Decentralized planning and Workers' self-management [Archive]

Jimmie Higgins

8th January 2013, 14:19

Why Decentralized planning and Workers' self-management is better then Central Planning and State Socialism.On the whole, while I think it's out of an understandable desire to avoid a situation where workers are (re)alienated from production, I disagree with the underlying assumption that any form of central planning or coordination inherently is beurocratic in the sense of controlled by a beurocracy in their own interests.

If this were true, then there'd be no hope of any kind of worker-run production because beurocracy on some level will exist even if that beurocracy is "decentralized" - where is the line drawn where a burocracy is just a method for keeping tract of production (on the local level) but then where is the threshold where it becomes an actual threat?

1) Central Planning is too inefficient when it comes to allocating resources and over time it creates corruption, bureaucracy, elitism and a new class which exploit the proletariat.How and why does this happen? You are making a claim but I am unconvinced by that alone. I think many things actually REQUIRE central planning and a degree of centralized decision-making - coordination of flights, trains, bus systems, electrical grids, mail, etc. An airport system would not be more efficient if there was no central coordination of flights and things were managed at each airport alone. So what would revolutionary workers do?

2) State Socialism ALWAYS leads to a totalitarian society and a system of Bureaucratic Collectivism everywhere it has been implemented.True in a way, but decentralized and scattered efforts by revolutionary workers like in the defense of the Paris Commune have been terribly ineffective at creating a counter-weight to the highly centralized forces of capitalist reaction.

But I'd say the problem with the USSR was not based in form specifically, but the form was influenced by a rising new class. It wasn't just a burocracy alone, but the errosion and weakening and then loss of any reminents of worker's power that allowed the burocracy to step in as an alternative ruling class who then adapted and re-shaped the existing state around their own interests. This was the motor for increased elitism, corruption, and supression of workers: a new class of exploiters.

But this is not inevitable provided that the working class can collectivly hold and wield power while reshaping society around their interests, and communism.

3) Workers' self-management is based on democratic workers control over their workplace and production which is a lot better then having the state manage production inefficiently.Having an unaccontable state run this, yes, very problematic at least; worker's self-management is key. But then does this automatically mean "decentralization"? No, I think in fact that to have effective local worker's management there also needs to be centralized communication and coordination networks - but this can be done through reps voted by workers in local shops and locations, roating coordinating positions or all sorts of other mechanisms designed to ensure that coordination is tied to worker's interests and collective will, not some other class or group.

JPSartre12

8th January 2013, 15:45

Once you have anything "decentralized" you have exchange also, and exchange means market.

Not necessarily. Decentralization does not necessarily correlate with exchange, but yes, exchange does result in a market.

I agree with the Bordigists - decentralization by means of workers councils has the potential to result in the embourgeoisment and the re-emergence of markets, but only so long as those councils are autonomous. If they are part of a larger, regional federation, then they will not be able to "exchange" because they will be part of a large system of planning.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

8th January 2013, 17:23

Yeah-yeah, it perfectly worked in Yugoslavia...

Please don't post useless one-liners like this.

Message to everybody: next time I see something like this it's a verbal warning. Play nice guys.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

8th January 2013, 17:28

Once you have anything "decentralized" you have exchange also, and exchange means market.

Not if currency is abolished. Then you have 'distribution' instead of 'exchange', as 1 person = 1 unit of production, and 1 unit of production can be exchanged for x basket of goods. Or something like that. I.e. a person exchanges their socially useful labour time for free access to a defined basket of goods. There's no exchange involved and it's not a market as there's no exchange, no price mechanism and no equilibrium needed.

I think the key reason in understanding why de-centralisation may be more efficient than centralisation has been is that the latter strikes me firmly as becoming of the supply-side; political centralisation leads to a patriachal situation in which the suppliers (i.e. the bureaucrats) decide how much people 'need' and produce to that amount. With de-centralised production and distribution, it is far easier to organise things from the demand-side; i.e. people in localities can express what they need and want, and production can be tailored accordingly. Granted, from where we are now it's quite utopian but given good organisation and political maturity it strikes me as the best option, whereas centralisation has always struck me as a 'least-bad option' that has little hope of eschewing a truly communist society from its economic set up.

Yuppie Grinder

8th January 2013, 18:04

What's the difference?

Once you have anything "decentralized" you have exchange also, and exchange means market.
You have no idea what you're talking about. Communism is not a return to subsistence economy. Distribution and Exchange continue, the difference is they're organized communally and calculated in a post-scarcity way.
On the question of centralization, I'm in line with Gorter.

Zulu

8th January 2013, 19:45

Not if currency is abolished. Then you have 'distribution' instead of 'exchange', as 1 person = 1 unit of production, and 1 unit of production can be exchanged for x basket of goods. Or something like that. I.e. a person exchanges their socially useful labour time for free access to a defined basket of goods. There's no exchange involved and it's not a market as there's no exchange, no price mechanism and no equilibrium needed.

That's sounds fine, as long as there are no other options for a person to exchange their labor time for. Which means the total social supply needs to be fully monopolized, or else you'll have a black market of something in no time and there you go.

I think the key reason in understanding why de-centralisation may be more efficient than centralisation has been is that the latter strikes me firmly as becoming of the supply-side; political centralisation leads to a patriachal situation in which the suppliers (i.e. the bureaucrats) decide how much people 'need' and produce to that amount. With de-centralised production and distribution, it is far easier to organise things from the demand-side; i.e. people in localities can express what they need and want, and production can be tailored accordingly. Granted, from where we are now it's quite utopian but given good organisation and political maturity it strikes me as the best option, whereas centralisation has always struck me as a 'least-bad option' that has little hope of eschewing a truly communist society from its economic set up.

The talk about the "demand-side" always strikes me as something awfully smelling of Marshallian equilbriums, and that'll be so until such a time as individual consumption becomes but a fraction of the total end product of society, with the bulk of it to be consumed collectively and for the most part by the human race as a whole. Basically I'm talking about global projects and space exploration. Which will have to be directed in a fully centralized manner, and not by supplying each local worker community with its own space rocket.

So the only possible solution to problem of bureaucratic paternalism lies not in decentralization, but in abolition of the division of labor, and elevating every member of society to the ability of performing executive functions in the supply chain, upon which, if all else fails, rotation of executives will take place.

robbo203

8th January 2013, 20:38

What's the difference?

Once you have anything "decentralized" you have exchange also, and exchange means market.

Groan. Not this old bollocks again. You are confusing the technical organisation of production with the socio economic relations of production. It is private property (which includes also state property) that gives rise to exchange - not decentralisation as such

YugoslavSocialist

8th January 2013, 20:45

How and why does this happen? You are making a claim but I am unconvinced by that alone. I think many things actually REQUIRE central planning and a degree of centralized decision-making - coordination of flights, trains, bus systems, electrical grids, mail, etc. An airport system would not be more efficient if there was no central coordination of flights and things were managed at each airport alone. So what would revolutionary workers do?

Every country that has implemented central planning has always became bureaucratic. Just look at USSR, DPRK, Cuba etc. Second in a decentralised planned economy every workplace is run by the workers. If a work place is too complex to manage like in airports then the workers will vote for their representatives and each representative will meet together and coordinate the flights together.

Questionable

8th January 2013, 21:09

Every country that has implemented central planning has always became bureaucratic. Just look at USSR, DPRK, Cuba etc. Second in a decentralised planned economy every workplace is run by the workers. If a work place is too complex to manage like in airports then the workers will vote for their representatives and each representative will meet together and coordinate the flights together.

Can you prove a correlation between planned economies and the growth of bureaucracies?

Zulu

8th January 2013, 21:13

It is private property (which includes also state property) that gives rise to exchange

Private property does not include state property, because state property is public property.

And it's not private property that gives rise to exchange, it's exchange that gives rise to private property.

Also,

Who maintains the computer network, supplies trucks, fuels them and mans them with truckdrivers, and repairs the road? Especially since everybody can freely just come up to a supermarket, take as much beans as they want and call it a day?

Because, you know, the "technical organization of production", being part of something called "productive forces", determines the social relations of production. Not the other way round.

Yet_Another_Boring_Marxist

8th January 2013, 21:55

Why Decentralized planning and Workers' self-management is better then Central Planning and State Socialism.

1) Central Planning is too inefficient when it comes to allocating resources and over time it creates corruption, bureaucracy, elitism and a new class which exploit the proletariat.

Actually, under Stalin's system of centralized planning bureaucracy was at it's smallest and most efficient. When Khrushchev decentralized planing it lead to the creation of various regional bureaucracies and created the need for bureaucracies for bureaucracies to communicate with other bureaucracies, thus leading to a point of an almost endless expansion of bureaucracies. It got so bad that when Khrushchev attempted further economic reform it wasn't even carried out completely because the bureaucracies couldn't communicate with each other effectively. Hence the downward sprial that led to the fall of the Soviet Union.

And "Democratic Planning" doesn't make things much better. To increase efficency for the war effort during the civil war, democratic management of the railroads was given to the railroad workers. Two months later, the railroads were in completely ruined and Lenin ordered that the advocates of democratic planning publically apologize in front of the Supreme Soviet for dampering the war effort. Another example was during the Great Leap forward, when Mao wanted a series of roads and bridges to be built to improve food distribution, he asked the grassroots to build them themselves. Which worked to an extent, the bridges were capable of holding the people they built them up but the workers failed to grasp that the bridges needed to be strong enough for food supplies to cross over them and they collapsed.

Democratic management of the workplace is essential. And there definitely needs to be democratic input in planning to ensure the effective allocation of resources. This is essential, whenever I study the North Korean situation I realize more and more how essential this aspect of planning is for the prevention of the restoration of capitalism. Also there were alot of experiments with Democratic Planning during the Cultural Revolution in China that I could discuss later if any of you are interested. But all of this aside, there is a perfectly good reason why past socialist states didn't hand the workers the entire economy on a silver platter and say "Here", and it's not because they are "Stalinists"

Let's Get Free

9th January 2013, 04:51

I think many centralized facilities could effectively be decentralized by making them as small as possible and sharing their use among several communities. I do not profess to think that all of mans economic activities can be completely decentralized, but the majority can surely be scaled down to communitarian dimensions. It is enough to say that we can shift the overwhelming weight of the economy from national to communitarian bodies, from centralized bureaucratic forms to local, popular assemblies in order to secure sovereignty of the free community on solid industrial foundations.

YugoslavSocialist

9th January 2013, 05:28

Can you prove a correlation between planned economies and the growth of bureaucracies?
Every country that implemented a central planned economy have always lead to the growth of bureaucracies.

robbo203

9th January 2013, 07:33

Private property does not include state property, because state property is public property..

Rubbish. So called public property does not belong to the public. There is absolutely no difference between your relationship to a nationalised concern and that of a privatised concern. For example, if you want to travel on a state run railway you have to buy a ticket just as with a private railway. The very fact that you have to buy a ticket at all is proof positive that the railway is not yours as a member of the public. Similarly, the situation of workers employed in state run enterprises is in no way different from those in privatised concerns. Just as with the later they too are engaged in a class struggle against the employers

And it's not private property that gives rise to exchange, it's exchange that gives rise to private property.

Not so. If you exchange something what you are doing is exchanging property rights. If i exchange an apple with you for your orange what is happening is that you are relinquishing ownership rights over the oramge and I of the apple. So ownership - private property - is presupposed by the very act of exchange

Also,

Who maintains the computer network, supplies trucks, fuels them and mans them with truckdrivers, and repairs the road? Especially since everybody can freely just come up to a supermarket, take as much beans as they want and call it a day?

The answer to that is that hundreds of thousands of separate planning entities do all these things and coordinate their activities through a communications feedback system. The computer network you mention is a very good example of this . Millions upon millions of individuals throughout the world interact and collaborate to produce this immense store of knowlege anyone can freely access. Apart from sites where you have to pay for information, the overwhelming majority are free to anyone to access. There is no quid pro quo exchange

Because, you know, the "technical organization of production", being part of something called "productive forces", determines the social relations of production. Not the other way round.

Well its actually a lot more complicated than this simplistic notion. Marx for example equally allowed for the social relations of production to determine the productive forces. The crudely reductiuonist model of historical materialism which many so called Marxists seem to embrace which posits ideas as arising out material condition, overlooks that ideas, values and beliefs are always there to begin with as part oif the material conditions that are supposed to "give rise" to them

Rusty Shackleford

9th January 2013, 07:43

Not necessarily. Decentralization does not necessarily correlate with exchange, but yes, exchange does result in a market.

I agree with the Bordigists - decentralization by means of workers councils has the potential to result in the embourgeoisment and the re-emergence of markets, but only so long as those councils are autonomous. If they are part of a larger, regional federation, then they will not be able to "exchange" because they will be part of a large system of planning.

This caught my attention. Any works that loosely or specifically relate to this?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th January 2013, 08:24

Rubbish. So called public property does not belong to the public. There is absolutely no difference between your relationship to a nationalised concern and that of a privatised concern. For example, if you want to travel on a state run railway you have to buy a ticket just as with a private railway. The very fact that you have to buy a ticket at all is proof positive that the railway is not yours as a member of the public. Similarly, the situation of workers employed in state run enterprises is in no way different from those in privatised concerns. Just as with the later they too are engaged in a class struggle against the employers

Indeed, I think it's worth noting that, even if said workers support the state-run institution, the form of their relationship to it is still that of wage labour (i.e., they produce for the state-owned institution, the state pays them a wage. Labour market still exists as exchange still exists.

Second point, your example of the ticket is also another example of a form of exchange, which is something worth highlighting explicitly; that those against bureaucratic forms of state government aren't so because of mere ideology, but because they fail to find a solution to the problem of the market; markets still exist, exchange and trade still exist.

Zulu

9th January 2013, 08:41

The very fact that you have to buy a ticket at all is proof positive that the railway is not yours as a member of the public.
So the fact that little children usually don't have to buy tickets even on private trains proves that they own them as property, right?

If you exchange something what you are doing is exchanging property rights. If i exchange an apple with you for your orange what is happening is that you are relinquishing ownership rights over the oramge and I of the apple. So ownership - private property - is presupposed by the very act of exchange

This is blatant idealism right here. The materialist view of the matter is that the ideas of ownership and "property rights" could not come into human mind until innumerable acts of exchange (that is, physical movement of physical objects between two or more individuals) have been accomplished. Note, that acts of unilateral acquisition, such as when the strongest male in a group takes whatever he likes from everybody else, could not give rise to the idea of private property.

The answer to that is that hundreds of thousands of separate planning entities do all these things and coordinate their activities through a communications feedback system. The computer network you mention is a very good example of this . Millions upon millions of individuals throughout the world interact and collaborate to produce this immense store of knowlege anyone can freely access. Apart from sites where you have to pay for information, the overwhelming majority are free to anyone to access. There is no quid pro quo exchange

No, that's not an answer, it's a dodge again. So I repeat, who is responsible for the maintenance of the computer network? What happens if there is a software bug or a hardware malfunction in a local hub and all people qualified to deal with this are having a beer party out of town? Same for the truck garage and everything else you need to get those beans to the supermarket in a society where nobody owes anything to anybody. A feedback system is any good only when people are compelled to act on that feedback, but if they don't, then it's pointless and shortlived anyway.

Marx for example equally allowed for the social relations of production to determine the productive forces.

Got a quote?

The irony is that one evil Stalinist, namely, Mao Zedong, checked this notion out for you during his Great Leap Forward. It didn't work.

Jimmie Higgins

9th January 2013, 08:55

Every country that has implemented central planning has always became bureaucratic. Just look at USSR, DPRK, Cuba etc.No argument there, but is the issue what was implemented or who controlled the process? Socialism isn't about policy IMO, it's about what class has power.

Second in a decentralised planned economy every workplace is run by the workers. If a work place is too complex to manage like in airports then the workers will vote for their representatives and each representative will meet together and coordinate the flights together.But then all those representatives coming together to coordinate is an INSTRUMENT OF CENTRALIZATION. There would have to be some chain of command and some kind of decision making process that was binding otherwise, couldn't workers on a plane over-ride the control tower, or the control tower of another airport over-ride the control tower?

The trick is ensuring that these processes are tied to the power from below - tied to those workplace organizations and tied to that power just as today capitalists maintain power, not themselves, but through managers who are subordinate in the capitalist system to capitalist power. Workers would likewise have to empower some people to do managerial or organizational tasks, but these things and people in these positions would have to be subject to the power from the workplace or community councils.

Beurocracy is not a threat to capitalism because the beurocracy has no inherent "system" only the system that that beurocracy serves - it is like a symbiotic parisite being empowered by a ruling class and in return helping that class manage society. The capitalists try to ensure loyalty of this layer by allowing them more wealth and acess (not workers in a beurocracy, but generals and ministers and cabinet people and so on). It's not in the democratic oriented interests of the working class to create this sort of buffer-layer in society that is between the population and the ruling class; instead with most of the population basically being the ruling class the beurocracy will have to be politically tied to the workers they represent - so worker councils will have power over beurocrats just as a Board of Directors or Congress has oversight over corporate and governmental beurocrats today. The personal position of the representaitves IMO will also have to be tied directly to the state of the workers they represent - so mechanisms can be put in place to guard that just as the capitalists create "checks and balences" to ensure that their beurocracy is always ultimately accontable to them: positions can be rotating, instant recall of representatives, and so on.

robbo203

9th January 2013, 19:10

So the fact that little children usually don't have to buy tickets even on private trains proves that they own them as property, right?.

Thats a silly argument. Apart from anything else, not having to buy a ticket does not necessarily mean you own it whereas having to buy a ticket definitely means you dont own it. There is simply no equivalence in these two arguments. And you have proved it yourself by pointing out that the train in question is private and there does not belong to the little children despite then travelling on it for free. That children do not have to pay is rather like the supermarket offer "buy one and get one free". Its an inducement for the adult to splash out on buying a ticket for himself/herself

This is blatant idealism right here. The materialist view of the matter is that the ideas of ownership and "property rights" could not come into human mind until innumerable acts of exchange (that is, physical movement of physical objects between two or more individuals) have been accomplished. Note, that acts of unilateral acquisition, such as when the strongest male in a group takes whatever he likes from everybody else, could not give rise to the idea of private property.

This is absolute nonsense. I dont think you have the slightest clue what you are talking. You certainly dont know what is meant by "exchange" It is NOT simply the "physical movement of physical objects between two or more individuals". It is a quid pro quo transaction - you give me your orange and Ill give you my apple. Exchange sets conditions on the movement of objects This is what exchange is - an exchange of property titles relating to the things being exchanged which presupposes, as I said ,property

Your absurd idea that the physical movement of objects between people being exchange cannot even begin to explain the origins of property. Worse still , since I cannot imagine such a movement ever ceasing you are effectively saying private property is here to stay!

No, that's not an answer, it's a dodge again. So I repeat, who is responsible for the maintenance of the computer network? What happens if there is a software bug or a hardware malfunction in a local hub and all people qualified to deal with this are having a beer party out of town? Same for the truck garage and everything else you need to get those beans to the supermarket in a society where nobody owes anything to anybody. A feedback system is any good only when people are compelled to act on that feedback, but if they don't, then it's pointless and shortlived anyway.

You are shifting the grounds of your critique of decentalised communist economy from an ill infomnred attack on the technical notion of a feedback system which is absolutely indispisnable to any society, to the question if incentive. I dont see incentive as a big problem in a communist society but presumably you do. In which case perhaps you ought to explain why you do

Got a quote?

.

"The form of intercourse determined by the existing productive forces at all previous historical stages, and in its turn determining these, is civil society." (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1845/german-ideology/ch01b.htm)

"According to the materialistic conception of history, the production and reproduction of real life constitutes in the last instance the determining factor of history. Neither Marx nor I ever maintained more. Now when someone comes along and distorts this to mean that the economic factor is the sole determining factor, he is converting the former proposition into a meaningless, abstract and absurd phrase. The economic situation is the basis but the various factors of the superstructure – the political forms of the class struggles and its results – constitutions, etc., established by victorious classes after hard-won battles – legal forms, and even the reflexes of all these real struggles in the brain of the participants, political, jural, philosophical theories, religious conceptions and their further development into systematic dogmas – all these exercise an influence upon the course of historical struggles, and in many cases determine for the most part their form. There is a reciprocity between all these factors in which, finally, through the endless array of contingencies (i.e., of things and events whose inner connection with one another is so remote, or so incapable of proof, that we may neglect it, regarding it as nonexistent) the economic movement asserts itself as necessary.
(http://www.marxistsfr.org/archive/marx/works/1890/letters/90_09_21a.htm)

YugoslavSocialist

9th January 2013, 20:31

But then all those representatives coming together to coordinate is an INSTRUMENT OF CENTRALIZATION. There would have to be some chain of command and some kind of decision making process that was binding otherwise, couldn't workers on a plane over-ride the control tower, or the control tower of another airport over-ride the control tower?

No that's economic planning from the down-up and not central planning. Remember the airports are run as cooperatives and are not controlled by the representatives. These representatives meet together to decide a common airplane schedule. They still serve the interest of the workers and can be kicked out at any time and remember this process ONLY applies to workplaces that are far too complex for the workers to run collectively.

The trick is ensuring that these processes are tied to the power from below - tied to those workplace organizations and tied to that power just as today capitalists maintain power. Workers would likewise have to empower some people to do managerial or organizational tasks, but these things and people in these positions would have to be subject to the power from the workplace or community councils.

That's what a decentralized planned economy and workers self management is about.

Beurocracy is not a threat to capitalism
You are right about Beurocracy not being a threat to capitalism.
Beurocracy is actually a threat to Socialism because it undermines the dictatorship of the proletariat and it will eventually restore capitalism (as we have seen in USSR) unless it is overthrown.
It is why Decentralized planning and Workers' self-management is a must in any Socialist country.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th January 2013, 20:47

No that's economic planning from the down-up and not central planning. Remember the airports are run as cooperatives and are not controlled by the representatives. These representatives meet together to decide a common airplane schedule. They still serve the interest of the workers and can be kicked out at any time and remember this process ONLY applies to workplaces that are far too complex for the workers to run collectively.

That's what a decentralized planned economy and workers self management is about.

You are right about Beurocracy not being a threat to capitalism.
Beurocracy is actually a threat to Socialism because it undermines the dictatorship of the proletariat and it will eventually restore capitalism (as we have seen in USSR) unless it is overthrown.
It is why Decentralized planning and Workers' self-management is a must in any Socialist country.

I sympathise with a lot of what you say but i'm slightly concerned by the emboldened bit:

I don't know if this is merely you using the wrong word, but surely for a decentralised system to work, you would need elected people to be delegates, rather than representatives. Especially at local level, if they are representatives, we will just end up with a movement back towards bureaucracy, as representation implies the de facto absentia in political decision making of the electors, and somewhat politicises the whole process of policy making.

If de-centralisation is to work, it surely needs at the local level very frequently rotated delegates in executive/'managerial' positions, or a demarchy, or perhaps best yet a workforce that is multi-skilled and rotates jobs voluntarily., and is not co-erced into job rotation or moving roles either by some central authority, or an elected representative/group of representatives.

Zulu

9th January 2013, 21:25

Thats a silly argument.
That's because I was just expanding on the silliness of yours. But I have a smarter one too. On public transport in a socialist society, so long as money (or labor vouchers) remain, even the top state and party functionaries, let alone their relatives and not so top functionaries, have to buy tickets. So by this test they don't own that state transport either. And the function of state transport in a socialist society is to satisfy the social need for transportation, not to make profit, that's why the price of tickets is significantly lower that the actual cost of transportation (i. e., transport is subsidized), and the tickets serve the purposes of preventing abuse of this public service and also accounting for the number of fares (feedback-feedback!).

Worse still , since I cannot imagine such a movement ever ceasing you are effectively saying private property is here to stay!
No, I say precisely the opposite, since I totally can imagine that the "quid pro quo" transactions will forgotten. In communism only unilateral transactions (as in, you give me your apple and we never see each other again) will remain.

So, on the contrary, it's you who says that private property is here to stay, exactly as you fail (unsurprisingly) to imagine the abolition of exchange.

You are shifting the grounds of your critique of decentalised communist economy from an ill infomnred attack on the technical notion of a feedback system which is absolutely indispisnable to any society, to the question if incentive. I dont see incentive as a big problem in a communist society but presumably you do. In which case perhaps you ought to explain why you do

I don't see incentive as a big problem in a communist society either, but I don't regard a decentralized society as communist. And you are yet to demonstrate that there'd be enough incentive to make it work. Or, for that matter, that the feedback system would work there either. Because just putting some info out on the Internet does not guarantee that it reaches those who it is intended to provide feedback to. You see, the idea of feedback by definition implies some sort of a hierarchy, in which there is always somebody to pick up the receiver on the other end of the line and not pretend you called a wrong number if he dislikes the sound of your voice.

Got a quote?
...

Actually, I have a better one:

"It is not true, in the first place, that the role of the relations of production in the history of society has been confined to that of a brake, a fetter on the development of the productive forces. When Marxists speak of the retarding role of the relations of production, it is not all relations of production they have in mind, but only the old relations of production, which no longer conform to the growth of the productive forces and, consequently, retard their development. But, as we know, besides the old, there are also new relations of production, which supersede the old. Can it be said that the role of the new relations of production is that of a brake on the productive forces? No, it cannot. On the contrary, the new relations of production are the chief and decisive force, the one which in fact determines the further,and, moreover, powerful, development of the productive forces, and without which the latter would be doomed to stagnation, as is the case today in the capitalist countries."
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/stalin/works/1951/economic-problems/ch13.htm

I hope you're glad you've wound up in the heart-warming company of Comrade Stalin, but that's where I'm going to say he was mistaken. Which, like I've said, was clearly proven during the Great Leap Forward in the Red China, but also was quite well observable in the course of the Soviet history, as the productive forces in Russia and the USSR only barely met the expectations put on them by the Bolsheviks, when they were pushing for the advanced relations of production, which led to all sorts of distortions and sacrifices, and ultimately to failure, although I am of the opinion, it had a chance to work out.

But of course, if the relations of production you wish to impose on society are reactionary (as they are, in your case), you may be quite sure that if you succeed, the productive forces will indeed catch up with them in the race to the bottom, to the golden age of decentralized anarchy, which is more often called the stone age, among civilized people.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

9th January 2013, 21:53

That's because I was just expanding on the silliness of yours. But I have a smarter one too. On public transport in a socialist society, so long as money (or labor vouchers) remain, even the top state and party functionaries, let alone their relatives and not so top functionaries, have to buy tickets. So by this test they don't own that state transport either.

What sort of 'communism' has 'top party functionaries'? We're not trying to create USSR v2.0 here!

But also no, you're wrong. Every person is both a producer (in capitalism a 'worker') and a consumer. There is supply, and there is demand. People - in their role as producers/workers - create supply through their labours, and create demand as consumers...through consumption. Your example doesn't prove anything. Presumably the regional manager of Costa Coffee goes into his shop for whatever reason and pays for a coffee, does that mean that Costa is a socialised firm? No!

And the function of state transport in a socialist society is to satisfy the social need for transportation, not to make profit, that's why the price of tickets is significantly lower that the actual cost of transportation (i. e., transport is subsidized), and the tickets serve the purposes of preventing abuse of this public service and also accounting for the number of fares (feedback-feedback!).

If the function of state transport is to satisfy the social need for transportation, what possible abuse of the public service could there be? Isn't the idea in communism 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'? You seem to be advocating 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his ability to pay, albeit at a subsidised rate', with the latter clause ('albeit at a subsidised rate') satisfying your definition of Socialism. I'd argue this is mere welfare, not Socialism.

After all, today in the UK we have subsidised public transport, but it's also performing a profit function for the companies that run it. That's what would happen in a central planning system. It'd probably start out fine enough, but as soon as the economy hits the rocks - as we've seen MULTIPLE times in the past - prices would rise in these public services to pay for other areas and so, whilst this still wouldn't be a profit function, the actual cost to the consumer wouldn't be any less.

Zulu

9th January 2013, 22:32

What sort of 'communism' has 'top party functionaries'?
The incomplete one, called "socialism".

Presumably the regional manager of Costa Coffee goes into his shop for whatever reason and pays for a coffee, does that mean that Costa is a socialised firm? No!

Frankly, the entire argument about who pays for what, especially nowadays, that all currency has become fiat credit (that is to say, money in the Marxian sense has been abolished), seems entirely inconsequential. But Robbo here thinks that it somehow can prove who owns what, and even the deranged notion that state property is private property... [shrugs]

If the function of state transport is to satisfy the social need for transportation, what possible abuse of the public service could there be? Isn't the idea in communism 'from each according to his ability, to each according to his need'?
For that principle to be realized you have to achieve abundance, and that's not too easy a task, especially as there are plenty of individuals out there who would like to abuse and misuse as much resources as they can, just for lulz (capitalism's fault, not theirs, of course).

Arguably, in socialism,transportation and other public services are to go completely free of charge ahead of food and other items of individual consumption. But that is simply not possible to arrange for in one day.

That's what would happen in a central planning system.
And what would happen in a decentralized system? I've been trying to pry that out of Robbo for a while now, and can't get a picture other than "it'll be pretty much like it is now, only without money".

Well, without money (currency) it can't be anything like now, so it'll all have to be rearranged, so it might be helpful to actually have some specifics of what it'll look like, when it has been rearranged, and even more interestingly, how the process of rearrangement is going to be conducted.

YugoslavSocialist

10th January 2013, 20:18

I sympathise with a lot of what you say but i'm slightly concerned by the emboldened bit:

I don't know if this is merely you using the wrong word, but surely for a decentralised system to work, you would need elected people to be delegates, rather than representatives. Especially at local level, if they are representatives, we will just end up with a movement back towards bureaucracy, as representation implies the de facto absentia in political decision making of the electors, and somewhat politicises the whole process of policy making.

Sorry when I said Representatives what I meant was delegates. I got the 2 words confused.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

10th January 2013, 21:48

The incomplete one, called "socialism".

And why would any 'top functionary' voluntarily relinquish their bureaucratic position of power when 'real' communism comes along, or whatever you think is going to happen? There are so many examples in history of this turning to shit i'm really surprised you're advocating this.

Frankly, the entire argument about who pays for what, especially nowadays, that all currency has become fiat credit (that is to say, money in the Marxian sense has been abolished), seems entirely inconsequential. But Robbo here thinks that it somehow can prove who owns what, and even the deranged notion that state property is private property... [shrugs]

It's about exchange. Exchange needs a market to exist. Exchange occurs if use of a public service is exchanged for currency, be that the fiat currency of today, gold or anything else that has exchange-value. Socialism/communism can only exist when markets - and thus exchange - are done away with.

For that principle to be realized you have to achieve abundance, and that's not too easy a task, especially as there are plenty of individuals out there who would like to abuse and misuse as much resources as they can, just for lulz (capitalism's fault, not theirs, of course).

Most developed countries have abundance in one thing or another. A global/large regional revolution in developed nations would have no problem with abundance; under capitalism, it's distribution that is the problem. Given the technology available today, and how readily available much of it is, even a regional revolution of developing countries would not face the problems that Russia faced, in terms of having to play catch-up with industrial production.

Arguably, in socialism,transportation and other public services are to go completely free of charge ahead of food and other items of individual consumption. But that is simply not possible to arrange for in one day.

They won't be free, because there'll be no currency. The concept of 'free' won't exist, as there'll be nothing to compare it to. At least not in terms of the 'paying by money' that we know today.

And what would happen in a decentralized system? I've been trying to pry that out of Robbo for a while now, and can't get a picture other than "it'll be pretty much like it is now, only without money".

Well, without money (currency) it can't be anything like now, so it'll all have to be rearranged, so it might be helpful to actually have some specifics of what it'll look like, when it has been rearranged, and even more interestingly, how the process of rearrangement is going to be conducted.

Who knows? There is no blueprint because we can't predict the future, and anybody who thinks they can, and further anybody who thinks they can apply a generic blueprint to very different material conditions, is not hugely helpful.

The key is that we demand a society that exists without class distinction, without currency, without wage labour and without states. Beyond that, we all have our own individual ideas as to how economies should be run, but everything beyond that should be run directly and democratically. I am not speaking for robbo, though we do share similar ideas, but my minimum principles for Socialism are the abolition of classes, money and states, and a strong level of democracy of course. Beyond that, I can't speak for anybody but myself!

Zulu

11th January 2013, 01:12

And why would any 'top functionary' voluntarily relinquish their bureaucratic position of power when 'real' communism comes along, or whatever you think is going to happen?

1. He is asked very nicely and agrees to do that.
2. He dies of old age.
3. Anything in between.

There are so many examples in history of this turning to shit i'm really surprised you're advocating this.
I'm sorry, can you remind me those examples from history, when "real communism" came along and it turned to shit?

It's about exchange. Exchange needs a market to exist. Exchange occurs if use of a public service is exchanged for currency, be that the fiat currency of today, gold or anything else that has exchange-value. Socialism/communism can only exist when markets - and thus exchange - are done away with.
In socialism exchange and market are going to remain for a while. I'm not advocating "market socialism" here, of course, but you can't institute total global central planning with one flip of a switch. So exchange and market will have to "wither away" while the system of centralized planning will be developed to practical perfection.

Who knows? There is no blueprint because we can't predict the future, and anybody who thinks they can, and further anybody who thinks they can apply a generic blueprint to very different material conditions, is not hugely helpful.

The key is that we demand a society that exists without class distinction, without currency, without wage labour and without states. Beyond that, we all have our own individual ideas as to how economies should be run, but everything beyond that should be run directly and democratically. I am not speaking for robbo, though we do share similar ideas, but my minimum principles for Socialism are the abolition of classes, money and states, and a strong level of democracy of course. Beyond that, I can't speak for anybody but myself!

These two paragraphs of yours are extremely contradictory. If you can't predict the future, what makes you even think your demands are justified?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

11th January 2013, 08:48

1. He is asked very nicely and agrees to do that.
2. He dies of old age.
3. Anything in between.

I'm sorry, can you remind me those examples from history, when "real communism" came along and it turned to shit?

Oh c'mon. We've seen bureaucratic party functionaries kill the revolution in the USSR, in Cuba, in the GDR, in China. They create a new ruling class, so them dying or leaving their posts has no bearing on it as they spawn followers and careerists in their ranks.

I'm not sure you really believe that one day the bureaucrats will just step aside. You're advocating something (bureaucracy) that is a huge block on the emergence of a communist society.

In socialism exchange and market are going to remain for a while. I'm not advocating "market socialism" here, of course, but you can't institute total global central planning with one flip of a switch. So exchange and market will have to "wither away" while the system of centralized planning will be developed to practical perfection.

How do exchange the market 'wither away'? You accuse me of having a plan, but you can't provide any detail here. To me this sounds like you're advocating state capitalism, which Lenin said was necessary and an improvement, but he was talking about a huge, backwards country in the 1920s, which is not what is on the table today or in the future. Even the most backwards regions have access to technology that Russia took decades to produce to industrial level, so State Capitalism should be viewed today/in the future as even more un-desirable than it was when Lenin was speaking.

These two paragraphs of yours are extremely contradictory. If you can't predict the future, what makes you even think your demands are justified?

I recognise my own personal demands - for example for a labour voucher system, for a delegate system of local to national democracy - are just one way that things could pan out in the future. They are my personal ideology. What I also recognise, is that the well laid out Marxist ideas for a communist society - through the expropriation of the bourgeoisie and an end to wage labour and exploitation, through the end of classes, money and states - is not mere ideology but the fundamental tenets of any future communist society. These are principles observed throughout history, rather than mere predictions/wishes based in ideology. It's important to note the difference, which is why I don't 'demand' my own ideology be implemented, merely the conditions that might allow such ideology (or any other socialist ideology, equally!) to come into place.

Zulu

11th January 2013, 11:31

To me this sounds like you're advocating state capitalism, which Lenin said was necessary and an improvement, but he was talking about a huge, backwards country in the 1920s, which is not what is on the table today or in the future. Even the most backwards regions have access to technology that Russia took decades to produce to industrial level, so State Capitalism should be viewed today/in the future as even more un-desirable than it was when Lenin was speaking.

Even if it's not an improvement, it's still necessary - to hold things together, while the labor vouchers or whatever the first steps of the socialist construction proper are being prepared and introduced. You've said something about the abundance that has supposedly been achieved in the "developed" countries. But it, first, is all at the expense of the Chinese, South American and other proletariat of the "underdeveloped" countries, and, secondly, fully depends on the material incentive even as far as the affluent citizens of the "developed" countries are concerned. The vast majority of population at the moment aren't conscious communists or even semi-conscious leftists. So even if you escape some kind of a fascist reaction (which will be the more difficult, the more "democracy" you leave in place), you'll have to keep those damn trains going and sewage flowing, and that implies some social mechanism of compelling people to work enough hours a day and of properly allocating their labor.

one day the bureaucrats will just step aside.

Oh course they won't, if all the good guys shun to join the bureaucracy, and only the bad guys remain there.

And you can't just vote the bureaucracy out of existence while it is still necessary to keep the wheels spinning.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

11th January 2013, 13:21

You've said something about the abundance that has supposedly been achieved in the "developed" countries. But it, first, is all at the expense of the Chinese, South American and other proletariat of the "underdeveloped" countries, and, secondly, fully depends on the material incentive even as far as the affluent citizens of the "developed" countries are concerned.
.

No, Britain went through centuries of capital accumulation, an agricultural revolution, an industrial revolution and a sanitary revolution which led to both the high standards of living we have today and the abundance we have.

Of course, abundance is generally predicated on world trade, but it's totally inaccurate to say that western development is at the expense of developing countries. Britain for one was a developed country whilst China was still the backwards playground of feudal warlords. The US and Germany were not all that far behind.

Zulu

12th January 2013, 07:21

abundance is generally predicated on world trade

Oh yes, "predicated", that's the word, I'm loving it!

You see, the UK, being an insular country, and one that imports up 40% of its food supplies from all over the world (http://www.nextgenerationfood.com/media/media-news/infographics/090902-ngfeu-uk_food_travel-01.png), together with the facts that it's been seriously deindustrialized over the past few decades, and that, to quote Wikipedia, "exports of financial and business services make a significant positive contribution towards the country's balance of payments"... is a perfect example of my earlier point, about that abundance you talk about being quite fragile, if capitalism is to suddenly disappear.

Are you sure that the British workers' councils will be able to arrange for continuous shipments of that food (not to mention the rest of the consumer stuff) immediately after the City of London closes for business? Especially without some totalitarian Stalinist-Cockshottist bureaucratic party conning them around?

Ostrinski

12th January 2013, 08:51

Vladimir Innit Lenin

12th January 2013, 16:07

Oh yes, "predicated", that's the word, I'm loving it!

You see, the UK, being an insular country, and one that imports up 40% of its food supplies from all over the world (http://www.nextgenerationfood.com/media/media-news/infographics/090902-ngfeu-uk_food_travel-01.png), together with the facts that it's been seriously deindustrialized over the past few decades, and that, to quote Wikipedia, "exports of financial and business services make a significant positive contribution towards the country's balance of payments"... is a perfect example of my earlier point, about that abundance you talk about being quite fragile, if capitalism is to suddenly disappear.

Are you sure that the British workers' councils will be able to arrange for continuous shipments of that food (not to mention the rest of the consumer stuff) immediately after the City of London closes for business? Especially without some totalitarian Stalinist-Cockshottist bureaucratic party conning them around?

Of course, the city of london would probably not exist in a post-capitalist society. Neither would the wider financial services industry. So i'm not sure what your point is.

The UK is a post-industrial society but even here - and more importantly across Europe - there is the potential to increase industrial and even agricultural output. I'm not arguing for regional autarky here, but merely that different states/regions currently produce an abundance of different goods, that if necessary/possible could be transitioned into a basket of goods that could be distributed democratically and locally.

Zulu

13th January 2013, 04:35

Of course, the city of london would probably not exist in a post-capitalist society. Neither would the wider financial services industry. So i'm not sure what your point is.

The UK is a post-industrial society but even here - and more importantly across Europe - there is the potential to increase industrial and even agricultural output. I'm not arguing for regional autarky here, but merely that different states/regions currently produce an abundance of different goods, that if necessary/possible could be transitioned into a basket of goods that could be distributed democratically and locally.

Are you talking exchange here?

And what happens if the producers of sugar, tea, coffee, fruit, etc. "democratically and locally" decide to cut down on or completely discontinue production and put their labor power (previously owned by the City of London) to some non-UK related activities?

My point is that if all that sweet stuff suddenly disappears from the grocery stores, even the left-leaning workers will begin vacillating and think that maybe socialism "doesn't work" after all. And when the freshly expropriated bourgeoisie organizes former police officers, soccer hooligans and the like to crush the workers' councils, how do you prevent it?

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th January 2013, 08:29

Are you talking exchange here?

And what happens if the producers of sugar, tea, coffee, fruit, etc. "democratically and locally" decide to cut down on or completely discontinue production and put their labor power (previously owned by the City of London) to some non-UK related activities?

My point is that if all that sweet stuff suddenly disappears from the grocery stores, even the left-leaning workers will begin vacillating and think that maybe socialism "doesn't work" after all. And when the freshly expropriated bourgeoisie organizes former police officers, soccer hooligans and the like to crush the workers' councils, how do you prevent it?

I don't think there'll ever be a point where a production bloc organises what it wants. Rather, I would imagine production would be democratically organised according to demand. If, for example, in town x, people wanted 3,000 apples and 100 ipods, it would clearly be pointless and idiotic to produce 5,000 apples and no ipods.

But like I said, I don't have a crystal ball so I can't/don't want to provide more in-depth answers than that, but I can't imagine any quasi-voluntarist, socially run economy running from anything other than the demand-side, in terms of production democracy.

Geiseric

13th January 2013, 09:04

The ideal planning strategy is democratic input at all institutional levels of production coordination from the point of production all the way on up. This ensures a greater efficiency in the areas of resource allocation and the transportation of raw materials to where they need to go and providing the most utility and least wastefulness.

I agree with what Ostrinski says, there has to be democracy in production as well as in the apparatus that coordinates for consumption. The idea of a soviet is that it's a mouthpiece for things that have been decided at the ground up, on every economic and social political instance. There was the war and stuff, which was different in Russia, but the idea is that society is run not by a bureaucracy, but (Gasp) by the entire working class.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

13th January 2013, 21:34

Moved Robbo's reply re: democratic planning to a new thread. He introduces a new idea on democratic mgmt (subsidiarity), it'll be best to continue discussion of that there.

Paul Cockshott

26th January 2013, 21:44

Here is a post elsewhere on the web which looks relevant to this discussion. It is a defence of the council communists ideas of self management against the accusation of Proudhonism. It is a also a good defence of Marx's theory of labour time accounting in communism here: http://libcom.org/library/marx%E2%80%99s-critique-socialist-labor-money-schemes-myth-council-communism%E2%80%99s-proudhonism

Workers-Control-Over-Prod

26th January 2013, 22:36

Complete socialisation of production is a necessary pre-requisite for communism. Central planning is "necessary" in so far as it is signatory of the complete socialisation of production, and is the only available option towards the abolition of equal exchange values and abolishing money. Put another way: so long equal value, market, commodity exchange exists, a means of trade, Money, will naturally be prevalent.

Of course, not all sectors of the economy will be immediately introduced into the centrally planned economy, at the onset of revolutionary insurrection. "Plan" only means societal wide coordination, and with modern technology, complex national economic plans can easily be directed by computers, (and perhaps, today [with the state of modern communicative technology, the perfections run by society itself).
Here though it is my opinion that what socialist revolutions in the west should strive for and campaign for, is the abolition of work hours. The radical decrease of human labor in production over the first years of transition to communism, will mean a much more natural development towards working class democracy, in all meaning of the word. Workers will increasingly have time to become the administrators of society.
The socialisation of the national economy is however the inevitable necessary step on the road to building a Socialist society, where production is run collectively, planned centrally, and directed by all by society.

Popular Front of Judea

26th January 2013, 22:52

Would you care to expand on that? Have you read Spufford's 'Red Plenty'?

"Plan" only means societal wide coordination, and with modern technology, complex national economic plans can easily be directed by computers, (and perhaps, today [with the state of modern communicative technology, the perfections run by society itself).

Strannik

27th January 2013, 08:47

Central planning is a good thing when it decides fair and sustainable distribution on social level. Despite all practical drawbacks, it allowed even USSR to last for several decades. But in a well functioning economy, planning on regional council and on individual level is also required. In the end, socialist economy gives a better result when it contains more correct information and this means central planners cannot replace individual planning. The advantage of socialism would be that planning on all levels could be based on integrated set of concrete economic data without the noise and lies that fill the market/private property economy.

That, by the way seems to be the last refugee of economic calculation argument. Central planners could base the planning on inventories and individual preferences even without market prices, but people won't bother with economic calculation on individual level unless they hope it brings them advantages over others in the form of private property rights. They say that people simply won't arrange their preferences into a queue.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

27th January 2013, 21:20

Central planners could base the planning on inventories and individual preferences even without market prices, but people won't bother with economic calculation on individual level unless they hope it brings them advantages over others in the form of private property rights. They say that people simply won't arrange their preferences into a queue.

When you say individual preferences, are you referring to utility, or to literal preferences? i.e. 'group of people ABC say they want 100 widgets, so 100 widgets are produced for group ABC, group DEF want 70 widgets, so 70 widgets are produced for group DEF' and so on.

Strannik

28th January 2013, 17:25

Since we have limited resources and limited time, I guess every economy needs to create a list of priorities: it boils down to "what should be done, by whom and when". The difference between productive formations is - how, by what kind of algorithm do we answer these questions?

What I mean is - a central planner may know what people have ordered, but its little use if people haven't thought through what it is that they need. This is why I would support general planning - people and central management making productive decisions based on a common set of inventory data. Individual utility is a factor, but it seems to me that sum of individual utilities does not yet give us social need.

Vladimir Innit Lenin

28th January 2013, 18:34

Zulu

29th January 2013, 14:36

But then there's a divorce between, as you say, "people and central management". Surely the elimination of central anything (if it's people we're referring to) is necessary to prevent a USSR-style bureaucracy developing, with its own interests separate from, as you say, "the people"?

The only reason why the USSR-style bureaucracy had its own interests separate from "the people" was that the economy of the USSR was not enough centralized.

And if you eliminate central anything, you'll probably cut down on bureaucracy, sure, but what you get instead will be throngs of private entrepreneurs! Everybody with half a brain knows that, from Ron Paul to the ... USSR-style bureaucracy, part of which initiated a holy anti-bureaucratic crusade during the Perestroika exactly for the reason that they got tired of being just bureaucrats and wanted a little of free-for-all environment in order to get officially rich.