Multiple modern modes of production???

[Die Neue Zeit]

CSA: slave-based, feudal, or capitalist? (http://www.revleft.com/vb/csa-slave-based-t73431/index.html)
Capitalism without bourgeois rule: a compilation (http://www.revleft.com/vb/capitalism-without-bourgeois-t71423/index.html)
The Left and Labour in Russia Under Putin (http://www.revleft.com/vb/left-and-labour-t75080/index.html)
Lenin's conception of Socialism (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-conception-socialism-p1117298/index.html)
Lenin's error re. state capitalism vs. "socialism" (and "left-wing" childishness) (http://www.revleft.com/vb/lenins-error-re-t74487/index.html)
Bordigism - Adam Buick (http://www.geocities.com/antagonism1/bordbuik.html)



In the third link above, Boris Kagarlitsky said that the Soviet Union under Stalin and his successors was "neither capitalist nor socialist." The CPGB-PCC website with which he's affiliated has adopted the so-called "bureaucratic socialist" position (I disagree with this for reasons mentioned below).

Now, in spite of my initial remarks to Hopscotch Anthill in the first thread regarding the Confederate States of America and primitive accumulation in general, the content of the last website (Bordigism) got me to really question my current positions:

Are there multiple dominant modes of production, both modern and post-revolution besides just "capitalist," "socialist," and "communist" - all based on different features (ownership of the means of production, market/planned economic activity, control over the means of production, and labour compensation)?

Especially given my stance on labour-time economics being true socialist economics (per my thread on Lenin's error), the content of the last site alarmed me. The avowedly "anti-democratic" Bordiga openly advocated a true "bureaucratic socialism" - with social ownership, central planning, and the absence of wage slavery, but all run by technocrats.

[JazzRemington]

In any given society there certainly are different modes of production. For instance, in America there still is slavery (to some extent, though it isn't as open as it once was obviously) and some form of primitive communism in the form of communes and what have you. In Africa there is slavery, primative communism, and possibly hunter-gatherer. What counts is the dominate mode of production. For America, it would be capitalist because capitalist mode of production is the factor in determining all of the laws and social relationships.

Not sure how much of that makes sense because I'm tired and just got back from being at teh local university for some 6-7 hours.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ I don't think you post made much sense, since I'm talking about the possibility of new modern modes of production. :confused:

[Schrödinger's Cat]

The bourgeoisie need to be uprooted from society, of course. I'm sure you don't disagree with that sentiment. Having different modes of production would probably be the only feasible way to transform society - seeing as how no economic model ever turned about in a few years (without horrible consequences).

Perhaps we can pursue socialism with:
Cooperatives in the market
State-capitalism (army)
State socialism (public schools, post office, natural resource extractions)
Strong, voluntary unions
Democratic, non-party proletariat state (instant recall, referendums for certain items, initiative rights, workman's salary)
Public banks (no usury)

As far as anything else, I'm not sure. Have you looked into infosocialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infosocialism)? Essentially all art, music, and literature would be property of the state (and thus, the people). Artisans would make money on something other than "sales" - like votes.

I'm going out on a limb here by saying we should allow sole proprietorships and partnerships to exist until they whither away in purpose as production increases and makes the price system less viable. There's no sense in infuriating the petit-bourgeoisie either, since - if they end up going reactionary - they can just stamp out our movement with a fascist alternative.

[Die Neue Zeit]

State-capitalism (army)

Something like the Chinese PLA's commercial endeavours? :confused:

That would definitely knock out the Trotskyist argument for the abolition of the standing army!

What about this seven-economy "multi-economy":

1) Slave relations - "NKVD-style" GULAGS - for outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial non-political criminals (directed by a broad Internal Affairs administration) - thus saving society the unnecessary expenses associated with maximum-security prisons and execution facilities;

[Comrades should feel free to debate with me on the above economy (since I know there are objections, but I also acknowledge that what is above isn't as important as what is below).]

2) Parecon and other "cooperatives in the market" replacing proprietorships, partnerships, and other small businesses;

3) Non-market state "capitalism" of a rather STALINIST type, with wage-paid labour brigades per Trotsky's suggestion, which would mean a HUGE standing "army" coordinated by GOSSTROY (construction) and GOSPLAN (which would take care of the agricultural sovkhozization (http://www.revleft.com/vb/land-reform-obsolete-t74905/index.html) process);

4) Non-market proletocratic "capitalism" per the Trots (democratic central planning, but with compensation in wages);

5) Labour-voucher socialism but per Bordiga - real bureaucratic socialism coordinated by a separate soviet-appointed administration independent of the main state administration, but with compensation in labour-time vouchers;

6) Proletocratic socialism (democratic central planning, with compensation in labour-time vouchers);

7) Gift economy (communism in limited areas).

[Schrödinger's Cat]

That would definitely knock out the Trotskyist argument for the abolition of the standing army!

Honestly, I am not entirely sure on the nature of national military's after a successful defeat of bourgeoisie interests. I think it would be absurd to outright abolish top-down command within the military when rigid hierarchal command has rendered most ground troops accustomed to complicity. I am very supportive of eliminating a standing army, but we would have to look at foreign affairs.


1) Slave relations (GULAGS for outright class enemies, counterrevolutionary class traitors, and serial non-political criminals) directed by a broad Internal Affairs administration;

I am very skeptical about being so blatant with the term slavery, although I think it's true that criminals are slaves. What is your opinion about the bourgeoisie who don't commit illegal acts? As long as no violation of the law occurs, I think we should be very lenient on former capitalists. Furthermore, while I agree with the gulags compensating workers with the full fruits of their labor, I think we should be - primarily - focused on the use of rehabilitation for all criminals and recognize prison slavery as a necessary evil of the times.


4) Non-market proletocratic "capitalism" per the Trots (compensation in wages);

Can you explain further? I have to inquire on what we are to do with the petit-bourgeoisie. I think it would be grave mistake to isolate them by eliminating sole proprietorships and partnerships.

[Die Neue Zeit]

Honestly, I am not entirely sure on the nature of national military's after a successful defeat of bourgeoisie interests. I think it would be absurd to outright abolish top-down command within the military when rigid hierarchal command has rendered most ground troops accustomed to complicity. I am very supportive of eliminating a standing army, but we would have to look at foreign affairs.

Foreign affairs is irrelevant. Even with my instantaneous, coordinated global revolution ideas (hence one centralized revolutionary-Marxist mass party for the world), you're right in terms of complicity. The standing army would still have to remain, even without foreign bourgeois opposition.




I am very skeptical about being so blatant with the term slavery, although I think it's true that criminals are slaves. What is your opinion about the bourgeoisie who don't commit illegal acts? As long as no violation of the law occurs, I think we should be very lenient on former capitalists. Furthermore, while I agree with the gulags compensating workers with the full fruits of their labor, I think we should be - primarily - focused on the use of rehabilitation for all criminals and recognize prison slavery as a necessary evil of the times.

But the post-revolution aggravation of the class struggle along with the transition to socialism has to occur somehow. The bourgeois elements must either assimilate into the proletariat or be liquidated.

I think you're confusing #1 with #3 and with #5 here. "Compensating [conscripted] workers with the full fruits of their labour" through labour-time vouchers falls under #5. #1 deals with overworking reactionary elements to death, saving society the unnecessary expenses associated with maximum-security prisons and execution facilities.

Neither #3 nor #5 deals with gulags (think "NKVD").


Can you explain further? I have to inquire on what we are to do with the petit-bourgeoisie. I think it would be grave mistake to isolate them by eliminating sole proprietorships and partnerships.

You're confusing #4 with #2. Cooperative businesses would replace sole proprietorships, and all partnerships would be transformed into cooperative businesses. #4 deals with central planning along the Trot model.

Basically, #1 and #3 through #6 deal with central planning.

[Awful Reality]

That would definitely knock out the Trotskyist argument for the abolition of the standing army!

Such a thing does not exist. We support the abolition of a rank-based officers' army, and support the continuation of a revolutionary peoples' militia.

[Die Neue Zeit]

^^^ Thanks for clarifying between professional armies and peoples' militias. Given my multi-economy position above, I'm in the middle on this.

First off, modern professional armies have too many f****** ranks. Lower levels in labour brigades/armies could easily be handled democratically, or operate like the lower levels of modern business organizations (the disappearance of the immense middle-management bureaucracy). On the other hand, there is a need for established ranks at the top for the sake of coordination with GOSSTROY and GOSPLAN.