Threefold socialization?

[bropasaran]

I've seen something that was proposed by some old social-democrats, I guess it could be called threefold socialization. It's threefold in that it proposes that there should be nationalization, municipalization and cooperativization all toghether, taking in account the scale of various economic units. It would look something like this:

Nationalization would be applied to large-scale infrastructure like transport infrastructure (inter-city transport firms, inter-city roads, railways, cannals, air and water transport), energy (coal, oil and gas extraction and infrastructure, power plants and inter-city electricity grid), communication (internet, phone, mail); also to branches of industry of large importance to everybody like education, health-care, finance; and advanced industry where a few or just one factory is enough to satisfy large-scale demand like the high-tech industry, chemical industry, cotton industry, etc.

Municipalization would be applied to local economic units that are concerned with communal needs like public transport and transport infrastructure, waste management, local water, electricity and gas infrastructure and distribution and similar stuff.

Cooperativization would be applied to production and distribution of more or less smaller scale.

A bunch of this stuff is already in place, so I guess the major difference would be management of economy:

Cooperativizated units would obviously be managed by the workers of the specific cooperativized firms.

Municipalized units would have a representative/ delegative twofold management composed of delegates of the workers in the municipalized companies and representatives of the local population as a whole.

Nationalized units would have a threefold management composed of delegates of the workers in the nationalized companies, representatives of the people as a whole, and representatives of engeneers and technicians who are experts in branches of instustry which are nationalized. Also, nationalized companies management would work together with the local representatives on case by case basis, e.g. about a factory which is in their locality.

What do you think about it?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

"Oh look another way to manage capitalism haven't we heard enough of those?"

[bropasaran]

Oh look, another guy who thinks that militarization of workers and dictatorship of party officials over them is socialism.

[ckaihatsu]

Municipalized units would have a representative/ delegative twofold management composed of delegates of the workers in the municipalized companies and representatives of the local population as a whole.

Nationalized units would have a threefold management composed of delegates of the workers in the nationalized companies, representatives of the people as a whole, and representatives of engeneers and technicians who are experts in branches of instustry which are nationalized.


I'll step into the breach here and proffer that the most glaring problem with this approach is the 'representatives of the local population', and also the 'representatives of engineers and technicians'.

The first dilutes revolutionary political composition into mere populism, and the second dilutes it into technocracy.

Basically it's another 'stakeholder' approach -- any of which leaves the door open to *non-proletarian* agents who will have non-proletarian interests, and will be sitting at the table.

There's no need for equivocation on the question of who should be in control -- certainly the proletariat wouldn't be incapable of considering all of the variables / factors involved, as those of peripheral "stakeholders".

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Oh look, another guy who thinks that militarization of workers and dictatorship of party officials over them is socialism.

You can cry about the evil Bolsheviks until you die of dehydration, but that doesn't change the fact that this "threefold socialisation", which you admit you cribbed from sots-dems, has nothing to do with the socialisation of the means of production, but running some forms of capitalist enterprise (the cooperatives and "municipal" enterprises) in a particularly inefficient fashion and nationalising others under a bourgeois state (as obviously the bourgeois state apparatus has not been smashed), and then running them inefficiently.

Saudi Arabia would be "socialist" by these criteria.

[jookyle]

Social-democracy isn't socialism. This threefold socialization is not socialism. All this plan means is that a social-democratic system is set up where the work place has decentralized management, something "cutting edge" capitalist work places already deal in.

[bropasaran]

I'll step into the breach here and proffer that the most glaring problem with this approach is the 'representatives of the local population', and also the 'representatives of engineers and technicians'.

The first dilutes revolutionary political composition into mere populism, and the second dilutes it into technocracy.
Having in mind the definition of populism as the idea that the interests on the general population are what matters as oppossed the interests of elites- populism turns out to be basically the same thing as libertarian socialism, so sure, populism is great. But being that the model proposes neither exclusive control by representatives of the general population nor exclusive control by representatives of technicians, it is neither "populism" nor technocracy, so maybe it could be said that the model dilutes workers' self-management with "populism" and technocracy, but not into "populism" or technocracy.


Basically it's another 'stakeholder' approach -- any of which leaves the door open to *non-proletarian* agents who will have non-proletarian interests, and will be sitting at the table.
Proletariat fetishization is anti-socialist, because not all wage-workers are working class (managers are part of the ruling class and also proletarians who have extra income based on renting are thereby exploiters) and not all memerb of the working class are wage-workers (people who own their means of production but don't exploit anyone).


You can cry about the evil Bolsheviks until you die of dehydration, but that doesn't change the fact that this "threefold socialisation", which you admit you cribbed from sots-dems, has nothing to do with the socialisation of the means of production,
Social-democracy (mitigated capitalism) is many times closer to socialism then bolshevism is, and this proposed model is many times closer to socialism them social-democracy.


is but running some forms of capitalist enterprise (the cooperatives and "municipal" enterprises)
So not only are you ignorant of what socialism is, you also don't have a clue of what capitalism is. Cooperatives, that is- enterprises that are in possession of and under control of the workers in it, are the basic unit of socialism, and when those cooperatives voluntarily federate into agro-industrial federations that organize geographically and join with the free communes which are the basic political units, municipal in scope, of the libertarian socialist system, they then form the basic unit of feasable socialism, also knows as anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-communism, depending of what mode of distribution the people decide to institute. So, cooperatives, and municipal enterprises that are under worker and popular control, far from having anything to do with capitalism, are in fact the seed and building blocks of socialism.


in a particularly inefficient fashion and nationalising others under a bourgeois state (as obviously the bourgeois state apparatus has not been smashed)
If by the term "bourgeois" you mean capitalist, you would be wrong, because there exist no capitalist in the proposed model, if you mean something else, you would have to define it so we know what you mean.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Good grief. Basically, Sotionov, nobody cares about the petite bourgeoisie. They're a sad, doomed class that is of no concern to communists. And communism is the social control of the means of production. Control by the entire society, not this Pabloist fantasy of the workers controlling "their own" means of production.

[Tim Cornelis]

Proletariat fetishization is anti-socialist, because not all wage-workers are working class (managers are part of the ruling class and also proletarians who have extra income based on renting are thereby exploiters) and not all memerb of the working class are wage-workers (people who own their means of production but don't exploit anyone).

If by 'proletarian fetishization' you mean recognising that the proletariat has the social power to overthrow capitalism (which was implicit in ckaihatsu's argument), then no 'proletarian fetishization' is not in any way anti-socialist. A manager is not part of the proletariat, and you cannot be simultaneously ruling class and proletarian unless a workers' state has been established.


Social-democracy (mitigated capitalism) is many times closer to socialism then bolshevism is, and this proposed model is many times closer to socialism them social-democracy.

(than*)

Neither Bolshevism or social-democracy are/were socialist. Socialism is not a quantity you can have more or less of. So a model is not 'more' or 'less' socialism either, it's socialist or it's not -- and your model is not.


So not only are you ignorant of what socialism is, you also don't have a clue of what capitalism is. Cooperatives, that is- enterprises that are in possession of and under control of the workers in it, are the basic unit of socialism, and when those cooperatives voluntarily federate into agro-industrial federations that organize geographically and join with the free communes which are the basic political units, municipal in scope, of the libertarian socialist system, they then form the basic unit of feasable socialism, also knows as anarcho-collectivism or anarcho-communism, depending of what mode of distribution the people decide to institute. So, cooperatives, and municipal enterprises that are under worker and popular control, far from having anything to do with capitalism, are in fact the seed and building blocks of socialism.

Cooperative labour is indeed the type of labour universal in socialism, but workers' cooperatives operating as independent enterprises is not. Socialism is also based on social ownership, ownership by society as a whole, as opposed to fragmented collections of workers. As long as those exist there is commodity-monetary exchange required to facilitate production. There is private property as the enterprises are isolated, there is (generalised) commodity production, and profits turned to capital. Hence, there is self-managed capitalism.


If by the term "bourgeois" you mean capitalist, you would be wrong, because there exist no capitalist in the proposed model, if you mean something else, you would have to define it so we know what you mean.

Municipal ownership has always been and can only be owned by a local administrative division of the bourgeois state.

[bropasaran]

Sotionov, Pabloism? Whatever.

What does "petite bourgeoise" mean? I haven't actually seen it ever being used as a term of rational discurse, but always as pointless label that is suppossed to discredit someone without puting forth any arguments. That's what's sad.

Communism can only come about by workers who control "their own" means of production voluntarily federating and establishing communism, like in the Spanish Revolution, where among the collectivized communities, less then 5% percent was fully collectivized, in all other communities, there were some workers in their farm or workshop who didn't want to federate, and that was fine because they didn't exploit anyone, they traded among each other and bartered with the federations around them.

If communism ("communism") is to be imposed, then that woud be just, as Malatesta said- the most detestable tyrrany that the human mind can concieve. I say "communism", of course, because such a tyrrany (of the majority, as the cliche says) would be the opposite of the emancipation of the working people, it would just turn the majority into oppressors and a minority in the oppressed.

[Tim Cornelis]

Communism can only come about by workers who control "their own" means of production voluntarily federating and establishing communism, like in the Spanish Revolution, where among the collectivized communities, less then 5% percent was fully collectivized, in all other communities, there were some workers in their farm or workshop who didn't want to federate, and that was fine because they didn't exploit anyone, they traded among each other and bartered with the federations around them.

The Spanish Revolution showed a flaw in anarchism, precisely that type of voluntary federalism. The urban areas of Catalonia and elsewhere were dominated by markets and commodity exchange. You cannot surpass that on that basis, hence why you need a voluntary centralism where economic workers' associations are subservient to a central assembly of all workers' associations, and these in their turn subservient to political workers' councils or other such organs of workers' power and their central assembly. If you have independent enterprises and workshops trading, exchanging, and bartering you have the seeds for the reproduction of capitalism. You need to make sectional interests subservient to class interests as a whole. So no, communism cannot come about by workers controlling their own independent enterprises, this reproduces a self-managed capitalism based on commodity exchange. Communism comes about through socialisation, social ownership, which is ownership by society as a whole as in common property, or by a workers' republic, controlled from top to bottom by (revolutionary) workers on the basis of voluntary centralism.

[ckaihatsu]

Having in mind the definition of populism as the idea that the interests on the general population are what matters as oppossed the interests of elites


Okay, I agree with this definition of 'populism'.





- populism turns out to be basically the same thing as libertarian socialism,


Generally the term tends to apply more to a philosophy, strategy, or movement, rather than to an entire *political program* -- if you want to equate 'populism' with 'libertarian socialism' that's certainly well within your prerogative.





so sure, populism is great. But being that the model proposes neither exclusive control by representatives of the general population nor exclusive control by representatives of technicians, it is neither "populism" nor technocracy,




so maybe it could be said that the model dilutes workers' self-management with "populism" and technocracy, but not into "populism" or technocracy.


Yes, you're correct on this detail.





Basically it's another 'stakeholder' approach -- any of which leaves the door open to *non-proletarian* agents who will have non-proletarian interests, and will be sitting at the table.





Proletariat fetishization is anti-socialist, because not all wage-workers are working class (managers are part of the ruling class and also proletarians who have extra income based on renting are thereby exploiters) and not all memerb of the working class are wage-workers (people who own their means of production but don't exploit anyone).


You're insinuating that I'm fetishizing the proletariat -- I'm not. I'll reiterate that it's the proletariat as a whole that should be in control of society's production, and that such control should not be diluted by the inclusion of lesser 'populist' and 'technocratic' interests.

[bropasaran]

If by 'proletarian fetishization' you mean recognising that the proletariat has the social power to overthrow capitalism (which was implicit in ckaihatsu's argument),
Which it doesn't. The working class does.


A manager is not part of the proletariat,
Managers are wage-workers, that is- proletarians. And they are yet a part of the ruling class together with other technocrats, capitalists, and politicians.


and you cannot be simultaneously ruling class and proletarian unless a workers' state has been established.
You can be ruling class and proletarian- by being a technocrat (manager, bureaucrat). And the proletarians that are part of the working class as oppossed to the ruling class, if the workers' state were to be established, they would be deproletarized, and there would be no ruling class, the workers would have been emancipated.


Neither Bolshevism or social-democracy are/were socialist. Socialism is not a quantity you can have more or less of. So a model is not 'more' or 'less' socialism either, it's socialist or it's not -- and your model is not.
I didn't say it's more or less socialism, I was talking about closer or farther from socialism. So, feudalism is closer to socialism then slavery, capitalism is closer to socialism then feudalism, mitigated capitalism (social-democracy) is closer to socialism then unmitigated capitalism. Bolshevism is somewhere about the distance of feudalism, if you're an urban worker under bolshevik rule, you would be better in unmitigated capitalism, if you were a rural worker under bolshevik rule, you would be better in feudalism.


Socialism is also based on social ownership, ownership by society as a whole, as opposed to fragmented collections of workers.
No, it's, not. This is just typical nonsense comming from people who are ignorant of Proudhon's fundametnal contribution to socialism. Socialism is not based on social ownership, or any ownership, it's based on abolition of ownership (/property) and substituting it with possession. And being that possession is a legal (/formal / de jure) recognition of a de facto state, and being that, no matter what Hegel and his successors (corporatocrats, fascists and bolsheviks) say - there are no organic enteties (sets of individuals that are greater them the sum of their parts, with rights superseding the individuals that constitute them), but only individuals and groups of individuals, there can be no "social possession", and therefore socialism is necessarily based on "fragmented" possession, which is of fundamental importance because it automatically precludes any possibility of oppression or exploitation being established.


As long as those exist there is commodity-monetary exchange required to facilitate production. There is private property as the enterprises are isolated, there is (generalised) commodity production, and profits turned to capital. Hence, there is self-managed capitalism.
If there is commodity/ money distribution, but there is no exploitation- then there is no capital, no capitalists and no capitalism; anarcho-individualism and anarcho-mutualism, even though they are not feasable in practice, are socialist systems, not capitalistic ones.

[synthesis]

Populism is a tactic, not an ideology.

[bropasaran]

The Spanish Revolution showed a flaw in anarchism, precisely that type of voluntary federalism. The urban areas of Catalonia and elsewhere were dominated by markets and commodity exchange.
Afaik, that's not true, in urban collectivized communities they had communism mixed not with with markets, but with collectivism, which is a planned system, markets as a secondary system to communistic collectivization were mostly present in the rural collectivized communities.


If you have independent enterprises and workshops trading, exchanging, and bartering you have the seeds for the reproduction of capitalism.
I agree with the sentance, but not with what I supposse you ment by it, being that I'm pretty sure you don't know what capitalism is. If there is no wage-labor and no renting- there is no capitalism.

As I say, I agree with the sentence, markets do present a danger of reverting to capitalism, but what kind of danger and of what scope? In any case- there are two options, either you tolerate the fringe elements that don't want to join the collectivist or communist federations and try and win them over by example of efficiency and well-being in one's system, and thus have a socialism with a minute (fringe derivative of the fringe) possibility of capitalism re-emerging (in that fringe, not in society in general, being that the general society can react to the initial seed of re-emergance of capitalism and stop it), or the second option- you impose collectivism or communism onto the dissenting minority and thus forfeit the legitimacy of being an emancipatory system.

There is simply no alternative to voluntarily organization, not if we want socialism, which is an emancipatory and a libertarian system. If one wan't to impose "communism" and thus wants the most detestable tyrrany that a human mind can conceive, sure, people can want whatever, but that's not socialism (and thereby also not it's sub-type communism).


You're insinuating that I'm fetishizing the proletariat -- I'm not. I'll reiterate that it's the proletariat as a whole that should be in control of society's production, and that such control should not be diluted by the inclusion of lesser 'populist' and 'technocratic' interests.
You say you're not, but then you do it again in the next sentence. Proletariat, being a group of people that is not the same as the working class (as I said, there are proletarians that are not the working class, but ruling class, and there are members of the working class who are not proletarians) should not be in control of society's production.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm finding it interesting that, from your own words, you're defining a Proudhonian socialism as one that recognizes a state apparatus:


'Socialism is [...] based on [...] substituting [ownership] with possession.'

'And [...] possession is [...] recognition of a de facto state'





Socialism is not based on social ownership, or any ownership, it's based on abolition of ownership (/property) and substituting it with possession.




And being that possession is a legal (/formal / de jure) recognition of a de facto state, [...]


And here's a discrediting of two subsets of anarchism:


'[A]narcho-individualism and anarcho-mutualism, [...] are not feasable in practice'





[A]narcho-individualism and anarcho-mutualism, even though they are not feasable in practice, are socialist systems, not capitalistic ones.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Proletariat, being a group of people that is not the same as the working class (as I said, there are proletarians that are not the working class, but ruling class, and there are members of the working class who are not proletarians) should not be in control of society's production.

(Emphasis mine.)

And you should be restricted.

[ckaihatsu]

You're insinuating that I'm fetishizing the proletariat -- I'm not. I'll reiterate that it's the proletariat as a whole that should be in control of society's production, and that such control should not be diluted by the inclusion of lesser 'populist' and 'technocratic' interests.





You say you're not, but then you do it again in the next sentence. Proletariat, being a group of people that is not the same as the working class (as I said, there are proletarians that are not the working class, but ruling class, and there are members of the working class who are not proletarians) should not be in control of society's production.


For the sake of this discussion alone, so as to entertain your preferences over terminology, you may replace the term 'working class' for 'proletariat' throughout.

[synthesis]

(Emphasis mine.)

And you should be restricted.

I'm not sure why he hasn't been banned yet, but for the time being I've found that putting him on your ignore list works quite well for improving your Revleft surfing experience.

[bropasaran]

I'm finding it interesting that, from your own words, you're defining a Proudhonian socialism as one that recognizes a state apparatus:


'Socialism is [...] based on [...] substituting [ownership] with possession.'

'And [...] possession is [...] recognition of a de facto state'
By "de facto state" I mean de facto condition, mode of being, not state apparatus. :grin: I was saying that socialism is based on possession as the de jure notion that recognizes that something is de facto in the state of (continued and intended) possession.


For the sake of this discussion alone, so as to entertain your preferences over terminology, you may replace the term 'working class' for 'proletariat' throughout.
Proletarians are wage-workers, working class are the (non-oppressors and) non-exploiters, those are two sets of people that do overlap, but are in no way the same set.


(Emphasis mine.)

And you should be restricted.
I should be restricted for rejecting state-capitalist obfuscations? My view is very clear- it is not the proletariat that should control production, it is the working class that should do it, and I have explained my view in saying that not all proletarians are workers and not all workers are proletarians.

[jookyle]

It's funny that you keep criticizing the bolsheviks when you're the only one who has brought them up in this discussion. What's even more funny is that you seem to lack the political,social,economical, and historical knowledge to defend your point yet you defend it anyways with great passion and aggression. You argue your point like someone on Fox News would.

And to be honest, because of your lack of actual explanation, I still don't understand how this system you've proposed is new. After reading all of your posts in this thread I don't see how this is any different from any other social-democratic system other than the emphasis on co-ops.

[Tim Cornelis]

Which it doesn't. The working class does.

I disagree. As Bukharin describes in Historical Materialism:


1. Such a class must be one that has been economically exploited and politically oppressed under capitalist society; otherwise, the class will have no reason for resisting the capitalist order; it will not rebel under any circumstances.
2. It follows - to put the matter crudely - that it must be a poor class; for otherwise it will have no opportunity to feel its poverty as compared with the wealth of other classes.
3. It must be a producing class; for, if it is not, i.e., if it has no immediate share in the production of values, it may at best destroy, being unable to produce, create, organize.
4. It must be a class that is not bound by private property, for a class whose material existence is based on private property will naturally be inclined to increase its property, not to abolish private property, as is demanded by communism.
5. This class must be one which has been welded together by the conditions of its existence and its common labour, its members working side by side. Otherwise, it will be incapable of desiring - not to mention constructing - a society that is the embodiment of the social labour of comrades. Furthermore, such a class could not wage an organized struggle or create a new state power.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/picture.php?albumid=1364&pictureid=11756


Managers are wage-workers, that is- proletarians. And they are yet a part of the ruling class together with other technocrats, capitalists, and politicians.

I don't consider them proletarians because they manage capital and workers and direct the process of commodity production.


You can be ruling class and proletarian- by being a technocrat (manager, bureaucrat). And the proletarians that are part of the working class as oppossed to the ruling class, if the workers' state were to be established, they would be deproletarized, and there would be no ruling class, the workers would have been emancipated.

You cannot be ruling class and proletarian, they are by definition the exploited class and exploiting class, separate classes and opposing classes. But yes, proletarians would abolish their class position through the workers' state.


I didn't say it's more or less socialism, I was talking about closer or farther from socialism. So, feudalism is closer to socialism then [sic!] slavery, capitalism is closer to socialism then [sic!] feudalism, mitigated capitalism (social-democracy) is closer to socialism then [sic!] unmitigated capitalism. Bolshevism is somewhere about the distance of feudalism, if you're an urban worker under bolshevik rule, you would be better in unmitigated capitalism, if you were a rural worker under bolshevik rule, you would be better in feudalism.

Yeah but this makes less sense. Because first you suggest as if slavery is further from socialism in historical development than feudalism, then you mention social-democracy and bolshevism which are not modes of production in historical human development, which suggests you think social-democracy is either 'more socialist' or a stepping stone toward socialism.


No, it's, not. This is just typical nonsense comming from people who are ignorant of Proudhon's fundametnal contribution to socialism. Socialism is not based on social ownership, or any ownership, it's based on abolition of ownership (/property) and substituting it with possession. And being that possession is a legal (/formal / de jure) recognition of a de facto state, and being that, no matter what Hegel and his successors (corporatocrats, fascists and bolsheviks) say - there are no organic enteties (sets of individuals that are greater them the sum of their parts, with rights superseding the individuals that constitute them), but only individuals and groups of individuals, there can be no "social possession", and therefore socialism is necessarily based on "fragmented" possession, which is of fundamental importance because it automatically precludes any possibility of oppression or exploitation being established.

All this is semantic sophism. Socialism is based on social ownership, all of society, all of humanity, will own all productive resources. Possession, social ownership, there is no dichotomy, or at best a false one.


If there is commodity/ money distribution, but there is no exploitation- then there is no capital, no capitalists and no capitalism; anarcho-individualism and anarcho-mutualism, even though they are not feasable in practice, are socialist systems, not capitalistic ones.

But there is. Value creates more value. Workers of cooperatives use the profits derived from exchange for the buying of additional commodities to reproduce their existence and generate additional profits, i.e. capital. And of course, without social control over economic conduct as a whole, the market dictates still and the logic of mutualism becomes that of self-exploitation: compelled to work longer, harder, invested more and more of revenue into reinvestment and capital, leaving less for wages. Regardless, in your transitional model it's no problem if workers' enterprises remain independent, and their autonomy is encouraged. As such, commodity-monetary exchange between enterprises continues, and as such capitalism continues, with all its adverse effects (unemployment [and as such the potential for wage slavery], income disparity and poverty).

To surpass capitalism, again, we need a workers' republic based on voluntary centralism where organs of workers' power subjugate themselves to the central assembly of all revolutionary organs and workers.


(Emphasis mine.)

And you should be restricted.

Fuck off mate. He's saying CEOs shouldn't be in charge. It's like you have a pathological need to distort other people's arguments.

[Tim Cornelis]

Afaik, that's not true, in urban collectivized communities they had communism mixed not with with markets, but with collectivism, which is a planned system, markets as a secondary system to communistic collectivization were mostly present in the rural collectivized communities.

I think Bryan Caplan, a right-libertarian, makes some sense here:


Suppose that there were a standard capitalist economy in which a class of wealthy capitalists owned the means of production and hired the rest of the population as wage laborers. Through extraordinary effort, the workers in each factory save enough money to buy out their employers. The capitalists' shares of stock change hands, so that the workers of each firm now own and control their workplace. Question: Is this still a "capitalist society"? Of course; there is still private property in the means of production, it simply has different owners than before. The economy functions the same as it always did: the workers at each firm do their best to enrich themselves by selling desired products to consumers; there is inequality due to both ability and luck; firms compete for customers. Nothing changes but the recipient of the dividends.

This simple thought experiment reveals the dilemma of the anarcho-socialist. If the workers seize control of their plants and run them as they wish, capitalism remains. The only way to suppress what socialists most despise about capitalism - greed, inequality, and competition - is to force the worker-owners to do something they are unlikely to do voluntarily. To do so requires a state, an organization with sufficient firepower to impose unselfishness, equality, and coordination upon recalcitrant workers. One can call the state a council, a committee, a union, or by any other euphemism, but the simple truth remains: socialism requires a state.

A priori reasoning alone establishes this, but empiricists may be skeptical. Surely there is some "middle way" which is both anarchist and socialist? To the contrary; the experience of Spanish Anarchism could give no clearer proof that insofar as collectivization was anarchist, it was capitalist, and insofar as collectivization was socialist, it was statist. The only solution to this dilemma, if solution it may be called, is to retain the all-powerful state, but use a new word to designate it.

The interesting thing about the economy of anarchist Spain is that it brightly illustrated both horns of my dilemma. The cities became capitalist and anarchist; the country became socialist and statist.

Now it's not entirely accurate, but it essentially shows the need for a workers' state, a semi-state ("a council, a committee") to overcome this problem of reproducing capitalist logic, market exchange.


An overwhelming body of evidence from a wide variety of sources confirms that when the workers really controlled their factories, capitalism merely changed it form; it did not cease to exist. Summarizing a CNT- UGT textile conference, Fraser explains that, "experience had already demonstrated that it was necessary to proceed rapidly towards a total socialization of the industry if ownership of the means of production was not once more to lead to man's exploitation of man. The works councils did not in practice know what to do with the means of production and lacked a plan for the whole industry; as far as the market was concerned, the decree had changed none of the basic capitalist defects 'except that whereas before it was the owners who competed amongst themselves it is now the workers.'"[130] Bolloten records that, "According to Daniel Guerin, an authority on the Spanish Anarchist movement, 'it appeared... that workers' self-management might lead to a kind of egotistical particularlism, each enterprise being concerned solely with its own interests... As a result, the excess revenues of the bus company were used to support the street cars, which were less profitable.' But, in actuality, there were many cases of inequality that could not be so easily resolved."[131]

So we see that in the absence of voluntary centralism, sectional interests take precedent over class interests, and it reproduces capitalism. Another example for the need for central control:


Inequality existed within collectives as well as between them. Invariably, the participants attribute the tolerance of inequality to the fact that it was impossible for one collective to impose equal wages unless the other collectives did the same. As Fraser summarizes the testimony of CNT militant Luis Santacana, "But the 'single' wage could not be introduced in his plant because it was not made general throughout the industry. Women in the factory continued to receive wages between 15 per cent and 20 per cent lower than men, and manual workers less than technicians."[137] In other words, it was impossible to impose equality so long as there was competition for workers. If one firm refused to pay extra to skilled workers, they would quit and find a job where egalitarian norms were not so strictly observed.

Abraham Guillen also advocates market exchange in an anarchist economy based on the experience of Anarchist Catalonia.


I agree with the sentance, but not with what I supposse you ment by it, being that I'm pretty sure you don't know what capitalism is. If there is no wage-labor and no renting- there is no capitalism.

As I say, I agree with the sentence, markets do present a danger of reverting to capitalism, but what kind of danger and of what scope? In any case- there are two options, either you tolerate the fringe elements that don't want to join the collectivist or communist federations and try and win them over by example of efficiency and well-being in one's system, and thus have a socialism with a minute (fringe derivative of the fringe) possibility of capitalism re-emerging (in that fringe, not in society in general, being that the general society can react to the initial seed of re-emergance of capitalism and stop it), or the second option- you impose collectivism or communism onto the dissenting minority and thus forfeit the legitimacy of being an emancipatory system.

There is simply no alternative to voluntarily organization, not if we want socialism, which is an emancipatory and a libertarian system. If one wan't to impose "communism" and thus wants the most detestable tyrrany that a human mind can conceive, sure, people can want whatever, but that's not socialism (and thereby also not it's sub-type communism).

Well I disagree, but I'm going to sleep. The alternative is centralism.

[ckaihatsu]

My position:





The problem with a federated system, though, is that it requires *lateral* agreements, for each and every linkage of cooperation over production. This would constrain production on the basis of geography and would also encourage competition over those partnerships.

It's because of this lack of centralization that decentralization is effectively the same as market socialism:





[T]here could very well be *intense* inter-firm competition, with each firm's workers mercilessly self-exploiting themselves for the sake of their respective company, in order to make (syndicalist) profits. It would be like the nation-state competition of today, but initially starting on a small-scale, patchwork, feudal-like basis.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I'll step into the breach here and proffer that the most glaring problem with this approach is the 'representatives of the local population', and also the 'representatives of engineers and technicians'.

The first dilutes revolutionary political composition into mere populism, and the second dilutes it into technocracy.

Basically it's another 'stakeholder' approach -- any of which leaves the door open to *non-proletarian* agents who will have non-proletarian interests, and will be sitting at the table.

There's no need for equivocation on the question of who should be in control -- certainly the proletariat wouldn't be incapable of considering all of the variables / factors involved, as those of peripheral "stakeholders".

I have pointed out the need for stakeholder co-management (not cheap "co-determination" or equally cheap "workers control") to precede the implementation of systemic collective worker management, though.

If anything, the OP above doesn't consider the right stakeholders, let alone enough of them, for every level and sector, like suppliers and "creditors" (even if under public ownership). Even with systemic collective worker management, there's also systemic collective worker regulation to consider (because "management" can run afoul of "regulation" or take advantage of weaknesses in the latter).

[synthesis]

Oh God, DNZ and Sotionov debating one another, everyone get ready for a divide-by-zero Mensheviki clusterfuck.

[ckaihatsu]

I have pointed out the need for stakeholder co-management (not cheap "co-determination" or equally cheap "workers control) to precede the implementation of systemic collective worker management, though.

If anything, the OP above doesn't consider the right stakeholders, let alone enough of them, for every level and sector, like suppliers and "creditors" (even if under public ownership). Even with systemic collective worker management, there's also systemic collective worker regulation to consider (because "management" can run afoul of "regulation" or take advantage of weaknesses in the latter).


I wholly disagree with your concessionary line here.

Again:





There's no need for equivocation on the question of who should be in control -- certainly the proletariat wouldn't be incapable of considering all of the variables / factors involved, as those of peripheral "stakeholders".

[Die Neue Zeit]

CK:

1) I don't think it's concessionary. For example, workers-as-producers tend to have different immediate production interests than workers-as-consumers and their immediate demand interests. Workers-as-producers also tend to have different immediate production interests than workers-as-suppliers and their immediate supply interests.

2) In all this, it's clear who's calling the shots, but the specific expressions are not expressed homogeneously.

3) "Control" is not enough.

[ckaihatsu]

CK:

1) I don't think it's concessionary. For example, workers-as-producers tend to have different immediate production interests than workers-as-consumers and their immediate demand interests.


This is like saying that apples are different than oranges -- you haven't made any point here.





Workers-as-producers also tend to have different immediate production interests than workers-as-suppliers and their immediate supply interests.


This is a false dichotomy -- why would you make a categorical distinction according to the work done -- ? Whether workers are blue-collar, are sourcing materials from nature, or are white-collar, they're all still workers in their relationship to the means of production.





2) In all this, it's clear who's calling the shots, but the specific expressions are not expressed homogeneously.


You're not being clear here.





3) "Control" is not enough.


Of *course* it is -- that's the whole point of a revolutionary politics, to not let production be ultimately managed according to the vicissitudes of the market mechanism. Workers' control is synonymous with conscious, collective direction-setting on the part of those doing the actual work.

[Die Neue Zeit]

This is a false dichotomy -- why would you make a categorical distinction according to the work done -- ? Whether workers are blue-collar, are sourcing materials from nature, or are white-collar, they're all still workers in their relationship to the means of production.

I'm not making distinctions, comrade. I'm only emphasizing them. "Workers control," among other issues, tends to be immediate producer-focused.


You're not being clear here.

Workers as a whole are still calling the shots, whether they're workers-as-producers, workers-as-consumers, workers-as-suppliers, etc. "Specific expressions" refers to the different worker stakeholders I mentioned.


Of *course* it is -- that's the whole point of a revolutionary politics, to not let production be ultimately managed according to the vicissitudes of the market mechanism. Workers' control is synonymous with conscious, collective direction-setting on the part of those doing the actual work.

Control and direction are different. In fact, each of them are only different functions of management.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm not making distinctions, comrade. I'm only emphasizing them. "Workers control," among other issues, tends to be immediate producer-focused.



Workers as a whole are still calling the shots, whether they're workers-as-producers, workers-as-consumers, workers-as-suppliers, etc. "Specific expressions" refers to the different worker stakeholders I mentioned.



Control and direction are different. In fact, each of them are only different functions of management.


Okay, I see where you're coming from, DNZ....

Let's go back to your original point:





I have pointed out the need for stakeholder co-management (not cheap "co-determination" or equally cheap "workers control) to precede the implementation of systemic collective worker management, though.

If anything, the OP above doesn't consider the right stakeholders, let alone enough of them, for every level and sector, like suppliers and "creditors" (even if under public ownership). Even with systemic collective worker management, there's also systemic collective worker regulation to consider (because "management" can run afoul of "regulation" or take advantage of weaknesses in the latter).


Basically you're delineating specific *aspects*, or roles, that would exist under an umbrella workers' collective determination of social production, and you're calling these various distinctions 'stakeholders' -- if I have you correctly.

So you're maintaining that *all* of these various kinds of stakeholders are still, at base, workers, and that that's why even though they're called 'stakeholders' they all remain proletarians.

My concern -- and the reason for my contentiousness -- is that all 'stakeholders' may *not necessarily* be proletarians, especially in present-day real-world conditions. If some consumers, for example, happen to be considered active stakeholders in a given context, but their work is not within the same purview, that would mean that they do not fit your definition of a worker-stakeholder.

Really, then, 'stakeholder' is a problematic construction because it necessitates that all workers/consumers/co-managers/stakeholders/whatever would have to be *localist* in geographic scope so that all of these distinct roles may appropriately complement one another under the same umbrella -- a local, self-contained economy.

[ckaihatsu]

Really, then, 'stakeholder' is a problematic construction because it necessitates that all workers/consumers/co-managers/stakeholders/whatever would have to be *localist* in geographic scope so that all of these distinct roles may appropriately complement one another under the same umbrella -- a local, self-contained economy.


Moreover, DNZ, the term 'stakeholder' is *redundant* if we're talking about the same kind of empowerment of workers, as in 'worker-stakeholder' -- and I think we are.

And, as I've mentioned, if the scope of participation happens to extend *at all* beyond the boundaries of a circumscribed locality, then the 'worker-stakeholder' term is no longer valid, because of the geographic complication.

I would liken your layout, then, to this model of mine, with an accompanying critique that applies to your construction as well:


Rotation system of work roles

http://s6.postimage.org/6pho0fbot/2403306060046342459_Gtc_Sd_P_fs.jpg (http://postimage.org/image/6pho0fbot/)





[E]ven though it's moneyless, in practice it would tend to be too *inflexible* and *restrictive* for the participants since they would be "stuck" both economically and politically in it, due to the economic aspects and political aspects being *fused together* as one and the same.

(In other words, if everyone in the work-role rotation basically approved of its 'politics' -- what it's producing -- they may *not necessarily* like its *economics*, meaning what they're getting from that production, in regards to their own personal needs. And, obversely, if a participant happened to like the work-role rotation *economically*, meaning what they're getting personally from the group's collective production, they may not also like it *politically*, in terms of that same output for the greater public good. Either way they'd basically be stuck having to "like" the output both on a societal level *and* on a personal level, due to its inherent inflexibility.)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Basically you're delineating specific *aspects*, or roles, that would exist under an umbrella workers' collective determination of social production, and you're calling these various distinctions 'stakeholders' -- if I have you correctly.

So you're maintaining that *all* of these various kinds of stakeholders are still, at base, workers, and that that's why even though they're called 'stakeholders' they all remain proletarians.

Actually, stakeholder co-management is to economic production what "dual power" is to political struggle. You are correct in your concern. "Stakeholder" without class adjectives can involve "shareholder activism" by petit-bourgeois elements.

However, systemic collective worker management, in which there are different groups of worker-class stakeholders, would solve that concern.


Really, then, 'stakeholder' is a problematic construction because it necessitates that all workers/consumers/co-managers/stakeholders/whatever would have to be *localist* in geographic scope so that all of these distinct roles may appropriately complement one another under the same umbrella -- a local, self-contained economy.

Not at all. Supply chain management, for example, is very global. Workers-as-suppliers can have a more far-reaching interest than workers-as-immediate-producers.

[ckaihatsu]

Actually, stakeholder co-management is to economic production what "dual power" is to political struggle.


Okay.





You are correct in your concern. "Stakeholder" without class adjectives can involve "shareholder activism" by petit-bourgeois elements.

However, systemic collective worker management, in which there are different groups of worker-class stakeholders, would solve that concern.


Okay, good.





Really, then, 'stakeholder' is a problematic construction because it necessitates that all workers/consumers/co-managers/stakeholders/whatever would have to be *localist* in geographic scope so that all of these distinct roles may appropriately complement one another under the same umbrella -- a local, self-contained economy.





Not at all. Supply chain management, for example, is very global. Workers-as-suppliers can have a more far-reaching interest than workers-as-immediate-producers.


Okay -- I understand this in the abstract, but my remaining concern, then, would be about the *economics* of such. Are you envisioning a gift economy for all of this, or might there have to be some kind of formalization of different types of labor hours -- ?

[Comrade #138672]

I do not think that "the people as a whole" needs representation, because this would entail the representation of the bourgeoisie as well. Enabling the bourgeoisie would be harmful to the revolution. We might as well arm them with guns, to be fair.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Okay -- I understand this in the abstract, but my remaining concern, then, would be about the *economics* of such. Are you envisioning a gift economy for all of this, or might there have to be some kind of formalization of different types of labor hours -- ?

I'm sticking to my guns on labour-based compensation. Gift economics is too niche to be sustainable except where scarcity is non-existent.

[ckaihatsu]

I'm sticking to my guns on labour-based compensation.




Gift economics is too niche to be sustainable except where scarcity is non-existent.


I agree.

I know we've been across this terrain in past years, but if you'd like to elaborate on how a post-capitalist 'labor-based compensation' might be done, please feel free.

I happen to be critical of *any* exchangeability of labor for material compensation, since such is tantamount to commodification.





I'll contend that I have developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.




http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673