Economics in Socialism / Communism

[JPSartre12]

Question to all my fellow socialism-loving comrades:

After we leave capitalism and go into socialism, communism, etc what do you think the economic structure is going to look like?

I'm not really too concerned whether we get out of capitalism through a gradualist / reformist approach or an actual proletarian revolution. I'm just wondering what you guys think the economy will look like.

A mixed economy? Market socialism? Total central planning? Complete nationalization of everything? Democratically-run cooperatives? Etc

Just curious on your opinions :)

[Eagle_Syr]

I'm not an expert on everything Marx-related, but a "mixed economy" and "market socialism" are not socialism at all. They are reactionary responses to class conflict. They preserve the bourgeoisie.

That is what I can tell you.

[Brosa Luxemburg]

Oh great, another "future socialist society" thread. :rolleyes:

[ckaihatsu]

I was in a deep sleep but then I somehow heard the words 'future socialist society' mentioned and so I woke up, and now I'm here.

What's up?


= D

[ckaihatsu]

Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy

http://tinyurl.com/mtspczpcpe


Centralization-Abstraction Diagram of Political Forms

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

[Aussie Trotskyist]

I can give you a few examples to research.

I believe the Paris Commune was a rather fine example of early socialism. It had a 'government' (for lack of a better word) elected by the people, while it was trying to oust the bourgeoisie (however, given it only lasted 3 months, it failed). Just type Paris Commune into Google and it will have some results.

A decent example of communism would be Nanjie. Its not an example of pure communism (as China still retains a state, its only one commune etc) but it gives a fine example of our goals. Some information on Nanjie can be found here: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8278128.stm

[JPSartre12]

I'm not an expert on everything Marx-related, but a "mixed economy" and "market socialism" are not socialism at all. They are reactionary responses to class conflict. They preserve the bourgeoisie.

That is what I can tell you.

I'd agree with you that a mixed economy (public and private working together) isn't socialism, but isn't it possible to argue that market socialism is?

Maybe my definition is a little off from what you guys think market socialism is, but I was under the impression that it was something along the lines of publicly-owned institutions, cooperatives, etc competing with each other in a for-profit market? If that's the case, the profit (or surplus-value, if you want to be specific) would be split up amongst all of the workers, or re-invested in the community, etc. The best public institutions, cooperatives etc are able to grow larger and, in the end I guess you'd end up with something along the lines of a democratic, people-owned corporation.

Maybe that's not really market socialism, but it sounds better than the neoliberal insanity that we have now ;)

[Workers-Control-Over-Prod]

Well, we can't get rid of all market mechanisms at once.

I would recommend a corporate state capitalist co-op economy to then transition to a labor voucher completely planned socialist economy.

First all the major monopolies of a revolutionary country would be nationalised by the workers government. Each corporation would have half of its board of directors selected by the state instead of shareholders (in Germany now, it is law that half of all major companies' board of directors must be voted democratically by the workers, mostly union representatives) and the other half would be the workers representatives. The various nationalised companies would immediately have to begin in this constellation, to conjoin the enterprises that are nationalised and de facto create one state-capitalist worker-representative democratic planned organ (what a corporation is, a planned economy).

The further and faster this monopolisation process advances, the more and widespread the educational and training institutions of the workers state need to make sure that Labor is educated in business management and direct democratic control over their own production. The skills need to first be acquired by workers to successfully implement socialism. This is why there will need to first be a half-half state-capitalist/workers-representative management stage until all workers are educated enough changed from mere employees of a corporation to managers of their enterprises. At first, right after a revolutionary success to a workers government, the state-capitalist/workers-representative corporations will be able to only employee the most skilled and capable workers to manage their own production efficiently; as the monopolisation of nationalised corporations advances, education, training and upbringing of young workers must go hand in hand to successfully implement workers control over their own surplus: socialism.

The Social and Collective upbringing of humans, as well as the theoretical education and training in practical management of their surplus, are the two most important points for socialism to succeed and survive.

[Eagle_Syr]

I'd agree with you that a mixed economy (public and private working together) isn't socialism, but isn't it possible to argue that market socialism is?

Maybe my definition is a little off from what you guys think market socialism is, but I was under the impression that it was something along the lines of publicly-owned institutions, cooperatives, etc competing with each other in a for-profit market? If that's the case, the profit (or surplus-value, if you want to be specific) would be split up amongst all of the workers, or re-invested in the community, etc. The best public institutions, cooperatives etc are able to grow larger and, in the end I guess you'd end up with something along the lines of a democratic, people-owned corporation.



The problem is that encourages capital accumulation, and from a social and cultural perspective, it still encourages greed and profiteering

[JPSartre12]

The problem is that encourages capital accumulation, and from a social and cultural perspective, it still encourages greed and profiteering


I hadn't even thought of that. But wouldn't a (very) small profiteering (in a democratically run institution) provide a tad bit of an incentive to promote competition, quality, growth, etc? Maybe that's just the residual pro-capitalist USA propaganda left in me that I haven't fully purged out yet ;)



I would recommend a corporate state capitalist co-op economy to then transition to a labor voucher completely planned socialist economy.


Maybe I'm a little fuzzy on what a "completely planned socialist economy" would look like, but I'd be a tad apprehensive of giving the State (even a truly democratic, socialist, people-run one) the power to run the whole economy .... what if it mutated into a sort of state capitalist set-up?

I don't know, but I'm still thinking that the local, decentralizing, worker-owned, competing co-ops wouldn't be so bad. But hey I could be completely wrong :laugh:

[Rafiq]

It doesn't matter who *owns* the means of production, because either way the capitalist mode of production can be retained. Market Socialism is a petite bourgeois concept, in the end. It doesn't address commodity production.

Sent from my SPH-D710 using Tapatalk 2

[Tim Cornelis]

After we leave capitalism and go into socialism, communism, etc what do you think the economic structure is going to look like?

A mixed economy? Market socialism? Total central planning? Complete nationalization of everything? Democratically-run cooperatives? Etc

If we are strictly talking about communism (classless, moneyless, stateless), any of the named above would contradict that. A mixed economy is what 'we' have in North-Western Europe and elsewhere, which is not communist. Market socialism implies money, communism would not have markets because of the absence of money. Central planning implies a state, which communism does not have. Nationalisation, idem ditto. Democratically-run cooperatives (although those exact wording is almost exclusively used in the vocabulary of market socialists) is the very basis of all socialisms.

[ckaihatsu]

[W]ouldn't a (very) small profiteering (in a democratically run institution) provide a tad bit of an incentive to promote competition, quality, growth, etc?


Interestingly the flaw with such a composition isn't even in the *profiteering* aspect, necessarily, since the overarching politics *could* conceivably be about re-investing profits in the community, as you mentioned earlier -- this would be like a method of taxation, essentially.

But as Eagle_Syr points out, why take a chance? The *rightward* pull on such a "good-syndicalism" arrangement would encourage shirking the communalization of surplus labor value, towards *privatization* of it instead.

And, I'll argue that the *fundamental* underlying problem with it is simply its method of valuation:








I'm going to take a hard-line against any labor-material exchanges, even this non-ownership 'usership right of social product' formulation of yours.

I think it's inherently problematic to attempt conversions of value between the two because material items tend to stick around while people's labor is more-limited in timeframe and is transformative in function.

By ignoring this apples-and-oranges differential we wind up valuing inanimate material items in the same terms as portions of a person's life spent for the sake of providing work / effort.

I'll posit that, regardless of how such a system may *start out* in implementation, it will inexorably regress to a situation where a particularly privileged group will be in charge of issuing the standards of valuation for both, in an unaccountable, de facto way.





Well, we can't get rid of all market mechanisms at once.

I would recommend a corporate state capitalist co-op economy to then transition to a labor voucher completely planned socialist economy.

First all the major monopolies of a revolutionary country would be nationalised by the workers government.





Maybe I'm a little fuzzy on what a "completely planned socialist economy" would look like, but I'd be a tad apprehensive of giving the State (even a truly democratic, socialist, people-run one) the power to run the whole economy .... what if it mutated into a sort of state capitalist set-up?

I don't know, but I'm still thinking that the local, decentralizing, worker-owned, competing co-ops wouldn't be so bad. But hey I could be completely wrong :laugh:


I happen to be critical of the orthodox, rationing-type labor-voucher system...








Labor vouchers imply a political economy that *consciously* determines valuations, but there's nothing to guarantee that such oversight -- regardless of its composition -- would properly take material realities into account. Such a system would be open to the systemic problems of groupthink and elitism.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269


...But I'll readily admit that all of these interim, incremental formulations all depend on the objective *pace of events* -- we can discuss these scenarios in a vacuum, but it's tough to *compare* them that way. (!)








[R]eal-world *conditions* of revolution may vary -- we would have to speak in terms of best-case and worst-case scenarios.

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.


Also:


A few questions on incentive and competition

http://www.revleft.com/vb/few-questions-incentive-t172227/index.html

[ckaihatsu]

[W]e can discuss these scenarios in a vacuum, but it's tough to *compare* them that way. (!)


That said -- and to "drop the other shoe" here -- here's where I stand on the issue:








To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=11269

[Rafiq]

None of us can tell you how things would function in "socialism". We can tell you, however, the ways in which capitalism can no longer function as it is.