My Proposal

[Nanatsu Yoru]

Not sure if this is the right forum, but here's a proposal of what I think should be the way to go post-revolution. Discussion is good, critiquing is better. It's just some thoughts at this point, I'm just looking for some criticism.

Means of Production
Run democratically by workers. At first, the vanguard would set quality and quantity quotas to meet, for example, monthly. Should they meet these quotas before the end of the month they could work 4 day weeks or half days, whatever they want.

'Currency'
Labour vouchers are earned per-hour and can be used to acquire nonessentials, i.e. luxuries. Of course essentials (food, healthcare, clothing, etc.) would be provided freely. Over a period of 50 or so years, the 'essentials' category would be expanded as production capabilities increase, encompassing more and more goods. Eventually, when society permits it, everything would be provided freely, eliminating the need for labour vouchers.

Role of Vanguard
At first, the vanguard would coordinate between means of production and providers of services (for example, between a factory and transport workers) so goods would be where they are needed when they are needed. Eventually as the world smoothes out, this would no longer be necessary.

Elimination of State Over Time
As time progresses, means of production would no longer need anything to coordinate operations, and the state, through lack of necessity, would eventually wither and die. By this time, the capitalist mindset and people would no longer have generated emotions such as greed and jealousy (why be jealous of your neighbour, when everything he/she has, you could get just as easily?)

Like I said, just ideas at this point. Criticisms please.

[∞]

Almost sounds like Anarcho Syndicalism, are you sure you're a Lenininst?

[ContrarianLemming]

you're giving the vangaurd a lot of power, to set quotas and such. risky .

[cenv]

I know the traditional thinking is that its more "practical" to have the vanguard direct economic planning, but in a world as massive and complex as the one we live in today, what makes you think it's feasible for a minority to coordinate production and distribution? This problem becomes more pronounced as you look at implementing socialism on larger scales, and it looks like you're thinking on an international scale here, so this is a pretty big issue. From a purely pragmatic point of view (not to mention the obvious political issues with giving so much power to a bureaucratic minority), isn't the working class as a whole in a better position to judge what needs to be produced? If you want to make this more convincing, you should probably elaborate on the process by which a group of planners and specialists, a fraction of the total population, will set quotas and be able to coordinate production on such a large scale.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

That's true, unfortunately. What I'm worried about, however, is that at first the still-in-the-capitalist-mindset workers will not know or want what the world needs to keep going. Let's say a country needs so much stuff in a certain place at a certain time. We know that, because I just told you. But how will the workers know that, before the shortages hit?

[cenv]

That's true, unfortunately. What I'm worried about, however, is that at first the still-in-the-capitalist-mindset workers will not know or want what the world needs to keep going. Let's say a country needs so much stuff in a certain place at a certain time. We know that, because I just told you. But how will the workers know that, before the shortages hit?
The beauty of systems that function as networks is that no one needs to constantly be assessing the system as a whole. Individual workers know what they need, and groups of workers know what they need. By combining democratic structures that allow workers to express these needs (workers councils and popular assemblies come to mind, but it's possible that the material circumstances of the 21st century will lead to new radically democratic forms of expression) with the power of modern communications technology, the problem of distribution and allocation becomes a lot simpler.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

I don't really think that we can generalise issues such as labour vouchers and the exact way that the means of production are run by the working class. The material conditions of wherever this revolution originates will dictate this.

[Hit The North]

What I'm worried about, however, is that at first the still-in-the-capitalist-mindset workers will not know or want what the world needs to keep going.

If the workers are still in a "capitalist mind-set" (although I'm unclear what this actually means), then we will not have had a socialist revolution, comrade, because only the workers acting as the self-conscious agent of revolution can achieve such a thing.


Let's say a country needs so much stuff in a certain place at a certain time. We know that, because I just told you. But how will the workers know that, before the shortages hit?

Workers will communicate with other workers. What is required for good planning is a strategic view. Under capitalism the strategic view is wedded to private interests and driven by markets. Under socialism, the strategic view is wedded to the social interest. The point is that only workers democracy can give us the rationally planned economy able to benefit all mankind. Capitalism has certainly failed to provide this.

[RedMaterialist]

[QUOTE=thinker;1886474]Not sure if this is the right forum, but here's a proposal of what I think should be the way to go post-revolution. Discussion is good, critiquing is better. It's just some thoughts at this point, I'm just looking for some criticism.

Generally I agree; with the following coments:




Labour vouchers are earned per-hour and can be used to acquire nonessentials,

The idea of labour vouchers has already been addressed by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy. The money system will need to be retained until a fully socialist system develops.



Role of Vanguard


At first, the vanguard would coordinate between means of production and providers of services

There is already a mechanism for doing this: the market. The workers through their representatives, sales agents, etc., will sell their products and receive the full market value for them. Any costs of the sale, administrative, etc. are treated as non-labour costs are treated today.


Elimination of State Over Time
and the state, through lack of necessity, would eventually wither and die.

The state will die because it no longer is needed to suppress a particular class. This does not mean, however, that the previous class cannot grow back, like a weed. See the Soviet Union. It withered and died, but capitalists came back. Not until socialism is achieved world wide will all capitalism die and thus, states all die.

[ZeroNowhere]

The idea of labour vouchers has already been addressed by Marx in The Poverty of Philosophy. The money system will need to be retained until a fully socialist system develops.I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The only reason why the money system will continue to exist until the initial phase of communism (ie. that with labour credits) is that capitalism will still exist. As Marx points out, labour-credits are not money, although the Proudhonian 'labour-money', inasmuch as it presupposes generalized commodity production, is. That is why he attacks it (it is attempting to counteract capitalism's problems while presupposing generalized commodity production, generalized value-production, and thus capitalism).


There is already a mechanism for doing this: the market. The workers through their representatives, sales agents, etc., will sell their products and receive the full market value for them. Any costs of the sale, administrative, etc. are treated as non-labour costs are treated today.If this is your plan, it would perhaps be better that you stuck tothe Opposing Ideologies board. Yes, there is indeed a mechanism for doing this, and that is because we have capitalism. Socialists are seeking to abolish this mechanism, and hence capitalism.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

The beauty of systems that function as networks is that no one needs to constantly be assessing the system as a whole. Individual workers know what they need, and groups of workers know what they need. By combining democratic structures that allow workers to express these needs (workers councils and popular assemblies come to mind, but it's possible that the material circumstances of the 21st century will lead to new radically democratic forms of expression) with the power of modern communications technology, the problem of distribution and allocation becomes a lot simpler.
But in a 21st century world, not all areas have all necessary resources, for example oil for transportation. Yes, in areas that had that resource there would be enough to go around, even extra. But in areas that do not, even workers knowing what they want / need would not be enough for them to get that resource. As you say, the 21st century world is enormous and even this is simplifying it. I feel some sort of organisation or system is necessary to distribute these 'scarce' resources. Yes, having the vanguard do it is risky. It does seem to be the best option, though.

If the workers are still in a "capitalist mind-set" (although I'm unclear what this actually means), then we will not have had a socialist revolution, comrade, because only the workers acting as the self-conscious agent of revolution can achieve such a thing.
What I mean by a 'capitalist mind-set' is that the workers will still believe, through no fault of their own (they have grown up in a cappy world, after all), in a capitalist way of work. That is, get the job done and go home and do stuff that's 'actually fun.' They would not put in the most amount and best quality of work possible, and would still view it as a chore. This is what I worry about when I consider giving the workers power, if that makes sense.

[Kuppo Shakur]

That is, get the job done and go home and do stuff that's 'actually fun.' They would not put in the most amount and best quality of work possible, and would still view it as a chore.
How should workers view work? Isn't it a chore, even in communism?

[Armchair War Criminal]

How is the vanguard party constituted?

How are the prices of goods (in labor credits) determined? The prices of intermediate goods?

Why does "[the] means of production would no longer need anything to coordinate operations" mean?

[Nanatsu Yoru]

How should workers view work? Isn't it a chore, even in communism?
I'm pretty sure that eventually the goal is that people work not because they have to but because they want to. If we're going to abolish money, that's going to be quite important.


How is the vanguard party constituted?

How are the prices of goods (in labor credits) determined? The prices of intermediate goods?

Why does "[the] means of production would no longer need anything to coordinate operations" mean?
The first two would have to be developed depending on the circumstances of the actual post-revolutionary world.
As for the latter question, eventually the production, transport, and distribution of goods would be entirely autonomously run by the workers, as opposed to coordinated (but never owned) by the state.

[cenv]

But in a 21st century world, not all areas have all necessary resources, for example oil for transportation. Yes, in areas that had that resource there would be enough to go around, even extra.
The revolution isn't happening any time in the near future, so capitalism still has room to develop these areas.But it's true that post-revolutionary society will need to dissolve national boundaries and coordinate production/distribution on an international scale -- asking any particular region to become totally self-sufficient would be the antithesis of communism.


But in areas that do not, even workers knowing what they want / need would not be enough for them to get that resource. As you say, the 21st century world is enormous and even this is simplifying it. I feel some sort of organisation or system is necessary to distribute these 'scarce' resources.
Of course there will be some organization -- but this is such a vague statement that Marxist-Leninists and anarchists alike can agree on it. It doesn't necessarily follow that this organization is a specialized elite over and above the working class. By creating organs that allow workers themselves to express their needs and desires and by taking advantage of modern communications technology, we can transcend the need to choose between organization and working-class empowerment.


Yes, having the vanguard do it is risky. It does seem to be the best option, though.
Actually, it's the least practical option. The idea that specialists can coordinate the whole of economic production and distribution is laughable. By using the technology capitalism has produced, the working-class as a whole has the potential to create infinitely more organized, coherent, and rational economic systems than any small group of planners (or any ruling class above the proletariat for that matter).


The first two would have to be developed depending on the circumstances of the actual post-revolutionary world.
Comrade, if you are going to argue that the vanguard is necessary, you must have at least some idea of what form it takes. Otherwise, you're just putting some vague theoretical abstraction above the workers and claiming that this solves the problem of production and distribution.


As for the latter question, eventually the production, transport, and distribution of goods would be entirely autonomously run by the workers, as opposed to coordinated (but never owned) by the state.
Why are the privileged economic specialists going to want to relinquish their power to mere workers? Besides, post-revolutionary society will continue to grow -- so if you don't think workers are capable of coordinating economic activity after the revolution, what makes you think they'll be able to handle a society that has become even bigger and more complex?

Finally, the state "coordianting" economic activity implies that it has control over said activity and its products. So how exactly is this qualitatively different than ownership?

[Nanatsu Yoru]

The revolution isn't happening any time in the near future, so capitalism still has room to develop these areas.But it's true that post-revolutionary society will need to dissolve national boundaries and coordinate production/distribution on an international scale -- asking any particular region to become totally self-sufficient would be the antithesis of communism.
Right you are.


Of course there will be some organization -- but this is such a vague statement that Marxist-Leninists and anarchists alike can agree on it. It doesn't necessarily follow that this organization is a specialized elite over and above the working class. By creating organs that allow workers themselves to express their needs and desires and by taking advantage of modern communications technology, we can transcend the need to choose between organization and working-class empowerment.
Technologies such as what? Simply saying "by creating organs that allow workers..." really is quite a vague statement. By creating a vanguard (specialised, not necessarily elite) that acts as that organ, we can distribute products where they need to be, when they need to be. It's just the concepts of specialists. An elite to me is someone that is considered better than the rest of society, and specialists needn't be that.


Actually, it's the least practical option. The idea that specialists can coordinate the whole of economic production and distribution is laughable. By using the technology capitalism has produced, the working-class as a whole has the potential to create infinitely more organized, coherent, and rational economic systems than any small group of planners (or any ruling class above the proletariat for that matter).
I agree completely. Immediately post-revolution, however, the entire world is going to be shaken and many of these 'technologies' will either not be available or in extreme scarcity. Giving the workers all the power overnight is a nice thought, but that might not be fully practical. Having a system where there are specialists who know where things are needed and how many are made where. As time smoothes out the creases, this would no longer be necessary. Do you follow?


Comrade, if you are going to argue that the vanguard is necessary, you must have at least some idea of what form it takes. Otherwise, you're just putting some vague theoretical abstraction above the workers and claiming that this solves the problem of production and distribution.
Right you are again. Apologies. Truth is, I'm not really sure how a vanguard should be run. The idea of a party might work, but then again, Lenin's democratic centralism seems just a little off to me. I'm open to ideas on this one.


Why are the privileged economic specialists going to want to relinquish their power to mere workers? Besides, post-revolutionary society will continue to grow -- so if you don't think workers are capable of coordinating economic activity after the revolution, what makes you think they'll be able to handle a society that has become even bigger and more complex?
What power (more on this next section)? And why not? I think workers are fully capable of coordinating economic activity. All I'm saying is that immediately post-revolution many echoes of capitalist society will still exist, and the world will not be a happy place (we can see this from post-Tsar Russia). I feel some sort of coordinator that is able to assess the system as a whole will be better at managing the extremely scarce resources that will follow such a world-shifting event.


Finally, the state "coordianting" economic activity implies that it has control over said activity and its products. So how exactly is this qualitatively different than ownership?
Maybe state was the wrong word. The way I see it, all the vanguard is doing is directing. In this way, what the vanguard is doing is working from the outside. In this way, they do not hold any real power. Once the time comes for them to 'relinquish their power', it will be a much smoother world and the workers will be doing what they were doing before more or less autonomously. There's no relinquishing involved. Just an eventual disappearance of need.

[Amphictyonis]

The role of the vanguard is to go away in time. Problem is, thats ignoring the nature of power. There would almost have to be a second workers revolution if another class was given disproportionate control over the means of production. Just sayin.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

The role of the vanguard is to go away in time. Problem is, thats ignoring the nature of power. There would almost have to be a second workers revolution if another class was given disproportionate control over the means of production. Just sayin.
I agree. That's why the workers control the means of production :)

[cenv]

Technologies such as what? Simply saying "by creating organs that allow workers..." really is quite a vague statement. By creating a vanguard (specialised, not necessarily elite) that acts as that organ, we can distribute products where they need to be, when they need to be. It's just the concepts of specialists. An elite to me is someone that is considered better than the rest of society, and specialists needn't be that.
Technology like the internet, computers, any of the technology that has made modern production increasingly automated, etc. Modern technology in general.

My statement was vague because I already stated the specific forms these organs can take in an earlier post in : workers councils, popular assemblies, and any unforeseen forms of workers self-management that may arise out of the material conditions of the 21st century.

The specialists you're talking about specialize in controlling the economy -- this does place them above the working class.


Giving the workers all the power overnight is a nice thought, but that might not be fully practical.The problem is that this assumes someone other than the workers will make the revolution and then "give" the workers power. But if the revolution isn't the act of workers taking power and making revolution for themselves, then by definition its no longer a working-class revolution.


Having a system where there are specialists who know where things are needed and how many are made where.This just sounds like magic. How are the specialists going to know this, especially if "the entire world ... is shaken."

All the points you make against workers self-management, eg. the state of upheaval that follows revolution, are just as valid as points against management of the economy by a vanguard, and the possibility of establishing socialism in general. Plus, while its true that there will be upheaval following the revolution, it would be dangerous to assume that eventually all chaos and disorder will fade into a serene and static utopia -- upheaval and conflict will be a part of society, even in communism, so if we wait for these things to go away before establishing workers control, we might be waiting for ever. Especially since subordinating the working class to a vanguard is only going to create more conflict, not to mention economic disorder.



Maybe state was the wrong word. The way I see it, all the vanguard is doing is directing. In this way, what the vanguard is doing is working from the outside. In this way, they do not hold any real power. Once the time comes for them to 'relinquish their power', it will be a much smoother world and the workers will be doing what they were doing before more or less autonomously. There's no relinquishing involved. Just an eventual disappearance of need. Comrade, how can a tiny minority of the population "direct" the working class as a whole if they "do not hold any real power"? This doesn't make any sense. Besides, you've already stated that you don't believe it's possible to "give the workers all the power" immediately following the revolution -- the implication being that the vanguard must hold some power over the workers and that it will be up to the vanguard to voluntarily "give" more power to the working class. Your assertion that "the workers control the means of production" while a small group of specialists "directs" production and distribution is a contradiction because directing economic activity implies controlling the means of production.

Also, you make it sound as if the economic specialists will gracefully fade away. But their control over the economy will have to be rooted in concrete power structures, so someone is going to have to make a decision to remove them from their positions of power; and if we've learned one thing from history, it's that people in positions of privilege rarely decide to voluntarily step down.

I know where you're coming from with the overall theory you have here, but I think if you try to envision what it means in concrete terms you'll find that it contradicts itself.

[Nanatsu Yoru]

I know where you're coming from with the overall theory you have here, but I think if you try to envision what it means in concrete terms you'll find that it contradicts itself.
All of your arguments are valid and maybe cause for me to rethink my original thoughts about vanguards.

What is your stance on the subject?

[cenv]

All of your arguments are valid and maybe cause for me to rethink my original thoughts about vanguards.

What is your stance on the subject?
Glad to hear that, comrade. :)

My view is that while the working-class will express itself through organization, this organization will only be a "vanguard" in the very loosest since of the term. Using technology as a basis for multidirectional communication on an international scale, workers can create a network of workers councils, popular assemblies, and democratic channels of communication that will be at once fluid and powerful -- two qualities that forms of revolutionary power were unable to unite before the advent of modern technology.

Therefore instead of a desperate attempt to impose economic order on a chaotic situation through a centralized minority, organization establishes an interconnected and coherent equilibrium between workers and "consumers" across divergent industries and geographical locations. It accomodates peculiarities unforeseen by specialized planning, because it is flexible. Thus it is elastic, radically democratic and uncompromisingly rational.

I see this as the best option because instead of trying to break the forms of capitalism by forcing contrived political and economic forms into its place, it dissolves political and economic forms as such and replaces them with an organization that follows from the content of revolutionary society. It is an organic system that mimics the nature of the technology that created it.