Macnair: transition away from capitalism to take 200 years?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Discuss: http://www.cpgb.org.uk/home/weekly-worker/986/debate-cpgbs-theoretical-confusion


Without even the basic elements of democracy how can any except the minority who hold the levers of state power rule? But it is my contention that Jack confuses matters by arguing that socialism represents the rule of the working class and is transitional to communism. Jack maintains that only communism is “a globally organised society which knows no money, no state, no country, no women’s oppression, no limit to human achievement”. This formulation perpetuates a key aspect of Stalinised Soviet theory. It relegates the achievement of the most transformative aspect of the socialist vision to a future beyond the lifespan of anyone currently alive - Mike Macnair has argued that the transition will take one or two hundred years. This is a version of the maximum programme that is useless for holding to account the leadership of a Communist Party.

[tuwix]

It may last so long and it may not. It depends on many factors. If there is central planning without using computers due to considering them as bourgeois in Brezhniev style, then those two centuries may not be enough. But if there are free cooperatives deceding what to do and central institutions that would stimulate development to limit unpleasant work as fast as possible, then in 15-20 years it could be achieved.

[Q]

I haven't read anything by Macnair where he claims that or builds a case for it. So there is little to be said about Roger's letter on that point. However, I do agree with tuwix and am far more optimistic and think we can reach universal human freedom in a few decades, at most. This does depend on the globalisation of the project though, crucially we need Europe, North-America and China - being the pillars of the capitalist world today - to have revolution.

[Oenomaus]

It may last so long and it may not. It depends on many factors. If there is central planning without using computers due to considering them as bourgeois in Brezhniev style, then those two centuries may not be enough. But if there are free cooperatives deceding what to do and central institutions that would stimulate development to limit unpleasant work as fast as possible, then in 15-20 years it could be achieved.

GosPlan and GosKomStat used computers extensively in the seventies and the eighties - in fact as I recall it the use of primitive information technology in the Soviet Union goes back to at least the VeSeNKha and the RabKRIn with their tabulating machines for punched cards. Apparently, people will believe anything bad said about the Soviet Union, without checking sources.

And "free cooperatives" sound suspiciously like Proudhonian associations of petty commodity producers, with the attendant market mechanisms. That has been tried - in Yugoslavia, Poland, and so on. Turns out, market "socialism" is inefficient nonsense. Who would've guessed?

As for the article, I think the term socialism - when applied to a definite phase of social development - simply leads to pointless, essentially semantic debates. There is no need to use it - the concepts of the dictatorship of the proletariat and the lower and higher phases of communist society, already describe the development of society in the aftermath of the proletarian revolution.

Nonetheless, I do not think the debate is entirely semantic - anyone who thinks that the transition to communism will take 200 years is very politely saying that it might as well not happen at all, that it is absolutely irrelevant. And that is dangerous. Of course the communist movement should be focused on its immediate tasks, but relegating communism to the next century, or the century after that, can only serve to justify bureaucratic degeneration.

The notion that the state will continue to exist, for a period, in the lower phases of the communist society is cogent - Lenin argues for pretty much the same notion in the State and the Revolution. Those who think that the superstructure of the state would immediately collapse with the change in the economic base are, it seems to me, viewing the matter mechanistically. But the notion that private property would continue to exist in the lower phases of the communist society is bizarre. Why would the proletariat, holding state power, protect the property of the bourgeoisie or the petite bourgeoisie except for special circumstances (such as that in Russia in the twenties)?

[Die Neue Zeit]

Oenomaus, tuwix was referring to the rejection of Kantorovich's methods by others in the Soviet bureaucracy. The Chernenko administration started to come around to these methods, but it was too late to re-stimulate growth.

[tuwix]

And "free cooperatives" sound suspiciously like Proudhonian associations of petty commodity producers, with the attendant market mechanisms. That has been tried - in Yugoslavia, Poland, and so on. Turns out, market "socialism" is inefficient nonsense.

As far as I live in Poland (that means from the birthsday until today), I never heard about any signfificant free cooperatives movement in Poland...
And you're wrong about Yugoslavia too. Their cooparatives were dominated by state "experts".
Then conclussion about "nonsense" of ree cooperatives is just lack of knowledge,

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'm thinking a 60-year transition would suffice, but half of that might have to be spent dealing with property relations alone. Gradual expropriation through tax-to-nationalize ("fiscally conservative socialism") (http://www.revleft.com/vb/fiscally-responsible-conservative-t174896/index.html) and the Meidner Plan are but two acknowledgements of a protracted property relations transition.

[Rafiq]

It is unlikely a revolution would succeed I every geographic area which is necessary for it to survive elsewhere. The revolution will thus be a war of conquest, comparable to the Napoleonic wars. Once we have consolidated power anywhere, it is vital that the primary task is to assure the spread of the revolution.

[Skyhilist]

When you add in complex new variables like climate change and the possible impacts that they may have, it's really impossible to make any kind of educated guess as to how long things will take. I'd say it'll most likely happen when shit really hits the fan after people start dying and being left homeless in the millions due to climate disasters that are not addressed and mismanaged by capitalism. But even if I'm right, who knows when that point will be reached exactly.

[Q]

It is unlikely a revolution would succeed I every geographic area which is necessary for it to survive elsewhere. The revolution will thus be a war of conquest, comparable to the Napoleonic wars. Once we have consolidated power anywhere, it is vital that the primary task is to assure the spread of the revolution.
I'm not sure I agree here. Sure, we need to have Europe, North-America and China, - the political, military and economic cores of capitalism - for our project of communism to be successful beyond initial stages and truly leave capitalism behind. How can the rest of the world not follow? And furthermore, say we have states like Bhutan or whatever leaving behind, if they pose no threat, would they jeopardise the project?

From another point of view, I don't think we can style us in the same way as Napoleon: We live in a very different era. With instant communication, near-instant bombers and nuclear arsenals, waging Napoleonic wars is a bad idea. What we need instead is transnational party-movements so, when the revolution comes, we can take power on a continental level, or beyond, instantaneously.