Monopoly of Industries in Socialism

[The Grapes of Wrath]

This is my first real question posted on this site, so forgive me if it is long winded or in the wrong section, althought I believe "Theory" to be the correct place for it. If it is not, I kindly ask the administration to move it to its proper place, and I apologize in advance.

...

I read a book a few years ago called "The Economic Theory of a Socialist Economy" by a guy named Burnham Beckwith, published in 1949. Mr. Beckwith seems to emphasize the theory of a nationwide government-run monopoly (or "trusts" as he calls them) of all industries. They of course are broken up between heavy industry trust, food industry trust, etc etc, but still are solely controlled by the government (whether elected or not).

Since I do not consider myself an extreme authoritarian, I found this kind of alarming, while at the same time, I understood his position. Now, this may have been instituted in the Soviet Union, and in most other "socialist" nations, but do you agree with it? Whether the monopoly be government run, or union (syndicalist) run?

Or do you believe there is another way of organizing industry, such as through a confederation, or else, simple local monopolized? I mean, I can see how having 3 different mechanic shops with different owners, whether workers or capitalists, in a town can be wasteful. But at the same time, how could a monopoly not buckle under its own weight and eventually lead to a powerful worker/government-owned big business/industrial complex with no regard to the community as a whole?

So I throw this to you, the community. Do you feel that a monopoly of industry (or any industry) would be good or necessary under socialism? whether it be libertarian, authoritarian, or democratic socialism? Why? Any ideas of how it could be established and operated, while also being kept from growing too strong and creating an effective "monopoly" of power that could spell disaster for the revolution? If you don't believe it is necessary or proper, then why not?

Thanks for your time.

TGOW

[enigma2517]

Monopoly and consolidation can be, but are not necessarily, the same thing. Monopoly of industry COULD result from a socialist movement. Even though the USSR was technically state-capitalist it can still serve as an example of this. However, the case presented by the successes of anarcho-syndicalists in Spain is much more convincing.

Through direct democracy workers obtained a solid grip over the production and distribution of their products. Workplaces were indeed, as you mentioned, union/syndicalist run. The government had little or no say. All economic action was coordinated through confederations. Solidarity without the centralized power and hierarchy. Nothing was really needed to equalize the collectives or keep one from growing to be too powerful. True communist thinking made people realize that they are only as strong as their weakest so many workers gladly pledged to transfer and help out other weaker collectives.

Either way, it doesn't seem like we have any use for an extremely monopolized, authoritarian control over the economy. In fact, some "healthy competition" is even neccessary in my view. When you create one big company people start to lose incentive for working. Allowing each collective to function on its own would allow the social conditions necessary to be created so that one could compete in the sporty way, as in, man we don't want to be labelled as a bunch of fuck-ups. Also, if one collective isn't doing its job other collectives could just see a reason to stop sending them any more raw resources. Where as in a Soviet like system they would insist on keeping ineffective and unproductive practices going no matter what. Probably just hire more workers or something ;)

To summarize, no we don't need any kind of monopolization of industry because history has shown us that a different (confederation) approach is more effective. Given the oppertunity, ordinary people do have the ability to make the best choice.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

Originally posted by The Grapes of [email protected] 22 2004, 08:06 PM
I read a book a few years ago called "The Economic Theory of a Socialist Economy" by a guy named Burnham Beckwith, published in 1949. Mr. Beckwith seems to emphasize the theory of a nationwide government-run monopoly (or "trusts" as he calls them) of all industries. They of course are broken up between heavy industry trust, food industry trust, etc etc, but still are solely controlled by the government (whether elected or not).

Since I do not consider myself an extreme authoritarian, I found this kind of alarming, while at the same time, I understood his position. Now, this may have been instituted in the Soviet Union, and in most other "socialist" nations, but do you agree with it? Whether the monopoly be government run, or union (syndicalist) run?
Well, first of all, you have to remember that contrary to all the capitalist propaganda, the Soviet economy was actually incredibly efficient and productive from about 1927 to around 1970. Of course, it began stagnating in the 70's and then crashed in the 80's, but that doesn't change the fact that it had been booming for 40 years prior to the stagnation. A BAD economic model is one that falls apart in a couple of years - not one that starts malfunctioning only after 40 years of better performance than any other economy in the world (until the 70's, the Soviet economy consistently achieved higher growth rates than any other economy in the world, and the Soviet Union went from being an impoverished agrarian nation to being the world's second-largest economy).

So what can we learn from the experience of the Soviet Union? Well, we can learn that the general concept of a planned economy is a good idea, but the specific Soviet economic model had a number of minor chronic problems that, after accumulating for 40 years, got big enough to pull the Soviet Union down.

Now, I should tell you that I'm an Eastern European myself, so I've experienced the stalinist system first hand and I have a pretty good idea of what its economic flaws were. To put it simply, the Soviet economic model suffered from chronic corruption. This was caused by the rigid nature of the undemocratic political system. Planners were only responsible before the Party, not before the people - so they were not held responsible for the success or failure of their plans in terms of ensuring a steady rise in standards of living. They grew corrupt and began making bad economic plans - because, after all, they had no reason to care if their plans flopped badly (sometimes the Party covered such failures by pretending all was well, when in fact it clearly wasn't).

The solution to that problem should be obvious - and it is also a solution to the perceived "authoritarian" nature of state planning - make the planners (and the plans themselves) accountable before the people. Let the planners present several plans before the people, and let the people VOTE on the plan of their choice.

In brief, a socialist system should involve state monopoly of the economy, but the people should have the power to tell the state how to run the economy.

That is Economic Democracy.

[The Grapes of Wrath]

Thanks for your input, I appreciate it greatly. Interesting facts, interesting ideas.

I'm very familiar with the anarchists from Spain in the 1930s, I find them amazingly interesting. A good book on them would be "The Anarchist Collectives" compiled by Sam Dolgoff. Anyway, I found Beckwith's book to have good ideas in some respects, and really terrible ones in others, so I wanted to just get a feel for how others felt on the subject.

Solidarity

[Rasta Sapian]

Monopoly's are a reality in most Capitalist state systems, we have anti-trust laws which are there to help stop monopoly's but they don't always work.

Anyway, privately owned companys and corperations exploit the hell out of workers, profits go to the top, both management and owners alike.

Unions are important, they try to bridge the gap a little and look out for workers rights, etc.

In a Communist state system, the government owns, and operates the factory or company, the profits go directly back to the state and its masses therefore profits and exploitaion are eliminated.

Power to the people, equality to the masses!

[antieverything]

Well, first of all, you have to remember that contrary to all the capitalist propaganda, the Soviet economy was actually incredibly efficient and productive from about 1927 to around 1970.
I don't think it is capitalist propaganda that puts it this way, rather I think it is fact. It was efficient at producing tons of low-quality military equipment but it never reached the productive efficiency or ability to meet consumer demand that firms in advanced capitalist countries did.