Socialism literaly competing against capitalism

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Another unorthodox rambling from a newly-acquainted comrade of mine. She posts:

"I believe socialism should, quite literally, compete against capitalism in the marketplace. The anti-corporate movement extends to both sides of the political spectrum. If we could somehow convince particular capitalists to allow for the conversion of such corporations into workers' councils, we could foresee over half of the labor force owning the means of production through some sort of democratic institution.

But such radical changes would not be enough to expel capitalism from the hearth of civilization. So long as labor acts as a commodity, exploitation occurs. This is why I also propose that we get alter thef price system inside corporations to accommodate energy accounting. A new type of credit card can be put into circulation that would serve the primary purpose of energy accounting. Over time employees at these workers' councils would be able to enjoy all these consumer items "for free." A limited price system, held to democratic principles (decided upon by workers? by large) would answer any needs that can't automatically be met: cars and automobiles coming to mind.

The economy would literally be competitive: socialism versus decentralized capitalism. Workers would be able to join a workers' council at any time and avoid the exploition of labor, so small private firms would be forced to care for their employees."

Interesting proposition. Comments? Criticisms (I know some exist). :laugh:

[Die Neue Zeit]

I don't know if this should be merged into my thread on "left-wing childishness," (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-error-re-t74487/index.html) because my post-revolutionary multi-economy scheme has what you're saying.


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.



Here's my proposed scheme (again, each existing with one another AT THE SAME TIME):

1) "Correctional" labour production (serial criminals, outright class enemies, and counterrevolutionary class traitors);
2) Collectivized private capitalism (cooperative enterprises, conventional parecon with wage slavery, etc.);
3) State capitalism (starting as "technocratic" with Gosplan and ending as "proletocratic" - ie. the Trotskyist notion of "socialism" with wage slavery);

4) Socialism (with labour-time vouchers replacing wage slavery, and with directly democratic control); and

5) Communism (purely based on "gift economics").

[Fedorov]

It is an interesting concept but there is no way a corporation would allow workers to have any control of what "their hard earned money" bought. Ideally though a private firm would never be able to equal the equality of say a cooperative so the capitalistic element should shed off. I think its a very smart thought but is impossible to accomplish, only a revolution or extreme public pressure would make capitalists cave in to any sizable demands. Perhaps if Sweden did this.....
In any case, capitalism is too deeply entrenched, there needs to be a revolution.


Here's my proposed scheme:

1) "Correctional" labour production (serial criminals, outright class enemies, and counterrevolutionary class traitors);
2) Collectivized private capitalism (cooperative enterprises, conventional parecon with wage slavery, etc.);
3) State capitalism (starting as "technocratic" and ending as "proletocratic" - ie. the Trotskyist notion of "socialism" with wage slavery); and

4) Socialism (with labour-time vouchers replacing wage slavery, and with directly democratic control).

Or hell, why not just go to 4 right away? Perhaps the hypothetical communist stage 5? If it takes too long it will just stagnate and die, labour time vouchers should be used right away.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I wasn't implying stages here. The "scheme" refers to four or five elements existing AT THE SAME TIME in a post-revolutionary "multi-economy."

In my quote of Lenin, he said THE EXACT SAME THING. Soviet Russia at that time had five forms of economic relations. His ultimate point was that the bogeyman known as state capitalism shouldn't be feared.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

I think so too. I don't see how socialism could not compete against capitalism and win. Small firms would pose relatively few threats, and they could hypothetically serve some small functions, both to 1.) erase ideological sympathy (if socialism is naturally outperforming capitalism, it will be apparent), and 2.) consolidate workers without the use of force.

If workers could join these workers' councils at any time, reducing unemployment to 0, and ending the need for anyone to sell their labor, I think it can be safely identified as "socialist."

I'll look more into the subject as time goes on.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, after all the English and French bourgeois revolutions didn't immediately result in capitalism. The feudal economy still competed with the mercantilist and private-capitalist economies in the bourgeois "multi-economy."

[Enragé]

I don't see how socialism could not compete against capitalism and win

Then, by all means, throw socialism out the window.

The only way capitalism can be ended is through revolution, i.e the destruction of capitalism by hands of the proletariate. To this end we must organize, or we organize for defeat.

This is just reformism under a revolutionary guise.


And as for lenin, we don't live in an agricultural nation in the early 20th century.
Neither do the russians, and for that i thank lenin. Now could we stop with the archaic nonsense already?

[Kyznetsov]

Your friend obviously doesn't understand the labor theory of value.

[Enragé]

Your friend obviously doesn't understand the labor theory of value.

then by all means do explain because marx isnt known by the majority of the world's population.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Then, by all means, throw socialism out the window.

The only way capitalism can be ended is through revolution, i.e the destruction of capitalism by hands of the proletariate. To this end we must organize, or we organize for defeat.

This is just reformism under a revolutionary guise.

You confuse the capitalist mode of production with bourgeois rule. The former can exist for long periods of time without the latter. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-without-bourgeois-t71423/index.html) :glare: Modes of production evolve and wither away, exception when exported forcibly through some form of imperialism.


And as for lenin, we don't live in an agricultural nation in the early 20th century.
Neither do the russians, and for that i thank lenin. Now could we stop with the archaic nonsense already?

Whatever. :rolleyes: At least he was on to something, even if one of his key conclusions on this subject was wrong.

[Cult of Reason]

Energy Accounting, you say? Have you heard of NET's proto-technate idea? I disagree with it, but Serpent might be able to help you.

[Kyznetsov]

then by all means do explain because marx isnt known by the majority of the world's population.
And that makes it incorrect? Appeals to crude popularity and ignorance generally do not match up to objective Marxist science.

[Dimentio]

Another unorthodox rambling from a newly-acquainted comrade of mine. She posts:

"I believe socialism should, quite literally, compete against capitalism in the marketplace. The anti-corporate movement extends to both sides of the political spectrum. If we could somehow convince particular capitalists to allow for the conversion of such corporations into workers' councils, we could foresee over half of the labor force owning the means of production through some sort of democratic institution.

But such radical changes would not be enough to expel capitalism from the hearth of civilization. So long as labor acts as a commodity, exploitation occurs. This is why I also propose that we get alter thef price system inside corporations to accommodate energy accounting. A new type of credit card can be put into circulation that would serve the primary purpose of energy accounting. Over time employees at these workers' councils would be able to enjoy all these consumer items "for free." A limited price system, held to democratic principles (decided upon by workers? by large) would answer any needs that can't automatically be met: cars and automobiles coming to mind.

The economy would literally be competitive: socialism versus decentralized capitalism. Workers would be able to join a workers' council at any time and avoid the exploition of labor, so small private firms would be forced to care for their employees."

Interesting proposition. Comments? Criticisms (I know some exist). :laugh:



It could theoretically work, if we rather employ small-scale energy accounting than a wage labour system. But it must have a certain minimum size. There are some successful firms which are partially working like that. Nanjie in China or Mondragon in Spain.

[Enragé]

And that makes it incorrect? Appeals to crude popularity and ignorance generally do not match up to objective Marxist science.

Marxism isnt science, that's what engels made it into. I agree with the point you made but you made it without actually saying why that theory leads to this idea being incorrect.


You confuse the capitalist mode of production with bourgeois rule. The former can exist for long periods of time without the latter. Modes of production evolve and wither away, exception when exported forcibly through some form of imperialism.

Agreed.
The point is however that there is no reason to have a capitalist mode of production, whatsoever.

[Kyznetsov]

You seemed to be making the point that because Marxism is not known by a large part of the world with a largely not fully development bourgeois relation, that it is irrelevant.

[Die Neue Zeit]

You confuse the capitalist mode of production with bourgeois rule. The former can exist for long periods of time without the latter. Modes of production evolve and wither away, exception when exported forcibly through some form of imperialism.

Agreed.
The point is however that there is no reason to have a capitalist mode of production, whatsoever.

What about agriculture? In spite of the development of corporate agribusinesses, agriculture is still dominated by petit-bourgeois folks and modern kulaks.

That sector of the multi-economy needs wholesale sovkhozization first (http://www.revleft.com/vb/kautsky-bolshevik-mistake-t59382/index.html) (and it's cute that the current president of Belarus, Lukashenko, was once the "red director" of a sovkhoz after working in a kolkhoz).

[Enragé]

In spite of the development of corporate agribusinesses, agriculture is still dominated by petit-bourgeois folks and modern kulaks.


ah the side of leninism that makes me throw up, like 3 times.

As far as class consciousness is concerned the entire world is dominated by petit-bourgeois. (this consciousness is false, but that isnt the point).

Peasants revolt as hard as proles, if not harder, see spain '36-'37

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ They didn't revolt against the Khrushchev regime when it started the belated sovkhozization campaign. And as much as the Stalin-era kulaks and peasants wanted to burn the crops and slaughter their animals just for the sake of not turning them over, there's an interesting sidenote that's forgetten in most history textbooks: the famine only affected areas that went through kolkhozization. ;)

Your example could easily be amplified and countered by the peasant regime of Pol Pot (there's a prime example of peasant madness and ultra-consciousness). ;)

[Enragé]

^comrade

no me importa

I can give you shitloads of examples to counter your examples then you would come with counter-counter-examples and it would be just another typical revleft thread :P

[Luís Henrique]

You confuse the capitalist mode of production with bourgeois rule. The former can exist for long periods of time without the latter. (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-without-bourgeois-t71423/index.html) :glare: Modes of production evolve and wither away, exception when exported forcibly through some form of imperialism.

But to talk about market competition we must then discuss what State we are talking about, for markets, contrary to the bourgeois opinion, are never free - the State sets up the regulations that shape the market.

This is the reason why it is utterly impossible for socialism outcompete capitalism under a capitalist State - it oversees the market in order to precisely make it impossible.

Now, of course, this brings the issue of whether is possible for socialism to defeat capitalism in a market regulated by a proletarian State. That's the question, of course - but it might be said, for starters, that markets do usually create and increase social stratification, regardless of State (this being the reason why petty-bourgeois markets worked to undermine feudal States).

Luís Henrique

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Well, I wouldn't call my "multi-economy" proposal a "market" proposal, since the "market" is under attack from three forces within the new proletocratic state (so yes, you're right about how the deck of cards is stacked either way, depending on who's in charge):

1) Parecon and cooperative economics from within the still-existent private capitalism;
2) Centrally planned state capitalism (the "Gosplan" type), perhaps initially technocratic but eventually becoming proletocratic (and this would be the biggest enemy of the "market"); and
3) Labour-time economics (true socialist economics).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

In the developed countries you could dispose of the capitalist state by making it as close to a direct democracy as possible.

[Enragé]

^^^ Well, I wouldn't call my "multi-economy" proposal a "market" proposal, since the "market" is under attack from three forces within the new proletocratic state (so yes, you're right about how the deck of cards is stacked either way, depending on who's in charge):

1) Parecon and cooperative economics from within the still-existent private capitalism;
2) Centrally planned state capitalism (the "Gosplan" type), perhaps initially technocratic but eventually becoming proletocratic (and this would be the biggest enemy of the "market"); and
3) Labour-time economics (true socialist economics).

Why don't the proletariate just take over the means of production, kick the cappies out, and party till the sun rises again?

Then, make some guns, finish the rest of the cappies off, then party some more.

Yes, im oversimplifying, but you're making things too difficult and only opening the door for bureaucracy.

[Schrödinger's Cat]

Why don't the proletariate just take over the means of production, kick the cappies out, and party till the sun rises again?

Because life is never that simplistic. The capitalists didn't just rise to power on the back of a single, fatalistically front. There has always existed some level of gradualism. If socialism could hypothetically beat capitalism at its own game, why fret?


Then, make some guns, finish the rest of the cappies off, then party some more.

Or we can do the humane thing and give them a second chance. If they insist on rebelling, put them in prison.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't want my "forced labour" remarks in the Learning thread to spill over here, so I'll remark on your "direct democracy" remark:

While soviets, workplace committees, and communal councils will be used, what about citizens' referenda? California has this all the time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_ballot_proposition), among other states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Direct_democracy_in_the_United_St ates).

[Die Neue Zeit]

Why don't the proletariate just take over the means of production, kick the cappies out, and party till the sun rises again?

Then, make some guns, finish the rest of the cappies off, then party some more.

Yes, im oversimplifying, but you're making things too difficult and only opening the door for bureaucracy.

The Principles of Communism (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1847/11/prin-com.htm) by Frederick Engels states:


Will it be possible for private property to be abolished at one stroke? No, no more than existing forces of production can at one stroke be multiplied to the extent necessary for the creation of a communal society.

In all probability, the proletarian revolution will transform existing society gradually and will be able to abolish private property only when the means of production are available in sufficient quantity.

I will say, however, that he was overly cautious with respect to taking down private property (even of the parecon/cooperative types). However, this concept can be re-expressed as the need to establish some form of state capitalism, probably initially technocratic but definitely becoming at some point proletocratic ("made to benefit the whole [working] people" and operating on the principles of workers' rule - proletocracy). To argue otherwise would be, in Lenin's words, "left-wing childishness."