THE "FREE MARKET" & COMMUNISM? - How Is THIS Possible?

[redstar2000]

We are all reminded by Marx and Engels on numerous occasions NOT to draft blueprints for the future. But we are also reminded of Lenin's complaint that NO ONE had bothered to figure out what to do on the day AFTER the revolution. This is one of those RARE occasions when Lenin was right and Marx and Engels were wrong; provided only that we remember to keep the plans "loose" and amenable to correction by circumstances. In the years that immediately preceed the revolutiion, it would be well to have a substantial number of fairly elaborate "blueprints" to pick and choose from; since we are VERY far away from that now, what we should do is try to sketch some broad outlines of what we think are acceptable and unacceptable options. The thread "A Four Level Communism" (Politics Forum) is a good example of the kinds of debates we can have, in that case on income inequality.

Having any kind of "free market" is a bit like having a tiger for a housepet; you want him to be comfortable but you don't want him roaming the streets, eating the neighbors' children, etc. Some fairly strong barriers are called for. Here's what I suggest might be the minimum:

1. The FIRST priority is to PREVENT the exploitation of wage labor. Therefore NO private business will be allowed to HIRE EMPLOYEES under ANY circumstances.

2. Only two types of private businesses will be permitted: individual ownership and full partnerships.

3. The individually-owned business is self-explanatory. The owner will be permitted to "exploit" his/her own labor as much as s/he wishes, will be permitted to retain any profits s/he earns, etc.

4. The "full partnership" means EXACTLY that; two or more persons join their labor in a private enterprise and share EQUALLY in any profits made. The practice of "junior partners", "associates", etc. will not be permitted--as soon as you sign on, you're a full partner and ENTITLED to an equal share of the goodies. Likewise, in the case of so-called "family-owned" businesses--they will now only be permitted to exist as full partnerships...and we shall watch VERY closely to make sure that the labor of wives, children, etc. is NOT being exploited.

5. PROVISIONALLY, there shall be no limit to the size of a full partnership; a partnership of 10,000 or more is acceptable as long as rewards are distributed equally.

6. PROVISIONALLY, there shall be no restrictions as to the kinds of activities that the individually-owned or full partnership businesses may engage in aside from those that are not permitted to exist at all. If we decide that housing, for example, is such an over-riding necessity of life that it must be guaranteed to every citizen, then there can be no "private" rental housing partnership...though a partnership might agree to BUILD an apartment building under contract to the public authorities.

7. Individuals and partnerships are eligible for business loans from the central bank; impartial criteria shall be established for the granting or denial of such loans.

8. A steeply progressive income tax on profits shall be established, such as to insure that the individual incomes of people in the private sector do not exceed the levels of the highest paid public employees.

9. Individuals and partnerships may be permitted to take on a SMALL number of apprentices--the compensation for which to be provided by the public authorities. No apprenticeship shall be allowed to last for more than two years; after that, s/he becomes a full partner or leaves the business.

10. Partners may accept smaller than normal salaries while awaiting distribution of profit shares, but in no case shall partners receive salaries greater than the normal levels of pay for similar work for the public authorities.

I think it's important for we communists to recognize that there will ALWAYS be people who want to "be their own boss"--not necessarily from motives of greed but simply because they WANT that sense of autonomy. That is a REASONABLE desire and we should accomodate it.

The full partnership is, as you may have recognized, just another name for the "workers' cooperative"--it operates exactly the same way except that it tries to make a profit.

Thus my blueprint for a "tiger cage"--can you think of any way the tiger can get loose?

[MJM]

2. Only two types of private businesses will be permitted: individual ownership and full partnerships

I see a small problem here.
All the rich and propertied classes could form an industrial block by combining all their capital and enticing the proleteriat that are employed in their production by full partnerships.
During this stage they could concievably halt production in a general strike and bring the country to a grinding halt. The unpropertied and unemployed will still be in the position of subjection so they would have no industrial power.
After the comotion and overturning of the revolution the bourgeoisie would end the partnerships and return the old system.

The real problem is leaving the power - the means of production - in the hands of those who have it now.

[redstar2000]

MJM, there was an "unspoken" assumption in my piece that I SHOULD have made explicit. I'm assuming we START from "a level playing field"--that ALL of the old wealth that the overthrown capitalist class possessed has ALREADY been confiscated by the public authorities.

All of these "new" businesses have begun operations AFTER the old capitalist class has been dispossessed of their plunder, though quite a few would be de facto continuations of businesses that existed before the revolution. The former "big capitalist" is just a guy, now, who happens to know a lot of other ex-"big capitalists" but who has no wealth to "bribe" anyone.

I agree, it would be useful to "keep an eye on them"...and make sure they don't get up to anything harmful. :cool:

[Conghaileach]

How can a person start his/her own business if they have no money with which to do so?

Ignoring that point, these businesses would be set up for the purpose of creating profit. The fact that all partners earn the same still means that they could be making a huge amount of profit each. Capitalism is based on the idea of
money --> product/service --> money. How is your system any different?

[redstar2000]

"How can a person start his/her own business if they have no money with which to do so?" See Point 7 above.

"...they could be making a huge amount of profit." See Point 8 above.

:cool:

[Man of the Cause]

I think Antonio Gramsci wrote something of what socialism will look like in practice in his "Prison notes". Have to start reading it someday.

[Revolution Hero]

Quote: from redstar2000 on 10:51 pm on Dec. 8, 2002
We are all reminded by Marx and Engels on numerous occasions NOT to draft blueprints for the future. But we are also reminded of Lenin's complaint that NO ONE had bothered to figure out what to do on the day AFTER the revolution. This is one of those RARE occasions when Lenin was right and Marx and Engels were wrong; provided only that we remember to keep the plans "loose" and amenable to correction by circumstances. In the years that immediately preceed the revolutiion, it would be well to have a substantial number of fairly elaborate "blueprints" to pick and choose from; since we are VERY far away from that now, what we should do is try to sketch some broad outlines of what we think are acceptable and unacceptable options. The thread "A Four Level Communism" (Politics Forum) is a good example of the kinds of debates we can have, in that case on income inequality.

Having any kind of "free market" is a bit like having a tiger for a housepet; you want him to be comfortable but you don't want him roaming the streets, eating the neighbors' children, etc. Some fairly strong barriers are called for. Here's what I suggest might be the minimum:

1. The FIRST priority is to PREVENT the exploitation of wage labor. Therefore NO private business will be allowed to HIRE EMPLOYEES under ANY circumstances.

2. Only two types of private businesses will be permitted: individual ownership and full partnerships.

3. The individually-owned business is self-explanatory. The owner will be permitted to "exploit" his/her own labor as much as s/he wishes, will be permitted to retain any profits s/he earns, etc.

4. The "full partnership" means EXACTLY that; two or more persons join their labor in a private enterprise and share EQUALLY in any profits made. The practice of "junior partners", "associates", etc. will not be permitted--as soon as you sign on, you're a full partner and ENTITLED to an equal share of the goodies. Likewise, in the case of so-called "family-owned" businesses--they will now only be permitted to exist as full partnerships...and we shall watch VERY closely to make sure that the labor of wives, children, etc. is NOT being exploited.

5. PROVISIONALLY, there shall be no limit to the size of a full partnership; a partnership of 10,000 or more is acceptable as long as rewards are distributed equally.

6. PROVISIONALLY, there shall be no restrictions as to the kinds of activities that the individually-owned or full partnership businesses may engage in aside from those that are not permitted to exist at all. If we decide that housing, for example, is such an over-riding necessity of life that it must be guaranteed to every citizen, then there can be no "private" rental housing partnership...though a partnership might agree to BUILD an apartment building under contract to the public authorities.

7. Individuals and partnerships are eligible for business loans from the central bank; impartial criteria shall be established for the granting or denial of such loans.

8. A steeply progressive income tax on profits shall be established, such as to insure that the individual incomes of people in the private sector do not exceed the levels of the highest paid public employees.

9. Individuals and partnerships may be permitted to take on a SMALL number of apprentices--the compensation for which to be provided by the public authorities. No apprenticeship shall be allowed to last for more than two years; after that, s/he becomes a full partner or leaves the business.

10. Partners may accept smaller than normal salaries while awaiting distribution of profit shares, but in no case shall partners receive salaries greater than the normal levels of pay for similar work for the public authorities.

I think it's important for we communists to recognize that there will ALWAYS be people who want to "be their own boss"--not necessarily from motives of greed but simply because they WANT that sense of autonomy. That is a REASONABLE desire and we should accomodate it.

The full partnership is, as you may have recognized, just another name for the "workers' cooperative"--it operates exactly the same way except that it tries to make a profit.

Thus my blueprint for a "tiger cage"--can you think of any way the tiger can get loose?


The base of your utopian idea is the FULL PARTNERSHIP “theory” (if it can be called theory). But you don’t realize that there would be people, who manage business and those, who work and produce goods. Managers will gain a mentality of the OWNER (no matter if they are considered or consider themselves partners) and this will lead to the eventual restoration of the capitalism.
Also, it is unclear what stage of communism you described that way.
If it is transitional stage from capitalism to socialism, then your idea is utopian.
If it is the first stage of communism then it should be changed, as the internal economical competition can be very harmful to the socialistic state.
If it is the final stage of communism then the whole conception of “Partnership business” seems to be very primitive and it definitely can’t be used in the true communistic society.
See, it will not work anyway. You can’t create your own ideas without having fundamental theoretical knowledge of the subject.

[redstar2000]

"You can't create your own ideas without having fundamental theoretical knowledge of the subject."

I KNOW that, RH, it's just one of those filthy vices that I HAVE to engage in from time to time. Just pay no attention to me. :cheesy:

[Dr. Rosenpenis]

Personaly I think that your idea is quite thoughtful, yet somewhat Capitalistic.

I see one fault though, which has probably already been pointed out, yet I will still express it.

The Partnership would indeed need a supervisor, a boss, a master, a manager, someone to organize the labor and overview the proggress. This person could easily become corrupt and start to exploit the labor of his 'employees', who would be employees who just earn the same amount of money. A union would be necessary for this sort of duty.

[lifetrnal]

Revolutionary Hero,

You say that those in the managerial positions would assume the aura of 'owner'. My question is this, how do we avoid this in a communist state? If the government places someone in a position of management of a government run factory, is not that manager also going to assume an aura of authority and supperiority? Must not the means of production be in the HANDS OF THE PRODUCERS. With no state to institutionalize a new hierachy?

[redstar2000]

Victorcommie, I think we have to recognize that it IS possible that within a full partnership one of the partners might TRY to set himself up as the "boss"...and if the other partners let him get away with it, he'll go further...by having the partnership pay for special "perks" just for him, etc.

Yet there are limits to how far he can go in this direction. He can't accumulate any substantial wealth; he's not allowed to hire wage labor; partners can simply walk away if he becomes outrageously arrogant and overbearing, etc.

But it's well to be reminded that "private enterprise" IS a TIGER...and authoritarianism is ALWAYS a danger to be guarded against.

Lifetrnal, for the question of "authority" in public entities, I recommend enthusiastically the sticky thread started by Neutral Nation at the beginning of the Theory Forum...which goes into considerable detail on the nuts and bolts of workers' self-management.

:cool: