforts, not of the working class.

Thirdly, I think you are confusing the tasks of "vanguardism". This comes up a lot in discussions around here, but the vanguard isn't so much a small minority of workers taht will sieze political power and implement their changes. Rather, it historically referred to, and is usually understood as, a segment of the working class that is class conscious, and does have constructive solutions.

Finally, the evidence shows that large majorities, even in places like the united states, are well to the left of their leadership on most issues. For instance, in almost every developed countries, people do agree that their livelihoods would be improved if they join a union, strongly support social welfare, and feel that crass materialism is detrimental. This doesn't mean that majorities can't have idiotic views (like supporting wars, having xenophobic views, or believing the moon landing is fake) but on balance, these reactionary, supposedly "fundamental" inclinations (like religious views) have generally and broadly waned over time.

[mikelepore]

what to do with persons who don't accepted communist mode of production

First, people are already accustomed to abiding by the rules of the society that they live in, even if they didn't personally choose those rules. For example, everyone complains when the tax bill comes, but then they take a deep breath and they pay the bill. So if a majority chooses to implement a new system, the minority who voted to keep the old system would grumble for five minutes and then go along with it.

Secondly, after they have experienced a classless society for just a couple days, they will like it. As soon as they find out that people can have about a three times higher standard of living, while performing about three times fewer work hours, they will be pleasantly surprised.

Finally -- and this is my personal view, and perhaps robbo203 disagrees -- if there still remain some people who commit insurrection against a new socialist system, I think their political motivation should be ignored, and they should be handled solely according to their outward actions; for example, if they commit assault or arson, then society should do with them wherever it generally plans to do with assailants or arsonists, for which some policy would have to exist anyway.

[mikelepore]

Workers simply don't have the time or inclination to study all the intricacies of political economy

I tried to address that when I suggested "the goal of social ownership and democratic control of the industries had to be articulated." That's minimal. I don't care very much if people agree with some theories about history, sociology and economics. Besides, Marxism almost exclusively provides a theory about how the human race developed from ancient tribal society up through the last half of the 19th century, and the mechanism used by the capitalist to extract profits, so most of the Marxian theory isn't directly connected with the goal or strategy of the pending revolution. But the workers have to know that they are uniting on the economic and political terrains to construct social ownership of the means of production, and a new system that will use as its administrative method the idea of democratic participation and not unimpeachable leaders. That minimal degree of awareness about what we're doing, yes. But to "study all the intricacies of political economy", I'd say no, unless the individual is attracted to the subject.

[Pogue]

But you don't need 'socialist consciousness', you need 'self-management' conciousness, or anti-capitalist conciousness, which comes as a result of engaging in workplace struggle, if you do it properly, i.e. in the mass organs of the working class, the union, but not the present one, the one we are trying to create. Its not 'socialism' thats important, its working class democracy.

[Jimmie Higgins]

But you don't need 'socialist consciousness', you need 'self-management' conciousness, or anti-capitalist conciousness, which comes as a result of engaging in workplace struggle, if you do it properly, i.e. in the mass organs of the working class, the union, but not the present one, the one we are trying to create. Its not 'socialism' thats important, its working class democracy.

Well, I would call what you describe as "socialist consiousness" but I totally agree that it's the struggle that creates the consciousness and ideas, not ideas first. Even within the emerging bourgoise, it was their self-interested action against monarchy and feudalism that led them to conclude that their interests were not compatible with the status quo needed by the aristocracy. In the English, American, and French revolutions, the bourgeois did not get together and decide they needed to get rid of the king and create a republic, this was a later result of the revolutionary process.

Obviously since we are talking about a majority class rather than a minority class in the case of a worker's revolution, there will need to be much more democracy and mass debate among workers and between workers and other oppressed classes than in revolutions that put a new minority in power.

The revolutions are realitivly quick and radicalization tends to happen in a span of a few years or even months for the majority of the population - think 1968, 1848, 1917-1919. So while mass radicalization will be a precondition to a working class revolution, radicalization will happen very quickly and come from a process of action, not from people checking off a series of political concepts from a list that will deem them worthy or not worthy of revolution.

[robbo203]

But you don't need 'socialist consciousness', you need 'self-management' conciousness, or anti-capitalist conciousness, which comes as a result of engaging in workplace struggle, if you do it properly, i.e. in the mass organs of the working class, the union, but not the present one, the one we are trying to create. Its not 'socialism' thats important, its working class democracy.

Then you wont get socialism. Its as simple as that. It is simply not possible to get rid of capitalism without having in mind an alternative beforehand. You will remain stuck within the rut of capitalism.And since capitalism can never be run in the interest of the working class you will simply be inviting a state of permanant disempowerment.

The most effective way of empowering our class is to become socialist minded. A class imbued with socialist consciousness will be far more militant and empowered than any amount of mere "anti-capitalism". Socialist consciousness is class consciousness in its most developed sense.

[Ben Seattle]

Hi there Robbo,


http://struggle.net/ALDS/transition_economies_small.gif
I am interested in this graph but perplexed. It commences with the "overthrow of bourgeois rule" yet the capitalist sector - state and private - still constitutes over 95% of the economy 5 years later on. It doesnt sound to me like the bourgeois have been overthrown at all! What is the point in having this transition if we already have the technological potential for communism here and now, a potential which only capitalism stands in the way of realising.

The working class, in my view, will run things this way because it has no magic wand that will allow hundreds of millions of people, overnight, to learn radically new methods of organizing their activity.

It is not only capitalism that stands in the way--it is our own ignorance.

It takes time (and experimentation) to learn new ways of doing everything that will allow a higher productivity of labor than currently exists in the commodity economy--and which will not disrupt existing supply chains. It is easy to underestimate how easy it would be for things to break down--and the consequences of this. I wrote about this a few years ago:

Finding the Confidence to Build the Future (http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_05_content.htm)
How will the working class keep supply chains running
and bourgeois apologists from flooding the airwaves
on the morning after bourgeois rule is broken?

Excerpt:

Now some readers, who may be unsophisticated about how a modern economy functions, might think this would be just great. But in such a situation the euphoric glow over the "instant progress" achieved in January would fade very quickly when, by February, it becomes impossible to go to the supermarket and get food, or to put gas in your car (or find a bus that is still running). Maybe (with a good deal of luck) there would still be electricity so that you could watch on your TV (or the internet) the resulting social and economic meltdown.

The result of all this foolishness, of course, would be that the bourgeoisie would simply move in and pick up the pieces. "We may be corrupt", they would tell the masses, "we may steal you blind", they would say, "but at least we know how to run things". And the boys would be back in town.
Two things to keep in mind:

(1) We can consider two scenarios in which a company is taken over and expropriated. In both cases I will use the example of a grocery store (because one of the original participants in the anarcho-leninst debate on the state worked in a grocery store). Naturally, there are a great many different kinds of scenarios that would be possible--but these two may be sufficient to illustrate the point.

(a) The workers take over a store and decide to run it themselves. The workers quickly get permission (after the fact) from their workers' state and start making big changes. They elect their own supervisors or simply run things by consensus. They charge less money for foods that are healthy, etc.

(b) The workers' state takes over a store. The state appoints someone to run the store. The guy is not a jerk and the workers respect his ability because he does not get in the way and basically allows them to decide how to run the store and make changes as they see fit because they know what they are doing.
Now here is what is important about both of these scenarios (which are actually very similar). In both cases the grocery stores will still make use of money (or something similar to money). They will need money to pay their suppliers. They will charge their customers money to get the money to pay their suppliers. The workers will be paid in money (or some form of credits or labor-time vouchers) in exchange for their labor. The stores may no longer be run to maximize the profit--but maintaining solvency will remain important. It does not make any difference whether the exchange involves money or credits or vouchers or whatever you call them. When one thing is exchanged for another it means that, ultimately, the stores will be run on the basis of exchange--and will be subject to all the laws of commodity production.

I wrote about the laws of commodity production. They function like gravity. Humans can overcome gravity, of course, but it took time to learn how to build airplanes and rockets and it will take time to learn how to create an economy which is not based on exchange.

The Laws of Commodity Production for Dummies (http://struggle.net/ALDS/LOCP.htm)

http://struggle.net/ALDS/locp-small.gif
So, in both cases above--I have categorized the stores as being in the state capitalist sector (ie: light blue in the chart). They will not be part of the gift economy (ie: red in the chart) until they can operate without exchange (ie: no prices, wages, money, vouchers or anything of the kind) and everything (including labor) is given voluntarily without expecting anything in return.

(2) Voluntary labor means that you get everything you need to live whether or not you work or you simply goof off.

Making the economy work and produce everything that everyone needs--on the basis of voluntary labor is something that will take a while to learn. There will be a lot to overcome. Yes, many people work for free today to create a lot of value (you gave a number of very good examples) but learning how to create all the goods and services of a modern economy on this basis -- is something that is going to take a while.

I will reply to your other points, Robbo, in a separate post. I hope that you can take a little time to read some of what I have written in the articles I listed.

-- Ben

[Ben Seattle]

A far more plausible transition would be something that happened before the formal enactment of communism - namely the growth of the communist movement and a corresponding growth in the moneyless gift economy to the point when, once the communist movement is large enough, residual capitalism in the form of both the state and private sectors, can be completely eliminated in one fell swoop. The culimination of the communist revolution as it were.

When you say "before the formal enactment of communism" I translate that as meaning before bourgeois rule is overthrown.

In which case, Robbo, this would appear to be a total fucking fantasy.

I wrote about something similar to this (ie: the idea of worker co-opts) in a reply, two weeks ago, to Robbocommie in Workers Cooperatives and the Macroeconomy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-cooperatives-and-t124584/index.html):

Excerpt from the "Capital Rules" section of: The World for which We Fight (http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7.htm)


Why is it that, under bourgeoisie rule, the material needs of the overwhelming majority of the working class will always be created by the capitalist economy?

This question is related to the laws of commodity production that Daniel has challenged me to explain. I will discuss the laws of commodity production in a separate section below--but for now will simply note that modern production techniques require capital, machinery, investment and, quite often, the economy of scale and division of labor associated with large-scale production.

Smaller, more marginal production can take place that is not dependent on capital or modern equipment--but will tend to always remain small and marginal. Why is this? Without modern equipment and techniques the nodes of the "shadow economy" on which Daniel pins his hopes will not have a high productivity of labor--and will not be able to compete with capitalist production on price, quality and service--and will for this reason never represent more than a marginal share of the goods and services created by the economy.

Over the course of the past two centuries there have been untold thousands of attempts to do exactly what Daniel describes. Most any mid-sized city in the U.S. contains food co-ops or similar companies that began with precisely this vision. What is the story here? Activists, believing in the possibility of a better world, work their hearts out to create an economic entity that serves the needs of the workers and stands separate from and independent of the capitalist economy. The end result is generally always the same: the project either: (a) is driven out of business and/or collapses when the original founders give up or die, or (b) remains small and marginal or (c) is absorbed into the capitalist economy and gradually sheds all living embodiments of the original vision. Sometimes the original "co-op" name sticks around for years after the original vision is lost from memory.

In part 1 of this debate (October 2002) I described a local food co-op created by the energy of dozens of core members and hundreds of supporters here in Seattle. The co-op has since become large and very successful--but treats its workers (who have no rights) like shit.

Probably the best-known co-op in Seattle is REI (which makes the fancy rain gear that might be found on hikers--or some Microsoft employees). In June 2003 the Seattle Weekly ran an article about what had happened to this co-op in the days since it was founded 65 years ago: "Who Owns REI? It can't be the members. They aren't even privy to what the co-op's executives earn". Here is how REI was founded:

Some of the first U.S. cooperatives were an agrarian response to the tyranny of industrial capitalism; in the Pacific Northwest, the co-op movement came into its own in the aftermath of the Seattle General Strike of 1919, which shut down the city for six days--helping earn the state its reputation as "the Soviet Republic of the state of Washington." Co-ops were in their heyday during the Great Depression; and when West Seattleite Lloyd Anderson was gouged by a local merchant on the purchase of a third-rate ice ax, it was only natural for the populist-minded mountaineer to seek an uncapitalistic solution. On June 23, 1938, Anderson, his wife, Mary, and four fellow progressives founded the Recreational Equipment Cooperative. Asked why he didn't just set up his own for-profit company, Anderson reportedly said, "I wouldn't want to make money off my friends." (Source: Seattle Weekly, June 18, 2003)
The author of the article asks why REI now carries chocolate-covered cherries but no inexpensive parkas--and quotes the new CEO:

"We are a retailer--first and foremost ... Co-ops that forget that are the ones that tend to get into trouble and ultimately drift off into oblivion. The competitive marketplace--the retail marketplace--will not allow any retailer to focus on their organization first and their business second. ... I've seen this happen over and over and over again"
And, as obnoxious as he sounds, we must recognize that the REI CEO is telling the simple truth. What happened at REI is not some kind of fluke.

Another well-known co-op in Seattle is Group Health Cooperative. It is now a major hospital with branches all over the region. A friend of mine was a nurse there and went on strike for better wages and conditions. Last I heard--some of the people who work there do not have medical insurance.

I know of other examples from personal experience--of attempts to create food and medical clinic cooperatives by activists who were friends of mine and who considered themselves to be very radical and very committed to changing the world. Hardly a trace remains of their efforts.

Of course, your argument is a bit different. You are not talking about co-opts but rather a gift economy under capitalism. But the gift economy has never been shown, under capitalism, to be capable of creating a lot of material goods in factories--or in any kind of production which requires capital (ie: investment, machinery, supplies, etc that must be paid for). Once you are in that world--your situation is similar to that of a co-opt: You are in the world of exchange--and you are subject to all the laws of commodity production. And these laws operate whether you are aware of them or not, just like gravity. You can jump off a cliff--but as soon as you look down, like Wily Coyote, you are going to fall.
http://struggle.net/ben/2009/images/wile-e-coyote-gravity.jpg

[sanpal]

The ends and the means have to be in harmony. There is absolutely no way you can force communism on a reluctant population that doesnt want or understand it.
Nothing can be said against it.



You will just have to accept that until a majority desire it we are stuck with capitalism


Hm, what is majority? Is it 50 % + 1 voice? Or is it 99.99%? Situations are very different, aren't they? If the first case, then how the minority 50% - 1 voice will be forced to accept communist rule if communist society is free society, i.e. communist being has to be as the voluntary choice of persons? I see you had given a "thank" to mikelepore who said :

So if a majority chooses to implement a new system, the minority who voted to keep the old system would grumble for five minutes and then go along with it.

Secondly, after they have experienced a classless society for just a couple days, they will like it. As soon as they find out that people can have about a three times higher standard of living, while performing about three times fewer work hours, they will be pleasantly surprised.

Do you hope on this naive scenario? The people, especially those who have theirs family, are careful, they better will wait for a while to look how it is run, what result, what success the members of communist sectors have and then make up theirs mind to join communist sector or not. If not then what could be done? You will be forced to provide for the state capitalist sector of economy, and private sector too.

The second case (99.99%) you will wait till a crawfish whistles on the hill.

[Lyev]

A point that I always try to bear in mind: those who disagree with a newly implemented socialist model, will be a tiny minority if all has gone smoothly before revolution(s). What I mean is that a revolution, in my eyes, is only a successful (and socialist) one if the vast majority, and I mean vast majority, agree and concur with socialism. It's not going to work if still 35% of a population of a region or country remain anti-socialist. Another point is, like others have above said, understanding the basics of socialism, does not mean every single worker having read the entirety of Marx' vast bibliography; it means just what it is, a basic of understanding of socialism. The people need to be persuaded towards a socialist alternative before a revolution, not afterwards.

[robbo203]

A point that I always try to bear in mind: those who disagree with a newly implemented socialist model, will be a tiny minority if all has gone smoothly before revolution(s). What I mean is that a revolution, in my eyes, is only a successful (and socialist) one if the vast majority, and I mean vast majority, agree and concur with socialism. It's not going to work if still 35% of a population of a region or country remain anti-socialist. Another point is, like others have above said, understanding the basics of socialism, does not mean every single worker having read the entirety of Marx' vast bibliography; it means just what it is, a basic of understanding of socialism. The people need to be persuaded towards a socialist alternative before a revolution, not afterwards.

That is exactly right, Expropriate. I couldnt have put it better myself. You cannot have socialism with mass socialist consciousness beforehand which entails both the understanding of and the desire for socialism. Working class militancy, though important, is not enough. You have to have a clear understanding of an alternative to capitalism if you are ever going to move beyond capitalism.

Equally mistaken is the Leninist idea that workers cannot achieve socialist consciousness in capitalism and a vanguard is required to overthrow the exploiters first and then only can workers acquire socialist consciousness under the enlightened tutelage of the vanguard (What is to be Done). This is a complete delusion. Because all you will have then is capitalism under new managemen. The workers would still not have socialist consciousness according to this theory, at the time the exploiters were overthrown, and the consequently the vanguard would inevitably have to take over the running of capitalism and, equally inevitably, operate against the interests of the workers since there is no other way in which capitalism could work. Thus the leninists are caught in a logical contradiction from which they cannot escape....

One final point you make which is worth reemphasing. Socialist consciousness does not mean an intimate understanding of the works of Marx. It means a basic understanding of the kind of society you want to bring about the replace capitalism. I think it was Is who alerted me to an entry in the Marxist Internet Archive on the subject of "impossibilism". The relevant passage is as follows


Impossibilism means the advocacy of a purist doctrine of socialism from which it can only be concluded that socialism is impossible. Henry Hyndman (http://www.revleft.com/people/h/y.htm////////////////lhyndman-henry)’s S.D.F. was accused of impossibilism and the S.D.F. made the same charge against Jack Fitzgerald and others who went on to found the Socialist Party of Great Britain (http://www.revleft.com/orgs/s/o.htm////////////////lsocialist-party-great-britain) on impossibilist doctrines – typically that "socialism is impossible until the working class understands what socialism means." But of course, the working class cannot understand what socialism means until socialism is already a well-established social formation and way of life, so one can only conclude that socialism is impossible.
http://www.marxists.org/glossary/terms/i/m.htm#impossibilism

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous arguments I have encountered against the case for mass socialist consciousness - that you cant understand socialism until it already exists. Which implies that it can come into being without us being even aware of it. And not knowing what socialism is we would not be in a postion to recognise it presumably!

[robbo203]

When you say "before the formal enactment of communism" I translate that as meaning before bourgeois rule is overthrown.

In which case, Robbo, this would appear to be a total fucking fantasy.

I wrote about something similar to this (ie: the idea of worker co-opts) in a reply, two weeks ago, to Robbocommie in Workers Cooperatives and the Macroeconomy (http://www.revleft.com/vb/workers-cooperatives-and-t124584/index.html):

Excerpt from the "Capital Rules" section of: The World for which We Fight (http://struggle.net/ALDS/part_7.htm)


Of course, your argument is a bit different. You are not talking about co-opts but rather a gift economy under capitalism. But the gift economy has never been shown, under capitalism, to be capable of creating a lot of material goods in factories--or in any kind of production which requires capital (ie: investment, machinery, supplies, etc that must be paid for). Once you are in that world--your situation is similar to that of a co-opt: You are in the world of exchange--and you are subject to all the laws of commodity production. And these laws operate whether you are aware of them or not, just like gravity. You can jump off a cliff--but as soon as you look down, like Wily Coyote, you are going to fall.



I realise full well that we live in a world dominated by commodity exchange. However, you misunderstand the point that I am making and as well as that, base your scenario on mistaken information. Your graph is totally misleading - it is not the case that what you call the gift economy (I use the term the grey economy) currently stands at zero. It is actually quite a substantial sector in its own right today

My point is simply that with the expansion of the communist movement the potential for this sector will corresponding expand. Im not suggesting that capitalist relations of production will be completely displaced which is why , in fact, I pointed to the need for residual capitalism to be overthown politically as the end point of this process of revolutiuonary transformation

Above all, what I cannot understand about your graph is that timewise it commences with an event which you call the "overthrow of bourgeois rule" and yet decades later we still have, according to you, a substantial private and state capitalist sector. It seems to me that bourgeois rule is still very much intact in your scenario since how else can you operate capitalism but in the interests of capital and the bourgeosie?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Then you wont get socialism. Its as simple as that. It is simply not possible to get rid of capitalism without having in mind an alternative beforehand. You will remain stuck within the rut of capitalism.And since capitalism can never be run in the interest of the working class you will simply be inviting a state of permanant disempowerment.

Why is that? Working class democracy doesn't entail working within Capitalism it entails the expropriation of the means of production and the empowerment of the workers in the running of society. That isn't Capitalism that is a worker-controlled society.


The most effective way of empowering our class is to become socialist minded. A class imbued with socialist consciousness will be far more militant and empowered than any amount of mere "anti-capitalism". Socialist consciousness is class consciousness in its most developed sense.

What Pogue was describing, the building of organs of class power, is in itself the building of 'socialist' consciousness. It is the process of equipping our class with the organisation,power and knowledge to start running society in our interests. The building of class power is designed to do exactly as you say. It is not merely anti-capitalist, building our union movement is central to this and it is rooted in the re-organisation of our society.

[robbo203]

Why is that? Working class democracy doesn't entail working within Capitalism it entails the expropriation of the means of production and the empowerment of the workers in the running of society. That isn't Capitalism that is a worker-controlled society.


What Pogue was describing, the building of organs of class power, is in itself the building of 'socialist' consciousness. It is the process of equipping our class with the organisation,power and knowledge to start running society in our interests. The building of class power is designed to do exactly as you say. It is not merely anti-capitalist, building our union movement is central to this and it is rooted in the re-organisation of our society.

Well I dont think that is quite what Pogue was saying - unless I have misinterpreted him. He said and I quote "But you don't need 'socialist consciousness', you need 'self-management' conciousness, or anti-capitalist conciousness, which comes as a result of engaging in workplace struggle".

Now I defined socialist consciousness as the basic awareness of and the desire for a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism. In other words a moneyless wageless society of common onership of the productive wealth of that society. The idea that such an alternative could somehow materialise out of thin air without a majority of workers actually wanting it or knowing about it is simply not realistic. Such an alternative can function if people know what it entails. This is the point that I was trying to press home.

You are saying that the building of organs of class power, is in itself the building of 'socialist' consciousness but, as you can see, Pogue is apparently saying something quite different - that we dont need socialist consciousness. That we dont need, in other words, to nurture and disseminate the idea of a socialist society in advance of creating such a society. I say we most definitely do if we are ever going to move beyond capitalism and for the reasons spelt out in the OP.

In itself, engaging a workplace struggles within capitalism - important though this is - doesnt take us much forward since capitalism can only ever be run in the interest of capital. This is so even in the case where workers take over, or start up, businesses themselves. This was well elucidated by Marx in Capital Vol 111 Part V . ch 27 where he referred to the role of worker cooperatives. I quote

"The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm)

There is I think a tendency for worker coops to resemble more and more over time the conventional capitalist business model and the case of Mondragon - the largest worker coop conglomerate in the world - would seem to bear this out. Over time, as it has grown, it has departed more and more from its original egalitarian principles and in some parts of the world such as Eastern Europe - notably Poland - Mondragon has been noted for employing heavy hand tactics against its own workforce.


The point I am trying to make is that we should not make a fetish out of worker ownership of industry. While it operates within the framework of a system of commodity production it will suffer from the very real shortcomings that capitalism inevitably imposes. It is only through the struggles of workers coupled with the spread of socialist consciousness (and the idea of a socialist alternative to capitalism that this embodies) that we can ever hope to transcend capitalism through the self abolition of our class and hence the elimination of class society itself

[Stranger Than Paradise]

Well I dont think that is quite what Pogue was saying - unless I have misinterpreted him. He said and I quote "But you don't need 'socialist consciousness', you need 'self-management' conciousness, or anti-capitalist conciousness, which comes as a result of engaging in workplace struggle".

Now I defined socialist consciousness as the basic awareness of and the desire for a genuine socialist alternative to capitalism. In other words a moneyless wageless society of common onership of the productive wealth of that society. The idea that such an alternative could somehow materialise out of thin air without a majority of workers actually wanting it or knowing about it is simply not realistic. Such an alternative can function if people know what it entails. This is the point that I was trying to press home.

You are saying that the building of organs of class power, is in itself the building of 'socialist' consciousness but, as you can see, Pogue is apparently saying something quite different - that we dont need socialist consciousness. That we dont need, in other words, to nurture and disseminate the idea of a socialist society in advance of creating such a society. I say we most definitely do if we are ever going to move beyond capitalism and for the reasons spelt out in the OP.

In itself, engaging a workplace struggles within capitalism - important though this is - doesnt take us much forward since capitalism can only ever be run in the interest of capital. This is so even in the case where workers take over, or start up, businesses themselves. This was well elucidated by Marx in Capital Vol 111 Part V . ch 27 where he referred to the role of worker cooperatives. I quote

"The co-operative factories of the labourers themselves represent within the old form the first sprouts of the new, although they naturally reproduce, and must reproduce, everywhere in their actual organisation all the shortcomings of the prevailing system. But the antithesis between capital and labour is overcome within them, if at first only by way of making the associated labourers into their own capitalist, i.e., by enabling them to use the means of production for the employment of their own labour."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1894-c3/ch27.htm)

There is I think a tendency for worker coops to resemble more and more over time the conventional capitalist business model and the case of Mondragon - the largest worker coop conglomerate in the world - would seem to bear this out. Over time, as it has grown, it has departed more and more from its original egalitarian principles and in some parts of the world such as Eastern Europe - notably Poland - Mondragon has been noted for employing heavy hand tactics against its own workforce.


The point I am trying to make is that we should not make a fetish out of worker ownership of industry. While it operates within the framework of a system of commodity production it will suffer from the very real shortcomings that capitalism inevitably imposes. It is only through the struggles of workers coupled with the spread of socialist consciousness (and the idea of a socialist alternative to capitalism that this embodies) that we can ever hope to transcend capitalism through the self abolition of our class and hence the elimination of class society itself

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you but I was never advocating working within a Capitalist framework when I talked about workers taking control of industry. This does not entail such a strategy.

The building of working class organs and revolutionary unions (or other organisations) will have the direct aim of re-working society in the interests of the working class, this cannot be inside capitalism. Essentially I am saying the same thing you said, but these organisations have at the centre of their aims to educate the working class on the illegitimacy of Capitalism and they equip the workers with the know-how and organisational structures to move forward on to revolution and organise society in their interests. That is Socialist consciousness.

[robbo203]

I understand what you are saying and I agree with you but I was never advocating working within a Capitalist framework when I talked about workers taking control of industry. This does not entail such a strategy.

The building of working class organs and revolutionary unions (or other organisations) will have the direct aim of re-working society in the interests of the working class, this cannot be inside capitalism. Essentially I am saying the same thing you said, but these organisations have at the centre of their aims to educate the working class on the illegitimacy of Capitalism and they equip the workers with the know-how and organisational structures to move forward on to revolution and organise society in their interests. That is Socialist consciousness.

Well in that case I think we are in agreement ;)

[robbo203]

There is a very good article on "Impossibilism" by Steve Coleman which is actually a chapter from Crump and Rubel's seminal book Non market Socialism in the 19th and 20th centuries (1987) which I would urge people to read. It sets out the case for socialist consciousness as a prerequisite of revolutionary transformation. You can access the article here http://bataillesocialiste.wordpress.com/2009/09/30/impossibilism-stephen-coleman-1987/

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before the working class can be emancipated, each member of the revolutionary working class organization, and a majority of the working class generally, must know certain fundamentals:

* The capitalist system isn't a failure due to bad leaders or bad policies, but because of the kind of system that it is.

* The goal of social ownership and democratic control of the industries has to be articulated directly. It is not advisable to recruit members because they are "angry at the fat cats", or similar protestations that lack depth of analysis.

* To seek political improvements to the capitalist system is a distraction from what needs to be done.

(The above is not intended to be complete list.)

When we insist that the working class has to be educated before it can make progress, some people on the left who have good intentions say that they "don't want to wait that long." But this isn't an option. A "revolution" carried out by people who are angry at the injustices of the old social system, but unclear about what to replace it with, or not sufficiently dedicated to the democratic structure of the new system, is the road to a new dictatorship.

Yes, but there is a difference between a basic outline such as yours, and outright flawed attempts to "educate, educate, educate" as a knee-jerk response to the "agitate, agitate, agitate" orthodoxy on the left today.

[robbo203]

Yes, but there is a difference between a basic outline such as yours, and outright flawed attempts to "educate, educate, educate" as a knee-jerk response to the "agitate, agitate, agitate" orthodoxy on the left today.

I think there is a real misunderstanding of the role and significance of "socialist education" among some on the left. This has particularly been brought home to me by the absurd inference made on more than one occasion on this list that by emphasising the need for socialist consciousness one is somehow implying that workers need to have read all the works of Karl Marx or whoever in order for a socialist revolution to be accomplished. This is utter rubbish. The most appaling misrepresentation Ive come across recently is to be found in the Marxist Internet Archive which states in its entry on "impossibilism" that the impossibilist claim that "socialism is impossible until the working class understands what socialism means." is wrong because " the working class cannot understand what socialism means until socialism is already a well-established social formation and way of life, so one can only conclude that socialism is impossible". Whoever wrote up this entry has absolutely no idea of what s/he is talking about.


Socialism is obviously impossible without workers having some idea of what socialism is beforehand but all that is needed is a basic idea, a rudimentary mental model of a classless wageless stateless society. It does not require a theoretical grasp of the organic composition of capital or the tendency of the rate of profit to fall or the cosmology of Ancient Greek civilisation from a historcal materialist perspective. People who impute such a need to the impossibilist emphasis on socialist consciousness seem to me to reflect the kind of elitist assumptions of Kautsky , Lenin and co who considered that socialist ideas could only be brought to the workers from without