The withering away of the Market

[Veovis]

Come the revolution, how should we carry out the transition from a chaotic market economy to a rational planned model? I seriously doubt that we'd be able to go from wage labor to "from each according to his ability..." overnight. What would be the intermediate steps?

[Rooster]

The process of appropriating the means of production, making them common, would end wage labour from the get go. If they're held in common then who's going to pay the wages?

[Veovis]

The process of appropriating the means of production, making them common, would end wage labour from the get go. If they're held in common then who's going to pay the wages?

Well, I'd assume that for the time being, the workers themselves would work out and then vote upon how much they would take home in wages, at least until the capitalist market economy can be completely deconstructed. What I'm wondering is how we get to that point.

[Blake's Baby]

I'd vote to give myself a hundred million billion New People's Dollarpounds.

Seriously, why would we want to do that?

What's more, why would anyone work for something that wasn't going to be socially useful? Can't imagine everyone who works in banking turning up on day 2 of the revolution going 'I know we don't have capitalism any more, I just thought I'd turn up and move meaningless bits of paper around, maybe watch some numbers on a computer screen for a while'.

If we don't immediately begin by restructuring the economy, then what's the point? As a priority we need to (in no particular order):

Eliminate useless work

Re-integrate the unemployed and those in useless occupations into the 'real' workforce

Give everyone involved in every industry as much free time as possible

Communalise distribution of all essentials immediately

Work out the rest when we can

So this might mean that some essential industries are under-staffed, perhaps because they require special training. I think it's perfectly reasonable to 'advertise' for people with the necessary skills: 'Are you trained as a Dutt-Posser? Do you have a recognised Dutt-Possing qualification, or were you working towards one before 'The Event'? Relocate to Luxemburgograd and work in our Dutt-Possing workshop while training our new generation of revolutionary Dutt-Possers! It's lovely and hardly radioactive!'

Some people of course may have different skills that are socially useful; our dutt-posser may also be a furtwangler, but the soviets may decide that dutt-possers are in the early phases more useful than furtwanglers, either because there aren't so many furts to be wangled, or because it's easier to train up a new furtwangler than a dutt-posser, or just, you know, who needs their furts wangled these days? The new furts from the factories in Trotskiville come pre-wangled.

[Rooster]

Well, I'd assume that for the time being, the workers themselves would work out and then vote upon how much they would take home in wages,

Which is not what we want at all. Communists are not for a fair wage for a fair day's work or for complete equality in wages. The point of being a socialist it to get rid of wages.


at least until the capitalist market economy can be completely deconstructed. What I'm wondering is how we get to that point.

Which happens when the means of production are being appropriated and turned into commons.

[Veovis]

Which is not what we want at all. Communists are not for a fair wage for a fair day's work or for complete equality in wages. The point of being a socialist it to get rid of wages.

Right, but wouldn't it take time to get to that point? Even the Paris Commune and early Soviet Russia used money and people got paid for their work.

[Rooster]

Right, but wouldn't it take time to get to that point? Even the Paris Commune and early Soviet Russia used money and people got paid for their work.

Look at what happened to the Soviet Union. Ended up back to basic capitalism.

[Firebrand]

This is just an idea but what if all the elected representatives of the workers collectives were to get together and agee to gradually lower both wages and prices until both effectively cease to exist. You know gradually wean people off capitalist exchange?
The first step would be of course to equalize all wages so everyone gets paid the same.

[Blake's Baby]

Right, but wouldn't it take time to get to that point? Even the Paris Commune and early Soviet Russia used money and people got paid for their work.

Did either the Russian revolution or the Paris Commune abolish capitalism? No. Both existed while world capitalism went on around them. Slightly more nervously than before, but basically, they survived.

The thing is, the Soviet Union didn't even manage to get rid of capitalism in its own borders let alone outside them. When the revolution comes, if it stays in one country, nothing new will happen, the working class of, let's say Zambia, will replace their government with a new workers governemnt that will in a short time become a bureacratic elite presiding over Zambian national capital and be re-integrated into world capitalism - if Zambia's neighbours don't just invade/finance a 'white' movement to restore 'order'. Return to status quo ante either way.

So the revolution must overthrow capitalism and the state everywhere. AT which point, the notion of 'money' becomes superfluous. Why should workers pay themselves for things that they've made, when they're making those things for other workers and themselves? We make what we need, we take what we need, we organise the distribution on the basis of rationing for things in short supply. What's the problem? Seems to me that it's actually much easier than money.

[Rooster]

This is just an idea but what if all the elected representatives of the workers collectives were to get together and agee to gradually lower both wages and prices until both effectively cease to exist. You know gradually wean people off capitalist exchange?
The first step would be of course to equalize all wages so everyone gets paid the same.

Which is completely condescending, elitist and reformist nonsense. The proletariat as a class must make the revolution. That means appropriating the means of production and ending the conditions that propagate capitalism. Not the expropriating the means of production by the state, which was taken over by a small party in a coup which then grants socialism to the people.

[Tim Cornelis]

My guess is, and that's all it is, is that in the transition from capitalism to a form of socialism we integrate the market into a system of "guilds"--mutual aid associations--whose aim it is to minimize the effects of markets.

It is impossible to abolish money, commodity production, and competitive markets immediately. All we can do is minimize their effects by setting up schemes minimizing competition.

More favourably is to implement labour credits and have it co-exist with money until the revolution spreads to a larger region, and then abolish money completely, with only labour credits remaining.

Then finally after a while we can move on to pure communism.


This is just an idea but what if all the elected representatives of the workers collectives were to get together and agee to gradually lower both wages and prices until both effectively cease to exist. You know gradually wean people off capitalist exchange?
The first step would be of course to equalize all wages so everyone gets paid the same.

Except what you will be doing is perpetuation exchange, and therefore you will be left with bartering of goods in kind after prices fall to zero. It is in fact similar to driving up prices (inflation) to a degree people will stop using money, but they will continue to exchange goods regardless unless they are conscious of the alternative to trading, exchange, and barter.

[Blake's Baby]

...

It is impossible to abolish money, commodity production, and competitive markets immediately. ..

That's rubbish. Commodities don't produce themselves, people have to produce them. So what you are saying is that it's impossible to stop producing commodities.

I can not produce commodities all the time. Look! I didn't produce a commodity! Oh, there's another one I didn't produce! Ooops, I literally have a room completely not full of commodities I haven't produced.

Why would workers after the revolution produce 'commodities' for the 'markets' rather than necessities for use, Goti?

[Klaatu]

The process of appropriating the means of production, making them common, would end wage labour from the get go. If they're held in common then who's going to pay the wages?
What will we replace wages with?



Look at what happened to the Soviet Union. Ended up back to basic capitalism.
True, but that was because of powerful US and European influences.

[Rooster]

What will we replace wages with?

That entirely depends on the situation. Preferably nothing would replace them. A system of labour vouchers may have to be implemented but a possible draw back to this is that it requires a bureaucracy and a state. Money requires a centrally managed system. Wages require that the means of production be held in private and that a proletariat exists to sell it's labour-power. Keeping that seems silly if the whole point of what we're doing is to get rid of it.


True, but that was because of powerful US and European influences.No, that's not the whole answer at all. The capitalist mode of production was never abolished in the Soviet Union. The transition from "socialism" (with Stalin declaring that there were no longer any antagonistic classes) to capitalism (antagonistic classes) doesn't make much sense otherwise. No invading army forced it upon the USSR, no revolution. It was able to move from one to the other because it was always a capitalist and class society.

[Tim Cornelis]

That's rubbish. Commodities don't produce themselves, people have to produce them. So what you are saying is that it's impossible to stop producing commodities.

I can not produce commodities all the time. Look! I didn't produce a commodity! Oh, there's another one I didn't produce! Ooops, I literally have a room completely not full of commodities I haven't produced.

Are we really doing this? Splitting hairs? And it's not even accurate: just because you do not produce commodities all the time does not mean commodity production is abolished!


Why would workers after the revolution produce 'commodities' for the 'markets' rather than necessities for use, Goti?

I'm talking about a transition from capitalism to socialism, i.e. during the revolution. After the revolution production for use will replace it of course.

[Firebrand]

Which is completely condescending, elitist and reformist nonsense. The proletariat as a class must make the revolution. That means appropriating the means of production and ending the conditions that propagate capitalism. Not the expropriating the means of production by the state, which was taken over by a small party in a coup which then grants socialism to the people.

You clearly didn't read my post properly. I said the elected representatives of the workers councils. Which would not in any way be similar to a small party coup. When workers take control of the means of production and political power it will be necessary to talk to other groups of workers yes, in order to organise production for the good of the whole of society and put political decisions into effect. The best way I can think of for doing this is to elect some form of representation subject to instant recall. Unless you can think of somewhere indoors where every single worker in the world can meet and make decisions some form of representation will be necessary.
If money and wages are to be abolished it will be necessary to co-ordinate this. If the car makers abolish wage and price thats only going to work if the food shops also abolish wage and price. Otherwise the car makers won't get any food. I suggest a gradual approach because it will help the people who were not keen on the idea of revolution a chance to adjust, but thats just my suggestion. The working class as a whole will of course make the revolution but that doesn't mean every single member of the working class will be fully on board with the idea. And thats before we get into the subject of the petit bourgeois. I would like to think that as many of these people as possible can be brought on board after the revolution. Lets keep the mass imprisonment and executions to an absolute minimum.

[Firebrand]

Except what you will be doing is perpetuation exchange, and therefore you will be left with bartering of goods in kind after prices fall to zero. It is in fact similar to driving up prices (inflation) to a degree people will stop using money, but they will continue to exchange goods regardless unless they are conscious of the alternative to trading, exchange, and barter.

Fair point. I'm not an economist. How about if first all wages were equalised. Then the prices for goods were fixed at specific levels. Then the whole system and money were eliminated. I suggest doing this in stages because it'll give people who weren't necessarily supporters before the revolution a chance to adjust, thus reducing the danger of civil war and other assorted nastiness.

[Blake's Baby]

Are we really doing this? Splitting hairs? And it's not even accurate: just because you do not produce commodities all the time does not mean commodity production is abolished!

No, you said that commodity production cannot be abolished. Implying that is instead necessary to produce commodities. I was demonstrating that rather than it being necessary to produce commodities, it was very easy not to produce commodities.




I'm talking about a transition from capitalism to socialism, i.e. during the revolution. After the revolution production for use will replace it of course.

So, why do you think it is necessary to continue capitalism during the revolution Goti? Why should, as I asked before, we continue to uphold a system that we're doing our best to overthrow, which benefits people we are fighting against, instead of collectivising property, eliminating useless 'work', integrating the unemployed into the workforce, and organising production for need? Why delay the transformation, to the benefit of our enemies?

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The revolution does not happen overnight. Not all of the working class will reach the sufficient level of consciousness required to collectivize their means of production at the same time, and they will nonetheless need to continue exchange until all working class everywhere have realized that the revolution is in their best interests.

[Rooster]

You clearly didn't read my post properly.

Yes I did.


You know gradually wean people off capitalist exchange?

Who's going to do the weaning?


I said the elected representatives of the workers councils. Which would not in any way be similar to a small party coup. The folks at the top then?


When workers take control of the means of production and political power it will be necessary to talk to other groups of workers yes, in order to organise production for the good of the whole of society and put political decisions into effect. That's fine but you said


ag[r]ee to gradually lower both wages and prices until both effectively cease to exist.[...] The first step would be of course to equalize all wages so everyone gets paid the same.

Which isn't the way to go about it if you want to get rid of capitalism. Like you said, the revolution is the taking of the means of production and making them common. It's not just necessary, it is the revolution.


Which isn't the The best way I can think of for doing this is to elect some form of representation subject to instant recall. Unless you can think of somewhere indoors where every single worker in the world can meet and make decisions some form of representation will be necessary.I see no problem with that sort of set up.


If money and wages are to be abolished it will be necessary to co-ordinate this.The appropriation of the means of production and making them common makes wages impossible. If wages are being paid out them that means someone controls them and labour is a commodity.


If the car makers abolish wage and price thats only going to work if the food shops also abolish wage and price. Otherwise the car makers won't get any food. Why would it mean that at all? Why would shops get food anyway? Do they produce food?


I suggest a gradual approach because it will help the people who were not keen on the idea of revolution a chance to adjust, but thats just my suggestion. It won't give them a chance to adjust. It will retard the revolution and will only put up brakes to the process of eliminating capital and wage labour.


The working class as a whole will of course make the revolution but that doesn't mean every single member of the working class will be fully on board with the idea. And thats before we get into the subject of the petit bourgeois. I would like to think that as many of these people as possible can be brought on board after the revolution. Lets keep the mass imprisonment and executions to an absolute minimum.I'm not talking about individuals here. I'm talking about class. The bourgeois mode of production should be made impossible and the first step in that is to appropriate the means of production. It doesn't matter if the bourgeois are petite or grand. Their existence as a class is to be forcibly removed by removing the things that propagate their existence, ie class society relating to how things are produced, wage labour, etc. This can't be done by decree. It has to be done by the organised proletariat.

[Rooster]

The revolution does not happen overnight. Not all of the working class will reach the sufficient level of consciousness required to collectivize their means of production at the same time,

I don't think anyone thinks that it will happen all in one go over night.


and they will nonetheless need to continue exchange until all working class everywhere have realized that the revolution is in their best interests.

I don't see how things can be exchanged in such a way between a socialist economy and a capitalist economy.

[ckaihatsu]

You clearly didn't read my post properly. I said the elected representatives of the workers councils. Which would not in any way be similar to a small party coup. When workers take control of the means of production and political power it will be necessary to talk to other groups of workers yes, in order to organise production for the good of the whole of society and put political decisions into effect. The best way I can think of for doing this is to elect some form of representation subject to instant recall. Unless you can think of somewhere indoors where every single worker in the world can meet and make decisions some form of representation will be necessary.


Yeah, it's called 'RevLeft'. No representation needed.

(See 'Prioritization Chart', below.)








What will we replace wages with?





That entirely depends on the situation. Preferably nothing would replace them. A system of labour vouchers may have to be implemented but a possible draw back to this is that it requires a bureaucracy and a state. Money requires a centrally managed system.





More favourably is to implement labour credits and have it co-exist with money until the revolution spreads to a larger region, and then abolish money completely, with only labour credits remaining.

Then finally after a while we can move on to pure communism.


This is arguably *delaying* the revolution by begging the *political* question -- why aren't the people of the larger region revolutionizing the means of mass industrial production where *they* are -- ??!

Depending on conditions, though, I could see a geographically-constrained centralized workers-bureaucratic command economy, of labor vouchers or whatever, being used in the interim, as long as the political struggle continued to spread the revolution outward at the same time.





So the revolution must overthrow capitalism and the state everywhere. AT which point, the notion of 'money' becomes superfluous. Why should workers pay themselves for things that they've made, when they're making those things for other workers and themselves? We make what we need, we take what we need, we organise the distribution on the basis of rationing for things in short supply. What's the problem? Seems to me that it's actually much easier than money.


My revolutionary politics range from an interlinking-localities system of distribution-only (see 'Rotation system of work roles', below), to a fully-systematized post-capitalist model of labor-hours-based labor credits that propagate / "leapfrog" the ongoing participation of liberated labor, for mass-coordinated production and distribution. (See 'communist supply & demand', below.)

Also:

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism


[17] Prioritization Chart

http://postimage.org/image/35hop84dg/


Rotation system of work roles

http://postimage.org/image/1d53k7nd0/


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

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

[Tim Cornelis]

No, you said that commodity production cannot be abolished. Implying that is instead necessary to produce commodities. I was demonstrating that rather than it being necessary to produce commodities, it was very easy not to produce commodities.

I did in fact not say such a thing, otherwise I wouldn't be an anarcho-communist.

I said: "It is impossible to abolish money, commodity production, and competitive markets immediately".


So, why do you think it is necessary to continue capitalism during the revolution Goti? Why should, as I asked before, we continue to uphold a system that we're doing our best to overthrow, which benefits people we are fighting against, instead of collectivising property, eliminating useless 'work', integrating the unemployed into the workforce, and organising production for need? Why delay the transformation, to the benefit of our enemies?

We are not upholding a system but the notion that we can, immediately upon the start of the revolution, abolish money, markets, and commodity production is unrealistic, indeed utopian.

The first step towards the realization of communism is workers seizing power over affairs of governance and economics. Communes will be organised and workers take control of the factories--i.e. collective property.

To think that we will have full communism in one day is absurd, but that is exactly what you are arguing when you say you want to skip immediately to communism without stages.

What would be to the benefit of our enemies would be to abolish markets, commodity production, and money immediately and so launch society into havoc. This will lead to the collapse of the revolution and the re-establishment of capitalism.

This is not a controversial issue at all, and most Marxists agree. In the words of Ernest Mandel:

"Traditional Marxist theory starts from the assumption that the building of a socialist society is identical with the withering away of commodity production and of market mechanisms. True, most Marxist theorists have always recognized that the artificial suppression of the market immediately after the overthrow of capitalism is impossible. They have always considered that some forms of market mechanism will survive during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism"

You simply cannot implement communism immediately.


This is arguably *delaying* the revolution by begging the *political* question

It's not delaying the revolution, it is the revolution!

Social revolution is about social transformation. The first step in social transformation is for workers to control the means of production. Then establish a sort of "guild" system that consolidates workers within the same industry to minimize competition. Then to establish labour credits as a temporary measure. Then establish distributive cooperatives to plan the economy and establish confederations within the same industry as well as within the same region. Then abolish money, and you will have pure communism.

To argue such intermediate steps are unnecessary is completely divorced from reality. It is to argue we will wake up in capitalism and go to sleep in communism. It will be a transformation of months or years (depending on innumerable factors), not of a day, or days.


why aren't the people of the larger region revolutionizing the means of mass industrial production where *they* are -- ??!

If Greece has a communist revolution tomorrow the Dutch working class will not be ready for at least a year. There is a global disparity of class consciousness. Something you cannot bridge within a day, or two.

A world revolution has not and will not, ever, occur simultaneously.

[Ocean Seal]

It will be the capitalists who allow the market to wither away into uselessness. Remember that site called limewire... The beginning of something altogether bigger.

[ckaihatsu]

If Greece has a communist revolution tomorrow the Dutch working class will not be ready for at least a year.


So it's the *Dutch* workers who're holding us up, huh -- ??!

Hang on, I'm going to go over there to have a little talk with them....


=> Hey, you fucks -- what the fuck is going on over there??!!! Wake the fuck up, and let's get this shit going!!! You don't *get* a whole fucking year!!

[Klaatu]

A system of labour vouchers may have to be implemented but a possible draw back to this is that it requires a bureaucracy and a state. Money requires a centrally managed system. Wages require that the means of production be held in private and that a proletariat exists to sell it's labour-power...


I have always liked the concept of "labor-vouchers" because it proves that the person actually earned his (money) rather than having had gotten it through investments, theft, etc. Besides, a labor voucher (for use in purchasing goods and services) cannot be used by anyone other than the rightful owner. It seems to be a superior means of exchanging value (besides barter) than old-fashioned money, which may not have been actually honestly earned by the holder (like I said, via theft, etc)

[Blake's Baby]

Man, why doesn't this site have an emoticon for banging one's head on a wall?

Goti, honestly, I take being called a utopian by you as a complement. How can I put this? You're wrong, dead wrong. If you think that the bureacratisation of the economy, if you think that self-managed capitalism 'is' the revolution, if you think that 'immediate communisation' is impossible, you are in the wrong game. Trotskyism might be more to your taste.

Now I've argued that it is not possible to implement communism on day one of the revolution - I am a Marxist after all, I believe in the terrible old DotP - but I do believe that all production that can be collectivised should be. I also, rather crucially I think, that all distribution can be collectivised. So no labour-time vouchers (even 'non-circulating' ones, a utopian myth if ever I heard one), just rationing by need.

Not everything will be abundant once production is collectivised so the councils will need to ensure a fair distribution and that doesn't mean labour-time vouchers because vast numbers of people (the old, the infirm, children, people too busy fighting the capitalists) will not be able to do productive work. It means rationing by need - not rationing by work (labour time vouchers) and not rationing by price (money). Society as a whole (specifically, the councils in a neighbourhood, community or district) need to take control of distribution. No money. No markets. Otherwise, what's the point?

[Tim Cornelis]

Man, why doesn't this site have an emoticon for banging one's head on a wall?

Goti, honestly, I take being called a utopian by you as a complement. How can I put this? You're wrong, dead wrong. If you think that the bureacratisation of the economy, if you think that self-managed capitalism 'is' the revolution, if you think that 'immediate communisation' is impossible, you are in the wrong game. Trotskyism might be more to your taste.

Now I've argued that it is not possible to implement communism on day one of the revolution - I am a Marxist after all, I believe in the terrible old DotP - but I do believe that all production that can be collectivised should be. I also, rather crucially I think, that all distribution can be collectivised. So no labour-time vouchers (even 'non-circulating' ones, a utopian myth if ever I heard one), just rationing by need.

Not everything will be abundant once production is collectivised so the councils will need to ensure a fair distribution and that doesn't mean labour-time vouchers because vast numbers of people (the old, the infirm, children, people too busy fighting the capitalists) will not be able to do productive work. It means rationing by need - not rationing by work (labour time vouchers) and not rationing by price (money). Society as a whole (specifically, the councils in a neighbourhood, community or district) need to take control of distribution. No money. No markets. Otherwise, what's the point?

Every socialist revolution hitherto was unable to abolish commodity production, markets, and money, despite the revolutionaries wanting it.

The Russian revolution was unable to abolish it. The Bavarian Soviet Republic was unable to abolish money even though the leaders explicitly stated they wanted to. The Hungarian revolution was unable to abolish it. The Spanish revolution was unable to abolish it. The EZLN was unable to abolish it.

What makes you think that 150 years of revolutionary experience and practice is wrong?

Let's do a mind experiment, a revolution breaks out. I know you cannot accurately predict it, but it's a mind experiment not a blueprint.

what remnants of the old bourgeois society will you have?

On day 1:

On day 2:

On day 4:

On day 7:

After 2 weeks:

After 3 weeks:

After 4 weeks:

After 2 months:

After a year:


Man, why doesn't this site have an emoticon for banging one's head on a wall?

My response was similar but involved my beating my own head.


So no labour-time vouchers (even 'non-circulating' ones, a utopian myth if ever I heard one), just rationing by need.

Which is nonsensical as they have been proven to work fairly well. And it's labour credits, not vouchers.

[Blake's Baby]

Every socialist revolution hitherto was unable to abolish commodity production, markets, and money, despite the revolutionaries wanting it...

Every socialist revolution hitherto has failed. What's your point?

[Rooster]

I'm busy working but I'll take time out to answer this:



what remnants of the old bourgeois society will you have?


We're not trying to remove bourgeois society, what we're trying to do is to remove the bourgeois mode of production. A mode of production that is based on private property, wage labour, commodity production, etc. And to do that is to remove those things that define this mode of production. Just saying that we have a revolution and then the society disappears is stupid. The revolution is the removal of this mode of production.

[Tim Cornelis]

Every socialist revolution hitherto has failed. What's your point?

Take the Spanish revolution, which failed for external reasons. Despite its efforts to abolish it markets, commodity production, etc. it failed. Markets and commodity production existed in Catalonia. This is because a social revolution is a process, not an act that takes less than one day.


We're not trying to remove bourgeois society, what we're trying to do is to remove the bourgeois mode of production. A mode of production that is based on private property, wage labour, commodity production, etc.

That doesn't really answer my questions. I asked what remnants of bourgeois society (by which I meant its economic order) will exist still on day 1, 2, 4, etc.


And to do that is to remove those things that define this mode of production. Just saying that we have a revolution and then the society disappears is stupid. The revolution is the removal of this mode of production.

Exactly. And you will be unable to remove commodity production from day 1. The removal of these aspects is a process of reconstruction. Reconstruction does not happen within 24 hours by waving a magic socialist wand.

Let me bold this part:

unless you believe that workers will one day wake up at 8:00 AM, seize the means of production, restructure the economy, abolish money, and distribute goods according to needs and have supper at 7:30 the same day, you believe in the perpetuation of commodity production for a given amount of time. It is impossible, impossible, to abolish commodity production immediately.

[ckaihatsu]

unless you believe that workers will one day wake up at 8:00 AM, seize the means of production, restructure the economy, abolish money, and distribute goods according to needs and have supper at 7:30 the same day, you believe in the perpetuation of commodity production for a given amount of time. It is impossible, impossible, to abolish commodity production immediately.


None of us have a crystal ball so it's ridiculous to ask *anyone* for a play-by-play well in advance. And, your emphasis and insistence on the aspect of timeframe may not be the right thing to focus on -- many would consider yours to be a fully-formed line of revolutionary *fatalism*, as typified by your repeated use of the term 'impossible'.

Adding to the complexity and uncertainty is that we're just a handful of people here hashing out some feasible possibilities -- we *don't* represent the entirety of the world's working class. But, as with all things of a forward-looking nature, the point is to *plan* and *prepare* as best we can so that we can anticipate realistic conditions and enact political change at the right moments, moving forward.

Here's a "forward timeline", with a sketch of potential transitional phases towards communism:


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

http://postimage.org/image/1bufa71ms/

[danyboy27]

We will figure it out when we will get there.
The capitalist didnt carefully planned the end of feudalism, it happened trought a series of chaotic small steps.

Its useless to speculate about this beccause we dont know jack shit about what the conditions will be like when we will get there in the first place.

For now, the real goal is to get the worker to control the mean of productions.

One thing at the time.

[Firebrand]

Yeah, it's called 'RevLeft'. No representation needed.

(See 'Prioritization Chart', below.)

Sorry I can't get the chart big enough to read can you give a quick overview of what it says.

I think you are advocating getting everyone in the world (thats how many billion people) to discuss all policy on one forum. Hmm can't see any problems with that at all, the phrase incoherent mob does come to mind though. Most people in general are capable of holding reasoned and sensible discussions, in small or medium sized groups, but once the number of people in a discusion reaches a certain level, the whole thig descends into confusion about "who said what when", "what was your argument again" and "how does that even relate to the original point anyway". which isn't really a very stable foundation for a society.
The more people there are on an internet forum the less likely it is that all points will get a fair hearing and be clearly visible, until you get to the point where no-one can find anything or work out what anyone else is actually saying.
Now i'm not saying this kind of forum doesn't have a role to play in the society we are aiming for, but you can't run all of society on it, most people don't have the time to sort through millions of posts to find the ones that have something helpful to say, and most that do will not be able to hold the arguments of all the millions of posts in their heads at once. the human brain is good, but not that good.

[ckaihatsu]

Sorry I can't get the chart big enough to read can you give a quick overview of what it says.


Keep at it -- it's just a technical thing so I'm sure you'll eventually figure it out.... It's also at my blog entry.





I think you are advocating getting everyone in the world (thats how many billion people) to discuss all policy on one forum. Hmm can't see any problems with that at all, the phrase incoherent mob does come to mind though.


That's cute -- it looks like you're trying to take Goti123's place as the lead *revolutionary fatalist* here....

Are you concerned that there isn't enough space on the Internet, or that geographical distinctions are too difficult for people, or what?? (Every major productive industrial asset *could* have its own Wikipedia-type page and discussions, you know...!)





Most people in general are capable of holding reasoned and sensible discussions, in small or medium sized groups, but once the number of people in a discusion reaches a certain level, the whole thig descends into confusion about "who said what when", "what was your argument again" and "how does that even relate to the original point anyway". which isn't really a very stable foundation for a society.

The more people there are on an internet forum the less likely it is that all points will get a fair hearing and be clearly visible, until you get to the point where no-one can find anything or work out what anyone else is actually saying.

Now i'm not saying this kind of forum doesn't have a role to play in the society we are aiming for, but you can't run all of society on it, most people don't have the time to sort through millions of posts to find the ones that have something helpful to say, and most that do will not be able to hold the arguments of all the millions of posts in their heads at once. the human brain is good, but not that good.


Good thing RevLeft has some organizational structure and that search engines exist, huh? -- !


[16] Affinity Group Workflow Tracker

http://postimage.org/image/1cqt82ps4/

[Blake's Baby]

Take the Spanish revolution, which failed for external reasons. Despite its efforts to abolish it markets, commodity production, etc. it failed. Markets and commodity production existed in Catalonia. This is because a social revolution is a process, not an act that takes less than one day...

The Spanish revolution failed because revolution is a process? Markets and commodity production existed because revolution is a process?

All revolutions (Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Germany) failed because of 'external' reasons. I think even the Commune failed for 'external' reasons. The 'abolition of markets' was impossible because capitalism survived. Amazingly, the collectivisation of industry in Catalonia and agriculture in Andalusia did not destroy capitalist relations worldwide in one day.





That doesn't really answer my questions. I asked what remnants of bourgeois society (by which I meant its economic order) will exist still on day 1, 2, 4, etc...

How can anyone answer this? My guess is that, as the revolution won't begin everywhere at the same time, even many 'days' after the revolution has begun in one part (or several parts) of the world things will be proceeding relatively 'normally' (ie capitalism will be relatively untroubled) in other parts.

As you refer to '8am' below, do you mean 8am in Auckland, or 8am in Tokyo, or Shanghai, or Calcutta, or Lahore, or Tehran, or Ankara, or Warsaw, or Dakar, or Rio, or St Johns, or Detroit, or New Orleans, or Phoenix, or Vancouver, or Anchorage, or anywhere else?




Exactly. And you will be unable to remove commodity production from day 1. The removal of these aspects is a process of reconstruction. Reconstruction does not happen within 24 hours by waving a magic socialist wand.

Let me bold this part:

unless you believe that workers will one day wake up at 8:00 AM, seize the means of production, restructure the economy, abolish money, and distribute goods according to needs and have supper at 7:30 the same day, you believe in the perpetuation of commodity production for a given amount of time. It is impossible, impossible, to abolish commodity production immediately.

Youu will be unable to make us produce commodities because we will be re-organising society from day 1, to ensure food supplies and other necessities. No-one will be making Coca-Cola, iPads and lawnmowers in revolutionary territories, and I suspect anyone making Nike shoes will be taking them out the factory with them. The ending of commodity production is a prelude to the reorganisation of production. Reorganisation takes time and will therefore need to begin immediately, as it isn't a process that work via your bureaucratic wand, only through the conscious will of the working class.

Let me bold this part: unless you believe that workers who have seized the means of production will want to continue with a mode of production that they are trying to overthrow, you will not be able to make us continue with commodity production. It is madness, madness, to want commodity production to continue.

[Tim Cornelis]

The Spanish revolution failed because revolution is a process? Markets and commodity production existed because revolution is a process?

That's not what I said.


All revolutions (Spain, Russia, Ukraine, Hungary, Germany) failed because of 'external' reasons. I think even the Commune failed for 'external' reasons. The 'abolition of markets' was impossible because capitalism survived. Amazingly, the collectivisation of industry in Catalonia and agriculture in Andalusia did not destroy capitalist relations worldwide in one day.

The first is arguable, the second part is accurate.


How can anyone answer this? My guess is that, as the revolution won't begin everywhere at the same time, even many 'days' after the revolution has begun in one part (or several parts) of the world things will be proceeding relatively 'normally' (ie capitalism will be relatively untroubled) in other parts.

As you refer to '8am' below, do you mean 8am in Auckland, or 8am in Tokyo, or Shanghai, or Calcutta, or Lahore, or Tehran, or Ankara, or Warsaw, or Dakar, or Rio, or St Johns, or Detroit, or New Orleans, or Phoenix, or Vancouver, or Anchorage, or anywhere else?

... I don't even.


You will be unable to make us produce commodities because we will be re-organising society from day 1, to ensure food supplies and other necessities. No-one will be making Coca-Cola, iPads and lawnmowers in revolutionary territories, and I suspect anyone making Nike shoes will be taking them out the factory with them. The ending of commodity production is a prelude to the reorganisation of production. Reorganisation takes time and will therefore need to begin immediately, as it isn't a process that work via your bureaucratic wand, only through the conscious will of the working class.

Here's the problem. You think I advocate commodity production, and therefore see it as necessary. I am not. I am advocating the reconstruction of society in the transformation to pure communism.

and where do I advocate a bureaucracy? I fully embrace self-emancipation and self-organisation.

You cannot abolish money on the first day of the revolution, or the second, third, or seventh, for that matter. Because the economy would collapse. A moneyless economy requires a complex structure. building a complex structure takes time.

So what then?

First, the workers need to seize power over production and governance. Which will take some time.

Second, the workers need to unite themselves in confederations of workplaces. Which will take some time.

Third, the workers and consumers need to set up a planning mechanism to replace the market. Which will take some time.

Then, once we have a planned economy we finally have a mechanism for production and distribution without money, and only then can we abolish money.

These steps are necessary. You cannot just skip to a moneyless economy in one day! Yet that is exactly what you are implicitly arguing!




Let me bold this part: unless you believe that workers who have seized the means of production will want to continue with a mode of production that they are trying to overthrow, you will not be able to make us continue with commodity production. It is madness, madness, to want commodity production to continue.

I do not want commodity production to continue, but its abolition is impossible in one day.

A revolution takes time. A revolution is a process. This process entails the entire and utter reconstruction of all social institutions.

If you honestly think that we will have pure communism within one day, or even a week, you are deluded. And if you do not think we will have pure communism within one day

You think that the bourgeois revolution immediately ended all feudal aspects of society? No.


anyone making Nike shoes will be taking them out the factory with them.

Okay, from, let's say, the second day everyone will just produce goods without compensation take it to the communal center and have it distributed for free there. Wow, no money, we have achieved pure communism. Sounds fairly reasonable.

Then your Nike-shoe factory runs out of fabric and needs to import it. Woops. We have abolished money, but not the entire world is communist yet and the part we want to import goods from still uses money. Now we don't have the resources to produce goods anymore!

And everyone dies. The End.


We will figure it out when we will get there.
The capitalist didnt carefully planned the end of feudalism, it happened trought a series of chaotic small steps.

Its useless to speculate about this beccause we dont know jack shit about what the conditions will be like when we will get there in the first place.

For now, the real goal is to get the worker to control the mean of productions.

One thing at the time.

You are forgetting one thing though. You advocate socialism and you want socialism. We are building socialism today in the shell of the old society. We therefore already need to know roughly (not precisely) where we want to go.

And if we are only going to think about how to get to pure communism after the revolution while everyone has the naive notion that pure communism is in reach within one week, the revolution is prone to failure.

You need to have a few broad (not precise) scenarios about how to go about restructuring society. You need to take into account an isolated revolutionary territory, the unequal spread of a global revolution, just to name a few things. It is best to assume a pessimistic scenario, so the real deal with be not as bad.

[danyboy27]

You are forgetting one thing though. You advocate socialism and you want socialism. We are building socialism today in the shell of the old society. We therefore already need to know roughly (not precisely) where we want to go.

We want the control of the mean of production and a more democratic control of these. See? you dont need an essay about it or endless speculations.



And if we are only going to think about how to get to pure communism after the revolution while everyone has the naive notion that pure communism is in reach within one week, the revolution is prone to failure.
.
My point is, you cant predict what the workers will do with their new situation beccause nobody been there before, we can vaguely on some issues here and there based on how communism appeal to us and to our friends but that pretty much it.



You need to have a few broad (not precise) scenarios about how to go about restructuring society. You need to take into account an isolated revolutionary territory, the unequal spread of a global revolution, just to name a few things. It is best to assume a pessimistic scenario, so the real deal with be not as bad.
do you think the capitalist class crafted the end of foeudalism that way? No, capitalism just ''did their things'', argued for proprety right, created the state, organised the productive forces to become increasingly more productive etc etc.

Just like every transitions from one system to another it usually take a while, its mostly chaotic and disorganised, but eventually we move on to the other step.

What is important right now is to get the worker to understand the concept and keep working on getting more control, and never give up.

[ckaihatsu]

Your entire line of argument is nothing more than sheer pessimism and anxiety-mongering. At this point your credibility as a revolutionary is definitely questionable.





You cannot abolish money on the first day of the revolution, or the second, third, or seventh, for that matter. Because the economy would collapse. A moneyless economy requires a complex structure. building a complex structure takes time.


Perhaps you're just succumbing to linear / perfectionistic thinking here -- a post-capitalist "economy" does not have to be fully built, like a computer, before it can be used. The benefit of 'complexity theory' is that it shows that there can be varying levels of functionality, for varying levels of 'completeness' -- a person can continue to exist and live from eating various kinds of things, but they will enjoy a *better* (qualitative) and *longer* (quantitative) life the closer they are to fulfilling their *full* nutritional needs.

(In other words, you're just being glass-half-empty here.)





Okay, from, let's say, the second day everyone will just produce goods without compensation take it to the communal center and have it distributed for free there. Wow, no money, we have achieved pure communism. Sounds fairly reasonable.

Then your Nike-shoe factory runs out of fabric and needs to import it. Woops. We have abolished money, but not the entire world is communist yet and the part we want to import goods from still uses money. Now we don't have the resources to produce goods anymore!

And everyone dies. The End.


Without shoes, everyone dies.


x D





You need to have a few broad (not precise) scenarios about how to go about restructuring society. You need to take into account an isolated revolutionary territory, the unequal spread of a global revolution, just to name a few things. It is best to assume a pessimistic scenario, so the real deal with be not as bad.


[10] Supply prioritization in a socialist transitional economy

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

[Blake's Baby]

Take the Spanish revolution, which failed for external reasons. Despite its efforts to abolish it markets, commodity production, etc. it failed. Markets and commodity production existed in Catalonia. This is because a social revolution is a process, not an act that takes less than one day...


The Spanish revolution failed because revolution is a process? Markets and commodity production existed because revolution is a process?


That's not what I said.

I was asking you to clarify what you said... but, apparently you didn't. Interesting. I'm almost certain I can make out some words there, including a very ambiguous 'this'. What is because social revolution is a process? I wonder, but then again it seems I've halucinated your posts.





The first is arguable, the second part is accurate.



... I don't even.



Sure, I know, you think socialism is possible in an isolated territory yadda yadda, sorry my appreciation of state-capitalist bureaucracy masquerading as syndicalism is a bit thin on the ground.




Here's the problem. You think I advocate commodity production, and therefore see it as necessary. I am not. I am advocating the reconstruction of society in the transformation to pure communism.

and where do I advocate a bureaucracy? I fully embrace self-emancipation and self-organisation...

If only you hadn't written the following sentence you'd be much more believable


You cannot abolish money on the first day of the revolution, or the second, third, or seventh, for that matter...

Funny I didn't think that was up to you, because the self-organised working class will do it anyway.


Because the economy would collapse. A moneyless economy requires a complex structure. building a complex structure takes time...

A moneyless economy is the point. The 'economy would collapse' - what does that mean? The economy is supposed to collapse. Communism is the negation of 'economy'. Economy is the organisation of exploitation. Why should the working class continue to be exploited? Why shouldn't it sieze the means of production and immediately begin the process of reorganisation of production? Why should we wait for your little institute of technocratic syndicalism to tell us when and how we should begin to take capitalism apart?


So what then?

First, the workers need to seize power over production and governance. Which will take some time.

Second, the workers need to unite themselves in confederations of workplaces. Which will take some time.

Third, the workers and consumers need to set up a planning mechanism to replace the market. Which will take some time.

Then, once we have a planned economy we finally have a mechanism for production and distribution without money, and only then can we abolish money.

These steps are necessary. You cannot just skip to a moneyless economy in one day! Yet that is exactly what you are implicitly arguing!...

No, that's what you're arguing we're saying. It's almost as if you don't understand words like 'beginning'.



I do not want commodity production to continue, but its abolition is impossible in one day...

No it isn't, its very existence can only be assured with threats of violence and destitution. If you think that commodity production needs to continue after day 1, you will need to be very very organised with a lot of data and argumentation at your fingertips, because once the revolution lets the genie out, it's goiung to be very hard for you to put it back. Swathes of firms in the revolutionary territories will be collectivised, and few workers will want to go back to the staus quo ante. You will have to run around a lot shouting 'it's too soon! It's too soon! You have to let capitalism continue a bit longer until we tell you how to organise properly!'; I think most workers will laugh in your face (which might be better than the alternatives some might suggest).


A revolution takes time. A revolution is a process. This process entails the entire and utter reconstruction of all social institutions...

Yes, these words make sense.


If you honestly think that we will have pure communism within one day, or even a week, you are deluded...

And if you think that's what I said, you are deluded.


And if you do not think we will have pure communism within one day

Yeah, your thought just got derailed here, perhaps you could pick it up again?


You think that the bourgeois revolution immediately ended all feudal aspects of society? No...

Quite right. Capitalism had been developing inside feudalism for centuries. The 'bourgeois revolutions' were spread over a couple of hundred years. However, the major differences between bourgeois and socialist revolutions include (but are not limited to) the fact that the bourgeoisie as it developed was an exploiting class, but the proletariat isn't, so the bourgeoisie already built up an economic power base inside feudalism on the back of its exploitation of the proletariat, but the proletariat can't build up an economic power-base in capitalism (no-one else to exploit, see?) and therefore, in order to wrest economic power from the bourgeoisie, the proletariat must also wrest political power from the bourgeoisie. Furthermore, as capitalism is a world system whereas feudalism wasn't, the revolution of the working class against the international power of capital will also have to be international. You seem to think that an isolated territory can by effort of will transform itself into a socialist mode of production. It can't. Stalinism with a black triangle is still Stalinism, no matter how much it pretends to be anarcho-syndicalism. Socialism in one country is impossible.




Okay, from, let's say, the second day everyone will just produce goods without compensation take it to the communal center and have it distributed for free there. Wow, no money, we have achieved pure communism. Sounds fairly reasonable...

Not really. '...everyone will just produce goods...' sounds pretty ridiculous to me. More submarines, CS gas, copies of Mein Kampf... why would people bother? Or, rather more pointedly, why do you think people should bother?

The most immediate priorities will be (as they always are) food, power, water, shelter, medicine; as a revolution is not the acts of atomised individuals but a group of people acting together, the revolutionary workers will have to sort out these things - so the power keeps flowing, water and sewerage keep working, transport keeps running to move essentials (food, medicine) around. There will undoubtedly be some things that are sometimes in short supply. These should be distributed on the basis of need, not money.

We cannot have 'pure communism' until we have a society of abundance. You may have a vision of an insane state syndicalism, but you have to be aware that we don't all want to enshrine the mistakes of the Bolsheviks into a new system that seems to owe as much to Mussolini as Stalin


Then your Nike-shoe factory runs out of fabric and needs to import it. Woops. We have abolished money, but not the entire world is communist yet and the part we want to import goods from still uses money. Now we don't have the resources to produce goods anymore!

Yeah, no revolutionary is going to know anything about making fabric. That's a given. In fact it's a well-known fact that revolutions can't occur in any area where the knowledge of fabric making exists.

Why are you trying to demonstrate the 'socialism in one factory' is impossible? You spend all this time and effort constructing an intricate strawman and we really don't care.


And everyone dies. The End...

Because we can't eat Nikes any more. Yes, I think we covered that earlier.



You are forgetting one thing though. You advocate socialism and you want socialism. We are building socialism today in the shell of the old society...

No we're not. You're not, because what you're building isn't socialism, it's state capitalism, and I'm not, for the reasons outlined above - socialism doesn't develop inside capitalism because we don't have some enslaved class we can work to death to build an alternative power-base. Socialism can only be built on the expropriation of the bourgeoisie.

What we can build in capitalism is knowledge of what socialism is. A task which, I have to admit, is even more difficult than I first imagined, even among people who claim to be socialists.


...We therefore already need to know roughly (not precisely) where we want to go...

No, we need to know where we want to go, though we may not know precisely how to get there. The important thing is that the discussion of the route is as wide as possible and not just your technocrats telling the rest of us 'now turn left'.


And if we are only going to think about how to get to pure communism after the revolution while everyone has the naive notion that pure communism is in reach within one week, the revolution is prone to failure...

Again, you read the word 'begin' and see the word 'complete'. I can't help it if you confuse the meaning of words. Of course we need to have the widest possible discussion about the restructuring of society. That doesn't include "Revolution, day nine. The workers are all in wherever they were before the revolution, doing exactly the same things. They expect to be doing this for another 8 months or maybe 9 years, until Comrade First Secretary Goti and the Techno-Syndicate Ubermasters tell them all it's safe to proclaim socialism without disappointment'.


You need to have a few broad (not precise) scenarios about how to go about restructuring society. You need to take into account an isolated revolutionary territory, the unequal spread of a global revolution, just to name a few things...

Thought I'd done that, 4th post on this thread, another of the things that you can't read apparently, when I said:


...As a priority we need to (in no particular order):

Eliminate useless work

Re-integrate the unemployed and those in useless occupations into the 'real' workforce

Give everyone involved in every industry as much free time as possible

Communalise distribution of all essentials immediately

Work out the rest when we can...



... It is best to assume a pessimistic scenario, so the real deal with be not as bad.

It's best to tell the truth.

[Rooster]

I said: "It is impossible to abolish money, commodity production, and competitive markets immediately".

I don't know what you imagine revolution to be, but to me, this is the revolution; the abolition of private property by the appropriation of the means of production, hence ending commodity production, wage labour, the wage/capital relation and competitive markets. All of this goes hand in hand with the social upheaval we call revolution. It is not just seizing the reigns of political power and then gradually transforming the mode of production.


We are not upholding a system but the notion that we can, immediately upon the start of the revolution, abolish money, markets, and commodity production is unrealistic, indeed utopian.See above. Incidentally, your position of a gradualist change is the utopian one.


The first step towards the realization of communism is workers seizing power over affairs of governance and economics. Communes will be organised and workers take control of the factories--i.e. collective property.No, that's not the first step. The first step is the actual break out of the socialist mode of production, through the appropriation of the means of production with possibly the setting up of alternative means of self governance such as the commune and the soviet. Both of those examples though, did not hold power over the means of production to the extent that some people imagine.


To think that we will have full communism in one day is absurd, but that is exactly what you are arguing when you say you want to skip immediately to communism without stages.Within that sphere of production, it would look more or less like socialism. The only other option would be to wait it out with a small party at the top with it's reigns around capitalism. Look how that ended. The stageist notion of revolution is what ended the mensheviks and their ilk, when the forces of revolution swept them aside.


What would be to the benefit of our enemies would be to abolish markets, commodity production, and money immediately and so launch society into havoc. How would that be a benefit and why would it end up in havoc? You are pulling things out of the air. The fact of the matter is, revolution is the removal of one mode of production and replacing it with another. It will end up having to do this at some point.


This will lead to the collapse of the revolution and the re-establishment of capitalism.Compared to the continuation of capitalism under the dictatorship of the proletariat in the USSR that ended up back to capitalism?


This is not a controversial issue at all, and most Marxists agree. In the words of Ernest Mandel:

"Traditional Marxist theory starts from the assumption that the building of a socialist society is identical with the withering away of commodity production and of market mechanisms. True, most Marxist theorists have always recognized that the artificial suppression of the market immediately after the overthrow of capitalism is impossible. They have always considered that some forms of market mechanism will survive during the period of transition from capitalism to socialism"Without the context I can't make heads nor tails of that. I don't know if the contemporary marxist theorists he is talking about are marxist-leninists.


You simply cannot implement communism immediately.You can't implement communism at all. It's not about implementing a plan or telling people how it should go about. The process of revolution is the end result of the capitalist mode of production. It's when capitalism bursts at the seems from social production and then it has to be seized upon.


It's not delaying the revolution, it is the revolution!It is delaying it.


Social revolution is about social transformation.Sure it, but we're for the marxist definition of revolution, the changing of mode of production. The changing of the economic basis.


The first step in social transformationI'd rather say revolution instead of social transformation but anyway


is for workers to control the means of production.Correct. Although, I might add, that "control" is a very loose word. I prefer made common.


Then establish a sort of "guild" system that consolidates workers within the same industry to minimize competition.Why would there be competition in the first place? There's no longer a profit motive.


Then to establish labour credits as a temporary measure.You're not even saying why any of this is necessary or why it's the correct path. I don't see a need for labour credits when there isn't one.


Then establish distributive cooperatives to plan the economy and establish confederations within the same industry as well as within the same region. We already have a distribution network in place. We already have the means of production in place. We already have the socialised labour. This part needs to be transformed though but it's not the be all or end of the revolution.


Then abolish money, and you will have pure communism.So what happened to the labour credits then? Does this mean there's still wage labour or something?


To argue such intermediate steps are unnecessary is completely divorced from reality. You haven't said why they're necessary in the first place.


It is to argue we will wake up in capitalism and go to sleep in communism. No one is saying that.


It will be a transformation of months or years (depending on innumerable factors), not of a day, or days.So when? Don't give me a number or a "I don't know". When will it happen? When the whole world is under the DotP? And who decides?


A world revolution has not and will not, ever, occur simultaneously.No one is saying that either.

[Rooster]

Exactly. And you will be unable to remove commodity production from day 1. The removal of these aspects is a process of reconstruction. Reconstruction does not happen within 24 hours by waving a magic socialist wand.

Have you ever actually read any Marx? What the hell are you even talking about with reconstruction? The social mode of production is within the capitalist mode of production like I said in my previous post. All production takes place on a social basis (no man is an island). The things produced are then appropriated by the capitalist owner of the means of production that the labourer has been working on. Hence the demand of appropriating the means of production.


Let me bold this part:

unless you believe that workers will one day wake up at 8:00 AM, seize the means of production, restructure the economy, abolish money, and distribute goods according to needs and have supper at 7:30 the same day, you believe in the perpetuation of commodity production for a given amount of time. It is impossible, impossible, to abolish commodity production immediately.

Who the fuck is saying that it takes place in such a short time frame? I'm saying that the revolutionary process is the taking of the means of production and making them common, thus ending wage labour, commodity production and all that bad stuff that defines the capitalist mode of production. You have no given any good reason why it's impossible to abolish commodity production immediately other than it will end in havoc or disaster which are totally unfounded assumptions. How could commodity production continue when there is no longer any capitalist mode of production?

[Firebrand]

Keep at it -- it's just a technical thing so I'm sure you'll eventually figure it out.... It's also at my blog entry.

OK i think i've got the hang of it. I'll go back and have another look at the pic


That's cute -- it looks like you're trying to take Goti123's place as the lead *revolutionary fatalist* here....
Don't be silly, i'm just saying that having billions of people trying to hold a conversation at once doesn't work. You give revleft as an example but theres generally only about five or six people involved in any one discussion here at a given time. I'm sure that when the revolution comes we will be able to sort stuff out. I just don't personally see this forum as the future vehicle of government.


Are you concerned that there isn't enough space on the Internet, or that geographical distinctions are too difficult for people, or what?? (Every major productive industrial asset *could* have its own Wikipedia-type page and discussions, you know...!)

Geographical distinctions should mean nothing, the idea is world revolution, geography should therefore be irrelevent. Theres space on the internet, the trouble is theres only so much each person can keep track of. If people tried to pay attention to what every single other person in the world had to say then they would never have any time to actually do anything. I think that representatives subject to instant recall and elected for terms of a year maximum should discuss stuff and suggest stuff. If anyone thinks they've missed anything they can bring it up on an internet forum for the purpose and the representatives would then discuss it. After all points had been covered everyone in the world would vote on the policy, which would need a majority of votes cast to be passed.

[ckaihatsu]

OK i think i've got the hang of it. I'll go back and have another look at the pic


Okay. (You can also try the link I provided for it -- it should come up in your browser pre-fitted to the screen.)





Don't be silly, i'm just saying that having billions of people trying to hold a conversation at once doesn't work. You give revleft as an example but theres generally only about five or six people involved in any one discussion here at a given time. I'm sure that when the revolution comes we will be able to sort stuff out. I just don't personally see this forum as the future vehicle of government.


Fair enough -- I'll respectfully disagree with you on this matter of approach / logistics.





Geographical distinctions should mean nothing, the idea is world revolution, geography should therefore be irrelevent.


Yes, *politically* you're correct, of course, but in terms of *implementation* geography *does* make a difference.





Theres space on the internet, the trouble is theres only so much each person can keep track of. If people tried to pay attention to what every single other person in the world had to say then they would never have any time to actually do anything.


Well, this is where geographical implementation, self-selection, journalism, and the politics of the day would all be vectors that would cut *against* generalization, encouraging various kinds of specificity.





I think that representatives subject to instant recall and elected for terms of a year maximum should discuss stuff and suggest stuff. If anyone thinks they've missed anything they can bring it up on an internet forum for the purpose and the representatives would then discuss it. After all points had been covered everyone in the world would vote on the policy, which would need a majority of votes cast to be passed.


While the ambition of this global flat-scale vision of yours is admirable I don't think it's realistic or advisable. Most day-to-day concerns would primarily be *local* ones, with excess attention *then* freed for broader-scale developments, as you're proposing.

(I still don't advocate any practice of political representation, though, since it inherently invites elitism.)








The solution to this seeming conundrum of linear-vs.-nonlinear, centralized-vs.-decentralized, geographically-generalized-vs.-local, is to consider that there could be an area of emergent *complexity* within each pair of any of the two absolutes, yielding a *hybrid* system that self-reconciles, once the structure has been appropriately set up based on *scale*.

I'll suggest that, based on a geographic and productive-consumptive-volume notion of scale, there could be four 'tiers' above one's own immediate environment. So, to name them, they could be [1] entity / household, [2] local, [3] regional, [4] continental, and [5] global. (Picture a "pyramid" of four flat platforms on the ground, narrowing towards the apex, each supporting the one below.)

[...]

To address logistical concerns, these production and consumption zones on various tiers could be connected as well as possible both horizontally (in geographic space) *and* vertically, in terms of scale of productive output and consumption-based input. In this distibuted, yet generalizing way the material accounting for such would *not* be overly complicated, since any given point in the formation would only need to be in contact with those other associated entities nearby, below, and above. This localized, yet self-generalizing structure would be sufficient to realize the economies of scale called for by advocates of centralization while remaining under local control and mostly self-determining.

A determining political process would have to decide this entire economic supply-chain formation, so as to properly, consciously collectivize decision-making among entities at all tiers, among all zones of production and consumption, globally.


Central Planning!!

tinyurl.com/66b3t4l