Ben Seattle: A Reply to Joseph Green and the CVO

[DrFreeman09]

Joseph Green (editor for the Communist Voice Organization's theoretical journal) recently wrote an article about socialist health care that Ben Seattle (http://struggle.net/ben) criticized for failing to confront the crisis of theory. Joseph made a rebuttal in 17,000 words defending his views.

As a result, Ben has responded yet again and exposed some of Joseph's dishonesty and addressed his failure to recognize that workers under workers' rule must have concrete democratic rights.

It is titled "Powerful Agitation Requires Confronting the Crisis of Theory." A summary of the action so far is included in the introduction.

Its contents include:

1. Intro: powerful agitation requires a marriage
between our current struggles and our future goal
2. The politics of workers' rule
Many independent organizations will exist
3. The proposal to rename the communist movement
4. The struggle to build a party: community, political
transparency and confronting the crisis of theory
5. Economics in the transition period: and the
struggle of the working class to exercise control
6. The struggle for integrity:
The issue is line, not author

It can be found here:

Ben Seattle: Powerful Agitation Requires Confronting the Crisis of Theory -- http://struggle.net/ben/2008/126-agitation.htm

Comments are needed and appreciated.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Before I reply to the topic above, I have a teaser in the form of a post in the "How should we be led" thread:



I don't think it's very practical or safe to prevent them from doing so. It's an interesting question, and it is one of the reasons I'm skeptical about how practical centralism really is.

I think that the "dialectic" of spontaneity versus organization (I remember our mutual agreement that dialectics is an albatross on workers' movements, but on this particular aspect I am forced to use that word as a crutch) is in a constant state of flux.

We can't limit into any particular "-ism" the notion of "freedom of discussion, unity in action." I suppose my earlier remarks regarding "proletocratic centralism" are a slight, class-emphasized improvement, but thankfully I acknowledge that it is one of many incarnations of Lenin's slogan.


On the "international socialist party" thread: I will comment there, but I have something else to say about that.

Leo seemed surprised that you are not a left communist yet you are calling for a world party. On the surface, you may seem more "authoritarian" and I may seem more "libertarian." But in reality, I think we only disagree on some relatively minor issues, and that we can agree on most things, and that left communists, when presented with our arguments, can also bring themselves to agree, is, I believe, proof that the principles that we advocate are either correct or are at least on the right track.

And that is always a good thing! :cool: ;)



Now, for the site in question:


I said that we need a system of agitation which not only encourages various struggles for partial demands (such as universal health care)

I wonder if you guys read Lars Lih's Lenin Rediscovered. Here's a review of that book saying something similar:

http://www.socialistdemocracy.org/Reviews/ReviewLeninRediscoveredPart2.html


The importance of political freedom to the merger narrative and the nature of Russian society combined to make political freedom the centre of the Russian Social Democratic struggle. The most notorious opponents of the importance given to it were called ‘economists.’ This label might confuse. It did not mean that Social Democrats opposed the economic struggles of workers, they supported and tried to lead them. Nor did it mean that economists opposed any and all political agitation. A favourite formulation of theirs was to describe Social Democracy’s task as to ‘impart a political character to the economic struggle’, a formulation Lenin ridiculed. It meant that their perspective was often only seeking after partial political rights. Other economists were of a view that setting the struggle against autocracy as an over-riding priority was taking on too much.




The politics of workers' rule: Many independent organizations will exist...

More than this, I believe that Joseph should recognize the need to deal with the 3rd and 4th scenarios in my chart: the workers' party could be captured by the enemies of the working class and there would be a need for an alternative workers' party to replace it.

Again, we really need to consider the extensive material exchanged between the two of us in the "How should we be led" thread. The devil is in the details.

In his "four scenarios," I'm all for #1 (hence my being more "authoritarian"). There should be only one workers' party, and equally important, that party should also be the "party of power" (to borrow the phrase of modern "Putinite" politicians with their Yedinaya Rossiya "party of power").

However, the "relatively minor" parties would NOT be workers' parties, but "provincial and local petit-bourgeois organizations" per my proposed Article 107. This way, the ruling party will know better which position is correct and which ones aren't (those of the petit-bourgeois parties), thus avoiding "capture by the enemies."

Last, but not least, the "League" that I have in mind for a "mass organization" could easily be a perpetual legislative minority co-existing alongside the Party supermajority. :)

#2 reeks of the "habitual schematism" which Razlatzki opposed (sorry for bringing up that "-ism" here).

I don't know much more about #3 besides what I said above. :(

#4 need only be rebutted by Moshe Lewin. Only #1 can guarantee a factual one-party state, where this #4 is a bureaucratic no-party state in all but the fictional formalities. :)

That Ben Seattle outlined the "umbrella party" above the "habitual schematism" brings tears to my "authoritarian" eyes (Soviet hagiography has it than Lenin's Party card number was none other than "Number One," even though it was 224332 (http://www.stel.ru/museum/museum_exibitions.htm)). :D




It is of secondary importance whether the working class controls the state machine by means of:

(1) a single umbrella organization (that has different internal sections that cooperate as well as openly compete with one another) or by means of
(2) a system of parties which share certain core values of decisive interest to the working class

since both of these descriptions amount to very similar systems (ie: the 1st and 2nd scenarios in my chart are actually somewhat similar to one another).

Wrong on that front, however: #2 is worse, because it allows for factions within the multiplicity of parties (the equivalent in #1 being "sub-factions"). For #1, folks like myself are against "sub-factions" within the

(1) "platforms" (within the intra-party system that is controllable by the Central Committee) and
(2) "sections" (relating to control questions and the rest of the intra-party system that isn't controllable by the Central Committee) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1043568&postcount=27).

After all, POLEMICALLY SPEAKING, "the existence of many parties inevitably assists in the stratification of society and the division of its interests, that is, serves to place additional obstacles on the path of the transformation of the society to classlessness (http://www.revleft.com/vb/should-we-led-t67387/index2.html)" (Razlatzki).




The group in Samara favored the word "proletarism" as the new name for our movement. They picked this name because it is consistent with how the historical periods of feudalism and capitalism were named: after the class that ruled during that period. The proletariat will rule during the transition period, they argued -- so why not call this period proletarism? That name also has the advantage that, being a derivative from Latin, it would translate more or less directly into other languages (ie: as opposed to a word like "workerism" that would be different in different languages).

A slight disagreement here, but why not "proletocracy" instead (like the "Erfurtians" who adopted "social democracy" rather than another "-ism")?




I have also written, in various places, about the central task that will unite revolutionary activists: the creation of a revolutionary news service that will offer comprehensive news, analysis and discussion from the perspective of the material interest of the working class and which will also provide a platform for the struggle of trends.

I believe Ben and I had a chat regarding this other historical premise of WITBD. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1055864&postcount=48) Ben, don't get me wrong, but I said "somewhat obsolete" for a reason: the specific communication medium of paper (not the overall concept of a news-and-analysis service brought forth by Lenin). :D




However, we need to be careful not to consider central planning to be some kind of magic solution that will solve all problems. Central planning is a necessary tool for some kinds of problems but is incapable of solving others.

Central planning plays an important role today in all capitalist economies (for example the role in credit and finance played by central banks--or the highly efficient and centralized systems used to build cars and planes by Toyota and Boeing). But central planning also has important limits. Any attempt to run an entire modern, complex economy on the basis of a central plan would result in fiasco. The central planning bottleneck would never have the ability to anticipate or respond to the many millions and billions of adjustments and changes of course that countless small producing units will need to make in order to deal with rapidly changing conditions.

Before acknowledging the limitations of central planning, I did note the equivalent of those capital-intense industries to Soviet heavy industry (http://www.revleft.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1057120&postcount=37). I think you were being only polemical on your end, but your remark in the "Stamocap" thread regarding central planning's "tendency to circulate crappy products throughout the economy" is too much of a generalization.


The workers’ state, as it emerges, will not simply wipe out the existing economy and reorganize everything from scratch. Rather it will expropriate the largest corporations and run these corporations itself. These expropriations may be initiated by workers at the companies who take them over--or they may be initiated by the workers’ state--or they may represent various combinations of both. But the expropriated corporations will in many cases continue to be run in ways similar to how they ran before--in the sense that money and money accounting is likely to be used in many ways for some time. And the products and services which are produced will, in most cases, continue to be exchanged for money (ie: they will still be commodities). And most workers will continue to exchange their labor for wages (ie: their labor will be a commodity).

This was the crux of my point to ComradeRed in the "Stamocap" thread: that the entirety of "proletocracy" is in the capitalist mode of production, and that Bernstein's revisionism dealt primarily with the bourgeois-democratic superstructure (both the organizational "framework" and the "skin").


In my chart both sections of the state capitalist sector (ie: the activity based on central planning and the activity based more on production for the market) are colored blue.

I'm confused now, alas. Why would portions of the sector operated by the state be operating under "market forces" (not to be confused with overall economic forces)? My "green" would encompass all market-capitalist activity (niche businesses under the ownership of private petit-bourgeoisie, cooperative businesses, and the "parecon" economy). My "blue" would encompass all economic activity under the direction of Gosplan and its state-central planning equivalents ("the plan is the law"). I will admit, however, that my case would mean that "blue" would be only 40-50% in 10 years' and 60-70% in 20 years' time.


Joseph argues that the state capitalist sector which I believe will dominate the early period of working class rule will be “Stalinist state-capitalism”. Joseph is overlooking the question of who controls the state. Under Stalin the working class did not control the state. Under working class rule, however, the working class will control the state.

Joseph is right in a sense, though. Gosplan, other state planning bureaus, and state enterprises should, at least initially, be managed by "specialists"/"technocrats (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29#Technocracy_and_soc ialism)." Of course, such "specialists" should be a combination of non-members of the Party and former Party members trained specifically for this function (Razlatzki)! Trotskyists are so fundamentally confused in their ongoing demonization of the two-edged sword of "bureaucracy" during the era of "proletocracy."



this is an extremely dangerous view point simply because state control in the earliest phases of socialist develop indicates;

-the workers aren't capable of controlling the means of production or don't want to.
-that the revolution is a top down measure, imposed upon society by a bureaucracy.

in doing this, you create the fundemental basis for a stalinesque degeneration of the revolution.

Why do you Trots keep demonizing bureaucracy (was once a Trot before becoming a Stalinist before being where I am now)? Lenin recognized it to be a two-edged sword.

On your first point, modern consumer capitalism encourages as much absence of personal responsibility as possible (focus on the TV and movies, not on town hall meetings, for example).

On your second point, certain aspects ARE top-down "revolutions from above!"


this is happening today- with increasingly flexable working practices, such as 'multi-tasking' and the such. increasing academic achievement (based on the capitalists need for highly skilled labour) is also seriously helping to 'level out' the proletariat. it may take time- but this will ultimately lead to the success of a revolution and the defeat of state monopoly capitalism.

Like I said, where capitalism giveth in one aspect (and DrFreeman09 mentioned this with regards to "kicking decisions downstairs"), it taketh away.


however, making a distinction between 'worker's and 'people' shows you consider that the revolution is occuring in a country where the proletariat is not in the majoirty.

I wasn't referring to the peasantry or to the petit-bourgeoisie, but rather to the masses of "coordinators" (Has capitalism really simplified class relations? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/has-capitalism-really-t65831/index.html)) that form mid-level management in bigger businesses and non-owning management in smaller businesses.

These people will form the economic "bureaucracy" within the state-capitalist sector, and hopefully displace any future notion of "economists" doing the central planning there (since managers are better than economists in terms of coordinating business activities).




The state-appointed bureaucrats will not be able to "do pretty much as they please, independent of the working class". The state-capitalist sector will be a battleground of sorts. One tendency would be for state appointed bureaucrats to dominate everything. But this will be countered by the opposite tendency: for the workers (both within an enterprise and in society at large) to assert their control over the various enterprises. In some situations one tendency might come out on top, and in other circumstances the other tendency will win. Often what might emerge are partial victories for each side. But the main thing to keep in mind is that as long as the enterprise is based on commodity production -- it will tend to be a field of struggle in which the playing field is tilted against the workers and a lot of energy will be necessary to keep things from getting out of hand. This is why the gift economy (where there are no commodities and the laws of commodity production have lost their power) is the only fundamental way out.

Now I'm sorta confused. DrFreeman09, you said this:


Ben's idea was that what you are calling "representative" planning would be left for the state-capitalist sector. Your conception of "democratic" planning would be used in the moneyless sector.

On the other hand, Ben Seattle in the quote above said that the "direct-democratic planning" was still thoroughly in the state-capitalist sector. His interpretation of "state capitalism" is problematic for me, though, mainly because that would actually imply that socialism is indeed "merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."

My take on that Lenin quote was that he was merely polemical, given the content of "Left-Wing Childishness" (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm):


But what does the word “transition” mean? Does it not mean, as applied to an economy, that the present system contains elements, particles, fragments of both capitalism and socialism? Everyone will admit that it does. But not all who admit this take the trouble to consider what elements actually constitute the various socio-economic structures that exist in Russia at the present time. And this is the crux of the question.

Let us enumerate these elements:

1) patriarchal, i.e., to a considerable extent natural, peasant farming;
2) small commodity production (this includes the majority of those peasants who sell their grain);
3) private capitalism;
4) state capitalism;
5) socialism.

Russia is so vast and so varied that all these different types of socio-economic structures are intermingled. This is what constitutes the specific features of the situation.

The question arises: what elements predominate? Clearly in a small-peasant country, the petty-bourgeois element predominates and it must predominate, for the great majority of those working the land are small commodity producers. The shell of our state capitalism (grain monopoly, state controlled entrepreneurs and traders, bourgeois co-operators) is pierced now in one place, now in another by profiteers, the chief object of profiteering being grain.

It is in this field that the main struggle is being waged. Between what elements is this struggle being waged if we are to speak in terms of economic categories such as “state capitalism"? Between the fourth and the fifth in the order in which I have just enumerated them. Of course not. It is not state capitalism that is at war with socialism, but the petty bourgeoisie plus private capitalism fighting together against both state capitalism and socialism. The petty bourgeoisie oppose every kind of state interference, accounting and control, whether it be state capitalist or state socialist.

Clearly, the socialist mode of production implied here is a combination of "direct-democratic planning" and the still-evolving "moneyless economy" (with the private capitalists, cooperatives, "parecon economy," and Gosplan all gone by then).



More comments pending.

[DrFreeman09]

I'm confused now, alas. Why would portions of the sector operated by the state be operating under "market forces"

I think what Ben means is that the sector operated by the state would still be producing commodities, and thus, would be subject to the laws of commodity production. Those laws are what he is defining as "market forces." The problem with Joseph is that he thinks that planning is some magic solution that eliminates these laws. While certain aspects of capitalism become irrelevant, a planned economy that produces commodities is still subject to the laws of commodity production.


Wrong on that front, however: #2 is worse, because it allows for factions within the multiplicity of parties

That's your opinion, but this issue is still secondary compared to the issue of the need for workers to have concrete democratic rights. The point of this article is not necessarily to push a multi-party system over an umbrella organization with multiple trends. The point of this article is to demonstrate that the workers must have the right to self-organize. This is something Joseph has been very fuzzy on and we are saying that an organization capable of mobilizing the masses will have to acknowledge clearly that workers will have this right.

The problem is that the CVO dodges this question whenever it is brought up.


Joseph is right in a sense, though. Gosplan, other state planning bureaus, and state enterprises should, at least initially, be managed by "specialists"/"technocrats (http://www.anonym.to/?http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technocracy_%28bureaucratic%29#Technocracy_and_soc ialism)."

Ben isn't denying this. What he is responding to is Joseph saying that what Ben was advocating was Stalinist. Joseph claims that Ben wants to put a bunch of bureaucrats in charge of everything. But this is not an honest argument, because Joseph has 1) failed to explain why what he is saying is any different, and 2) Joseph is the one talking about power being a double edged sword!

This argument (that Ben is a Stalinist) is a fairly feeble argument by Joseph meant to make Ben look bad without actually saying anything of substance about his own ideas.

Joseph calls Ben a Stalinist for wanting to appoint bureaucrats to run the economy, but Joseph has consistently called for state planning, etc. so both parties are "guilty" of this (I put "guilty" in quotes, because it is not necessarily a sin). There is nothing wrong with part of the transitional economy being managed by state planners. But these planners have to accountable to the working class, and for this, there needs to be concrete democratic rights. And Joseph has been consistently fuzzy on democratic rights, so this is the basis of Ben's criticism of Joseph.


I think you were being only polemical on your end, but your remark in the "Stamocap" thread regarding central planning's "tendency to circulate crappy products throughout the economy" is too much of a generalization.

Perhaps. I think the point I brought up about the "von Neumann bottleneck" and "MPP" was a much better one, which is why I have continued to use it.

[Die Neue Zeit]

I think what Ben means is that the sector operated by the state would still be producing commodities, and thus, would be subject to the laws of commodity production. Those laws are what he is defining as "market forces." The problem with Joseph is that he thinks that planning is some magic solution that eliminates these laws. While certain aspects of capitalism become irrelevant, a planned economy that produces commodities is still subject to the laws of commodity production.

But Ben said this, though:


Now if the workers’ state expropriates the largest corporations and runs them in accord with a big central plan--then it will, in many cases, be violating the laws of commodity production.

...

Even the activity which is organized in accord with a big central plan is, in my view, a form of capitalist economy because most of the goods and services created by this plan will be exchanged for money (or some kind of money-equivalent) and because workers will still exchange their labor for money-wages. And there will still be some kind of circuit of capital (even if it is modified from how capital flows under bourgeois rule).




That's your opinion

I think it's fair enough to leave this part at that for now. ;)


Ben isn't denying this. What he is responding to is Joseph saying that what Ben was advocating was Stalinist. Joseph claims that Ben wants to put a bunch of bureaucrats in charge of everything. But this is not an honest argument, because Joseph has 1) failed to explain why what he is saying is any different, and 2) Joseph is the one talking about power being a double edged sword!

...

Joseph has consistently called for state planning, etc. so both parties are "guilty" of this (I put "guilty" in quotes, because it is not necessarily a sin).

That is a bit hypocritical on Joseph's part.


I think the point I brought up about the "von Neumann bottleneck" and "MPP" was a much better one, which is why I have continued to use it.

Indeed. :D Anyhow, I await your comments on the rest of my very lengthy post above. :)

[DrFreeman09]

Now if the workers’ state expropriates the largest corporations and runs them in accord with a big central plan--then it will, in many cases, be violating the laws of commodity production.

...

Even the activity which is organized in accord with a big central plan is, in my view, a form of capitalist economy because most of the goods and services created by this plan will be exchanged for money (or some kind of money-equivalent) and because workers will still exchange their labor for money-wages. And there will still be some kind of circuit of capital (even if it is modified from how capital flows under bourgeois rule).Central planning violates part of the laws of commodity production. But at the end of the day, commodities are still being produced and exchanged, and workers are still generally waged.

The point is that the rule of capital will still exist in the transitional period, and that central planning alone doesn't fix the problem.


On the other hand, Ben Seattle in the quote above said that the "direct-democratic planning" was still thoroughly in the state-capitalist sector. His interpretation of "state capitalism" is problematic for me, though, mainly because that would actually imply that socialism is indeed "merely state capitalist monopoly which is made to serve the interests of the whole people and has to that extent ceased to be capitalist monopoly."Your confusion is probably a result of this: Ben may have different conceptions about the various things we've been talking about. I attempted to adapt his ideas to the terms you were using to make them easier to grasp. Perhaps this wasn't the best idea.

So for clarity, I'll try to clean up the mess I made:

I don't think we've decided on what "democratic planning" actually means. We know what central planning means, and it is clear that this will be largely bureaucratic. But these bureaucrats can't do whatever they want; they must be accountable to the masses. So, in a sense, while still central and bureaucratic, this planning is also "democratic" in a way. But obviously, this is not ideal, and it is not our goal.

This central form of planning should not be used in the moneyless sector. You claim that "democratic" and "parallel" planning should be used, but based on what we have discussed, I don't know if I'd call it planning. Requests won't all have to be sent through a central unit. Decisions will be made by the working class based on local conditions. There will need (in my opinion) to be parallel trends to ensure that the economy is efficient and adaptive.

Now, can the workers also come together and manage things cooperatively in a way that might resemble planning? I think so.

Ben:


On the basis of self-organization, there would be many independent groups which would investigate and monitor the production, distribution and proper disposal or recycling of toxins. Some of these groups would have great authority (not in the formal sense of having official status given by a central point of control—but rather the authority that comes from reputation and the development of conscious public opinion) and these groups would likely play a decisive role in the scenario I have outlined above.Just as groups of workers may work to investigate the production of toxins, I believe the workers would come together and run the economy in a similar cooperative fashion. This would not be central planning, and there would be no central authority directing action. It would, I believe, simply be groups of workers running their economy democratically on the basis of self-organization rather than through a central unit. I thought that this was your conception of "democratic planning," so that is why I used the term before when talking about the moneyless sector. But I think that that was a mistake at the time because we hadn't really decided on what that meant.



His interpretation of "state capitalism" is problematic for me,Your definition of "socialism" is also unclear. So I think it is best if, when we get Ben into this discussion, we spend some serious time defining terms. The biggest problem in this debate, I believe, has been the failure to communicate (which is part of the reason behind renaming the communist movement to something like "proletarism" or "proletocracy").

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I'll skip to that really important last point, because:

1) I don't see a significant failure in communication here, and
2) I don't think my definition of "socialism" is unclear at all. I quoted Lenin's "Left-Wing Childishness" for a reason. The socialist mode of production is not communist (because it isn't moneyless), nor is it capitalist (because the remnants of private capital property will have been "socialized" by then, not just "nationalized").

Perhaps the air can be cleared if we agreed to introduce into the discussion a fourth sector: the direct-democratically planned sector, or "socialist sector."

The difference between this sector and the state-capitalist sector is the absence of bureaucracy in the former. The difference between this sector and the moneyless sector is that "commodities are still being produced and exchanged, and workers are still generally waged."

At the "dawn" of socialism, the socialist sector (direct democracy) will have displaced both the private-capitalist sector (even those sections operating under parecon ;) ) and the state-capitalist sector (Gosplan), while the moneyless ("communist") sector is still growing.

[DrFreeman09]

Perhaps the air can be cleared if we agreed to introduce into the discussion a fourth sector: the direct-democratically planned sector, or "socialist sector."

Honestly, I don't really see anything wrong with this idea, but perhaps Ben will have more to say.

I can't speak for him, but I don't think he we object either. I think the three-sector model is designed to give people a general idea of what a transitional economy should look like without completely blowing their minds. Personally, I don't think making the model more specific would hurt.

But just for the sake of it, could you back up exactly why you believe this fourth sector is absolutely necessary? I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it will be important for us to be able to explain ourselves to anyone who may ask.

[Die Neue Zeit]

But just for the sake of it, could you back up exactly why you believe this fourth sector is absolutely necessary? I mean, I don't necessarily disagree with you, but it will be important for us to be able to explain ourselves to anyone who may ask.

You'll note I joined the 300 group instead of just the 100 or 200 (and all because of the "insignificant" glaring detail above that caught my attention)! :D


Just as groups of workers may work to investigate the production of toxins, I believe the workers would come together and run the economy in a similar cooperative fashion. This would not be central planning, and there would be no central authority directing action. It would, I believe, simply be groups of workers running their economy democratically on the basis of self-organization rather than through a central unit.

Again, as I said, it is necessary because "wage slavery" still governs this non-bureaucratic sector. Furthermore, I said that I'm not sure about the centralized/decentralized nature of this sector, but implied there is the idea that the socialist sector isn't as firmly decentralized as the moneyless sector. For all I know, it could be like your MPP, except that this "direct-democratic planning" could quite possibly involve a parallel central "node" (though not necessarily an organization, but rather a process) because it impacts society as a whole.

What you're suggesting in terms of self-organization could just as easily be applied to parecon initially (with all its biases towards local stuff) before trying out the moneyless sector (when parecon and other cooperative-capitalist endeavours have exhausted its maximum potential, and when the socialist sector is on sufficient footing to be on a rapid offensive to establish the socialist mode of production). Then again, the area of Internet media can skip right to the "free media" economy, leaving traditional media in state hands.

[DrFreeman09]

Again, as I said, it is necessary because "wage slavery" still governs this non-bureaucratic sector. Furthermore, I said that I'm not sure about the centralized/decentralized nature of this sector, but implied there is the idea that the socialist sector isn't as firmly decentralized as the moneyless sector. For all I know, it could be like your MPP, except that this "direct-democratic planning" could quite possibly involve a parallel central "node" (though not necessarily an organization, but rather a process) because it impacts society as a whole.

What you're suggesting in terms of self-organization could just as easily be applied to parecon initially (with all its biases towards local stuff) before trying out the moneyless sector (when parecon and other cooperative-capitalist endeavours have exhausted its maximum potential, and when the socialist sector is on sufficient footing to be on a rapid offensive to establish the socialist mode of production). Then again, the area of Internet media can skip right to the "free media" economy, leaving traditional media in state hands.Most of what I have been talking about has dealt with the moneyless sector, but what you're saying about the socialized sector now makes a lot of sense to me.

All in all, this has been really good discussion. It's too bad more people haven't really joined in so far, but no matter. The positive results of this discussion, even if it does just involve two or three people, are clear.

Oh, and glad to have you on the list! ;)

[Die Neue Zeit]

Anyhow, based on what I said regarding "Leninist platformism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/questions-platformism-and-t69243/index.html)," an interesting "platform" I'd like to see within the ruling [umbrella] party is a federalist one (for a revived "global Soviet Union" project).

As per this other thread (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nationalities-soviet-union-t61251/index.html), I'm a staunch ANTI-federalist (for a global Soviet Republic project). I'd like to discredit the outdated and rather bourgeois notion of "socialist federalism" to a pulp again and again and again. :D