Enlightened socialism and state ownership

[Dimentio]

I cannot actually understand how an increased rate of state ownership should bring about a "more" socialist society. Of course, public welfare is not bad, but some forms of it has existed even under Asiatic despotism. In ancient Egypt, the state had a virtual monopoly on the grain supplies.

But the working people of Egypt did not control their supplies, as did not the workers of the USSR control their means of production.

According to marxism, the basis is more important than superstructure, and it is hard noticing anything in the basis of existing "socialist states" (an oxymoron) which will reveal any kind of socialism except the usual ruling class "bread'n'circus" doctrine.

Also, notice that the "counterrevolution" 1987-1991 in the USSR was withtaken without any reaction from the working class, which did probably not even feel any kind of influence of or responsibility for the industrial infrastructure.

When the state itself was subverted, it lead to "game over" for the system because of the total state monopoly on production, which made privatisation quite of a lot heck easier.

Any arguments why:

A) There should be increased state ownership of production during socialism?
B) The state rather than the working class should own the means of production?

And I think I will explode if I once again hear that it is because the working class is supposedly controlling the state.

[BobKKKindle$]

This is an interesting issue. I'll respond as best as I can.

I'd like to begin by saying that there are different types of "state ownership" and this is where I think you have made a mistake. I think the Trotskyist analysis is useful here.

Sometimes state ownership can occur within the framework of a capitalist society; the bourgeois state may take certain sections of the economy into state ownership - during a war, for example, to make sure that the economy remains stable, to ensure that all the available resources are being used to maximize the production of armaments, as the market system is no longer sufficient to meet the bourgeoisie's class objectives. This form of "state ownership" is not progressive, as it does not include the expropriation of the capitalist class; rather, the state supports bourgeois power, the bourgeoisie is still able to generate income from their property, and so this form of ownership is known as state capitalism.

A state ownership of a very different kind occurs when the proletariat seizes control of the bourgeoisie's assets, or when an external force expropriates the bourgeoisie, as in the case of the "socialist" states in Eastern Europe. This is a progressive form of "state ownership" because capitalist relations have been abolished, the bourgeoisie no longer exists as a class; instead, a workers state exists. However it is, in these conditions, possible for a bureaucratic stratum to take control of the state, such that workers are not able to decide how their enterprises are managed, what goods should be produced, how these goods should be allocated, etc - these tasks are controlled by the bureaucracy.This is bureaucratic degeneration (when the proletariat originally controlled the state) of deformation (when workers power has never existed). Trotskyists call for the unconditional defense of workers states, even those suffering from bureaucracy - because we recognize that a return to capitalist property relations would signify a defeat for the working class, as we witnessed in the Soviet Union, where privitisation resulted in a sudden drop in living standards, due to the rising prices of basic goods, and the collapse of health care, and other services which had been provided for free.

Trotsky explains the distinction between these two forms of "state ownership" in TRB : http://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1936/revbet/ch09.htm#ch09-1

Bukharin also gives a good account of State Capitalism in "The ABCs of Communism"

[In reference to meeting the demands of a war situation] "How could the bourgeoisie do this? The matter was quite simple. To that end it was necessary that' the bourgeoisie should place private production, privately owned trusts and syndicates, at the disposal of the capitalist robber State. This is what they did for the duration of the war. Industry was ' mobilized' and 'militarized', that is to say it was placed under the orders of the State and of the military authorities. 'But how?' some of our readers will ask. ' In that way the bourgeoisie would surely forfeit its income? That would be nationalization! When everything has been handed over to the State, where will the bourgeoisie come in, and how will the capitalists reconcile themselves to such a condition 'of affairs?' It is an actual fact that the bourgeoisie agreed to the arrangement. But there is nothing very remarkable in that, for the privately owned syndicates and trusts were not handed over to the workers' State, but to the imperialist State, the State which belonged to the bourgeoisie. Was there anything to alarm the bourgeoisie in such a prospect? The capitalists simply transferred their possessions from one pocket to another; the possessions remained as large as ever."

http://www.marxists.org/archive/bukharin/works/1920/abc/04.htm#030

As for why state ownership is preferable to workers ownership (by which you presumably mean group ownership, based on workers employed in individual enterprises) I am, to be honest, not sure, but I would like to remind you that, following the October revolution, many workers actually asked the state to nationalize their factories, to avoid bankruptcy.

[Dimentio]

I still think that state ownership in itself promulgates bureaucratisation and the eventual creation of a coordinator class due to the very nature of the state organism, which is organised for capitalist conditions even if there aren't any capitalists there. Bureaucracy has one purpose, and that is taxation, and without money/price system (given that we have an area which is self-sustaining) we will see that the bureaucracy is superfluous at best and directly malevolent at worst, and that what it is doing is really things which ought to be taken care by technical skill and not political manipulations.

It would also - according to my humble opinion - be better if the ownership was given to a formally independent foundation controlled by the working class, while the state might be socialist or irrelevant in its nature.

[BobKKKindle$]

I still think that state ownership in itself promulgates bureaucratisation and the eventual creation of a coordinator class due to the very nature of the state organism, which is organised for capitalist conditions even if there aren't any capitalists there. Bureaucracy has one purpose, and that is taxation, and without money/price system (given that we have an area which is self-sustaining) we will see that the bureaucracy is superfluous at best and directly malevolent at worst, and that what it is doing is really things which ought to be taken care by technical skill and not political manipulations.I don't understand what you mean by the "nature" of the "state organism". The socialist state is different from that which exists in a capitalist society, and under capitalism, it is possible for the state to assume many different forms, depending on what the bourgeoisie require to make sure that their power is not challenged.

Socialism is a system of social organization based on the rule of the majority, and so state power does not consist of armed bodies of men that are separate from the general population, as under capitalism; rather, the working people will exercise power, through the soviets, which will form the state apparatus. Lenin, SaR:

"Naturally, the exploiters are unable to suppress the people without a highly complex machine for performing this task, but the people can suppress the exploiters even with a very simple “machine”, almost without a “machine”, without a special apparatus, by the simple organization of the armed people (such as the Soviets of Workers' and Soldiers' Deputies, we would remark, running ahead)."

Thus, it makes no sense to speak of the "nature" of the state; this shows a failure to acknowledge the differences between the bourgeois state, and the workers state. This state requires no bureaucracy to make decisions on behalf of the people, because it is the people who are in power, and the people they elect are under their direct control through a system of recall which makes sure delegates are unable to become so powerful as to attain privileges. The bureaucracy emerged in the Soviet Union because of events beyond the control of the vanguard; the failure of the revolution to spread abroad resulted in imperialist intervention, leading to the disintegration of the social base of the revolution (the urban proletariat) which allowed the bureaucracy to attain power. This degeneration was not inevitable - and we should not assume that the degeneration evident under Stalin was the same system of government which emerged following October. Lenin was aware of the problem of bureaucracy after the civil war ("Ours is a workers' and peasants' state suffering from serious bureaucratic degeneration") but did not undertake sufficient measures to deal with it.

I find it unfortunate that many Anarchists, and conservative historians, continue to promote the idea that Stalin was a direct continuation of the Soviet Union under Lenin and that what happened under his rule was inevitable because of Bolshevik ideology - this completely disregards the role of material conditions in the post-war period, as well as Lenin's commitment to democracy. Trotskyists stand as the defenders of the legacy of October.

[Dimentio]

But in practice, all "worker states" have too more or less extent degenerated into some sort of bureaucratic monopolies, where the workers generally are quite apathetic, while statues of "the great leader" are mass-produced. It has not only happened in the Soviet Sphere, but also where independent socialist revolutions have occurred.

All bourgeoisie states are first and foremost modern nation-states, where loyalty to the state and the laws have to more or less supplemented the tribal and clan loyalties of feudalism. They also have managerial bureaucracies which are mostly independent from cronyism and the ruling political faction. Thus, there is no larger difference between the United Kingdom and the USA, even if the former is a monarchy while the second is a republic.

[Die Neue Zeit]

To butt in here:

http://www.revleft.com/vb/marxism-leninism-anti-t73258/index.html




Yesterday, the main task of the moment was, as determinedly as possible, to nationalise, confiscate, beat down and crush the bourgeoisie, and put down sabotage. Today, only a blind man could fail to see that we have nationalised, confiscated, beaten down and put down more than we have had time to count. The difference between socialisation and simple confiscation is that confiscation can be carried out by “determination” alone, without the ability to calculate and distribute properly, whereas socialisation cannot be brought about without this ability.

"Left-Wing" Childishness (http://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1918/may/09.htm)

Even then, Lenin didn't say above that only nationalization plus proper calculation equals socialism, as explained in my Stamocap thread.



I think bobkindles is mistaken on the nature of the socialist mode of production (per my uncommented Theory thread on late Marx):

http://www.cpgb.org.uk/worker/318/hlcorbg.html


The real essence of capitalism, as Peter Hudis has pointed out, is "the reduction of concrete labouring activity into abstract labour through the medium of socially necessary labour time" (Conceptualisng an emancipatory alternative). This standpoint places class struggle at the very centre of capitalism - the constant struggle between 'living labour' and the representatives of 'dead labour' to extend or limit socially necessary human needs. Because it is our labour power which creates all new value for the capitalist, each of us must be rewarded with some of this value in the form of wages, if only to prepare ourselves for tomorrow's "daily grind at the mill". The capitalists try to reduce this socially necessary labour to the minimum, the better to extract the maximum surplus labour. As workers, however, we try individually and collectively, through industrial and political struggle, to maximise the proportion of value received as socially necessary labour time, the better to meet our needs. This creation of all new value, both the socially necessary and surplus labour, by the collective working class is the essence of the labour theory of value.

However, even a labour theory of value is still restricted to the viewpoint of capitalist political economy. What gave Marx the confidence to inscribe "The abolition of the wages system" on the communist banner was his adoption of the viewpoint of socialised humanity. By adopting such a viewpoint, Marx went beyond a classical political economy's labour theory of value and in effect argued a 'value theory of labour'. He showed why it was that the rewards of our labour are constantly being pushed down to what the capitalists think is 'socially necessary labour' and why political economy uses reified categories like wages, prices and profits. But he went further and showed us that under capitalist production relations labour is not only exploited but is the real creative pole of the capitalist production relationship. The capitalists' capital, formed by accumulating our past or 'dead' labour makes the capitalist class appear creative, to give them economic, social and political power. But their power is nothing but our own creative activity stolen and alienated. The major job for any workers' republic is to abolish wage slavery, and this, of course, is why Dave's undeclared programme of "revolutionary democracy" is not communist. His banner for a future workers' republic (if he was honestly to raise it) is "The wages system under workers' representative control".

If there is a distinction to be made between pre- and post-international revolutionary wave, revolutionary social democracy, it lies in the following. The older revolutionary social democracy clung to Marx's pre-Paris Commune view that socialism would come about by further perfecting and bringing the existing capitalist state 'under workers' control' - through socialist majorities in parliament and other levels of the state. Drawing on the experience of the Paris Commune, Marx later rejected his earlier view. He now boldly declared the need to smash the capitalist state machinery.

But in the period following the Paris Commune Marx went further, making his earlier slogan, "Abolish the wages system" more concrete. He showed us that workers' economic control could not be brought about just by placing the wages system under 'workers' control'. The whole wages system needed to be abolished. This requires a double mechanism. First, we have to take over direct control of production and distribution through combining as 'freely associated labour' - what was later understood as workers' councils. Secondly, our workers' councils must plan production and distribution directly on the basis of labour time. This eliminates the distinction between socially necessary and surplus labour and allows us collectively to agree what proportion of social labour is allocated to individuals (by means of labour certificates showing the hours we have worked) and what is reserved for the meeting of wider social needs, democratically decided by the workers' councils themselves.

If our workers' councils confine their role to 'political revolution', then the political 'representatives of labour' will develop a new power beyond our real control by mediating between what they see as the wider social interest and our 'local selfish' interests. It is only the direct collective control of labour time by each workers' council concerned which gives us the equivalent decisive power to that enjoyed by the owners and controllers of capital at present. This means 'political revolution' must be followed directly by 'economic revolution'. However, the purpose of this is not to continue these two separate spheres inherited from capitalism, but to unite them in what amounts to 'social revolution' and overcome this division created by capitalism.

The failure of the infant USSR to move beyond the first requirement to begin the transition to socialism - the abolition of the capitalist state and its replacement by workers' councils - to the second requirement - the abolition of wage slavery and the beginning of the uprooting of the law of value, is the main reason why this model has to be superseded today to create a genuine new communism for the millennium. If we go back to Lenin's State and revolution we can see the theoretical embryo of this failure. Lenin refers to Marx's Civil war in France, enabling him to advocate a new commune state based on soviets. Furthermore, he also quotes extensively from Marx's Critique of the Gotha programme, getting very close to the need for production and distribution planned by workers' councils on the basis of labour time.

However, it is precisely at this point that Lenin moves away from Marx. For, despite his monumental efforts since grappling with the Philosophical notebooks in 1914, Lenin still clung to some of the revolutionary social democratic views of the pre-World War I Second International. In particular, he shared the view of socialism as the culmination of the 'objective' concentration and centralisation of production undertaken by monopoly capitalism. This looked to the state to continue the centralising process until production was fully nationalised and hence ripe for socialisation. Viewing society as would-be socialist administrators running a centralised system of production, revolutionary social democrats rejected Marx's lower phase of communism, organised as 'freely associated labour' abolishing wage slavery. Lenin, still taking his lead from the earlier social democratic revolutionary legacy, took its logic one step further.

"All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of armed workers ... The whole society will have become a single office and a single factory, with equality of labour and pay." Thus it is that Lenin, coming so close to Marx's genuine communism, ended up advocating instead a 'barracks socialism'. Revolutionary social democracy viewed the economic organisation bequeathed by monopoly capitalism as progressive. It did not see the need to abolish wage slavery (and also began to view Henry Ford's capitalist assembly line technology and workplace organisation favourably, too). Instead it tried to put the wages system 'under workers' control'. The experience of the whole last century is that this has no more provided the basis for a successful communist (or even socialist) transition, than placing parliament 'under workers' control' (electing social democratic governments). Furthermore, if we look at Lenin's quotes, we can see just how close they come to anticipating the society which triumphed under Stalin. The supervision by armed workers soon gave way to supervision of unarmed workers by socialist administrators, backed by the regular army, regular and secret police, as well as Party placemen at every level. Needless to say, equality of labour and pay were never implemented. But the Stalinist USSR certainly came close to being a society organised as "one big office" and "factory".

German social democrats clung on to their Marxist label until the 1953 Bad Godesburg conference - as long as they only claimed Marx's pre-Paris Commune view of socialism as the fullest 'parliamentary democracy under workers' control', this had some legitimacy. The official communists claimed more of Marx's legacy and accepted the need to smash the capitalist state, but until official communism finally collapsed in 1991 they also clung to Marx's pre-1875 view of placing 'the wages system under workers' control'. Quite clearly, we can now see that both these views have led to disaster.

Yet Dave and others, in that shrinking band of dissident revolutionary social democrats, still want to cling on to a restricted vision of Marx, born out of the 'counter-revolution within the revolution'. Dave wants to refine this old revolutionary social democratic theory to make it more consistent. In complete opposition to Marx, who linked the need for 'freely associated labour' (workers' councils) with the abolition of wage slavery and the introduction of time labour accounting, Dave completely separates them. He protests vehemently against orthodox Trotskyist contributors to the Weekly Worker that his version of 'revolutionary democracy' in no way denies the need to move to a 'workers state' with workers' councils wherever that is possible, ie nationally. But then silence - what are these workers' states to do? Do they manage capitalism until the 'United States of the World' has been achieved? Now, orthodox Trotskyists quite rightly believe that to state such a thing openly would hardly inspire workers to make a revolution. That is why there is an alternative neo-Kautskyist face to Trotskyism. Maybe we should just wait until the capitalists have created a fully integrated world market and state before we attempt to build socialism. The irony is that, despite heated debates on terminology, Dave (provided he does not slide into the neo-Kautskyist paralysis which is latent in his politics), the orthodox Trotskyists and the old Stalinists have the same post-revolutionary programme - 'the wage system under workers' control'.

What went wrong according to Dave is that the communists tried to build communism in one country. Dave has it completely wrong. It was the failure to successfully move fully to the first phase of communism which forced the retreat from international communism to national Bolshevism and hence state capitalism in one country. This failure was at least partly due (international factors undoubtedly played their part) to the attempt to limit communism to the view that it involved placing the 'wages system under workers' control'. This is what Dave is arguing we should advocate today, whilst reassuring us that the "economic revolution" will take care of the communist future. The most politically articulate members of the Bolsheviks and the Third International, who most vociferously opposed Lenin and the Bolshevik majority's retreat to national Bolshevism, had a more internationalist perspective than those who now argued for NEP, the capitalist 'transition to socialism' or later for state capitalist 'socialism in one country'. The first task of any successful workers' revolution will be to extend the revolution internationally. Despite Dave's attempts to characterise the debate in the RCN as a debate between 'international socialism' and 'socialism in one country', history has shown these two false alternatives are but the two faces of 'socialism in no country'. Dave does not seem to appreciate that (as long as he is still arguing for workers to seize power nationally) we will face the same immediate economic problems of isolation, whether we confine our programme to setting up workers' councils or move on to abolish wage slavery. International capitalism is not going to like it either way and will attempt to crush such efforts militarily or by an economic blockade causing undoubted hardships. (We can go further and point out that the major imperialist players are not even happy with mildly reforming governments which threaten to nationalise some local multinational facilities, such as Arbenz's challenge to the United Fruit Company in Guatemala, or Mossadeq's challenge to Shell-BP in Iran). Therefore 'state capitalism under workers' control' faces the same problem as the first phase of genuine communism. The advantage of the latter is that workers have more effective and entrenched control of society. There is no separate state (whether it calls itself 'soviet', or is a party-state), which the imperialists can more easily focus their pressure on. Secondly, the example of genuine workers' control (as opposed to 'representative' or nominal workers' control) is a much greater inspiration to workers and the oppressed when it comes to spreading the international revolution.



Given the material above, there are a lot of questions that need answering, including the possibility that Marx may have become the first "scientific anarchist." On the other hand, the argument above completely ignores the "Lenin sucks, Marx rocks" argument that Russia was NOT ready for the "lower phase of communism," which leaves the possibility of certain capitalist-epoch tasks that need "completion" (which I will address in a "permanent revolution" thread).



In any event, the directly democratic socialist economy described above could be reconciled with the concept of a "multi-economy" within the CAPITALIST mode of production in its final years (as Lenin outlined in the same "Left-Wing Childishness" article), which would include this emerging economy at the expense of the state-capitalist "Gosplan" economy (which by then will have eliminated the "cooperativized" private-capitalist economy):

http://www.revleft.com/vb/law-uneven-development-t72803/index.html

[FireFry]

What happens then is you get a system of useless social workers and bureacracies that inflate an overly useless welfare state and/or gulag system. That's what lenin did, and look at how that turned out, the mercenary underworld of gangsters took over in Russia.