Democracy, Socialism, and a Planned Economy

[JustMovement]

OK so I think many here can agree that historically socialism and democracy have had a troubled relationship. I want to know how tendencies view democratic processes, and what democratic processes mean within the framework of socialism. I mean this specifically after a revolution- I completely agree that the capitalist state must first be smashed and this cant be done at the ballot box, and exploitation must end before democracy can exist within socialism, so a transitional period where a vanguard or body of committed revolutionaries are in power to implement the first stages of socialism makes sense to me.
However, if we take socialism to mean that the working class control the means of production, it seems that this can only mean democracy, in some form of voting and majority rule. It is crazy to think that after a revolution the working class will march in lock step and there will be a broad consensus on all major issues, and it will be an issue of a single communist party implementing a program. The working class will consist of a plurality of voices, best represented by different parties, organisations, and movements.
Undoubtedly the disappearance of old class antagonisms will remove much of the vitriol and hate from politics, but there will be many issues where there can be legitimate disagreements. The notion that there is any "Orthodox" socialism which cannot be strayed from is absurd, and does not take into account the complexity of the world. In light of this the only way to choose between different programs that leaves this choice to the working class and not to a handful of party officials and intellectuals, is some kind of democratic system consisting of representatives and regular elections.
My second question is whether the concept of worker self-management and democracy at the work place can be reconciled with a planned economy?

[hatzel]

The working class will consist of a plurality of voices, best represented by different parties, organisations, and movements.

I'd personally suggest that there are much better ways to represent the plurality of voices...party politics definitely isn't the best option. Instead, I (and many others on here) would advocate some form of participatory democracy. For me, that would best be direct democracy, operating in each commune and syndicate, and between these basic units in their various federations.


The notion that there is any "Orthodox" socialism which cannot be strayed from is absurd, and does not take into account the complexity of the world.This is precisely why I don't think a planned economy would be much good, unless whoever is planning it has some magical ability to see the future :lol: A planned economy strikes me as far less adaptable to change than other systems. A direct democracy in each commune and syndicate, as mentioned above, is the best way to keep vitality, to make sure that the socialist reality actually manages to suit the needs of each individual as best as possible, even with an evolving situation, by progressing to suit individual needs. I feel that socialism will inevitably require experimentation of different systems, be their economic, democratic or social, and that the best of these ideas will inevitably live on, whilst those which don't turn out so well (for whatever reason) will be abandoned. It's impossible for us to really lay down some solid framework for the post-revolutionary society; we can theorise, and decide upon our preferred system, but we should all be flexible enough to modify it if, when it's actually realised, weaknesses are revealed. No amount of theorising will provide us with the knowledge we'd acquire from the practical experimentation, and if the theory doesn't work, we should be ready to drop it, or modify it, based on what we learn when we actually implement it...

[JustMovement]

I get what you are saying. That would be great- in fact I would say that what you describe advocate is what I imagine "communism" to be. But, and this is kind of issue, at the moment we live in quite a centralised society. The kind of society you advocate makes sense if capitalist invasion is not near. But I would imagine that after the a revolution the state would have to be a socialism-in-one-country kind of situation. And for that you need standardisation, the efficency of economies of scale, and basically centralisation. Think about existing structures, universities, hospitals, power generation, army, industrial production etc. etc. And it is hard to have those things if you are runnings things by referendum :) Also maybe planned economy is maybe the wrong word, "command" economy? Basically you need a few (democratic) big dogs to call the shots to get shit done. At least for a while, or i cant see any way to get around it, even though ideally i would prefer a much less centralised, more radically democratic form.
As to the second point, what is the point of comming up with fairy tale plans for the future. Well (1) i have nothing better to do at 2 in the morning. (2) people dont think in critiques anymore. you cant just say well look at the inherent contradictions of capitalism, it is bound to collapse, and it will be the role of the working class to build socialism and anythign else is utopian fantasy. People look at manifestos and programs, no one likes to jump into the dark, and they want to know what the hell the alternative consists of.

[Vladimir Innit Lenin]

Multi-Socialist democracy. I could go into a deep DNZ style explanation here but i'll try and keep it simple.

In short, planning is a difficult process to combine with democracy, as accurate planning requires almost complete cohesion of aims and principles within the legislative/executive branches of government, and between national, regional and local bodies. Historically planning has only been successfully achieved in Socialist states where one ideology (often, Marxism-Leninism) has had a hegemony and this ruling ideology has been top-down, leading from the centre.

This can clearly be improved upon. Macroeconomic planning is probably not going to be suitable for a future Socialist revolution, as it is incompatible with maintaining a thriving, local, worker controlled, bottom-up extreme democracy.

What I would like to see is some elements taken from the system of Soviets, from the grassroots nature of democracy in Cuba, and from Council Communism. Essentially, in a bottom-up democracy, power should be wrested from the centre and instilled firmly at town/council level. Instead of having separate regional and national assemblies, the latter two should be made up of elected representatives from town-level councils. Logistically, this would be achieved by having day to day decision making made at town level, with regional councils meeting less regularly and national bodies meeting even less regularly. Essentially, micro-management by town councils (soviet-CDR amalgamations, if you will) should have a hegemony over the political and economic decision process.

This would also eliminate the power of party politics, since it is not necessary to have party political representation at town council level (Cuba really is a good example for this, whatever its democratic deficit at national level).

[hatzel]

I feel I should leave the first bit to somebody else, probably a Marxist-Leninist, or somebody else with more 'mainstream' ideas than I do :lol: At the moment, though, I can tell you that I'm reading a fair amount about civilian-based defense, and do feel that such a system would be of great benefit to any fledgling socialist society, even if coexisting with a more 'typical' military, much like we saw implemented (to some extent) in the post-Soviet Baltic countries. Aware as they no doubt were that they wouldn't be strong enough, militarily, to resist a future invasion, particularly considering that would most likely come from Russia. Although they weren't invaded, and we didn't get to see how the system worked out, it's definitely worth considering for revolutionaries. As for the rest...


As to the second point, what is the point of comming up with fairy tale plans for the future. Well (1) i have nothing better to do at 2 in the morning. (2) people dont think in critiques anymore. you cant just say well look at the inherent contradictions of capitalism, it is bound to collapse, and it will be the role of the working class to build socialism and anythign else is utopian fantasy.

You mean we can't just be Marxists?! :laugh: No no, that wasn't serious...sorry, guys...

Don't get me wrong, I spend ages coming up with all these ideas (usually at the same ungodly hour :lol:) and so on, but I would hope that there would be some flexibility in there. If my personal economic proposals, for example, which I think would be brilliant and wonderful, don't function quite so well in the real world, I'd hope that modification could be made to it, to adapt to the situation as it is. Based on the experience gathered from application of the theory. Doesn't mean there's not a theory, of course, but as you identified in your first post, we can't just rely on this 'orthodox' idea to see us through. We have to be ready to change path, to admit when our theory, as we saw it in our mind's eye, isn't working out so well, and be ready to make changes to it. But maybe that's the utopian fantasy, because I'm scared that those who lead revolutions are often too gripped by pride to admit that they were wrong with their ideas, or maybe just ignorant to how it's not working, all that stuff. Hopefully we'll be able to change all that next time round :)

[Die Rote Fahne]

The economy should be planned, but democratically from the bottom up. What we have seen is the party issue the economic mandates, when we know the workers have the knowledge and experience to know what is needed. From the workers to the unions to the government, not from the government to everyone.

Also, to avoid the lack of democracy, after a revolution it is necessary to hold free general elections to elect the preferred socialist programme.

[ckaihatsu]

Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

http://postimage.org/image/35ru6ztic/


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

http://postimage.org/image/35sw8csv8/

[ckaihatsu]

What I would like to see is some elements taken from the system of Soviets, from the grassroots nature of democracy in Cuba, and from Council Communism. Essentially, in a bottom-up democracy, power should be wrested from the centre and instilled firmly at town/council level.


The concern (my concern) with this approach is that it is essentially a throwback to an amorphous / land-based / agricultural material basis, whereas we've been living in an *industrial* based society for centuries now.

Politics should center around what's *most* at stake in the "topology" of society -- meaning its production-based activity -- and, so the *industrial* aspect should be the primary focus for all resulting (proletarian) politics.


[8] communist economy diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bvfo0ohw/

[JustMovement]

ok thanks to everyone that posted- ckhaitsu I took a look at your diagram, and I will admit I did not really get it. How can abstraction be an axis? Can you explain it a little more? Basically the crux of the problem for me is this: If you have a planned economy it has to be centralised. Any plan, or system if it is dynamic, still has to be regulated top-down.
If you have a decentralised economy, then it has to be regulated by pricing (e.g worker coops democratically administer production, the product of which is then "sold" even if not to accumulate profit, to other firms for further processing or selling). A decentralised economy has to be market socialist.
So just to repeat: centralised economy, not democratic b/c top-down planning (bad), but no market mechanisms
decentralised economy: more democratic, market socialist

[ckaihatsu]

ok thanks to everyone that posted- ckhaitsu I took a look at your diagram, and I will admit I did not really get it. How can abstraction be an axis? Can you explain it a little more?


Yeah -- I don't mind explaining but please at least get my name right...(!) (It's *not* a pseudonym.)





Basically the crux of the problem for me is this: If you have a planned economy it has to be centralised. Any plan, or system if it is dynamic, still has to be regulated top-down.
If you have a decentralised economy, then it has to be regulated by pricing (e.g worker coops democratically administer production, the product of which is then "sold" even if not to accumulate profit, to other firms for further processing or selling). A decentralised economy has to be market socialist.
So just to repeat: centralised economy, not democratic b/c top-down planning (bad), but no market mechanisms
decentralised economy: more democratic, market socialist





How can abstraction be an axis?


You're actually answering your own question -- you're noting that without centralized planning the necessary mechanism for economic coordination would have to be "hands-off" (my wording), as the markets are today -- the capitalist "invisible hand". This is *synonymous* with 'abstraction' since material values are *formalized* (abstracted) into monetary amounts.

A *centralized*, *planned* economy, on the other hand, would *not* be so dependent on the use of abstracted / abstract values since it would be under the human-conscious *control* of tangible planning of quantities of *discrete*, *concrete* materials and labor.

So instead of listing a barrel of flour as being "worth" 12 U.S. dollars -- at present-day, ever-fluctuating pricing -- a centralized planned economy could list a barrel of flour as *being* a barrel of ______-grade flour -- and maybe with some other standardized and non-controversial qualities attached to it. (Consumer demands could determine what kinds of descriptions become the norm for any given types of items.)





Basically the crux of the problem for me is this: If you have a planned economy it has to be centralised. Any plan, or system if it is dynamic, still has to be regulated top-down.




So just to repeat: centralised economy, not democratic b/c top-down planning (bad)


I'm in support of collectivized centralized planning over large scales, because of the benefits of standardization and efficiency that come with mass-scale production.

While I'm sure we've all been conditioned to think of the worst kinds of imagery associated with this notion -- cramped stale-air '50s-style office closets containing smallish middle-aged nondescript male clerical drones, hunched over grimy, poorly lit desks covered in chaotic piles of paper printouts, all arriving at misguided, catastrophic errors of calculation from their combined Stalinistic bureaucratic efforts -- the very idea of a centralized political economy does *not* have to be top-down, nor does it have to be dictatorial (non-democratic).

Consider that many of our societal practices and routines -- while held to the never-satiated expectations of capital accumulation -- have actually settled into certain norms that basically *work*, given overall conditions. The automated traffic light would be a good example here, as would the regular balanced diet of commonly available foods, as another example.

So the point here is that for most of our day-to-day social practices there's actually *not* a lot of (political) controversy, and most people can live perfectly fine lives with the selection that's easily made available by current technologies and productive capabilities. What's more at issue here is *how* the process works to aggregate mass consumer needs and wants, how to account for work inputs overall, how to balance out exchanges of value and products, etc., and how distribution is effected.

From these real-world considerations we can see that centralization entails more participation than just leaving all of these mass quantities and variables to some "perfect" computer or "genius" bureaucrat while the rest of us look on with anxious, uneasy expectation. Since capitalism's "hands-off" market mechanism is obviously *not* cutting it -- and never did -- we would be far better off arriving at some societal norms for doing this according to mass-*conscious* efforts -- a *political* economy -- rather than falling back on *non-conscious* mechanisms, including "market socialism" or any other kind of abstract pricing system.

A truly mass-worker-democratic system would eliminate the need for *exchanges* altogether.

Once a final product had been completed, resulting from inputs up the supply chain from all supporting productive activities, it could simply be *distributed*, *directly* to the end user, bypassing *all* abstractions of "value" and inter-mediated exchanges. This is where the impressive progressive qualities of socialism could be fully realized since we've seen *nothing* like this scale of efficiency of productive operations yet, to-date. (Okay, arguably for the flow of information over the medium of the Internet.)

And -- there's really nothing holding us back from making this a reality, either -- even the ownership class would have to relent if the political numbers were solidly there, refusing to compromise for anything less.

[JustMovement]

ckaihatsu, let me apologise for the misspelling and thanks for the very enlightening post! You understood perfectly what I was asking. In fact I stated initially that between a decentalised but market socialist economy and a centralised command one i prefered the latter. The problem that I still cannot resolve though is how do we get to "centralization entails more participation than just leaving all of these mass quantities and variables to some "perfect" computer or "genius" bureaucrat"
how is it possible to make a planned political economy democratic? Perhaps production could be determined by a system of voting for what commodity you would prefer to produce? I do not see any way, before a post-scarcity economy, to get rid of "value", isnt value neccessary to make sure people do not consume more than they produce?

Also this does not resolve the problem of individual workplaces deciding democratically how much of what and with what method, to produce. This would be an advantage of a decentralised economy, where the limitation then would be profitability. It is enough to say though, that given our current technological limitations, any system involves a trade-off, and that the centralised system that eliminates market mechanisms seems better. What we have to be careful of is that specter that haunted previous socialist experiments, the new ruling class in the form of beurocracy.

[ckaihatsu]

ckaihatsu, let me apologise for the misspelling and thanks for the very enlightening post! You understood perfectly what I was asking.


Yeah -- no prob.





In fact I stated initially that between a decentalised but market socialist economy and a centralised command one i prefered the latter. The problem that I still cannot resolve though is how do we get to "centralization entails more participation than just leaving all of these mass quantities and variables to some "perfect" computer or "genius" bureaucrat"




how is it possible to make a planned political economy democratic? Perhaps production could be determined by a system of voting for what commodity you would prefer to produce?


In post #7 I attached the model that I developed, which I advocate -- 'communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors'.

When I first got around politics (revolutionary only) I found it frustrating and annoying that the same kinds of political topics and issues kept coming up again and again, yet there wasn't much of a *detailed* systematic response beyond that "the workers can collectively decide all of that once capitalism is overthrown." Certainly it's a *valid* answer, but it seemed to me that more could be "thought through" here in the present day. It wasn't until during the past few years that circumstances have allowed me to focus more on this, to produce the model at my blog entry.

Please note the line on the document that reads




Thanks, comrades at Revleft.com — see ‘A world without money,’ at tinyurl.com/ylm3gev and ‘Hours as a measure of labor,’ at tinyurl.com/yh3jr9x


I'll recommend going through the RevLeft threads at those two links -- they provide past discussions and sketches that may speak to your concerns here.





I do not see any way, before a post-scarcity economy, to get rid of "value", isnt value neccessary to make sure people do not consume more than they produce?


Offhand I would simply say "no" -- due to highly labor-leveraging industrial mass production and potent energy-releasing fuels ("fossil" fuels, or hydrocarbons), we can, and already do, produce far more quantities of consumer items than can be conceivably "consumed" through people's lives.

The "back-of-the-envelope" calculation is to consider a person's lifespan, and how much of that is non-sleep, non-work, "leisurely" time. Within that window of time how much "stuff" can a person conceivably use and/or come in contact with? If it's actually fully *consumable*, like food, then there's an upper limit to that. If it's *not* fully consumable, like cars or computers, then for what expanse of time does that person realistically need to have *access* to the service of that car or computer, and after how long should those goods be junked in favor of producing newer, better types?

Duties in the service sector can likewise be estimated according to work-time required for customers served, and so on.





Also this does not resolve the problem of individual workplaces deciding democratically how much of what and with what method, to produce.


Yeah -- just offhand again, I figure there'd be some give-and-take between the mass *demands* -- humane needs and wants -- of the population as a whole, and the *willingness* of what a liberated labor would actually consent to do for that greater population. With the means of mass industrial production fully collectivized and controlled by the workers themselves there'd be even *more* capacity for production than under today's monetary-constrained "demand". (See the 'communist supply & demand' model, and the 'Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy' diagram attached below.)





This would be an advantage of a decentralised economy, where the limitation then would be profitability. It is enough to say though, that given our current technological limitations, any system involves a trade-off, and that the centralised system that eliminates market mechanisms seems better. What we have to be careful of is that specter that haunted previous socialist experiments, the new ruling class in the form of beurocracy.


The way to obviate any possibility of reliance on a Stalinistic economy-controlling bureaucratic elite is to make sure that there's no objective *opportunity* for such a bureaucracy to *play* that middleman-type role. The workers of the world *must* be in direct collective control of mass industrial productive machinery or else that possibility for elitism *will* exist.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

http://postimage.org/image/1bxymkrno/

[RedMarxist]

If I may add a question. Is it possible to have a vanguard party/centralized economy and yet still hold it[the vanguard party] accountable for its actions. Could worker committees be formed to keep it in check? Also, would a multi-party system/multi-candidate system work if a vanguard party were to have any role in leading the nation post-revolution?:confused:

[ckaihatsu]

If I may add a question. Is it possible to have a vanguard party/centralized economy and yet still hold it[the vanguard party] accountable for its actions.


I'll suggest that the vanguard party and the centralized economy are two *different* things -- as far as I know the vanguard party is the *political* -- and fighting -- force of the militant, self-organized working class itself.

I think the "trick" here is to *conceptualize* the vanguard as being *internal to* and *as one with* the self-activity of the workers. If workers are not expressing political sentiments that reflect their *own* best interests as a class, then just what kind of politics *are* they expressing -- ?(!) This is *always* the watchword, even during an upswing of struggle when it might be tempting to "outsource" political tasks to some detached professional group.

So while the political expression of the working class is constantly being distorted and shunted-off -- this is a given, due to the ongoing political struggle against counterposed interests -- what *matters* at any given moment is whether there *is* a leading line that represents the workers' *best* class interests at that point in time. This, then, by definition, would *be* the vanguard, with organizational and strategic / tactical considerations *secondary* to the politics itself.

So it is conceivable that -- given existing conditions -- as current ones, for example -- the workers' vanguard could not (strategically) call for the implementation of a centralized economy, since it would not be realistic / feasible for those existing conditions. This shows that the 'vanguard party' and a 'centralized economy' are two different things.





Could worker committees be formed to keep it in check? Also, would a multi-party system/multi-candidate system work if a vanguard party were to have any role in leading the nation post-revolution?:confused:








The only way to do so is to never grab power in the first place.
If the revolution puts only part of the working class in power then we are in big trouble. Such a thing would mean that the material circumstances of those newly in power (lets call them bureaucrats) are different from the workers who remain powerless. At first, while these bureaucrats pass legislation for the betterment of the working class, this might seem to work out, but there will come a point where the interests of the newly formed bureaucratic class are opposed to those of the workers. At that point the bureaucrats no longer work for the workers, but against them.

Anyway, the goal of a revolution should not be just making things better for workers. The goals should be the emancipation and eventual dissolution of the working class, meaning the working class must take control of society, not just in name but by directly controlling the means of production and by establishing bottom-up democratic organs to manage them. No enlightened vanguard can do it for them.





A problem I see frequently on this threads is folks who have a twisted picture of what is meant by dictatorship of the proletariat and vanguard party.

So to set the record straight

Vanguard party = basically a group of revolutionaries who organize with the purpose of overthrowing capitalism via revolution, establish the dictatorship of the proletariat and build a socialist, later on communist society

Dictatorship of the proletariat = workers and oppressed people are in control of the means of production, work on a democratic bottom up manner and use their institutions and organizations to spread the revolution and defend it from capitalists, while at the same time building a classless society which will make the state force obsolete.

How do we make sure a Dictatorship isn't permanent?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/do-we-make-t151891/index.html


Also:


Is the vanguard party reactionary or revolutionary?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/vanguard-party-reactionary-t151996/index.html


Concept of a Vanguard Party in a hypothetical US Revolution?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/concept-vanguard-party-t152410/index.html