Wages with a worker's state in place: yay or nay?

[Lanky Wanker]

I'm at school right now so I'm not completely sure that this is the right vid as I'm not able to watch it, but I remember hearing him explain how surplus value from the workers' labour will be given to the state so that they can provide free healthcare for everyone and pay those who don't produce, but give services as their contribution to society and all that stuff. However, most of us seem to agree that wages must be abolished as soon as possible, even with a worker's state in place. Which one is correct? :confused: My spider senses tell me someone will mention state capitalism in their answer...

f6yAp5UDMio

[Tim Cornelis]

The problem is not wages it's wage labour.

Wage labour is the act of selling your labour power to an employer (public or private). This is incompatible with the basic principles of socialism. You could have a wage system without wage labour.

Whether we will preserve a form of wages in the form of labour credits shortly after the revolution cannot be predicted. At best we can pessimistically assume that it will be necessary compelling us to examine in what we labour credits could be distributed most fairly. Ultimately, it will be decided after/during the revolution.

I don't think either theory (immediately abolition of temporary perpetuation) of a wage system is correct or incorrect (as long as money is abolished), but what is most practical we will only find out in the future.

As for the video by Maoist Rebel News, it is an interesting idea but not grounded in Marxist thought whatsoever. I am not familiar with any Marxist theory which states that the subtraction of surplus value by an employer will continue except it will be used for the common good. Especially since money will not exist, while MRN assumes it will.

[Jimmie Higgins]

I agree that the way in which we move from the current system will depend on the conditions at the time and what people decide is the best way forward. Ultimately we do want to get rid of wages and "work" as we know it, but in the short term credits or whatnot will probably be necessary. I don't know about having a wage taxed directly, maybe a more collective way of raising necessary collective funds would be more efficient. It seems like individual taxation might create hostility since necessarily in going from the current uneven and unequal state of infrastructure, housing, etc to a society where everyone has access to health and education and services and entertainment and decent homes would mean that the surplus from some regions are put to use by workers in other regions and this might cause tension.

On a side note, "socialism for dummies" really opens itself up for piss-taking as far as titles go. I know he's referencing the "...for dummies" series, but it either makes it sound like he thinks people are too stupid to understand socialism or it's an easy invitations for right-wingers to mock socialism.

I mean you can have a book called "Car repair for dummies" because people aren't out to discredit and demonize car-mechanics.

Edit: he looks friendlier and positively cuddly in that image from the video than he usually does. Woo, take off that uniform MRN! No seriously, I'm not attracted to him, I just think the uniform is stupid and makes the left look bad.

[Wubbaz]

Sorry for the off-topic, but why the hell is this guy dressed up like Castro?

[Lanky Wanker]

Sorry for the off-topic, but why the hell is this guy dressed up like Castro?

LOL he likes a good dress up. He even wore his Soviet uniform and did a minute's silence on the anniversary of the Soviet Union.

[Kadir Ateş]

"The Communists are further reproached with desiring to abolish countries and nationality. The working men have no country. We cannot take from them what they have not got. Since the proletariat must first of all acquire political supremacy, must rise to be the leading class of the nation, must constitute itself the nation, it is so far, itself national, though not in the bourgeois sense of the word."

- Marx, Manifesto

...Precisely not what this radical capitalist is advocating.

[Lanky Wanker]

As for the video by Maoist Rebel News, it is an interesting idea but not grounded in Marxist thought whatsoever. I am not familiar with any Marxist theory which states that the subtraction of surplus value by an employer will continue except it will be used for the common good. Especially since money will not exist, while MRN assumes it will.

I'm kinda clueless on the topic of state capitalism, but could it have anything to do with the pre-socialist state capitalism I hear people say that Lenin spoke of? Lenin isn't something I've read into properly either, but people seem to carry this attitude that Lenin didn't even follow Marxist theory.

[Tim Cornelis]

I'm kinda clueless on the topic of state capitalism, but could it have anything to do with the pre-socialist state capitalism I hear people say that Lenin spoke of? Lenin isn't something I've read into properly either, but people seem to carry this attitude that Lenin didn't even follow Marxist theory.

What you are refering to is the New Economic Policy (NEP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy) introduced by Lenin in response to the astronomical failure of War Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism).

The NEP was purely pragmatic and had no real theoretical foundation, especially not in Marxism, but was necessary to prevent the complete collapse of the economy.

In Lenin's theoretical works he explicitly talks about the abolition of money (bolded):

"The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labour which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it."

[Lanky Wanker]

What you are refering to is the New Economic Policy (NEP) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Economic_Policy) introduced by Lenin in response to the astronomical failure of War Communism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_communism).

The NEP was purely pragmatic and had no real theoretical foundation, especially not in Marxism, but was necessary to prevent the complete collapse of the economy.

In Lenin's theoretical works he explicitly talks about the abolition of money (bolded):

"The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labour which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it."

Ah right, that explains it. Thanks.

[Rooster]

I'm kinda clueless on the topic of state capitalism, but could it have anything to do with the pre-socialist state capitalism I hear people say that Lenin spoke of? Lenin isn't something I've read into properly either, but people seem to carry this attitude that Lenin didn't even follow Marxist theory.

State capitalism is essentially where the state acts as a capitalist enterprise. It owns the means of production and hands out wages for instance. During the NEP, large sections of the economy was nationalised and operated on this basis. The basic operation of the economy of the state did no change significantly since then, it just squeezed out the small private sector the best it could.

As to the video:

He says at the start, "There seems to be a lot of confusion about what socialism is and by confusion, I mean Americans" then goes and explains that socialism is the exact same thing that many Americans think what socialism is. The video is stupid. He is basically describing a state run capitalist welfare state. The difference he explains isn't really a difference at all. He makes no mention of the mode of production and how it would operate differently. He doesn't explain how you go from having a monetary system to having no monetary system because he completely glosses over the class analysis in favour of Stalinist rhetoric.

[A Marxist Historian]

State capitalism is essentially where the state acts as a capitalist enterprise. It owns the means of production and hands out wages for instance. During the NEP, large sections of the economy was nationalised and operated on this basis. The basic operation of the economy of the state did no change significantly since then, it just squeezed out the small private sector the best it could.
...


That's a very common contemporary interpretation, and at the time as well. It was the interpretation of Soviet leader Gregory Zinoviev for example.

However, this was not Lenin's interpretation, as you'll discover if you read what he actually wrote about the NEP. What Lenin meant by a Soviet "state capitalist" policy was a state policy which favored domestic small capitalists, the so-called "NEPmen," capitalist farmers "kulaks," and above all foreign investment by big capitalists from abroad. Which never happened, as the foreign capitalists just hated the USSR too much.

In his plan, the "commanding heights" as he put it of the economy, banking, big industry, would all remain in the hands of the state, and would be what he called the "socialist sector" of the economy, which would coexist with a capitalist sector.

This was also Trotsky's opinion. In fact Trotsky disliked Zinoviev's concept that state industry was "state capitalist" so much that it was one of the reasons he did not support Zinoviev when Zinoviev broke with Stalin, as he regarded Zinoviev's concept of Soviet "state capitalism" as just as much a revision of Marxism as Stalin's concept of "socialism in one country," and just as much of a danger to the revolution. Indeed, judging by what he was writing in his diary at the time, if anything more so.

Reference: Trotsky, "A Split in the Triumvirate," The Challenge of the Left Opposition, 1923-25, Pathfinder Press 1975, pp. 384-396.

When the joint Left Opposition platform was formed in 1926, one of Zinoviev's concessions to Trotsky was that this concept is not to be found in it.

-M.H.-

[runequester]

Under socialism, it is hard to imagine there will not be wages of some sort, as a method of exchange.
As a comrade stated above, it is not the concept of wages or money, it is the concept of wage labour, where the worker has no ownership of production, and hence has nothing to do but enslave himself.

One possible solution is to take the ultimate consequence of the very cheap rent and food in the DDR and USSR, and simply make life essentials free (you paid for them by working). Wages then are used to acquire consumer goods outside what is considered to be essential.

This allows a limited degree of profit motive as well, while allowing society to work towards true collectivisation.

[Rooster]

Under socialism, it is hard to imagine there will not be wages of some sort, as a method of exchange.

Maybe for those with little imagination.


As a comrade stated above, it is not the concept of wages or money, it is the concept of wage labour, where the worker has no ownership of production, and hence has nothing to do but enslave himself.

If the workers own the means of production then who is paying for their labour? If I worked my own job, then why should I pay myself a wage? Hmm... maybe because that would mean private property still existed, that there was commodity production and the fact that I'm getting a wage and I'm working for a wage to exchange for goods and services....wait, sounds kinda like capitalism. :O


One possible solution is to take the ultimate consequence of the very cheap rent and food in the DDR and USSR, and simply make life essentials free (you paid for them by working). Wages then are used to acquire consumer goods outside what is considered to be essential.

Oh, so you're a social democrat now wanting a welfare state?


This allows a limited degree of profit motive as well, while allowing society to work towards true collectivisation.

And this isn't a revolutionary platform. It is a reformist one.

[runequester]

We are both on the level that socialism is a transitionary form of workers governance, not an end result correct?

Under a transition form, there will inevitably be a method of exchange to allocate goods, whether it be in the form of money or ration cards or some other intermediary.

If we were culturally at a stage where we could simply leapfrog this and move to a completely cooperative economy then congratulations! You already live in a highly developed socialist society. Welcome to communism. Please take your sticker and pin.



Oh, so you're a social democrat now wanting a welfare state?


You forgot to eat a healthy breakfast today comrade.

A socialist state must of course provide for the workers that comprise the state. Houses don't grow out of mushrooms and hospitals do not run themselves. They require workers to run them, and administer them, since we must ensure that every worker is provided for, rather than keeping them living in deprivation and anxiety.

[Rooster]

We are both on the level that socialism is a transitionary form of workers governance, not an end result correct?

No. That idea is wrong and contradictory.


Under a transition form, there will inevitably be a method of exchange to allocate goods, whether it be in the form of money or ration cards or some other intermediary.

We're not talking about ration cards or anything like that. We're talking about a wage. Being paid for your work when you exchange your labour power. You can cry about how this isn't what you're talking about all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are exchanging your labour power for money.


If we were culturally at a stage where we could simply leapfrog this and move to a completely cooperative economy then congratulations! You already live in a highly developed socialist society. Welcome to communism. Please take your sticker and pin.

And you miss the point completely of what revolutionising the means of production means and what class means and how Marx saw socialism (ie a classless society and even Stalin mentions something along this line when he said that in socialism, all class antagonisms are wiped out). Explain to me exactly what you think revolution means.


You forgot to eat a healthy breakfast today comrade.

I think you forgot to read Marx, comrade.


A socialist state must of course provide for the workers that comprise the state. Houses don't grow out of mushrooms and hospitals do not run themselves. They require workers to run them, and administer them, since we must ensure that every worker is provided for, rather than keeping them living in deprivation and anxiety.

Oh, now you're jumping about all over the place. First we were talking about wages and now we're talking about providing for workers?

[runequester]

No. That idea is wrong and contradictory.


If you don't believe that theres a distinction between transitionary socialism and communism, I doubt we're going to be understanding each other.



We're not talking about ration cards or anything like that. We're talking about a wage. Being paid for your work when you exchange your labour power. You can cry about how this isn't what you're talking about all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that you are exchanging your labour power for money.

At its simplest, yes. Until work is fully communal, there'll be a method of exchange in existence. This has historically been the case. While we should work to abolish it, in a socialist state, this is unlikely to occur immediately (or even rapidly)




And you miss the point completely of what revolutionising the means of production means and what class means and how Marx saw socialism (ie a classless society and even Stalin mentions something along this line when he said that in socialism, all class antagonisms are wiped out). Explain to me exactly what you think revolution means.

Liberating the means of production and eliminating class differences does not instantly give us the worker owned system of administration needed to feed 300 million (for example) let alone everybody. There will nescesarily be a period where the state still exists, albeit managed by workers (hopefully on a rotational basis ala Bukharins theories) in order to facilitate distribution and conduct planning of the economic system.

I don't believe in anarchist ideology that communal living can spontaneously simply materialise the day we liberate the last means of production, after 300 years of capitalism poisoning the masses. I believe a fully democratized ownership of administration will help get us there.
And yes, this may involve money for a while, as it has historically done, or it may not. But given a lack of historical precedent, I find the latter less likely.

Perhaps you would like to give counter-examples to further the debate?




Oh, now you're jumping about all over the place. First we were talking about wages and now we're talking about providing for workers?

What else would we be talking about, comrade? We are the workers. We are providing for ourselves, our class, which after the revolution will be the only class existing.

Expropriating the means of production is not done to prevent them being used. It's done so we can free every person.

[Lanky Wanker]

I never really thought about it a lot, but I did sort of think that we would need some kind of wages during a transition to communism, so maybe something along the lines of what runequester said. Thinking about it now though makes me feel like keeping wages or anything of the sort around for any longer than we (arguably?) have to will actually be counter-productive. It seems that many people think the society created immediately after the workers seize control will be a bunch of headless sheep running around without a clue of what to do. Is there something wrong with the idea of going straight into "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? I thought the idea was that we would find out what we are fighting for, then fight for it -- not the other way around. You don't get in your car and start driving, THEN decide where you're going, thus waste your petrol and time trying to get there.

[A Marxist Historian]

I never really thought about it a lot, but I did sort of think that we would need some kind of wages during a transition to communism, so maybe something along the lines of what runequester said. Thinking about it now though makes me feel like keeping wages or anything of the sort around for any longer than we (arguably?) have to will actually be counter-productive. It seems that many people think the society created immediately after the workers seize control will be a bunch of headless sheep running around without a clue of what to do. Is there something wrong with the idea of going straight into "from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"? I thought the idea was that we would find out what we are fighting for, then fight for it -- not the other way around. You don't get in your car and start driving, THEN decide where you're going, thus waste your petrol and time trying to get there.

Well, yes there is. Can't be done. Just not practical. In Russia in 1917, even more basic things than that didn't turn out to be practical right away. Immediate nationalization of all industry, the bare minimum step towards socialism, just resulted in economic collapse. You had famine, etc. And that was with a highly conscious working class deeply convinced that socialism was the way.

Initially, wages and wage labor will be necessary. These are things you evolve out of over time, as socialism is constructed, a difficult and lengthy process.

Here's an excellent explanation of just what a real, non-Stalinist, democratic workers state will look like.
http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/989/ysp-transition.html

-M.H.-

************************************************** ***************************

Workers Vanguard No. 989, 28 October 2011

Economics of a Workers State in Transition to Socialism
(Young Spartacus pages)

We are pleased to publish a class by Spartacist League Central Committee member Joseph Seymour given for our SYC members in Oakland, California, on 6 August 2005. It has been edited for publication and slightly expanded by Young Spartacus in collaboration with comrade Seymour.

The fundamental goal of the early, pre-Marx socialist movement was economic equality, considered to be both immediately achievable and ultimately desirable. That is, there was no conception of a higher level of economic development made possible by the revolutionary overthrow of capitalism. The Conspiracy of Equals was the first revolutionary communist organization, emerging in the latter phase of the French Revolution at the end of the 18th century. Its program was a communism of consumption and distribution. The revolutionary government would provide larger houses and proportionally more food, clothing and other necessities to families with more children.

One of Marx’s great theoretical contributions was to shift the axis of the socialist movement from equality in the sphere of consumption to entirely overcoming economic scarcity through progressively raising the level of productive forces. To be sure, in a classless, communist society, everyone will have equal access to consumable resources. But there will undoubtedly be a huge diversity of individual lifestyles corresponding to very different levels of individual utilization of those resources.

I’m beginning this educational with that point because, in some important ways, we have been thrown back into the intellectual universe of the early Marx. If you take a survey of 100 students and you ask them what socialism means, the overwhelming majority will say it’s about economic equality. They will tell you it means that everyone has more or less the same living standard. Very few of them would reply that the goal of socialism is to raise the level of production and labor productivity to such an advanced level that the division of consumable resources among individuals will no longer be a source of social conflict or even social concern. But that is our ultimate goal.

Unfortunately, getting there will require a relatively lengthy historical period after the proletarian socialist revolution has expropriated the capitalist class. In that society in transition to socialism, economic scarcity—and therefore certain kinds of economic inequality—will continue to exist. When you think about it, this is obviously true at the international level. It will take generations of an internationally planned socialist economy to raise the living standards of the populations of China, India, other Asian countries, Latin America and Africa to those of the so-called First World.

But even in a workers state in an advanced area like North America or Europe there would still be certain kinds of economic inequality. Marx spoke about this in his Critique of the Gotha Programme (1875). People would still have to expend a lot of time and a lot of energy doing what Marx called alienated labor, that is, working at jobs that they would not do unless they got paid for them. Some jobs are physically harder, dirtier, more boring, more unpleasant or, in some cases, more dangerous than others. So coal miners and construction workers would command higher wages than data processors who work in comfortable offices. Workers who have economically valuable skills acquired through lengthy training, such as airline pilots, would get higher wages than flight attendants and baggage handlers. That’s just the overhead cost of what Marx called the initial phase of communism in society.

There is another important source of economic inequality in the initial phase after the proletarian revolution. A fundamental goal and feature of a fully communist society is the replacement of the nuclear family by collective institutions for nurturing and socializing children. But this most fundamental of all social transformations is, again, going to be the work of generations. For a historically significant period the family will still be the basic social unit and therefore the basic economic spending unit.
So take two families, both of whom have the equivalent income of $70,000 a year. The first has one child, and the second has three children. The first family will have a somewhat higher standard of living. The difference will be nowhere near as great as under capitalism. There will be free medical care. There will be affordable housing. There will be free, quality education from day-care centers through university and beyond. But income will not be simply proportional to family size. Again, Marx mentioned this in his Critique of the Gotha Programme.

Economic Planning by Workers Democracy
Eliminating economic inequality in all its forms requires overcoming economic scarcity through progressively raising the level of production. This will be achieved by using a portion of society’s total output and investing it in the expansion of productive equipment that embodies the most developed technology.

But herein lies a contradiction. The more a workers government spends on building new factories, retooling existing factories, expanding and modernizing infrastructure (e.g., electric power grids, water supply systems, highways and railroads), the less it has available for direct personal and familial consumption. So, it will face the choice between a somewhat higher level of consumption in the short term versus a much higher level of consumption in the long term.

In the absence of international socialist revolution in the advanced capitalist countries, this choice obviously would be especially painful and conflict-ridden in a nationally isolated and economically backward workers state. But even in a future workers state in the U.S. or West Europe with much greater resources at its disposal, the division between consumption and investment would still be a politically divisive issue, in which there are likely to be strongly held differences within the working class. “I want as much as I can have now, man, not in ten or twenty years from now. For all I know, I may be dead by then.” You are going to get that argument.

In order for the democratic organs of a workers government to make rational decisions concerning the division of total output between consumption and investment, the trade-off between the two has to be quantified. If we increase investment in productive capacity from 13 to 15 percent of total output, how much greater will the output of consumable resources be in five years, in ten years, in fifteen years?

Fortunately for us, these types of questions were discussed and investigated in depth in the Soviet Union in the 1920s. A rich economic literature, written from a Marxist perspective, was generated in the course of the debate and factional struggle over the establishment of a centrally planned, collectivized economy. One Soviet economist, G.A. Feldman, developed a theoretical model for a long-term economic plan, that is, covering 20 to 40 years. In my opinion, Feldman’s work “On the Theory of Growth Rates of National Income” is an extremely important contribution to a Marxist understanding of the economics of the transition period. You can find the English translation in Nicolas Spulber, ed., Foundations of Soviet Strategy for Economic Growth (1964). Feldman adapted a model developed much earlier by Marx to a centrally planned, collectivized economy, while making certain important extensions and modifications of it.

In the second volume of Capital, Marx developed a theoretical model of expanded production under capitalism. Marx divided the economy into two basic sectors: consumer goods and producer (or capital) goods. Consumer goods and services are things that directly satisfy personal needs and desires. Producer goods are things that directly or indirectly generate consumer goods. A shirt is a consumer good. A sewing machine that makes the shirt is a producer good, as is a power loom that weaves the cotton cloth from which the shirt is made. A loaf of bread is a consumer good. The oven in which it is baked and the agricultural combine which harvests the wheat or oats from which it is made are producer goods.

Feldman extended Marx’s model to a workers state by dividing the producer goods sector into two basic subsectors. There are producer goods that make consumer goods and there are producer goods that make additional producer goods. A sewing machine is an example of the former. Machine tools such as lathes, which make machinery, including sewing machines, fall into the latter category. Many producer goods are not technologically specific, but can be used to expand either the capacity of the consumer goods sector or the capacity of the producer goods sector. A steel mill can make steel for automobiles or for construction equipment. Cement mixers and earthmovers can be used to construct apartment houses or factories. A hydroelectric plant can generate electricity to run household appliances as well as factory assembly lines.

Thus there are two basic factors that determine the growth rates of total output of productive capacity and consumable resources. One is the division of the total output between the consumer goods sector and producer goods sector. The second is the division of the producer goods sector between producer goods geared to the consumer goods sector and producer goods geared to expanding more producer goods.

Take two socialist economies, both of which expend 25 percent of total output in the producer goods sector. In the first economy, 75 percent of this investment in producer goods is geared to expanding the output of the consumer goods sector; in the second, 50 percent. In the first economy, consumption will increase faster in the initial period of the economic plan but more slowly later on. In the second it’s just the opposite. By adjusting the proportions it is possible to develop a range of alternative economic plans, ranging from those which maximize short-term consumption to those that maximize productive resources (and therefore consumption) in the long term.

So the planning authority would present to the highest body of a workers government, i.e., the central assembly of workers councils, a range of maybe six alternative long-term plans to be debated and decided upon. This is likely to be a contentious issue. Some delegates are going to argue: “Our workers and poor people have just made a revolution. They expect and demand a big, dramatic improvement in their living standards, not just promises of a big improvement 15 or 20 years from now. We want Plan A.” Other delegates will say: “Let’s not be shortsighted about this. Our goal is to expand productive capacity and labor productivity. Plan C does that the best. Granted, consumption will increase more slowly in the immediate period than it otherwise could, but we think that is the price we want to pay.”

Once the long-term growth rates of total output, the means of production and the consumable resources are all determined, it is then possible to work out a comprehensive economic plan for the various intervening periods—one year, two years, five years. Say a plan is adopted by the central assembly of workers councils. According to this plan, in five years the annual per capita income will be the equivalent of $60,000. On the basis of existing consumption patterns, consumer surveys and consultation with consumer cooperatives, one can more or less accurately project the basic pattern corresponding to that level of income. For example, $15,000 is estimated for housing, $10,000 for food, $10,000 for automotive and other modes of transportation, etc.

Another key element in the economic planning of a workers state, especially in the more advanced countries like the U.S., Germany and Japan, is to invest some of its total output in providing crucial resources, money and technological expertise to the underdeveloped countries to help them to qualitatively raise the level of production on the road to building socialism.

For Market Calculation, Not Market Competition
Once the basic pattern of final goods is projected, it then becomes possible to figure out the inputs of basic raw materials and intermediate products. How much steel, aluminum and other metals do you need? How much plastic, cotton and synthetic cloth, cement, rubber and the like?

The technology and information for this, incidentally, already exists. There are theoretical models and empirical studies which relate the output of raw materials and intermediate goods necessary to produce a given array of final goods. This is called input-output analysis. Significantly, the pioneer theorist and initial investigator of input-output analysis, Wassily Leontief, was a student at the University of Leningrad in the mid 1920s. So clearly his development of input-output analysis was conditioned by the rich discussion and debate among Soviet economists and other intellectuals about how a centrally planned, collectivized economy would work in practice.

In the early 1930s, Trotsky was extremely critical of the Stalin regime’s destructive economic adventurism and bureaucratic commandism. In the course of an article attacking this, Trotsky made a sort of statement of general principles: “Only through the inter-reaction of these three elements, state planning, the market, and Soviet democracy, can the correct direction of the economy of the transitional epoch be attained” (“The Soviet Economy in Danger,” October 1932). This is true for a future American workers state as well as for the Soviet Union at the time. The Soviet Union in 1932 was a degenerated workers state ruled by a conservative, parasitic Stalinist bureaucracy, which a workers state after a proletarian revolution in the U.S. would presumably not be.

Thus far, I have mainly discussed aspects of state planning. I’ve introduced the question of workers democracy mainly in terms of deciding the basic parameters of economic growth at the highest level. But I have not yet talked about the role of the market. It’s a complicated question. One area where the market is important, and in certain respects dominant, is in determining the specific output mix of consumer goods.

There are literally tens of thousands of types, styles and sizes of apparel. I became painfully aware of this a few weeks ago when I helped my daughter move into a new place with her boyfriend. I swear she has at least 80 pairs of shoes, all of them different styles. There are thousands of different kinds of household appliances, utensils and furniture. Even in a collectivized economy there will be dozens of types and models of automobiles. Not everyone is going to want to drive the same kind of car. So it makes no sense to subject the detailed output of consumer goods to even a short-term plan. Output should be constantly adjusted to the changing structure of demand.

However, rapidly and efficiently coordinating the supply and demand in a collectivized economy does not require atomized competition between state-owned enterprises. In Stalinist-ruled workers states, such as the former Soviet Union or China today, the terms “market socialism” and “market reforms” mean subjecting enterprises to competition with one another. Managers are given the authority to decide what to produce in what quantities, and they are instructed to sell their products at the highest available price in the market, either to consumers or to other enterprises. The stated goal is to maximize enterprise profitability, and usually the income of the managers and also the workers is tied to profitability (or negatively to losses). We are opposed to this system because it replicates many of the inequities and irrationalities of the capitalist market system.
In honor of my daughter, I will give the example of the shoe industry operated under the conditions of “market socialism” in a bureaucratically deformed workers state such as China. There are two shoe factories—we’ll call them A and B—and they both produce standard men’s dress shoes (which probably none of you in this room has ever worn nor intends to wear). Let’s say that Factory A is relatively new, so that its equipment is much more technologically advanced than Factory B. Therefore, Factory A can produce the same pair of shoes using 25 percent less labor time than Factory B can.

The market price for a pair of shoes is equal to the average cost of production for the industry as a whole. Factory A is producing below the average cost, so it is making a handsome profit. Its managers are getting a nice salary and bonuses, and its workers are also getting substantial wage increases because it’s making money. On the other hand, Factory B, which makes the same thing, is chronically losing money because its costs are above the average of the industry and the going market price. Unless the government then subsidizes this factory, some workers are going to be laid off or all workers will have to take cuts in wages and benefits just like under capitalism, through no fault of their own.

We are opposed to atomized competition between state enterprises. We are for using market calculation but not market competition. We advocate what can be called a centrally managed market system in the consumer goods sector. How would this operate? Again I will go back to my shoe industry example. There would be a central distribution agency that commands the output of several shoe factories. It supplies shoes to retail outlets and consumer cooperatives. You could even buy them on the Internet.

Let’s say that as a result of miscalculation or changing demand there is an oversupply of dress shoes and an undersupply of sporting goods shoes (running shoes, hiking boots, basketball shoes, especially those that are endorsed by Michael Jordan). So what happens with this system? The directors of the distributive agency call up some factories and say, “OK, cut back production of dress shoes, increase production of sporting goods shoes. If you need special equipment that you don’t have, if your workers need retraining, fine. We’ll provide it.” End of story. The basic point is that management remains centralized but utilizes market calculation in order to mesh supply and demand in this particular sector.

Syndicalism vs. Workers Government
I want to discuss the differences between our Marxist program and the syndicalist program for the post-revolutionary organization of the economy. Before the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, revolutionary syndicalism was the main left-wing alternative to Marxism. A number of leading figures in the early communist movement, who later became supporters of the Trotskyist Left Opposition, started out not as Marxists but as revolutionary syndicalists: James P. Cannon in the U.S., Alfred Rosmer in France, Andrés Nin in Spain.

The crux of the syndicalist program for the post-capitalist reorganization of the economy is that the workers should exercise total managerial authority in autonomous enterprises or at least in some branches of the economy. There would be no higher governmental authority above the industrial syndicates. In a sense syndicalism is a proletarian or industrial version of anarchism. It was described as such by a British anarchist intellectual, George Woodcock, writing in the 1940s:
“The syndicate, on the other hand, is based on the organization of the workers by industry at the place of work. The workers of each factory or depot or farm are an autonomous unit, who govern their own affairs and who make all the decisions as to the work they will do. These units are joined federally in a syndicate which serves to coordinate the actions of the workers in each industry. The federal organization has no authority over the workers in any branch, and cannot impose a veto on action like a trade union executive.”
—George Woodcock, Railways and Society (1943), excerpted in Woodcock, ed., The Anarchist Reader (1977)

In other words, the classic Bakuninite anarchist program of a federation of autonomous communes is here replaced by a federation of autonomous industrial or other economic units.

At the present time, neither in the United States nor anywhere else that I know of do we encounter and compete with significant syndicalist tendencies. So why do I want to talk about syndicalism? I have two reasons. One is that, if there is a significant upsurge of labor struggle in this country, many of the left-radical youth who are currently in and around the anarchist milieu will become workerist. Trust me on this, I’ve been through it. They will therefore subscribe to some kind of syndicalist program, which is an amalgam of anarchism and workerism.

The other reason is China. When the political situation in China opens up, and it will, I think that syndicalist ideas and even tendencies may gain a sympathetic hearing among Chinese workers. Chinese workers have already experienced a large dose of capitalism, and by all available evidence they don’t like it. At the same time, many Chinese workers may well identify Marxism-Leninism and central planning with bureaucratic commandism, not to speak of corruption. So when things open up, some leftist-minded Chinese workers as well as intellectuals may say, “Let’s kick out the capitalists and the CCP bureaucrats and the workers will take over and run by themselves the factories, construction sites, coal mines and railroads.”

There has never been and will never be an economy organized on syndicalist principles, just as there has never been and will never be a society organized on anarchist principles. But if we encounter a serious-minded leftist who subscribes to a syndicalist program, it is insufficient to say that such a program can never be realized. We also want to convince him that even if it were possible, in practice it would operate in a way contrary to the interests of the workers and of society in general.
The problem with syndicalism is very similar to that of “market socialism.” A syndicalist program would necessarily replicate many of the inequities and irrationalities of capitalism. If economic units are genuinely autonomous of one another, they can only interact through market relations governed by changing conditions of supply and demand. Inevitably, this means that some workers will have to be unemployed or have to take cuts in income when the market turns against them.

At the risk of sounding like a shoe fetishist, let’s consider the shoe industry again. (You can see that carrying shoe boxes up and down the stairs for a couple of weeks addled my brain!) This time we will examine it under the model of a syndicalist economy. The shoe-producing industry is organized as a single autonomous syndicate. This syndicate gets revenue by selling shoes to individuals and stores. In turn, it purchases leather, rubber, plastic and other inputs from other autonomous syndicates.

Let’s say leather happens to be in oversupply. More leather is produced than is demanded by the shoe-producing syndicate for its current output and the consumer demand. The directors of the shoe-producing syndicate tell their counterparts in the leather processing syndicate, “We only need 80 percent of your leather, we’re not going to buy any more because we don’t need any more than that.” So what is going to happen? These are autonomous enterprises. Some of the workers in the leather-producing industry are going to have to be laid off or, alternatively, all or some of them are going to have to take cuts in income and benefits because it is suffering reduced revenue.

For Workers Democracy in the Control of Production
Even though people who advocate syndicalism think they are militantly anti-capitalist, their program would actually reproduce many of the inequities and irrationalities of capitalism, despite their good intentions. We are opposed to the syndicalist program of workers’ management of autonomous enterprises. But we are for the maximal democratic participation of the workers in economic decision-making at the level of the factory, the construction site, the warehouse, the supermarket and the airport. The section on the Soviet Union in the 1938 Transitional Program states: “Factory committees should be returned the right to control production.” This is our program, not only in the past but also in the future.

What does this mean concretely? How does it differ from the syndicalist program of workers management? What we mean by workers control of production in a socialized economy is that the democratically elected representatives of the workers would have an authoritative, consultative voice in all economic decisions at the enterprise as well as higher levels. Let’s say that the industrial ministry in charge of aircraft production proposes to spend a couple of hundred million dollars retooling an older aircraft factory, replacing its antiquated machines with more up-to-date equipment. The managers, engineers, technicians would get together with the elected factory committee and jointly work out a concrete plan for retooling the enterprise. This would then be presented to the industrial ministry. The plan will not just come down from on high, with the workers having no say.
Another important area where elected factory committees would play an important role, even replacing direct managerial intervention, is in maintaining labor discipline. How to deal with a worker who is a perpetual goof-off or who is so incompetent that he disrupts production and maybe even endangers other workers? How do you deal with a worker who abuses sick leaves, who calls in sick just because he wants a day off to go fishing? It is much better that this kind of problem is handled by direct representatives of fellow workers who are more politically advanced and more socially responsible.

The basic point is that a centrally planned, collectivized economy is in no way incompatible with the very active and full participation of the workers at the most basic levels of the economy, as well as in the election of delegates to the soviets.
But unlike “workers management” schemes, workers control in a socialist economy does not allow individual factory committees to have the final say on the scope and composition of investment, since particular groups of workers cannot have unlimited claims on the state budget, i.e., on the collective social surplus. Resources for the replacement and expansion of the means of production, provision for the elderly and disabled, expenditure on schools and hospitals, etc., must be deducted from the total social product before distribution to individual workers. As Marx pointed out, “What the producer is deprived of in his capacity as a private individual benefits him directly or indirectly in his capacity as a member of society.”
As Isaac Deutscher said in his speech “On Socialist Man” (1966):

“We do not maintain that socialism is going to solve all predicaments of the human race. We are struggling in the first instance with the predicaments that are of man’s making and that man can resolve. May I remind you that Trotsky, for instance, speaks of three basic tragedies—hunger, sex and death—besetting man. Hunger is the enemy that Marxism and the modern labour movement have taken on.... Yes, socialist man will still be pursued by sex and death; but we are convinced that he will be better equipped than we are to cope even with these.” 

[Lanky Wanker]

Well, yes there is. Can't be done. Just not practical. In Russia in 1917, even more basic things than that didn't turn out to be practical right away. Immediate nationalization of all industry, the bare minimum step towards socialism, just resulted in economic collapse. You had famine, etc. And that was with a highly conscious working class deeply convinced that socialism was the way.

Initially, wages and wage labor will be necessary. These are things you evolve out of over time, as socialism is constructed, a difficult and lengthy process.

Here's an excellent explanation of just what a real, non-Stalinist, democratic workers state will look like, from the economic perspective, titled "Economics of a Workers State in Transition to Socialism."

http://www.icl-fi.org/english/wv/989/ysp-transition.html

-M.H.-

I did obviously consider that it might not be practical, though I don't really understand it enough to say whether it would or wouldn't be. So cheers for the link, I'll give it a read when I'm not about to fall asleep on my keyboard.

And just to make sure I'm understanding (or not understanding) this properly, wages would be abolished straight away in an anarchist revolution, right? No state = no wages?

[A Marxist Historian]

I did obviously consider that it might not be practical, though I don't really understand it enough to say whether it would or wouldn't be. So cheers for the link, I'll give it a read when I'm not about to fall asleep on my keyboard.

And just to make sure I'm understanding (or not understanding) this properly, wages would be abolished straight away in an anarchist revolution, right? No state = no wages?

Well, there was an anarchist revolution after all, in Barcelona in 1936. That comes about as close to an actual anarchist revolution as we are ever going to see. The revolutionaries weren't all anarchists, but the anarchist CNT was definitely the dominating force.

Were wages abolished? I don't know, I kinda doubt it. Especially since they didn't abolish the state either.

-M.H.-

[Lanky Wanker]

Well, there was an anarchist revolution after all, in Barcelona in 1936. That comes about as close to an actual anarchist revolution as we are ever going to see. The revolutionaries weren't all anarchists, but the anarchist CNT was definitely the dominating force.

Were wages abolished? I don't know, I kinda doubt it. Especially since they didn't abolish the state either.

-M.H.-

But have wages ever been abolished? I am speaking of anarchism in theory, of course.

[ckaihatsu]

In Russia in 1917, even more basic things than that didn't turn out to be practical right away. Immediate nationalization of all industry, the bare minimum step towards socialism, just resulted in economic collapse. You had famine, etc. And that was with a highly conscious working class deeply convinced that socialism was the way.

Initially, wages and wage labor will be necessary. These are things you evolve out of over time, as socialism is constructed, a difficult and lengthy process.

Here's an excellent explanation of just what a real, non-Stalinist, democratic workers state will look like.


Knowledge of history raises us to heights we might not have readily imagined ourselves, but on the other hand history shouldn't *fetter* us, either -- I find that there's much reiterated from the revolutionary canon that seems to be orthodox only for the sake of being orthodox, and, by not acknowledging contemporary developments -- including technological ones -- just winds up sounding more like scripture than revolution.








Unfortunately, getting there will require a relatively lengthy historical period after the proletarian socialist revolution has expropriated the capitalist class. In that society in transition to socialism, economic scarcity—and therefore certain kinds of economic inequality—will continue to exist. When you think about it, this is obviously true at the international level. It will take generations of an internationally planned socialist economy to raise the living standards of the populations of China, India, other Asian countries, Latin America and Africa to those of the so-called First World.


For lack of an existing term -- as far as I know -- I'll call this 'temporal fatalism', referencing the line that "the transition will take 'x' decades to be completed". The use of this assertion is an astoundingly presumptuous prediction, one that is often glibly thrown around by otherwise-rational-minded revolutionaries.

I'll counterpose the concept that in the short term, during and immediately after a revolution, a gift economy could be used for the immediate redistribution of existing materials, with a meta-system of tiered systems of distributions for the medium term, implemented according to the relative abundance or scarcity of each item.


Some sort of control in a Gift Economy?

tinyurl.com/6dxc8v6








democratically elected representatives of the workers


With the advent of the digital age, especially, substitutionistic representation is no longer required, for reasons of now-improved communications logistics -- RevLeft, Wikipedia, etc., exist. 'Nuff said.








"from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs"


I've come to realize that I'm "to the left of Marx" -- this principle from the Communist Manifesto sounds decidedly *moralistic* given our current society's phenomenal capacities for production. If communism were to happen tomorrow, each person working according to their ability would amount to sheer busywork for most.


tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

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

[A Marxist Historian]

Knowledge of history raises us to heights we might not have readily imagined ourselves, but on the other hand history shouldn't *fetter* us, either -- I find that there's much reiterated from the revolutionary canon that seems to be orthodox only for the sake of being orthodox, and, by not acknowledging contemporary developments -- including technological ones -- just winds up sounding more like scripture than revolution.

For lack of an existing term -- as far as I know -- I'll call this 'temporal fatalism', referencing the line that "the transition will take 'x' decades to be completed". The use of this assertion is an astoundingly presumptuous prediction, one that is often glibly thrown around by otherwise-rational-minded revolutionaries.

Hey, if everything suddenly goes much more smoothly after the revolution than expected, that would be very nice. I however think that is Pollyanna optimism of the worst sort.

Like Gramsci said, "optimism of the will, pessimism of the intelligence."

Given the rapid degeneration of capitalist society, and the inevitable huge destruction and loss of life that will accompany world revolution, my fear is that initially things may be worse than in 1917, not better.


I'll counterpose the concept that in the short term, during and immediately after a revolution, a gift economy could be used for the immediate redistribution of existing materials, with a meta-system of tiered systems of distributions for the medium term, implemented according to the relative abundance or scarcity of each item.

Some sort of control in a Gift Economy?

tinyurl.com/6dxc8v6 (http://tinyurl.com/6dxc8v6)

With the advent of the digital age, especially, substitutionistic representation is no longer required, for reasons of now-improved communications logistics -- RevLeft, Wikipedia, etc., exist. 'Nuff said.


If Wikipedia is the model, the human race is doomed. And Revleft has its big downsides too, as we all know.

No, when you are talking about democratically running an entire planet, "substitutionistic representation" will be more necessary than ever. The new improved communications logistics will be very helpful in setting up the necessary democratic hierarchies however.

-M.H.-


I've come to realize that I'm "to the left of Marx" -- this principle from the Communist Manifesto sounds decidedly *moralistic* given our current society's phenomenal capacities for production. If communism were to happen tomorrow, each person working according to their ability would amount to sheer busywork for most.


tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism (http://tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-concise-communism)


[7] Syndicalism-Socialism-Communism Transition Diagram

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

[ckaihatsu]

Never mind....







that would be very nice.




that is Pollyanna optimism


What, exactly -- ?





If Wikipedia is the model, the human race is doomed. And Revleft has its big downsides too, as we all know.


You may want to clarify this as well -- you're being vague, and also dramatic based on that vagueness.





No, when you are talking about democratically running an entire planet, "substitutionistic representation" will be more necessary than ever. The new improved communications logistics will be very helpful in setting up the necessary democratic hierarchies however.


I'll agree that a hierarchical-structured organization is quicker, more efficient, and more responsive to external conditions in realtime. It may be best initially as a vanguard in the revolution to overthrow bourgeois rule. The trade-off is that a hierarchy is not as *qualitatively* democratic and gives rise to concerns about a post-revolution, post-vanguard socialist organizational social structure.

[ckaihatsu]

Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

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

[Polyphonic Foxes]

I'll agree that a hierarchical-structured organization is quicker, more efficient, and more responsive to external conditions in realtime. It may be best initially as a vanguard in the revolution to overthrow bourgeois rule. The trade-off is that a hierarchy is not as *qualitatively* democratic and gives rise to concerns about a post-revolution, post-vanguard socialist organizational social structure.

I know this sounds like common sense, and people on here - particularly people sympathetic towards Lenin - tend to assume it's true without actually looking into it, but I've looked into this little assumption and it isn't true.

In fact, bottom up working class companies that exist in todays market are more efficient. I have two examples: according to a historian on the subject, the workers of Spain in 1936 were more efficient when they got rid of their bosses, who actually slowed them down, and the modern industrial Mondragon corporation, which employs 80k people in Spain, is noticably more efficient then it's competitors.

Top down hierarchies are extremely inefficient, they are very wasteful and pretty pointless, they destroy autonomy, happiness and self satisfaction: the things that make us efficient workers.

I freaking hate this argument, because it's basically used as a justification for all sorts of ugly authoritarianisms in leftism, it's such bullshit and people sort of go along with it because it looks like it might be true, but that it ain't.

[ckaihatsu]

I know this sounds like common sense, and people on here - particularly people sympathetic towards Lenin - tend to assume it's true without actually looking into it, but I've looked into this little assumption and it isn't true.

In fact, bottom up working class companies that exist in todays market are more efficient. I have two examples: according to a historian on the subject, the workers of Spain in 1936 were more efficient when they got rid of their bosses, who actually slowed them down, and the modern industrial Mondragon corporation, which employs 80k people in Spain, is noticably more efficient then it's competitors.


I appreciate this -- I'd like to introduce a distinction, though, that between a workers' organization in the present, under overall capitalistic conditions, and that of a workers' organization coordinated all around the world, in open, ongoing class conflict against capital's forces.

Certainly I agree with your point entirely here, corresponding to the first part of my distinction.

I'll also add that efficiency of *production* is not necessarily of primary importance, but rather efficiency of *struggle* *is*.





Top down hierarchies are extremely inefficient, they are very wasteful and pretty pointless, they destroy autonomy, happiness and self satisfaction: the things that make us efficient workers.


Yes, in the context of capitalist ownership and management I agree entirely here.





I freaking hate this argument, because it's basically used as a justification for all sorts of ugly authoritarianisms in leftism, it's such bullshit and people sort of go along with it because it looks like it might be true, but that it ain't.


I continue to appreciate this concern -- my position on the subject is here:








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

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




*By definition* a victorious worldwide proletarian revolution would *push past* the *objective need* for this airport-control-tower mechanism of the vanguard, for the basic fact that there would no longer be any class enemy to coordinate *against*. Its entire function would be superseded by the mass revolution's success and transforming of society.

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism

[A Marxist Historian]

You may want to clarify this as well -- you're being vague, and also dramatic based on that vagueness.

As for Wikipedia, it is one of the greatest vehicles for deception, distortion, and generally lowering the human knowledge base ever invented. Steven Colbert is really great on Wikipedia, ever seen his Wikipedia riff? Wikipedia is the domain not of truth, but of "truthiness."

The Law of Wikipedia is that the accuracy of a Wikipedia entry is inversely proportional to the significance of the subject it concerns.

After the wiki wars finish over an entry, what you end up with, at best, is the conventional wisdom of the average person. Which almost invariably is wrong.

It creates pseudo-truth as a reflection of the bourgeois ideology that infests capitalist society. Maybe Wikipedia will become reliable after we've had a world socialist society for some generations, and its contributors have improved.

As for Revleft, think about it.

Imagine a serious discussion over economic plans for the future carried out in a socialist society, over something equivalent to Revleft.

Out of the six billion or so members of the human race, how many would not have an opinion? A distinct minority.

So imagine a Revleft thread with say "only" 600 million serious participants, posting up a storm.

As Rousseau pointed out a few centuries ago, non-hierarchical direct democracy only works when you are talking about a tiny Swiss village or something. If you want something resembling democracy in a future socialist society, it had better be representative and hierarchical.

In other words, it should follow the Soviet principle, in its original form and not as interpreted by say Brezhnev. Participatory, representative democracy.

-M.H.-




I'll agree that a hierarchical-structured organization is quicker, more efficient, and more responsive to external conditions in realtime. It may be best initially as a vanguard in the revolution to overthrow bourgeois rule. The trade-off is that a hierarchy is not as *qualitatively* democratic and gives rise to concerns about a post-revolution, post-vanguard socialist organizational social structure.

[ckaihatsu]

As for Wikipedia, it is one of the greatest vehicles for deception, distortion, and generally lowering the human knowledge base ever invented. Steven Colbert is really great on Wikipedia, ever seen his Wikipedia riff? Wikipedia is the domain not of truth, but of "truthiness."

The Law of Wikipedia is that the accuracy of a Wikipedia entry is inversely proportional to the significance of the subject it concerns.

After the wiki wars finish over an entry, what you end up with, at best, is the conventional wisdom of the average person. Which almost invariably is wrong.

It creates pseudo-truth as a reflection of the bourgeois ideology that infests capitalist society. Maybe Wikipedia will become reliable after we've had a world socialist society for some generations, and its contributors have improved.


So your critique here is that as an institution / resource, Wikipedia suffers from the same shortcoming that *any other* social institution suffers from, being under bourgeois rule -- namely that it reflects bourgeois ideology.

I have no problem with that. I take Wikipedia to be a contemporary, online version of the conventional encyclopedia, and so it is useful as that, with your proviso kept in mind.





As for Revleft, think about it.

Imagine a serious discussion over economic plans for the future carried out in a socialist society, over something equivalent to Revleft.

Out of the six billion or so members of the human race, how many would not have an opinion? A distinct minority.

So imagine a Revleft thread with say "only" 600 million serious participants, posting up a storm.

As Rousseau pointed out a few centuries ago, non-hierarchical direct democracy only works when you are talking about a tiny Swiss village or something. If you want something resembling democracy in a future socialist society, it had better be representative and hierarchical.

In other words, it should follow the Soviet principle, in its original form and not as interpreted by say Brezhnev. Participatory, representative democracy.


I think we're of different positions here on both means and process. I won't attempt to bicker since these are relatively side-issues in comparison to the politics itself.

However I will point out that you're simply being dismissive on purely pessimistic grounds. Given the opportunity for large volumes of participation over actual implementations from-the-ground from all over, that would *politically* be a revolution, and in terms of *process* we would see not cacophony, as you're suggesting, but a mass *clustering* around various policy positions -- healthy factionalism, in other words, at all scales.

[A Marxist Historian]

So your critique here is that as an institution / resource, Wikipedia suffers from the same shortcoming that *any other* social institution suffers from, being under bourgeois rule -- namely that it reflects bourgeois ideology.

I have no problem with that. I take Wikipedia to be a contemporary, online version of the conventional encyclopedia, and so it is useful as that, with your proviso kept in mind.

Except that Britannica or what have you at least *used to* have all its entries vetted by recognized experts in whatever field they concerned, unlike Wikipedia where supposedly all opinions are equal, which is antiscientific bullshit.

It's useful for references, as now they at least required Wikipedia entries o be sourced. So you can ignore what the entry itself says and follow the reference chain, and at least you get the refs from reputed scholars that match the prejudices of whoever wrote the entry. The beginning of wisdom.



I think we're of different positions here on both means and process. I won't attempt to bicker since these are relatively side-issues in comparison to the politics itself.

However I will point out that you're simply being dismissive on purely pessimistic grounds. Given the opportunity for large volumes of participation over actual implementations from-the-ground from all over, that would *politically* be a revolution, and in terms of *process* we would see not cacophony, as you're suggesting, but a mass *clustering* around various policy positions -- healthy factionalism, in other words, at all scales.

Yes indeed, healthy factionalism is what will be needed. It will need to be organized in political parties--say, an eco party vs. a party that says cure world poverty first--through all the traditional representative structures, with instant recall, no bullshit division of powers, etc., soviet style (no capital letter), which will work vastly better now that we have the Internet.

I see the future world workers state as probably having a world two party system along the lines I suggest. Arguing it out fiercely over what the better path to building socialism is, with worldwide democratic discussion and voting.

-M.H.-

[Yuppie Grinder]

That guy has no real materialist understanding of the world around him, and doesn't understand what socialism is. His youtube channel is a load of shit as well. No wage labor, no currency, that's socialism. All means of economic production should be held in common, and everyone receives according to their needs. There is no person with exclusive economic control to pay wages. The idea of a wage is irrelevant in a post-market society. The idea of a temporary ration system under the proletarian dictatorship holds more weight. This is revolutionary leftism 101 and it's a sad that someone who considers themselves a communist(MRN) doesn't understand ideas as basic as this.

[ckaihatsu]

I see the future world workers state as probably having a world two party system along the lines I suggest. Arguing it out fiercely over what the better path to building socialism is, with worldwide democratic discussion and voting.




Yes indeed, healthy factionalism is what will be needed. It will need to be organized in political parties--say, an eco party vs. a party that says cure world poverty first--through all the traditional representative structures, with instant recall, no bullshit division of powers, etc., soviet style (no capital letter), which will work vastly better now that we have the Internet.


As an exercise in self-indulgent hair-splitting here, I'll say that factions similar to political parties could *emerge* in the historical context of a mass world uprising. Since the net boasts a flat-level structure that *doesn't require* funneling into representatives, we may finally witness a complete transcending out of identity-based politics for good, so that ground-floor (workers) participation will be more similar to today's online intentional communities, more than anything else.

(Instead of having to put one's whole body on the "eco party" or "cure world poverty" platforms entirely, we may instead see meta-factions that blend certain positions from *many* conventional parties, with continuous feedback loops from the ground, resulting in precise ongoing realtime tailoring of entire policy packages.) (This would be especially useful at broader scales of politics, where meta-factions could arise out of various combinations of options available to several neighboring liberated localities.)

[A Marxist Historian]

As an exercise in self-indulgent hair-splitting here, I'll say that factions similar to political parties could *emerge* in the historical context of a mass world uprising. Since the net boasts a flat-level structure that *doesn't require* funneling into representatives, we may finally witness a complete transcending out of identity-based politics for good, so that ground-floor (workers) participation will be more similar to today's online intentional communities, more than anything else.

(Instead of having to put one's whole body on the "eco party" or "cure world poverty" platforms entirely, we may instead see meta-factions that blend certain positions from *many* conventional parties, with continuous feedback loops from the ground, resulting in precise ongoing realtime tailoring of entire policy packages.) (This would be especially useful at broader scales of politics, where meta-factions could arise out of various combinations of options available to several neighboring liberated localities.)

IMHO, if you are talking about any large numbers of people as opposed to little cliques of folk who like and understand each other, a "flat" structure just leaves the working masses flat on their backs -- "horizontal" in the lingo so popular in OWS that has done so much damage -- allowing the ruling classes to vertically lord over them.

We need a democratic, representative structure for the future workers state with all the hierarchical aspects needed to make it a practical proposition and no more, but where the vanguard of the working class, proven in struggle, not a privileged ruling class, are the people who call the shots -- not because they have any social privileges, but only because they have earned it in the eyes of the masses. And when you are talking six billion people, all with absolutely equal rights, that's the masses you are talking about.

-M.H.-

[ckaihatsu]

IMHO, if you are talking about any large numbers of people as opposed to little cliques of folk who like and understand each other, a "flat" structure just leaves the working masses flat on their backs -- "horizontal" in the lingo so popular in OWS that has done so much damage -- allowing the ruling classes to vertically lord over them.


Yes, I appreciate this concern -- I am not in favor of a strictly flat, locality-based inter-lateralism, either, as the libertarian ideology seems to suggest.

This point is *especially* applicable to the timeframe of the revolution-in-progress -- in a period of intensified class struggle against the bourgeoisie, wherein the balance of power could tip either way ('dual power'), strategic matters in front of the proletariat would be very time-critical and would benefit from a hierarchical decision-making structure that serves the proletariat's best interests.








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

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

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-vanguardism


That said, though, I'll add that in a *post*-capitalist context we should strive for as *organic* and *grassroots* a 'bottom-up' process as possible. Again, this is to avoid the least bit of avoidable substitutionism, no matter how experienced, well-informed, or well-meaning.





We need a democratic, representative structure for the future workers state with all the hierarchical aspects needed to make it a practical proposition and no more, but where the vanguard of the working class, proven in struggle, not a privileged ruling class, are the people who call the shots -- not because they have any social privileges, but only because they have earned it in the eyes of the masses. And when you are talking six billion people, all with absolutely equal rights, that's the masses you are talking about.


I'll remind you, and the reader, that we *already* are living with the technological tools that would enable an entirely *policy*-based approach to politics. Since it's ultimately mass (industrial) material tools that are at stake, we should approach the question of the process of co-administration just as we do today for allocating material tools for *ourselves*, as individual consumers.

Why not be able to "shop around" for the best combination of proposals that would apply to nearby (automated or semi-automated) industrial machinery -- ?

I've modeled this already in a non-exchange-based post-capitalist system of production and distribution -- relevant excerpts are here:





communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors

This is an 8-1/2" x 40" wide table that describes a communist-type political / economic model using three rows and six descriptive columns. The three rows are surplus-value-to-overhead, no surplus, and surplus-value-to-pleasure. The six columns are ownership / control, associated material values, determination of material values, material function, infrastructure / overhead, and propagation.

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





Material function

communist administration -- Assets and resources are collectively administered by a locality, or over numerous localities by combined consent [supply]





Infrastructure / overhead

communist administration -- Distinct from the general political culture each project or production run will include a provision for an associated administrative component as an integral part of its total policy package -- a selected policy's proponents will be politically responsible for overseeing its implementation according to the policy's provisions

[RedMaterialist]

Marx discussed this in Critique of the Gotha Programme. In the transition to socialism certain aspects of capitalism will be retained, such as different wages for different work, skills, etc. The state (dop, welfare state, social democracy) will take a portion of the workers' product in taxes for education, health care, maintenance of roads, etc.) Only after the transition period is over will the wages system be abolished.

[Popular Front of Judea]

So after the revolution we will all get benefit cards! Yippee! :grin:


In Lenin's theoretical works he explicitly talks about the abolition of money (bolded):

"The means of production belong to the whole of society. Every member of society, performing a certain part of the socially-necessary work, receives a certificate from society to the effect that he has done a certain amount of work. And with this certificate he receives from the public store of consumer goods a corresponding quantity of products. After a deduction is made of the amount of labour which goes to the public fund, every worker, therefore, receives from society as much as he has given to it."

[Comrade Jacob]

LOL he likes a good dress up. He even wore his Soviet uniform and did a minute's silence on the anniversary of the Soviet Union.

Ah-ha MaoistRebelNews2, good guy.

Like someone said the problem is wage-labour, the true way to do it is "time-labour" I mean as you work for 1 hour and you trade it for a commodity that took 1 hour to make for example. Sorry, I forgot that it's called again.

[RedMaterialist]

Like someone said the problem is wage-labour, the true way to do it is "time-labour" I mean as you work for 1 hour and you trade it for a commodity that took 1 hour to make for example.

The problem with the time-labor system is that it still treats labor as a commodity, it is "traded" or exchanged for someone else's labor. And you end up with a problem like this: a computer programmer takes an hour to create a socially necessary program; a clerk in a grocery store takes an hour to check out a dozen customers, also a socially necessary activity.

Or, a brain surgeon does five hours of work saving your child; or an airplane pilot saves your life by doing a controlled crash landing of an Airbus in one minute; or a firefighter saves your child's life by running into your burning home for two minutes; or etc., etc.

It is impossible to define an hour's worth of labor without factoring in the skill, education, strength, etc. of each person doing the work. Only when labor is no longer thought of as creating value, exchange-value or trade-value, in your example, will it be possible to eliminate wage-labor, whether defined as money per hour or labor-chit per hour.

Then everybody will work according to their ability and receive according to their needs, which system used to work in pre-historic society: hunters killed game, gatherers collected roots. Everyone who needed food shared, if someone was sick or old they received more if necessary. Nobody needed to exchange or trade their activity for a claim on the social product.

[ckaihatsu]

Marx discussed this in Critique of the Gotha Programme. In the transition to socialism certain aspects of capitalism will be retained, such as different wages for different work, skills, etc. The state (dop, welfare state, social democracy) will take a portion of the workers' product in taxes for education, health care, maintenance of roads, etc.) Only after the transition period is over will the wages system be abolished.


Not to raise controversy needlessly, but just because a particular blueprint is advanced by the namesake of Marxism doesn't mean that revolutionaries should adopt it as *scripture*.

I've maintained that concrete conditions on the ground will be *as significant* as theory, and revolutionary organizing. (Discussions of ideas tend to overlook this 'x'-factor.)


Consciousness, A Material Definition

http://s6.postimage.org/3r5zyr20d/2520219100046342459hj_Klk_C_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/3r5zyr20d/)


This means that, if conditions allow, a revolutionary vanguard may be able to *skip* a formal transitional step altogether, and go straight to a communist-type collective co-administration as quickly as possible.

Here's a couple of sample scenarios, for the sake of illustration:





Best-case is that everything happens quickly and money instantly becomes obsolete and anachronistic -- this would equate to the resounding defeat of the bourgeoisie on a worldwide mass basis and the quick dissolution of its state. It would be replaced more-or-less in a bottom-up organic way with production rapidly reorganized on vast scales (for economies of scale and efficiency).

Worst-case is that there's an ongoing situation of dual-power where contending forces from the bourgeoisie and proletariat linger on in protracted labor-based battles, both political and physical. World public opinion remains divided and the class war takes on the characteristics of a country-by-country civil war between the classes. In such a situation it would be more-than-understandable for revolutionary forces to call for the seizing of the state, and to use it in an authoritarian, top-down way in the interests of the workers' forces, against the imperialists. This could include a system of labor vouchers, in an attempt to assert some kind of consistent economic valuation system, as counterposed to imperialist/colonialist resource extraction, corporatist/militarist syndicalism, and market-type commodity-production valuations.

[ckaihatsu]

The problem with the time-labor system is that it still treats labor as a commodity, it is "traded" or exchanged for someone else's labor. And you end up with a problem like this: a computer programmer takes an hour to create a socially necessary program; a clerk in a grocery store takes an hour to check out a dozen customers, also a socially necessary activity.

Or, a brain surgeon does five hours of work saving your child; or an airplane pilot saves your life by doing a controlled crash landing of an Airbus in one minute; or a firefighter saves your child's life by running into your burning home for two minutes; or etc., etc.

It is impossible to define an hour's worth of labor without factoring in the skill, education, strength, etc. of each person doing the work.


I agree with this point 100% -- here's an additional excerpt from the model at post #34, for the sake of illustration and argument:





Determination of material values

labor [supply] -- Labor credits are paid per hour of work at a multiplier rate based on difficulty or hazard -- multipliers are survey-derived




Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process

labor [supply] -- Labor supply is selected and paid for with existing (or debt-based) labor credits





Only when labor is no longer thought of as creating value, exchange-value or trade-value, in your example, will it be possible to eliminate wage-labor, whether defined as money per hour or labor-chit per hour.


I'd estimate that the whole transforming of socially necessary *work roles* would parallel this sea-change in what is considered 'labor' and what isn't -- in other words, there are plenty of incentives under capitalism to *specialize* and be as "indispensable" as possible, to individualistically cut against the system's tendency to standardize and make things as interchangeable as possible.

I'll argue that the communist spirit is *anti-specialization*, and so work roles would tend to be made as *practical* as possible, for the sake of the laborers first, and for broad-based social benefit.





Then everybody will work according to their ability and receive according to their needs, which system used to work in pre-historic society: hunters killed game, gatherers collected roots. Everyone who needed food shared, if someone was sick or old they received more if necessary. Nobody needed to exchange or trade their activity for a claim on the social product.


The mind boggles when we think of how this ethos and abundance could be realized with present-day material productivities -- once the elitist 1% global bourgeois controllership is overthrown, the potentials for all-inclusive humane growth would expand to endless extents.

[RedMaterialist]

This is the first I have heard of labor credits based on hours of work multiplied by difficulty, hazard, etc., with the multiplier derived by survey. A clerk is paid at 10 per hour, computer programmer at 20 per hour, airline pilot at 30 per hour, etc. It seems that you are replacing money wages derived from the market value of the worker (education, skill, etc.) with labor credit-wages derived from a survey conducted by a central authority.

A more transitional system would be similar to the ones used by worker cooperatives such as Mondragon: wages are set by the workers in each enterprise. They know what the income of the business is and how much is needed for expenses, investment, and how much can be distributed in wages.

This, however, requires democracy in the workplace.

[ckaihatsu]

This is the first I have heard of labor credits based on hours of work multiplied by difficulty, hazard, etc., with the multiplier derived by survey.


Yeah -- the 'communist supply & demand' model is meant to address those very logistical intricacies you mentioned earlier.





A clerk is paid at 10 per hour, computer programmer at 20 per hour, airline pilot at 30 per hour, etc. It seems that you are replacing money wages derived from the market value of the worker (education, skill, etc.) with labor credit-wages derived from a survey conducted by a central authority.


Correct, except for the 'wages' part -- the passing-forward of labor credits from liberated laborer to liberated laborer cannot be termed 'wages' since there's no commodification of any kind taking place. With all productive assets and resources *collectivized*, labor could no longer have any material-based *exchange value*, except in relation to other (liberated) labor. This effectively takes material exchangeability off-the-table, and with it all commodification and abstract monetary / financial valuations:





Ownership / control

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

labor [supply] -- Only active workers may control communist property -- no private accumulations are allowed and any proceeds from work that cannot be used or consumed by persons themselves will revert to collectivized communist property




Associated material values

communist administration -- Assets and resources have no quantifiable value -- are considered as attachments to the production process


Also, with contemporary computer technology all of the computational processes required -- for conducting the exit surveys, the sorting and mass-prioritizing of cumulative demands, the tracking of labor credits in circulation, the maintaining of informational wikis about each factory and workplace, the rank-and-file discussions and decision-making, etc. -- could be fully transparent from the source code onward, enabling full public oversight of all of society's political mechanics in realtime.

The 'central authority', or mass co-administration, could realistically be synonymous with full public oversight of these computational processes, thus relieving society of any ambiguities over political procedure.





A more transitional system would be similar to the ones used by worker cooperatives such as Mondragon: wages are set by the workers in each enterprise. They know what the income of the business is and how much is needed for expenses, investment, and how much can be distributed in wages.

This, however, requires democracy in the workplace.