Innovation & incentive in socialism. [Archive]

superborys

16th October 2010, 06:04

I am entirely confident in the thousands of visitors to RevLeft that one of them has a solution that will work, but I myself have not come up with one, and this upsets me.

When I argue my point against people who actually know something about politics and support capitalism, the most frequent argument I get that I have not devised a counterpoint to is:
'Socialism/communism stifles the will to invent and improve, and it stifles the incentive. Why work when everyone else will support you?'

I understand that the latter half of that argument is 'Because other people also have this mindset, and if no one worked, then the system would collapse.', and while this is blatantly and clearly obvious to anyone who considers it, I don't think the Average Joe would wake up in the morning and realize this. I do believe that most people would think they are unique cases and think themselves exceptions to the rule. How would any institution of socialism or communism address this?

I also have not figured out how to address the 'inventive/innovative' half of the argument. On the surface it does appear that invention would slow down a lot, because as it stands today, incentive and invention are blood brothers. Invention is the easiest way to make money in a capitalist system, so tons of people invent, and thus the rate of invention is probably higher than in a standard socialism. How is this addressed?

SocialismOrBarbarism

16th October 2010, 06:18

'Socialism/communism stifles the will to invent and improve, and it stifles the incentive. Why work when everyone else will support you?'Who ever said everyone else will support you?

I also have not figured out how to address the 'inventive/innovative' half of the argument. On the surface it does appear that invention would slow down a lot, because as it stands today, incentive and invention are blood brothers. Invention is the easiest way to make money in a capitalist system, so tons of people invent, and thus the rate of invention is probably higher than in a standard socialism. How is this addressed? If you think it's all about remuneration then you could simply have higher pay for researchers who design the products best liked by consumers.

Apoi_Viitor

16th October 2010, 07:31

http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pink_on_motivation.html

Ovi

16th October 2010, 13:09

First of all capitalism is against progress. In order to research something, there has to be some material incentive for the capitalist. He must make profit out of that. Capitalists can do this in 2 ways: sell the invention or use it themselves.

About the former, in order to sell the invention, they must force others not to use their invention, unless they pay them a certain amount of money. This is accomplished using state granted monopoly on the invention using patents. What this means is that without a state imposing patents, there won't be any inventions at all, since you can't profit from selling them. However, restricting access to the invention means restricting progress. For instance someone else could improve the design; however that's illegal. You can't do that, because it's protected by patents.

The capitalist could also use the invention himself. Again that's against progress. Without making it available to everyone else, this means many companies will research the same thing over and over again. Trade secrets are against progress. However, making the invention available to everyone is also against progress. The capitalist who spent the funds on the invention will be selected against by the market. He spent a lot of money on the invention, while those who didn't still have complete access to the results. That means smaller prices for those who don't invent. Being innovative means going bankrupt in this case.

Of course, the state knows very well about this. That's why you can't for instance patent a physical or mathematical theorem. The market doesn't work very well with research. How can you create a competitive theory alternative to quantum mechanics. You can't (what is someone patented the wheel? as long as the patent was enforced, progress would be very much at the mercy of the patent holder). If you could patent such theories, you'd have a state granted monopoly, like every other patents. It would mean physics and mathematics research would be brought to a halt. Capitalists make a lot of money out of using such theories, but don't make money out of researching them. That's why large and expensive physical projects, such as the LHC are not private, but state funded. An even more striking example is ITER (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ITER). Its goal is to research nuclear fusion. If they succeed in making an economic fusion reactor, capitalists will make billions. However, ITER is again state funded. Inventions and discoveries are for the common good of all, but capitalism has no notion of common good.

In the end, there are 2 situations in capitalism: have state granted monopolies on inventions using patents and restrict further development or don't have state intervention and bring the entire research to a halt. In either case, capitalism is inherently against innovation.

I would also add that mathematicians and physicists don't do research for their own profit, but out of their own desire. Make education freely available to everyone and create conditions where anyone interested in research can do research and socialism will make scientific progress in capitalism look like a joke.

graymouser

16th October 2010, 14:59

This argument is disingenuous in no small part because it's not really industry that invents or improves things at all.

The twentieth century, particularly from the 1950s onward, was a period of intense government intervention in inventions. The entire concept of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), which invented the Internet, was of a government/corporation partnership, where the government subsidized the research and the corporations were allowed to make profits on it. The pharmaceutical industry is rife with public/private partnerships where a drug company works with a publicly funded university to research new drugs. The pharma company gets to sell the drug but much of the R&D costs are offloaded to the taxpayers through the university. This story - socialization of the costs of research, privatization of the profits - is the story of 90% of the high-tech industry today.

Meanwhile, what do people do? Well, hundreds of thousands of software developers (my own profession) work for free on open source projects that sit in direct competition with the products that big software firms like Microsoft sells. When I fire up Microsoft Visual Studio on my work PC, that's a program that cost my employer about $5000 for one seat license for me. (That's per version, but it's gone up over time, so Visual Studio 2003, 2005 and 2008 combined probably cost them $10K. And we haven't even gotten to VS 2010 yet.) If I want Eclipse I can just get it for free. The truth is that free software has pushed things along tremendously, web browsers would still be stuck in about 2005 if it weren't for the popularity of Opera and Firefox. Yet nobody's become a millionaire off of Firefox.

Socialism would literally be able to take the best of both worlds - the drive and creativity of the free software people, and the stable funding sources and seriously powerful equipment that the professionals have - and combine them to make software a social good. Medicine, technology? Hell, we're already funding all the research, we'd just cut out the profit motive and make the things directly as a social good. And we'd be able to do it in a way that wasn't tied to the profit motive - so for instance medicines to cure disease would get a priority over the long-term maintenance drugs that are currently popular, since the latter category make so much more money for the drug companies. And there'd be no trade secrets. I mean, seriously, if a new braking system can be developed for high-end cars, why not put it in all of them? (Of course, the cars would also have to be electric but that's part of another story.) There are so many senseless things that would be removed with capitalism - but innovation is not one of them.

ContrarianLemming

16th October 2010, 15:06

Red Commissar

16th October 2010, 16:24

Meanwhile, what do people do? Well, hundreds of thousands of software developers (my own profession) work for free on open source projects that sit in direct competition with the products that big software firms like Microsoft sells. When I fire up Microsoft Visual Studio on my work PC, that's a program that cost my employer about $5000 for one seat license for me. (That's per version, but it's gone up over time, so Visual Studio 2003, 2005 and 2008 combined probably cost them $10K. And we haven't even gotten to VS 2010 yet.) If I want Eclipse I can just get it for free. The truth is that free software has pushed things along tremendously, web browsers would still be stuck in about 2005 if it weren't for the popularity of Opera and Firefox. Yet nobody's become a millionaire off of Firefox.

Free open source software is a very good example of how incentive and innovation can still occur with out the allure of profit. I mean, I remember reading by some estimates that many open source projects would probably have cost a considerable sum to develop by now had they been created off conventional proprietary means. Yet people still continue to build off them and other open source projects that continue chugging along with out the need for massive profits and still put up good work.

What is important is that people have a connection to what they are working at- something they care for and are passionate about. I mean, is capitalism really providing people "incentive" and "innovation" in this regard? Maybe for a few people they put up as role models, but for many people it's a grind through low paying jobs, with most people's motivation being when their shift ends.

Is this the prized work ethic the capitalists and their apologists are so proud of? It seems nothing more than a stick and carrot- much like the rest of their methods. In this light Marx's statement about workers becoming alienated from their work due to the current means of production is true, and it's unfortunately going to continue getting worse from here.

Socialism would at least give people a chance to do what they wish to do, and a meaningful connection to their work. The sense of feeling that they are doing a work for their community and providing a service, one that they can see in real life, is reason enough for them to work. In fact people today in this capitalist wilderness try to rationalise their work by these standards- so is profit really that important for innovation and incentive?

I remember HG Wells addressed a bit of this in his work "New Worlds for Old". While its more of an emotionally-charged argument, I think it still holds relevance today:

Whether we like it or not, we who live in this world to-day find we must either devote a considerable of our attention to getting and keeping money, and shape our activities—or, if you will, distort them—with a constant reference to that or we must accept futility. Whatever men want to exercise, whatever service they to do, it is a preliminary condition for most of them that they must, by earning something or something, achieve opportunity. If they turn their gift into some saleable thing or some propertied man to “patronize” them, cannot exercise these gifts. The gift for getting the supreme gift—all others bow before it.

Whether we like it or not, we who live in this to-day find we must either devote a considerable of our attention to getting and money, and shape our activities—or, if you distort them—with a constant reference to that or we must accept futility. Whatever men want to exercise, whatever service they to do, it is a preliminary condition for most of them that they must, by earning something or something, achieve opportunity. If they turn their gift into some saleable thing or some propertied man to “patronize” them, cannot exercise these gifts. The gift for getting the supreme gift—all others bow before it.

Now this is not a thing that comes naturally of the quality of man; it is the result of a and complex social growth, of this set of working against that, and of these influences those. The idea of property has run and become a choking universal weed. It not the natural master-passion of a wholesome to want constantly to own. People talk of as being a proposal “against human” and they would have us believe that this of anxiety, of parsimony and speculation, of and forced toil we all is the complete and final expression of the possibilities of the human soul. But, indeed, is only quite abnormal people, people of a limited, specialized intelligence, Rockefellers, and the like, people neither great nor beautiful, mere financial monomaniacs, who keep themselves devoted to and concentrated gain. To the majority of capable good stuff, buying and selling, saving and investing, oneself and managing property, a mass of uncongenial, irrational and tiresome conflicting with the general trend of and the finer interests of life. The great of men and women, indeed, find the whole so against nature, that in spite of all the of poverty, all the slavery of the economic they cannot urge themselves to this cunning game of besting the world, they poor. Most, in a sort of despair, make no many resort to that floundering endeavour get by accident, gambling; many achieve a and unsatisfactory gathering of possessions, few houses, a claim on a field, a few pounds in some investment as incalculable a kite in a gale; just a small minority have and for the most part either inheritors of riches or people who, through a real dulness toward better and nobler aspects of life, can give themselves almost entirely to grabbing and accumulation.

All this amounts to a huge impoverishment of a loss of beauty and discrimination of rich and values. Human existence to-day is a mere intimation of what it might be. It is and dwarfed from palace to slum. It is not only that a great mass of our population is of space, beauty and pleasure, but that large proportion of such space, beauty and as there are in the world must necessarily a meretricious taint and be in the nature of things bought and made for pay.

pranabjyoti

16th October 2010, 19:10

I have my own views here and that I have posted in my blog at http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?u=25919.
At present, with my little knowledge of invention/innovation, the capitalism isn't that good as it was in its infancy. At present, technological development is high and most business houses are seeking working prototype, but very few inventor/innovator have that financial/technical capability to do that. There are some Govt. assistance for inventor/innovators, but that is very much limited and private business aren't interested in initial phase of research and development. That just want a finished product ready to be marketed.
At least in USSR, there was no lack of inventions. During the WWII, T-34, Klim Voroshilov tanks and many other inventions were invented and later they produced the first jet fighter plane of world, MIG-1. Even in the later part of 20th century, 3D cinema, LED, LASER were also invented in USSR. You also have to keep in mind that USSR don't have the supply of brains from all around the world like USA and other imperialist countries. At present, the best goods carrying jet plane Antonov was also invented in USSR. They also produced the Hydrogen bomb by their own effort alone while scientists and technical persons from Europe just flooded the USA after WWII.
China too progressed even after withdrawal of Soviet assistance during Khrushchev and they blasted their own hydrogen bomb in 1967 with almost singular effort.
Does all the above examples show that invention/innovation has slower progress in socialism BECAUSE THERE IS NO INCENTIVE FOR THAT? Actually, those who have very narrow mindset and no idea about socialism can make such remarks. In fact, inventors/innovators have more honor in socialism than capitalism, where the capitalists take the lions share of the credits. WE KNOW THAT EDISON INVENTED THE INCANDESCENT BULB INSTEAD OF JOSEPH SCHWAN. That's true for almost all other inventions of Edison, who is actually more an entrepreneur than inventor.

Apoi_Viitor

16th October 2010, 23:32

Here are some quotes from Noam Chomsky...

"What’s MIT? When Eisenhower was making his speech, MIT was working hard, just like Harvard, with government research funds to reduce computers from massive creatures that filled all of these office spaces to something small enough so you could sell it to a company as a mainframe. When they got to that point, right about the time of Eisenhower’s speech, the head of one of the big projects pulled out and formed the first mainframe producer. Meanwhile, IBM was in there learning, on public funds, how to move from punch cards to computers. By the early 1960s, they were able to produce more advanced computers of their own, but not for the public. There is no consumer choice in this. They were doing it for the National Security Agency and other government agencies. In fact, it was years, it was literally decades, before private tyrannies, what’s called free enterprise, were able to take the results of public funding and market them. When Alan Greenspan talks about it, it’s the marvels of entrepreneurial initiative and consumer choice, which was approximately zero throughout the costly and risky period of development.

The same is true of the Internet. It was in the public system for thirty years. We’re supposed to be excited about trade and how wonderful it is. Maybe it is or maybe it isn’t, but trade is based on containers, which were developed at public cost in the U.S. Navy. Dave Noble did a very important piece of work on an important part of the economy, basically, computer-controlled machine tools, which were designed–not as a technological imperative but for doctrinal reasons, as he shows–as a way of deskilling machinists and placing more authority in the hands of managers. The technology didn’t have to be used that way. It could have been used the opposite way, as he points out. But it was used that way, and it was developed within the military, where just about everything innovative was developed in the high tech economy, under military cover."

And

"...And then he ended up by saying, look no one's to blame for this, it's just the market in its infinite and mysterious wisdom. It just has these effects and there's nothing you can do about it. Then he gave three examples, exactly three examples in the article, of the market in its infinite and mysterious wisdom, namely: Grumman, McDonald Douglass, and Hughes Aircraft.

Now, you know, maybe this is some kind of subtle irony that I'm missing, but these are three prototypes of publicly subsidized corporations. Grumman, Hughes, McDonald Douglass? They wouldn't exist for two minutes if it wasn't for huge public subsidy.

So that's the market in its infinite and mysterious wisdom.

When Clinton was announcing his grand vision of the free market future at the A.P.E.C. conference in Seattle, he did the same thing. It was in the Boeing terminal, that's where he announced it, and he gave Boeing -- Boeing -- as the example of the grand vision of the free market future, and there were big headlines in all the newspapers, and a lot of applause about our love of the free market, and so on. It's not necessary to comment."

And Pages 192-193 from his book "Rogue States", are quite humorous.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dCBwFyNp6jQC&pg=PA193&lpg=PA193&dq=chomsky+%22consumer+choice%22&source=bl&ots=fZDFUcgQuY&sig=o3Wzn1LrQihJSCPOCDEY2FanpTk&hl=en&ei=pSa6TOnIJYL78Abd9NWYDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBcQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

ckaihatsu

18th October 2010, 14:04

'Socialism/communism stifles the will to invent and improve, and it stifles the incentive. Why work when everyone else will support you?'

I also have not figured out how to address the 'inventive/innovative' half of the argument. On the surface it does appear that invention would slow down a lot, because as it stands today, incentive and invention are blood brothers. Invention is the easiest way to make money in a capitalist system, so tons of people invent, and thus the rate of invention is probably higher than in a standard socialism. How is this addressed?

Two points here:

- Raw technological development would be a *secondary* societal concern for a post-capitalist society -- of far more importance would be the immediate relieving of all duress and stresses related to lack of access to materials like food, housing, etc.

- The very *definition* of what can be considered to be 'progress' would undergo a profound re-examination, on a society-wide basis. This is because currently -- as we all know -- the rate of technological progress is determined by the "invisible hand", or the overall research and development advances that are allowed by the profit motive. But once 'progress' is released from its subservient position relative to profit it would take on a wholly different dynamic and definition. A turn to *economic democracy* -- as in the world's workers controlling the means of invention and innovation -- would most likely lead to a *humane* "speed-up", using whatever technology was at hand, and/or possibly making some small technical advances to assist with this overall societal endeavor. On a strictly *technical* basis it might not be a full-throttle mobilization towards *technological* advance, but as it would concentrate on the human condition it would be far more important and meaningful in people's actual lives. At some later point, once humanity felt more at ease to tackle technical challenges in a post-liberation state of being, there could certainly be more-collectivized and more-focused large-scale projects for full-blown technological innovations and inventions, to benefit the entirety of humanity's population.

Also note what the hustle and bustle of a regular city is for, anyway -- are people's actual human needs being served by it all, or should workers maybe control the flow themselves so as to only keep humanity-specific kinds of traffic and services going -- ?

---

If you think it's all about remuneration then you could simply have higher pay for researchers who design the products best liked by consumers.

I'd have to object here -- this proposal really smacks of market socialism.

RadioRaheem84

18th October 2010, 17:18

Lots of good stuff in here guys. Wish we could sticky this. This question ALWAYS comes up when dealing with liberals and conservatives on socialism.

WeAreReborn

19th October 2010, 05:52

I'm sure it already has been said but in terms of invention it would go UP. If people are focused on jobs that matter (meaning not CEO or any other corporate nonsense). With that said, instead of inventing the next best consumerist bullshit they would work on making jobs easier, faster and more convenient for the worker. People want to contribute to society they just don't want to work because their job is just that WORK and often hard work. Jobs can be tolerable and dare I say...fun. It just depends on how you are treated, what profession you work in, the conditions of said work and the fact that you are contributing to society instead of getting some fat Capitalist rich.

ckaihatsu

19th October 2010, 06:15

With that said, instead of inventing the next best consumerist bullshit they would work on making jobs easier, faster and more convenient for the worker.

I don't mean to nit-pick here -- I hope this is well-taken -- but I think there's an element of workerism in this statement. We shouldn't have to "sell" anti-capitalism on any kind of individualistic basis, as in catering to the individual worker.

Without meaning to speculate or to get too imaginative or pessimistic here I'd like to say that there *could* very well be working conditions that are distasteful or even onerous to individual workers, but which would *collectively* be called-for by objective conditions. Though not exactly a post-capitalist context, the revolution against capitalism could be one such condition in which this situation could be possible -- and even *after* a successful revolution against global capital there might be a fair amount of "mopping up" to do, in which working conditions might not exactly be desirable from the standpoint of individual workers, but which would be of paramount importance overall for the sake of a post-capitalist society.

the fact that you are contributing to society instead of getting some fat Capitalist rich.

This is more along the lines of what I'm thinking, and also my line of argumentation.

WeAreReborn

19th October 2010, 06:29

I don't mean to nit-pick here -- I hope this is well-taken -- but I think there's an element of workerism in this statement. We shouldn't have to "sell" anti-capitalism on any kind of individualistic basis, as in catering to the individual worker.

Without meaning to speculate or to get too imaginative or pessimistic here I'd like to say that there *could* very well be working conditions that are distasteful or even onerous to individual workers, but which would *collectively* be called-for by objective conditions. Though not exactly a post-capitalist context, the revolution against capitalism could be one such condition in which this situation could be possible -- and even *after* a successful revolution against global capital there might be a fair amount of "mopping up" to do, in which working conditions might not exactly be desirable from the standpoint of individual workers, but which would be of paramount importance overall for the sake of a post-capitalist society.

Don't worry I don't take it personally if anything it builds ideas and strengthens them.

But I don't really see how the conditions would be worse... Some work at the very first months might have long hours but once everything is sorted out working hours do not need to be long or anything above 4 hours a day. At least that is what I understand would work for Anarcho-Communism.

manic expression

19th October 2010, 06:39

WeAreReborn

19th October 2010, 06:56

I think there are different aspects to incentive. Big innovation is easy...people (especially scientists) want to be the best in their fields, they want the recognition and respect that comes with innovation. Dr. Salk didn't want a single dime for his monumental discoveries, Ben Franklin specifically said that it was anti-republican to want monetary gain from one's inventions, Soviet scientists sent the first man to outer space without getting any patents (not to mention the guy who created Tetris). That takes care of itself IMO, as long as we honor innovators and their achievements (and throw in some compensation if necessary).

The thing that's most difficult is, as people have mentioned, motivation in the everyday routines. But that's not unique to socialism at all. Plenty of office workers in capitalism work only hard enough not to get fired (that may have changed a bit since the crisis a few years back, but the point remains). But regardless I think it's very important to discuss how we can get the average worker to put that extra effort into their craft. My opinion, which others have already put forth, is that shorter work days with more tangible results of success would be a good start, but I have almost no managerial experience, and so I would defer to the opinions of other, more informed voices.
You are right about inventors, it is their passion and often even when they do invent something they don't get their due but they still continue to work. In terms of the average worker, I think it is because it seems meaningless. I am not motivated to work because I am not helping my community or my fellow man. I am just contributing to their exploitation, I'm sure most people don't think this way. I cannot speak for every form of Socialism, so I will speak only in Anarcho-Communism as I am most acquainted in. It would work there by saying you must contribute to our commune or please move on and find some other commune that may accept your refusal to work. Now naturally disabled people unable to work is a different case. But if you set up a system that benefits the commune and once you work you can take everything that is the fruit of the commune. I mean that is plenty of incentive right there. Plus, there is also the sense of accomplishment at the end of the day knowing you helped.

ckaihatsu

19th October 2010, 07:06

I think it's very important to discuss how we can get the average worker to put that extra effort into their craft.

This sentiment is patronizing and disgusting under current conditions, and is politically counter-revolutionary -- what exactly is the social composition of the "we" that you're using here?

Under current conditions of capital-based valuations the notion of workers "needing" to put extra effort into "their craft" is objectionable, at *very* least. Workers do *not* currently have any kind of control over the oversight / administration / management of "their" craft, or work and working conditions.

And, in a post-capitalist political economy this sentiment of yours sounds downright Stalinistic -- your argument takes place in a social and political vacuum, only begging to be situated in some way.

Don't worry I don't take it personally if anything it builds ideas and strengthens them.

But I don't really see how the conditions would be worse... Some work at the very first months might have long hours but once everything is sorted out working hours do not need to be long or anything above 4 hours a day. At least that is what I understand would work for Anarcho-Communism.

Yeah, in *principle* the idea is for workers to collectively control their own labor power and the products of it. In *practice*, though, we have no way whatsoever of determining the *specifics* of what that could look like -- it would be up to the workers of that period to decide, and the objective conditions they may be facing at the time could very well be conditions of protracted class warfare, thus requiring extended periods of barracks-like work efforts -- I don't know.

It *is* reasonable, however, to surmise that once the class foe is soundly *defeated* workers would have the world for themselves and would most likely work out a very humane work schedule in common. I can't help but think, though, that there would be a priority placed on public-works-type projects for the immediate relief of all duress and stresses related to outstanding sub-par living conditions in all parts of the globe.

manic expression

19th October 2010, 07:18

This sentiment is patronizing and disgusting under current conditions, and is politically counter-revolutionary -- what exactly is the social composition of the "we" that you're using here?

Under current conditions of capital-based valuations the notion of workers "needing" to put extra effort into "their craft" is objectionable, at *very* least. Workers do *not* currently have any kind of control over the oversight / administration / management of "their" craft, or work and working conditions.

And, in a post-capitalist political economy this sentiment of yours sounds downright Stalinistic -- your argument takes place in a social and political vacuum, only begging to be situated in some way.
Social composition of "we": communists.

I'm not at all talking about current conditions (except the "current conditions" in socialist countries). My argument only applies to worker states after the overthrow of capitalist social relations.

If it sounds "Stalinistic", well, OK.

ckaihatsu

19th October 2010, 07:22

But if you set up a system that benefits the commune and once you work you can take everything that is the fruit of the commune.

I'm going to again have to address a finer point here -- I am not questioning your anti-capitalist credentials in the least.

A commune-type approach to a post-capitalist political economy is, unfortunately, piecemeal, and could not really be considered socialism. Socialism is about using a *mass* approach to revolutionary politics, including the international proletariat's action of worldwide revolution against the bourgeoisie. It's on this *mass* political basis that the post-capitalist society could be formed, particularly with mass industrial practices at the disposal of collectively self-liberated labor.

The commune as an economic entity is a *throwback* to feudal eras in which the economic practice of sharecropping, essentially, was a materially *progressive* development in agricultural production. A successful worldwide revolution would have a comprehensively *global* class scale as its basis of production, something not even seen from the largest corporations of today.

ckaihatsu

19th October 2010, 07:34

I think it's very important to discuss how we can get the average worker to put that extra effort into their craft.

My argument only applies to worker states after the overthrow of capitalist social relations.

If it sounds "Stalinistic", well, OK.

I'm still not seeing the political motivation behind your statement -- in a post-capitalist context who exactly would be putting out this call for "the average worker" to "put that extra effort into their craft"?

- Would a post-capitalist society objectively *require* "that extra effort" from its workers?

- Would a post-capitalist society balance the fulfillment of its humane needs on the labor of craft-type laborers like artisans, or would it first go to the massive material leveraging of labor through *industrial* production?

- Wouldn't the liberated workers *themselves* be the ones to collectively make this kind of determination, if at all?

- Would this kind of call be in the furtherance of some kind of increased *quality* of goods and services from artisan-type workers? If so then shouldn't *those artisans* be the ones to collectively determine this *among themselves*, within the practice of their collective, liberated craft?

Thirsty Crow

19th October 2010, 14:59

The commune as an economic entity is a *throwback* to feudal eras in which the economic practice of sharecropping, essentially, was a materially *progressive* development in agricultural production. A successful worldwide revolution would have a comprehensively *global* class scale as its basis of production, something not even seen from the largest corporations of today.
I don't wish to contradict you or anything, but I have a question: what would that imply concerning the organization of decision making power? In other words: what would happen with borders of nation-states? Would they still stand (implying that a similar political framework will be kept...or not?)?

manic expression

19th October 2010, 16:14

I'm still not seeing the political motivation behind your statement -- in a post-capitalist context who exactly would be putting out this call for "the average worker" to "put that extra effort into their craft"?
Communists would.

- Would a post-capitalist society objectively *require* "that extra effort" from its workers?
Of course not, hence the term "extra". But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get people to go above and beyond the bare minimum.

- Would a post-capitalist society balance the fulfillment of its humane needs on the labor of craft-type laborers like artisans, or would it first go to the massive material leveraging of labor through *industrial* production?
Both, all under the auspices of the workers themselves. The gradual tendency would be to phase out the latter in favor of the former, however.

- Wouldn't the liberated workers *themselves* be the ones to collectively make this kind of determination, if at all?
The workers *themselves* would still have to figure out how to get people to work well together. Gasp, shock, horror, I know.

- Would this kind of call be in the furtherance of some kind of increased *quality* of goods and services from artisan-type workers? If so then shouldn't *those artisans* be the ones to collectively determine this *among themselves*, within the practice of their collective, liberated craft?
Sure, but that doesn't contradict what I'm saying whatsoever.

ckaihatsu

19th October 2010, 19:58

I'm still not seeing the political motivation behind your statement -- in a post-capitalist context who exactly would be putting out this call for "the average worker" to "put that extra effort into their craft"?

Communists would.

I think you're misunderstanding what the point of politics is.... The reason why people become communists -- or any other political orientation, for that matter -- is to advocate for specific *directions* from labor and from society.

Calling for workers to "work harder" -- even in a post-capitalist context -- is a pure abstraction that sidesteps the *direction*, or *reason*, for workers to work harder. Would it be for reconstructing society in the aftermath of a victorious class war against the forces of capital throughout the world? Would it be to focus efforts on the construction of a newly invented machine that would eliminate the problem of hunger forever more? (Etc.)

Would a post-capitalist society objectively *require* "that extra effort" from its workers?

Of course not, hence the term "extra". But that doesn't mean we shouldn't try to get people to go above and beyond the bare minimum.

Once again you're running into the question of *policy* -- what is this "extra effort" going to? By being vague you're leaving unanswered the variables of *who* is putting out this call, and for *what*.

ckaihatsu

19th October 2010, 20:11

A successful worldwide revolution would have a comprehensively *global* class scale as its basis of production,

I don't wish to contradict you or anything,

No, not at all -- no prob.

but I have a question: what would that imply concerning the organization of decision making power? In other words: what would happen with borders of nation-states? Would they still stand (implying that a similar political framework will be kept...or not?)?

Well, all I'm doing is looking at the material social / political base required for a given political action, like worldwide revolution. To take it one step back, for the sake of illustration, let's recall what industrialization entailed -- it was a shift of entire populations from villages, towns, and the countryside into burgeoning urban areas. So the material base required for industrialization was the concentrated labor forces of major cities, using machinery in factories. We can extrapolate this to estimate the superstructure, without even knowing a single bit of history -- what kind of political apparatus might rise out of this kind of industrial material base in order to protect the interests of private property and tend (in some way) to the humanistic needs of the industrial working population (and their families) in these cities? We could reasonably assume there would be some kind of organized physical force involved for supervision, maybe some sets of laws so as to expedite any disputes that arose, some sort of surveying for the formalization of how land within the city is used, and so on.

In a similar manner we can do the same thing with a worldwide workers' revolution and consider what material conditions would be *required* for it to happen in the first place, and then what kind of political / organizational structures would emerge from such a base in the furtherance of its task.

So, to be concrete and answer your direct questions, I would say that the decision-making political power of a worldwide self-organized proletariat would have to be at *least* as coordinated as the largest political entity of its class foe. Nation-states are bourgeois entities, so that form of political composition would be entirely irrelevant to the organizing needs of the proletariat.

WeAreReborn

20th October 2010, 02:46

I'm going to again have to address a finer point here -- I am not questioning your anti-capitalist credentials in the least.

A commune-type approach to a post-capitalist political economy is, unfortunately, piecemeal, and could not really be considered socialism. Socialism is about using a *mass* approach to revolutionary politics, including the international proletariat's action of worldwide revolution against the bourgeoisie. It's on this *mass* political basis that the post-capitalist society could be formed, particularly with mass industrial practices at the disposal of collectively self-liberated labor.

The commune as an economic entity is a *throwback* to feudal eras in which the economic practice of sharecropping, essentially, was a materially *progressive* development in agricultural production. A successful worldwide revolution would have a comprehensively *global* class scale as its basis of production, something not even seen from the largest corporations of today.
When I say Commune, I imagine a federation of communes as so illustrated by various Anarchists, for example Bakunin, Kropotkin etc... It could be on a country basis as large as America or even globally (naturally if it was global the communes would probably no longer be needed.) Communes in general are useful to mediate between regional differences and can help in terms of organization. I hold this commune belief until the global revolution takes place, which is questionable if it will at all.

Amphictyonis

20th October 2010, 02:53

Amphictyonis

20th October 2010, 03:02

I am entirely confident in the thousands of visitors to RevLeft that one of them has a solution that will work, but I myself have not come up with one, and this upsets me.

Why work when everyone else will support you?'

8y7zobJ7ZPc

Forgive my use of video. I get tired of typing. The relevance of the video is found in the questions he asks the people at the 1:09 mark and beyond. :) Also, most of our modern technological advances have come from the military not the "free market".

Marx saw capitalism as a step in humanities progression. Capitalism did in fact expand our productive capabilities, it gave us the industrial means of production. Capitalism makes socialism possible. The capitalists who declare "the end of history" are morons. The same as kings/feudal lords who thought their system would last forever. Humanity will 'outgrow' capitalism- Marx thought when capitalism's productive forces are no longer progressive but repressive. Capitalism itself has always been oppressive but we're talking about it's ability to expand human capability. I see the end of capitalism happening towards the end of our lifetime. It's our job, when it declines, to step up to the plate with socialism as the alternative and hurry the process along if possible.

ckaihatsu

20th October 2010, 03:39

When I say Commune, I imagine a federation of communes as so illustrated by various Anarchists, for example Bakunin, Kropotkin etc... It could be on a country basis as large as America or even globally (naturally if it was global the communes would probably no longer be needed.) Communes in general are useful to mediate between regional differences and can help in terms of organization. I hold this commune belief until the global revolution takes place, which is questionable if it will at all.

Beliefs are fine and all, but it's good to understand what a revolutionary politics entails, too....

As long as the capitalist state exists it will enforce a certain set of work practices as being the *legal* kind and will go so far as to go to war (U.S. Civil War) against those who uphold a *different*, *conflicting* system of labor. Politics aside, different systems of labor exploitation *cannot* materially co-exist with each other. If serfs or slaves have a choice they will vote with their feet to be independent and to make their living in such a way that they can *control* a portion of the labor value that they produce, that is returned to them in the form of wages. So, from the laborer's perspective, it's better to get cash wages than not, if the overall global economy of goods and services is relatively accessible for that cash that they're receiving.

You're only addressing the *political* structure with the communal system that you're advocating, and it's not speaking to the basis of production. Would workers at these various communes be limited to the productivity of the commune they're at? If so, then the current global market would be preferable for workers (as consumers), since they can access far more productivity with the wages they earn than they could at any local commune. (I'd also wonder if and how any one of those communes could reach industrial manufacturing capabilities.)

If you're calling the project of a global proletarian revolution into question then you're not really anti-capitalist. Only a worldwide revolution can displace capitalism, otherwise it continues to control the best, most labor-efficient production method known to humanity, industrial production.

Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://i56.tinypic.com/15eitkg.jpg

manic expression

20th October 2010, 03:54

I think you're misunderstanding what the point of politics is.... The reason why people become communists -- or any other political orientation, for that matter -- is to advocate for specific *directions* from labor and from society.

Calling for workers to "work harder" -- even in a post-capitalist context -- is a pure abstraction that sidesteps the *direction*, or *reason*, for workers to work harder. Would it be for reconstructing society in the aftermath of a victorious class war against the forces of capital throughout the world? Would it be to focus efforts on the construction of a newly invented machine that would eliminate the problem of hunger forever more? (Etc.)
It's an abstraction because it's an abstract question. Greater productivity would fill many purposes in the course of the construction and maintenance of socialist society. You essentially answered your own question by posing those last few questions.

Once again you're running into the question of *policy* -- what is this "extra effort" going to? By being vague you're leaving unanswered the variables of *who* is putting out this call, and for *what*.
Imagine a workplace that will exist after capitalism is abolished. Imagine what it produces. Then imagine that product being better and more plentiful.

There you go.

ckaihatsu

20th October 2010, 04:27

Once again you're running into the question of *policy* -- what is this "extra effort" going to? By being vague you're leaving unanswered the variables of *who* is putting out this call, and for *what*.

Imagine a workplace that will exist after capitalism is abolished. Imagine what it produces. Then imagine that product being better and more plentiful.

There you go.

This is somewhat humorous because -- excuse me for chuckling -- you're forgetting that the same people who are the *consumers* in a post-capitalist society are also the liberated *workers*. By making a management-like directive to the workers of a possible future society you're positioning yourself as if you were a time traveller floating in orbit outside of this future world, issuing directives to a liberated workforce. In other words it's *really* bizarre and a-political, to say the least.

These liberated laborers may very well find that producing quality objects and consumables for their own usage -- without being exploited -- is *not* a linear, one-to-one relationship of work effort to productive output, especially once they've taken collective control of the means of mass production. Sure, some may continue to do handicraft-type work as self-selected artisans, but I'd say that the bulk of the population would *not* go in that direction with their lives and would be altogether comfortable using the outputs of *industrial* manufacturing processes -- and these are *not* dependent on increasing amounts of human mental / emotional / physical labor power.

manic expression

20th October 2010, 06:40

This is somewhat humorous because -- excuse me for chuckling -- you're forgetting that the same people who are the *consumers* in a post-capitalist society are also the liberated *workers*. By making a management-like directive to the workers of a possible future society you're positioning yourself as if you were a time traveller floating in orbit outside of this future world, issuing directives to a liberated workforce. In other words it's *really* bizarre and a-political, to say the least.
Where did I make a distinction between consumers and workers? Oh, right, you're just being thick. Apparently, though, you only have a problem with the premise of the discussion, which is motivation in a socialist society. That's precisely what I'm addressing, so your problem isn't really any of my concern. But while you're chuckling, maybe you could read what I actually wrote before characterizing my posts:

but I have almost no managerial experience, and so I would defer to the opinions of other, more informed voices.

Get back to me when you comprehend what that means, OK? If you're having trouble (which is evidently the case), don't be afraid to say so, I wouldn't want you straining something.

These liberated laborers may very well find that producing quality objects and consumables for their own usage -- without being exploited -- is *not* a linear, one-to-one relationship of work effort to productive output, especially once they've taken collective control of the means of mass production. Sure, some may continue to do handicraft-type work as self-selected artisans, but I'd say that the bulk of the population would *not* go in that direction with their lives and would be altogether comfortable using the outputs of *industrial* manufacturing processes -- and these are *not* dependent on increasing amounts of human mental / emotional / physical labor power.Nice "directives to a liberated workforce". Want a cookie? Oh, wait, according to you, that would mean a dichotomy between consumer and producer, and it would make you a time-traveling astronaut. Have fun twisting your useless imagination around that for the next half-dozen posts. :laugh:

ckaihatsu

20th October 2010, 07:16

My *point* -- to get this back on track -- is that it is not up to *us* in this historical period to attempt to *make policy* for those who may be able to liberate the world from capitalism at some point in the future. While we can make some reasonable extrapolations over broad dynamics like production for a possible post-capitalist society, we cannot extrapolate in any kind of *detail*.

Where did I make a distinction between consumers and workers?

motivation in a socialist society

Today, under capitalism's system of commodity production there *is* a severe material distinction between consumers and workers since they are separated in those roles through the extraction of surplus labor value during the process of production. In a post-capitalist society the workers and consumers would be one and the same, like the front half and back half of a person. Materially these will always be different "functions" but when the world's workers can collectively determine exactly *what* is worth producing, and in what quantities, then they will also know *how much* to work, and it will be *directly* for their own needs and wants.

Amphictyonis

20th October 2010, 07:23

Tesla on compulsion (wage slavery and inventing for material gain)

"I am credited with being one of the hardest workers and perhaps I am, if thought is the equivalent of labour, for I have devoted to it almost all of my waking hours. But if work is interpreted to be a definite performance in a specified time according to a rigid rule, then I may be the worst of idlers. Every effort under compulsion demands a sacrifice of life-energy. I never paid such a price. On the contrary, I have thrived on my thoughts."

pranabjyoti

20th October 2010, 14:27

This thread is about invention and innovation, but now it's stuck to debate on abstract ideas. There is no possibly fruitful suggestion that can be implemented in present scenario.

manic expression

20th October 2010, 14:42

ckaihatsu

20th October 2010, 18:30

Yeah, too bad I'm not talking about that

No one's stopping you....

WeAreReborn

21st October 2010, 01:44

Beliefs are fine and all, but it's good to understand what a revolutionary politics entails, too....

As long as the capitalist state exists it will enforce a certain set of work practices as being the *legal* kind and will go so far as to go to war (U.S. Civil War) against those who uphold a *different*, *conflicting* system of labor. Politics aside, different systems of labor exploitation *cannot* materially co-exist with each other. If serfs or slaves have a choice they will vote with their feet to be independent and to make their living in such a way that they can *control* a portion of the labor value that they produce, that is returned to them in the form of wages. So, from the laborer's perspective, it's better to get cash wages than not, if the overall global economy of goods and services is relatively accessible for that cash that they're receiving.

You're only addressing the *political* structure with the communal system that you're advocating, and it's not speaking to the basis of production. Would workers at these various communes be limited to the productivity of the commune they're at? If so, then the current global market would be preferable for workers (as consumers), since they can access far more productivity with the wages they earn than they could at any local commune. (I'd also wonder if and how any one of those communes could reach industrial manufacturing capabilities.)

If you're calling the project of a global proletarian revolution into question then you're not really anti-capitalist. Only a worldwide revolution can displace capitalism, otherwise it continues to control the best, most labor-efficient production method known to humanity, industrial production.

Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://i56.tinypic.com/15eitkg.jpg
Not sure the whole anti-Capitalism statement is true at all. Sure you can question the validity of the ideals but if you say you aren't anti-Capitalism because you don't necessarily think a global revolution HAS to happen is just ridiculous. Do I think it should? Yes. And also I am aware of what you mean, however I think you are looking upon the subject too broadly. I don't envision one commune just as a revolutionary feat. In my mind, I feel a country will begin to exercise Anarcho-Communism before the global revolution, does that mean I am not a Communist/Socialist? I don't think so, because I believe once it shows it CAN be successful the rest of the world shall follow. In terms of production, I am imagining a Federation of communes on a country sized scale, be it America or any other country you may think of. From there the people would have access to all the resources of the land. People would still be up to date in production and the most productive means as long as primitivism doesn't take hold, which I'm not pushing for so we can throw that out the window. With that said, Science would advance just due to the fact that Scientists aren't limited to a certain amount of money. They shall get all the resources that is needed to work most effectively. Just as any other profession. Resources shall be abundant due to the fact everyone shall put to work and their shall be no useless middle men jobs. So I don't really see any problems, but I do wish to continue this debate so point out any flaws you may see.

ckaihatsu

21st October 2010, 04:02

My only concern -- and this is with anarchism in general -- is that there is a certain factor of *scale*, and of timing, involved -- there are tangible, realistic *strategic* factors that would exist -- akin to that on a battlefield -- within and during a revolution against the bourgeoisie.

In my mind, I feel a country will begin to exercise Anarcho-Communism before the global revolution,

In terms of production, I am imagining a Federation of communes on a country sized scale, be it America or any other country you may think of. From there the people would have access to all the resources of the land. People would still be up to date in production and the most productive means

I can't help but wonder if one country, at a time, would be fast enough to displace the political and military forces of the bourgeoisie. If any revolutionary movement is too small or slow it could simply get swamped.

A vanguard is certainly needed *for* a revolution simply because it would be the ultimate centralization of mass political power that the world has ever seen -- far moreso than current bourgeois institutions like the UN Security Council or the United Nations General Assembly or whatever. A vanguard would accurately reflect the minute-by-minute interests of the mass working class, similar to the several Marxist news sites in existence today.

I'd imagine that most of the routine political issues of the day, even going into a revolutionary period, could be handled adeptly by these existing organizations and organs -- however, the tricky part is in carrying out specific, large-scale campaigns that are under time pressure. This is where the world's working class should have the *benefit* of hierarchical organization, just as the capitalists use with their interlocking directorates and CEOs and such.

A vanguard organization would have to, unfortunately, *take over* and *be responsible for* certain crucial, time-sensitive aspects of a united front against the capitalists. Too much lateralism -- which anarchists promote -- is just too slow and redundant in its operation, organizationally, to hope to be effective against the consolidated hierarchies that the capitalists employ.

Just as it's easier to travel in elevators than in cars we should *strive* for a vertical consolidation of militant labor groupings as part of a worldwide proletariat offensive. This tight centrality and focus would enable the vanguard to manuever much more quickly and effectively against the class enemy's mobilizations, no matter where and when they take place, worldwide.

http://tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

WeAreReborn

21st October 2010, 05:17

Though you may have a point, the problem with centralization, that any Anarchist will tell you is that power corrupts. Look at the USSR, there original intents was to become Communistic but because of the corruption this goal was never reached. Maybe transitions is for the best but the problem is the true revolution that makes change might be stifled by authoritarian oppression. So in my opinion it is a better chance to set up Anarchy, even if it isn't all at once and even at chance of being crushed by a Western power then to leave my fate into the hands of a third party. Obviously, this is the main differences between Anarchists and Marxists.

ckaihatsu

21st October 2010, 07:16

Though you may have a point, the problem with centralization, that any Anarchist will tell you is that power corrupts. Look at the USSR, there original intents was to become Communistic but because of the corruption this goal was never reached.

I appreciate the cautionary warning here. If anything it shows an attitude of serious political concern on the part of the person making the argument.

That said, though, your premise that Stalinism took hold in Soviet Russia because of "corruption" is a grave misconception and is a poor analysis of historical developments. In brief, the revolutionaries of 1917 were being attacked from without and these material pressures caused their hold on the revolution to slip away -- the resulting power vacuum allowed in those who could administer the state apparatus in whatever way, even if it meant a consolidation of power under one individual, Stalin.

Furthermore it is regrettable to see such a sense of fatalism expressed in light of certain historical events. That history was almost a century ago and we should not feel the slightest sense that such an endeavor in the present will automatically follow the *exact* same course. Certainly it's a thin excuse for the least degree of skittishness.

Also it's worth adding that not all power is the same -- power is stereotypically thought of as a "corrupting", "overbearing" kind of thing, but it can be very *constructive* as well, depending on what its social / political basis is. Rank-and-file strikes, for example, are a manifestation of power, yet they're the exercise of power that we *want* to see more of, since it cuts against the elitism and privileged material power of those with capital.

Likewise, a mass-based proletarian revolution would be the kind of power that does *not* depend on a figurehead or cult of personality. Just by everyone being "on the same page", and/or the process of getting there, would enable the exercise of an *uplifting*, *empowering* kind of power that is already extremely overdue.

Maybe transitions is for the best but the problem is the true revolution that makes change might be stifled by authoritarian oppression. So in my opinion it is a better chance to set up Anarchy, even if it isn't all at once and even at chance of being crushed by a Western power then to leave my fate into the hands of a third party. Obviously, this is the main differences between Anarchists and Marxists.

You make the project of revolution sound a bit strange here, as though it would be outsourced to some "third party" in a substitutionist way on behalf of the proletariat. Don't you consider the proletariat to be the only force that can act in its own best interests?

It is from the roundabout setting up of an outside party to distantly "represent" one's own interests that the very problems you're concerned with *do* spring up -- the consolidation of a power-hungry political base. Whenever a third party is established as separate from the main interests in motion it will have an independent material base, and its own, self-interested motivations, even if they conflict with the interests of whatever entity brought it into being.

Finally, I think it's presumptuous to think that an anarchist approach would somehow be allowed to just "sneak in" "under the radar" of the established powers. It's entirely reasonable to say that as soon as a different, conflicting mode of production -- communal-based collectivism -- took hold of any serious productive capacity and refused to abide by existing bourgeois norms (laws), it would be seen as a threat and crushed by the powers-that-be -- just look at the Cold War as an example of how ideologically threatened the Western nation-states felt by the existence of a nominally alternative approach to production and political organization.

WeAreReborn

21st October 2010, 07:44

I appreciate the cautionary warning here. If anything it shows an attitude of serious political concern on the part of the person making the argument.

That said, though, your premise that Stalinism took hold in Soviet Russia because of "corruption" is a grave misconception and is a poor analysis of historical developments. In brief, the revolutionaries of 1917 were being attacked from without and these material pressures caused their hold on the revolution to slip away -- the resulting power vacuum allowed in those who could administer the state apparatus in whatever way, even if it meant a consolidation of power under one individual, Stalin.

Furthermore it is regrettable to see such a sense of fatalism expressed in light of certain historical events. That history was almost a century ago and we should not feel the slightest sense that such an endeavor in the present will automatically follow the *exact* same course. Certainly it's a thin excuse for the least degree of skittishness.

Also it's worth adding that not all power is the same -- power is stereotypically thought of as a "corrupting", "overbearing" kind of thing, but it can be very *constructive* as well, depending on what its social / political basis is. Rank-and-file strikes, for example, are a manifestation of power, yet they're the exercise of power that we *want* to see more of, since it cuts against the elitism and privileged material power of those with capital.

Likewise, a mass-based proletarian revolution would be the kind of power that does *not* depend on a figurehead or cult of personality. Just by everyone being "on the same page", and/or the process of getting there, would enable the exercise of an *uplifting*, *empowering* kind of power that is already extremely overdue.

You make the project of revolution sound a bit strange here, as though it would be outsourced to some "third party" in a substitutionist way on behalf of the proletariat. Don't you consider the proletariat to be the only force that can act in its own best interests?

It is from the roundabout setting up of an outside party to distantly "represent" one's own interests that the very problems you're concerned with *do* spring up -- the consolidation of a power-hungry political base. Whenever a third party is established as separate from the main interests in motion it will have an independent material base, and its own, self-interested motivations, even if they conflict with the interests of whatever entity brought it into being.

Finally, I think it's presumptuous to think that an anarchist approach would somehow be allowed to just "sneak in" "under the radar" of the established powers. It's entirely reasonable to say that as soon as a different, conflicting mode of production -- communal-based collectivism -- took hold of any serious productive capacity and refused to abide by existing bourgeois norms (laws), it would be seen as a threat and crushed by the powers-that-be -- just look at the Cold War as an example of how ideologically threatened the Western nation-states felt by the existence of a nominally alternative approach to production and political organization.
When I meant third party I meant leader, I know it was strange wording, I'm not too sure what I was thinking. In terms of leadership, I am glad of your optimism towards leadership but to me it is somewhat unrealistic. I have faith in the proletariat which is why I am against a leader. A leader cannot represent everyone and a lot of voices will not be heard. Whereas, a system of communes would allow a purely situational basis in terms of handling any problem which would make justice become prevalent and efficiency to reach its peak. At first, maybe it won't be completely Anarchist or Communist to do a slight transition. But a single leader, or even a multitude, is anti-Revolutionary and would only help to abolish everything the worker's fought for. That being equality and freedom.

Also sorry if it seems rushed or not as well thought out I am quite tired and about to head to bed but I decided to write this before hand.

ckaihatsu

21st October 2010, 08:16

As may have been expected our differences are only on the *scale* of the method of revolution called for.

Again, I have to stress that a too-local, or distributed, approach to revolution can all-too-readily turn into a game of Go where dispersed but confederated strongholds of proletarian solidarity may be able to encircle the deployed detachments of capital, but then may be surrounded in turn. While I appreciate the attentiveness to ground-level empowerment and self-activity, the glaring shortcoming is the overall lack of responsiveness to the unified strategic plans of the international bourgeoisie.

As the balkanized political system of nation-states continues its slide into obsolescence the forces of global capital will continue to consolidate their coordination outside of such anachronistic contrivances, as into the regional political bodies of NATO, the EU, the IMF, etc. In a naked showdown between international labor and international capital I have serious doubts as to whether a distributed network of nodes, as mirroring the topology of the Internet, would be the most appropriate configuration for a strategic *political* solidarity network.

I assure you I'm not calling for a campaign to raise a platform of "leadership" on top of the flat palms of the proletariat, but rather for a strategic *generalization* and *coordination* of political *priorities*, over continental areas, so as to respond appropriately to the designs of the capitalist class offensive.

WeAreReborn

22nd October 2010, 02:54