Readings on "after the transition?"

[n0ro]

Hey all,

I am looking for some theoretical readings on what a post-transition society would like. I do not care if they are Orthodox Marxist interpretations, statist, anarchist, etc. I would welcome input from all tendencies.

It seems many of the readings are primarily concerned with critiquing capital -- which is all well and fine -- but only speak vaguely about what a post-capitalist society might look like.

Necessities such as food, shelter, health care, education, etc. would obviously be linked to a deliberate plan where consumption is linked to need, not exchange. But what about more obscure things like, say musical instruments?

Thanks in advance!

[Tim Cornelis]

I think that subject is interesting too, I haven't found a really complete and satisfactory text, so I'm trying to write one myself. Here's some texts on the subject:


Towards a New Socialism (Unorthodox Stalinism);
Workers' Councils and the Economics of a Self-Managed society
Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution
Parecon shit
Towards an Inclusive Democracy (last part of the book);
Anton Pannekoek, Workers' Council
The Organisational Platform of Libertarian Communists and Constructive Anarchy talk about it a bit
Socialism as a Practical Alternative
Maoist Economics: the revolutionary road to communism or something (haven't read it)
After the revolution (too specific to Spain circa 1936)

[n0ro]

Thanks so much! This is a great start.

I am also revisiting Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread. The chapter on luxury gets at some these "auxiliary" wants that exist beyond need.

Anyway, I'll look into these -- thanks!

[oneday]

There's a small amount from Marx in Critique of the Gotha Programme.

[ñángara]

I think actually there hasn't been any transition to a socialist society anywhere. The theory isn't proved by the practice :confused:

[Sibotic]

I think actually there hasn't been any transition to a socialist society anywhere. The theory isn't proved by the practice :confused: That isn't what they were asking about, although that in any case makes little sense, they were asking for discussions of what a socialist society would look like. Obviously, there is space for variation and a degree of humility and fairness concerning the people or person who would make such a revolution, but there were some technical discussions of such in Marx's Capital, in chapter I of Volume I, although that might be phrased strangely and such and the coverage of such aspects is in general cursory. Theory needn't be 'proved' by the practice, however, which in a sense seems irrelevant, obviously Marx for instance could make numerous evident derivations about capitalism being overthrown in the future from what is there without requiring capitalism having the grace to 'prove' his theories by 'practice,' it's not like the theory is just something thrown out there arbitrarily or historical analysis comes from nowhere, or people under socialism shall now have the opportunity to make arbitrary choices between theories when such theories concern the content of socialism. Obviously some things in the OP are irrelevant for socialism and hence might not be discussed as much, nonetheless 'theory' here does not mean hypothesis, unlike say in the 'theory of evolution,' which is called such basically arbitrarily at some point.


For what it's worth, most actual theoretical texts are going to focus more on the nature of this society than envisioning such things in novelistic style, because obviously as communism has been established it would seem redundant to picture it in details or technical accounts as if this picture were necessarily important to the fact that it exists and its establishment was a historical necessity which has now come about.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

I would recommend Preobrazhensky's "The New Economics", Bukharin's "The Economics of the Transitional Period", B&P's "ABC of Communism", Bettelheim's "The Transition to Socialist Economy", Mandel's "In Defence of Socialist Planning", and perhaps other works I'm too tired to think of right now. Of course Marx and Engels talked quite a bit about the socialist society, in the Critique of the Gotha Program and Antiduehring.

As for musical instruments, I don't understand why you're separating them from food, shelter, healthcare etc. All of them are connected to certain human needs - when Marxists talk about production for need, we do not mean that the socialist society will be a giant poorhouse, where the bare biological necessities of human life will be rationed out, but a society where any human need, from the biological necessities to science, to sex, music, culture, in general - the free development of the human person - are satisfied from the social aggregate product freely available to all, produced on the basis of a general, scientific plan of production.

I don't know, this might simply reflect my personal experience, but I've seen a lot of people try to argue for a system where "necessities", meaning the bare biological necessities, are produced according to plan and then either given out freely or, more often, rationed out, but there is a market for "luxury" commodities. And I mean, the one thing I would expect people who call themselves socialists to agree on is that markets are shit, but there you have it, some people still have to kill the Homo Oeconomicus inside their head.

[ñángara]

That isn't what they were asking about..
I don't speak English fluently. What I meant was that "reading about a post-transition society" sounds a little odd to me. Was it that great Lenin didn't read something important about?
Read Xhar-Xhar Binks' post, for instance. It seems he doesn't recognize Preobrazhensky as a theoretical father of Soviet State capitalism: the road to restoration.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Of course I don't recognise Preobrazhensky as the "theoretical father" of "Soviet state capitalism", as I think there was any "state capitalism" in the Soviet Union. Preobrazhensky himself was probably one of the clearest economic thinkers in the RKP(b) - much clearer than Bukharin, even at what is surely the high point of his career (his "left communist" days) for anyone not interested in market "socialism". Both Preobrazhensky and Bukharin wrote about the socialist society, and I think they were more interesting and more correct than awful ParEcon schemes that people used to be fond of, what, four years ago? Five?

And it is important to talk about the socialist society, if nothing then to see for yourself how many people want a market "socialism" and police "socialism".

As for texts, I would also mention "The Spirit of Horsepower" and "Trajectory and catastrophe of capitalist forms" by Bordiga (although I think the latter was not signed by Bordiga, but everyone suspects him of having written it).

[ñángara]

I was in a terrible mood -due to my country's crisis- when I wrote those messages. Indeed, you got to know the basics of Marxism before everything else.

[ckaihatsu]

Without referencing writings, I'll just quickly note that one might conceive of the post-capitalist political economy as being one in which either (certain) things can be collectively produced with a 'gift economy', or else they cannot.

If they can be produced with a sheerly voluntary, 'pay-it-forward' type of social ethos regarding labor -- the gift economy -- then that would be the simplest and easiest method possible. This approach, over the basics, necessarily, and probably over most common items, would depend on the actual overall material conditions present at the time -- whether they're favorable for such or not.

It's the *extents* of this 'gift economy' that interest me, personally -- how far 'out', into what degree of 'obscure goods', might a gift economy function, given no objective impediments -- ?

For example, would the proverbial 'brain surgeon' or 'rocket scientist' be willing to contribute their efforts, gratis, or would all of society be at something of a loss, and find that it has to negotiate societal incentives of some kind to generally benefit from such specific education, training, and expertise -- ?

Or, the collector of irreplaceable cultural artifacts from the past era of capitalism might continue to hold some sway over the rest of society, as enlightened and empowered as everyone might be then -- in a society with no duress or coercion over anyone, would such a person have a 'leg up' on everyone else due to the inescapable specialization that they've carved out for themselves -- ?