Tim Cornelis
8th December 2013, 16:43
I've read some comments scattered here and there from various texts about the contradictory nature of socialised production and private appropriate, and how producers assuming control over socialised production results in socialism. Is there any particular text which details this, or is there anyone who can cohesively summarise the points or steps?
What I've always struggled with is how workers may continue to operate as independent producers producing commodities -- from immediatist tendencies -- and thus reproduce a sort of self-managed capitalism (as in the urban areas in Catalonia ca. 1937) and the only remedy would be, I think, a committee consisting of the "vanguard of the proletariat" guiding the 'updating' of the social character of production with the socialised production which it had already assumed under capitalism by governing through passive consent, as Bordiga describes here:
The network of Soviets undoubtedly has a dual nature: political and revolutionary on the one hand; economic and constructive on the other. The first aspect is dominant in the early stages, but as the expropriation of the bourgeoisie proceeds, it gradually cedes in importance to the second. Necessity will gradually refine the bodies which are technically competent to fulfil this second function: forms of representation of trade categories and production units will emerge and connect with one another, especially as regards technique and work discipline. But the fundamental political role of the network of workers' councils is based on the historical concept of dictatorship: proletarian interests must be allowed free play in so far as they concern the whole class over and above sectional interests, and the whole of the historical development of the movement for its emancipation. The conditions needed to accomplish all these are basically: 1. the exclusion of the bourgeois from any participation in political activity; 2. the convenient distribution of electors into local constituencies which send delegates to the Congress of Soviets. This body then appoints the Central Executive Committee, and has the task of promulgating the decisions regarding the gradual socialization of the various sectors of the economy.
This remedy, however, does not follow from materialist premises, and is a more conscious remedy stemming from theoretical consideration. In other words, is there a built-in material basis for socialised production under workers' control to not fall back into independent producers exchanging their products? Engels certainly suggests so:
Proletarian Revolution - Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
"complete freedom to work itself out." Engels seems to suggest as if the socialised character works itself out almost 'organically' or 'automatically' as opposed to appointing a committee responsible for guiding the socialisation of property relations and distribution (as per Bordiga's quote).
Is the answer in the critique of Proudhonism (which was denounced as utopian by Marx, though because he wishes to replace money with labour-money which differs from my question I suppose)?
What I've always struggled with is how workers may continue to operate as independent producers producing commodities -- from immediatist tendencies -- and thus reproduce a sort of self-managed capitalism (as in the urban areas in Catalonia ca. 1937) and the only remedy would be, I think, a committee consisting of the "vanguard of the proletariat" guiding the 'updating' of the social character of production with the socialised production which it had already assumed under capitalism by governing through passive consent, as Bordiga describes here:
The network of Soviets undoubtedly has a dual nature: political and revolutionary on the one hand; economic and constructive on the other. The first aspect is dominant in the early stages, but as the expropriation of the bourgeoisie proceeds, it gradually cedes in importance to the second. Necessity will gradually refine the bodies which are technically competent to fulfil this second function: forms of representation of trade categories and production units will emerge and connect with one another, especially as regards technique and work discipline. But the fundamental political role of the network of workers' councils is based on the historical concept of dictatorship: proletarian interests must be allowed free play in so far as they concern the whole class over and above sectional interests, and the whole of the historical development of the movement for its emancipation. The conditions needed to accomplish all these are basically: 1. the exclusion of the bourgeois from any participation in political activity; 2. the convenient distribution of electors into local constituencies which send delegates to the Congress of Soviets. This body then appoints the Central Executive Committee, and has the task of promulgating the decisions regarding the gradual socialization of the various sectors of the economy.
This remedy, however, does not follow from materialist premises, and is a more conscious remedy stemming from theoretical consideration. In other words, is there a built-in material basis for socialised production under workers' control to not fall back into independent producers exchanging their products? Engels certainly suggests so:
Proletarian Revolution - Solution of the contradictions. The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property. By this act, the proletariat frees the means of production from the character of capital they have thus far borne, and gives their socialized character complete freedom to work itself out. Socialized production upon a predetermined plan becomes henceforth possible. The development of production makes the existence of different classes of society thenceforth an anachronism. In proportion as anarchy in social production vanishes, the political authority of the State dies out. Man, at last the master of his own form of social organization, becomes at the same time the lord over Nature, his own master — free.
"complete freedom to work itself out." Engels seems to suggest as if the socialised character works itself out almost 'organically' or 'automatically' as opposed to appointing a committee responsible for guiding the socialisation of property relations and distribution (as per Bordiga's quote).
Is the answer in the critique of Proudhonism (which was denounced as utopian by Marx, though because he wishes to replace money with labour-money which differs from my question I suppose)?