Welcome to the Economics forum!

[Kwisatz Haderach]

This is officially the first post in this new forum. It was created out of a desire to increase the amount of economics-related discussion on revleft, and under the assumption that having a whole forum prominently dedicated to a subject will induce people to talk more about that subject.

The exact scope of this forum has not been fully determined, in the sense that it has not yet been decided whether this should be a place for the discussion of specifically socialist economics or whether it should also include discussion of capitalism and older modes of production. For now it covers everything. There might be some overlap with the Theory forum, but we'll have to wait and see how it goes.

So, to kick off some debate, here are some possible topics of discussion:

What do you think about the current state of the global capitalist economy? Is it going strong or faltering under the weight of its internal contradictions?

Capitalism has caused uneven development between the different regions of the globe. What does this mean for the prospects for revolution in those regions? Where and when is revolution most likely to occur, and what are we to do to speed up the process?

What do you think about the economic systems of Soviet-style societies? Which aspects of those economies should be kept in future socialist societies, and which should be abandoned?

How do you envision the ownership of the means of production under socialism? We all agree it should be public or communal, but what should be the size of each "public" or "commune"? Should we have small autonomous communes the size of individual factories, or medium ones the size of cities, or large ones the size of countries? How will these be internally organized, and how will they trade with each other?

What role do you see for the state - or a central arbiter of economic activity, with or without state power - in socialism?

Should there be money in socialism? If yes, who prints it and regulates the money supply? If not, what should replace it?

[Demogorgon]

Excellent, the forum comes into being. I don't really have the energy to answer all the questions you pose, so I shall stick to a handful

What do you think about the current state of the global capitalist economy? Is it going strong or faltering under the weight of its internal contradictions?
I don't know what to think sometimes. There are days where I can scarcely believe that it doesn't bring itself down with our help. When you look at the simple fact that capitalism drives itself by providing new credit but the method of providing credit eventually harms it, as we are seeing now. I honestly think it is staggering along, but it has been for a long time now and it always seems to survive. It needs to be hit harder.


What do you think about the economic systems of Soviet-style societies? Which aspects of those economies should be kept in future socialist societies, and which should be abandoned?They were too inefficient, and also not democratic enough. There were good aspects of course, setting forth plans in terms of goals over the next five years and so forth works, even some capitalists advocate the same thing, though they usually don't use the same term. Also the command economy model obviously works for rapid development, so it should be used where that is needed, but otherwise a more devolved and democratic system is needed

What role do you see for the state - or a central arbiter of economic activity, with or without state power - in socialism?Planning mostly. Also working to correct flaws in the economy as they occur, I suppose as you would say states do anyway. The planning should involve things like developing infrastructure, dealing with things under direct public control like schools, hospitals and whatnot, allocating resources to different areas according to population or need, to then be allocated to smaller workers bodies and also deciding how much money to supply (see below). I should note that I don't think the planning should get too specific, apart from the areas directly dealt with by the state. The state should simply collect and allocate funds for investment and distribute them to communities to allocate as they like. Final production can then be decided by these collective "enterprises" and a sort of socialist "market" (for want of a better word) can determine who gets what good or service. That brings up another use of the state incidentally, correcting any inequality that might arise


Should there be money in socialism? If yes, who prints it and regulates the money supply? If not, what should replace it?
There will need to be a method of exchange, that for simplicities sake, we can call money. However it will be different from capitalist money because we will abolish both banking and wage labour. Wage labour will not exist (except in early transition) in a socialist economy as I have described as any income a collective (of whatever type) receives will have to be distributed democratically and hence, presuming people vote according to their common sense interests, will reward people according to the amount of work they do. This is a sort of indirect way of achieving the same effect as Labour Credit Vouchers without the difficulties they can bring up.

As for who should print the money, well with banks gone, the system will have to change. Quite simply though, the planning authority should work out how much new money is needed ever month or year or whatever and introduce it.

[GPDP]

Well, this is a welcome development. I always thought an economics forum was sorely needed.

[trivas7]

Hey, great idea!

For now let me just mention the Marxist economic site (http://marxisteconomics.com/), David Harvey's Brief History of Neoliberalism as good resources.

[Kwisatz Haderach]

That's a very useful resource that I knew nothing about - thanks for the link.

It seems rather thin on content at the moment, but I assume that's because they're just getting started?

[Die Neue Zeit]

I wonder if my RevMarx thread on "Economics and Politics" can be moved to this forum. :)

[shorelinetrance]

finally, now we can formulate an actual plan for post revolution economics.

who's with me? hehe:D:)

[Led Zeppelin]

I wonder if my RevMarx thread on "Economics and Politics" can be moved to this forum. :)

And so it has begun:


I don't see the point in creating a separate forum for it and have the issue detached from political theory when both are so intertwined for us in the first place.

It would also create a lot of problems subject-wise, would threads that discuss the economic side of a political issue (which are so frequent) be moved to the Economics forum or kept in Theory, Politics, History etc.?

Would threads in the Economics forum that diverge into a discussion on political theory (as has happened often as well) be moved to Theory, Politics, History etc. or be kept in the Economics forum?

And there's also the issue of having too much forums; in my opinion we have too many to begin with, and it clutters the site, so even if I would think it was a good idea I'd rather have it be a sub-forum to another forum...but then you run into the problem I mentioned earlier again, to what should it be a sub-forum? Theory, Learning, Workers Actions, Politics, History...

:rolleyes:

No, there are not going to be any "mass-movings" of other threads to the Economics forum, that would nullify the entire point of a trial period to see how active it will be.

If you want to use the forum, use it with new threads, not by moving old ones to it.

We want to see how many members are actually interested in it and how active it will be.

[Lost In Translation]

So, the OIers can't access this, right? Would it be a good idea, though?

[BobKKKindle$]

What do you think about the economic systems of Soviet-style societies? Which aspects of those economies should be kept in future socialist societies, and which should be abandoned?

The lack of democratic participation and transparency in the former "socialist" bloc meant that there was no mechanism to ensure that the interests of consumers were taken into account when deciding which goods should be produced, which led to a shortage of basic consumer items, and poor quality, in comparison to the goods which were available in the capitalist bloc. Any form of economic planning must operate within a democratic framework, including institutions designed for the expression of consumer preferences, and the lack of this democratic framework was the main flaw of past planning experiments.

[Vanguard1917]

The lack of democratic participation and transparency in the former "socialist" bloc meant that there was no mechanism to ensure that the interests of consumers were taken into account when deciding which goods should be produced, which led to a shortage of basic consumer items, and poor quality, in comparison to the goods which were available in the capitalist bloc. Any form of economic planning must operate within a democratic framework, including institutions designed for the expression of consumer preferences, and the lack of this democratic framework was the main flaw of past planning experiments.

And the interests of producers were not 'taken into account' either, since most of these consumers which you speak of were also society's producers. Those responsible for the production of society's wealth - the working class - had no say in the production plan, which was spontaneously dictated by the ruling caste made up of the bureaucratic elite.

To answer the question, i don't think a socialist system would have much in common with the Stalinist system which existed in the USSR. From the perspective of people like Marx and Lenin, a socialist society is controlled and managed by the working class itself.

[Bilan]

And the interests of producers were not 'taken into account' either, since most of these consumers which you speak of were also society's producers. Those responsible for the production of society's wealth - the working class - had no say in the production plan, which was spontaneously dictated by the ruling caste made up of the bureaucratic elite.

To answer the question, i don't think a socialist system would have much in common with the Stalinist system which existed in the USSR. From the perspective of people like Marx and Lenin, a socialist society is controlled and managed by the working class itself.

I think I can agree much more with your economic posts than your posts on Ecological issues. :lol:

The first section of your post is spot on.

However, on topic.

Socialism, I agree, would not look like what was seen in the Stalinist era of the USSR, but furthermore, nor would it look like what it did under Lenin; and if it did, there is with all good reason to abandon Marxist-Leninism for good.

It is important to note that the organizational model of the USSR, following, not beginning, during the period of War Communism is far from anything that should be considered Socialism. It should be particularly well noted that this not because it was not 'anarchist', but because of the organizational model under which the USSR was operating under following Mid 1918, of which begun in the late 1917 - which encompassed the continual removal of power form the soviets, etc. and an honest Marxist definition notes that, when the working class is absent of power within production, political power means squat.
(Further, it is dishonest to argue that this is because of War Communism, because it had begun well before the Civil War).

State Capitalism, which was argued for by Lenin, in his text Left Wing Childishness and Petit Bourgeois Mentality, was certainly what was established in Russia, and it is nothing but crass and dishonest to claim otherwise.

So, no, it would not like that (Stalin era), but it wouldn't and shouldn't look like what it did by 1918 and later (Lenin), but something which encaptures the spirit of what was seen in 1917, and brings to life something much greater.

[Vanguard1917]

I think I can agree much more with your economic posts than your posts on Ecological issues. :lol:

We'll see about that. :lol:


Socialism, I agree, would not look like what was seen in the Stalinist era of the USSR, but furthermore, nor would it look like what it did under Lenin

But socialism did not exist under Lenin either and Lenin did not claim that it did. In reality, he argued over and over again that socialism is impossible if the working class does not take control over the management of society's production. Like Lenin pointed out in 1918:

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless battle against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass to a workers' regulation of production.'

[Bilan]

But socialism did not exist under Lenin either and Lenin did not claim that it did. In reality, he argued over and over again that socialism is impossible if the working class does not take control over the management of society's production. Like Lenin pointed out in 1918:

'Until workers' control has become a fact, until the advanced workers have organised and carried out a victorious and ruthless battle against the violators of this control, or against those who are careless in matters of control, it will be impossible to pass from the first step (from workers' control) to the second step towards socialism, ie, to pass to a workers' regulation of production.'

I find that quote very ironic, seeing as though he was advocating that the workers wage a ruthless battle against the Bolsheviks and the Trade Union bureaucrats! :lol:
As it was they who were undermining workers "control" following the revolution.

Furthermore, do you still consider the USSR to be a deformed workers state? or have you shed that garbage?

[Vanguard1917]

I find that quote very ironic, seeing as though he was advocating that the workers wage a ruthless battle against the Bolsheviks and the Trade Union bureaucrats! :lol:
As it was they who were undermining workers "control" following the revolution.



Well, it in fact took the defeat and removal of the Bolsheviks from political life to ensure the final defeat of the Russian Revolution and the victory of Stalinism.

But, yes, a large part of Lenin's political work in his final years was concentrated on criticising the growing bureacratisation of Soviet society and the lack of working class control over the state apparatus.


Furthermore, do you still consider the USSR to be a deformed workers state?

I don't think i ever have.

[Plagueround]

If there is one area I'm definitely weak in, it's economics. I look forward to seeing this forum in full swing so I can soak it all up. :D

[ComradeOm]

So now we're divorcing 'Economics' from 'Theory'? We've already removed 'Philosophy' so surely the remnant should be renamed 'Sociology'? :rolleyes:

Decoupling economics from Marx's work, or indeed any revolutionary theorist worth his salt, is unnecessary and disruptive. How the hell can anyone discuss a question like "What do you think about the current state of the global capitalist economy? Is it going strong or faltering under the weight of its internal contradictions?" without considering aspects like class analysis, political reactions, and the configuration of the capitalist state? In Theory such issues would be discussed as part of the whole, without breaking the question down into its constituent parts and then scattering them across various forums

So apologies Kwisatz Haderach but I do hope that this experiment dies a quick death. Between Learning and Theory we have plenty of avenues for such economic questions to be addressed


To answer the question, i don't think a socialist system would have much in common with the Stalinist system which existed in the USSRYes and no. While the USSR was clearly not a socialist society, there remains much to admire in its economic model. This remains the only real modern attempt to 'step outside' the capitalist market model and remains, with the appropriate 'democratic' adjustments of course, the most likely economic model for a post-capitalist society

[Vanguard1917]

Yes and no. While the USSR was clearly not a socialist society, there remains much to admire in its economic model. This remains the only real modern attempt to 'step outside' the capitalist market model and remains, with the appropriate 'democratic' adjustments of course, the most likely economic model for a post-capitalist society


You say that the USSR 'was clearly not' socialist, yet you also suggest that it is 'the most likely economic model' for a revolutionary society. Does this mean that a revolutionary society should not aspire to a socialist organisation of economic life?

Also interestingly, you make a very valid complaint in your first paragraph about the un-Marxist separation of 'economics' from wider political discourse, yet i think you commit a similar error by seperating the economic system from the political system in your view of Soviet society. According to your view, the rise of political bureacratisation was not inseperable from the inherent workings of the Soviet economic system, but was merely a flaw in an otherwise healthy economic body (so all that was needed were mere 'adjustments' to political life).

[BobKKKindle$]

This remains the only real modern attempt to 'step outside' the capitalist market model and remains, with the appropriate 'democratic' adjustments of course, the most likely economic model for a post-capitalist society

The lack of democracy was not a minor flaw in an otherwise acceptable economic system - the existence of a bureacratic stratum led to the restoration of capitalism and hence the elimination of all the important social gains which were made possible by collectivized property relations, as this stratum aimed to establish a more secure base for material privilege by gaining ownership of the means of production, which allowed for the direct accumulation of income from the sale of commodities, and the transmission of property to the younger generation as inheritance. In a workers state suffering from bureacratic degeneration, if there is no political revolution to overthrow the stratum and establish proletarian democracy, the restoration of capitalism is inevitable, as supported by the experience of the former Soviet Union, and the ongoing process of restoration in China.

[Vanguard1917]

The lack of democracy was not a minor flaw in an otherwise acceptable economic system - the existence of a bureacratic stratum led to the restoration of capitalism and hence the elimination of all the important social gains which were made possible by collectivized property relations

Which 'collectivised property relations' existed in the USSR? Are nationalised property relations necessarily an advance on market relations, even in the absence of workers' management and the increase in the productivity of labour?



In a workers state suffering from bureacratic degeneration, if there is no political revolution to overthrow the stratum and establish proletarian democracy...


This is still the same logic which you appeared to be criticising in your first sentence: i.e. Soviet society was OK 'economically' but flawed 'politically' (so that all that was needed was 'political' change rather than complete social change). It is this seperation of the political and economic spheres which is un-Marxist.

[ComradeOm]

You say that the USSR 'was clearly not' socialist, yet you also suggest that it is 'the most likely economic model' for a revolutionary society. Does this mean that a revolutionary society should not aspire to a socialist organisation of economic life?Note the "appropriate 'democratic' adjustments" are to be made to the economic model... not necessarily the political fields. The economic basis of the USSR did not allow for democratic input from the workers with the result that the political superstructure was equally unresponsive to these same workers. In a highly simplified nutshell of course

I maintain that any post-revolutionary economy is going to be based on the planned model of the USSR (again, the only practical alternative to the market) but I make no pretence that this was some perfect model that should not be altered. You are perfectly correct above but I think you mistook the area that I believe needs addressing

Again, all of this talk of interacting politics and economics reinforcing my first point on this particular forum

[Vanguard1917]

I maintain that any post-revolutionary economy is going to be based on the planned model of the USSR (again, the only practical alternative to the market)

But why is a system of production which, by your own admission, is non-socialist, the only alternative to the market?

Also, what you seem to see as glitches in the system (e.g. the absence of working class control and the existence of bureaucratisation) would actually better be understood as the system's defining characteristics. The system which you praise would not have been what it was without those characteristics. A society subjected to the conscious planning of the working class would pressupose an altogether different social system.

[ComradeOm]

But why is a system of production which, by your own admission, is non-socialist, the only alternative to the market?Perhaps you know of another non-market economic model that has been realised on a large scale? I'm sure that there are plenty of theoretical models, many are thrown around these forums on a regular basis, but very few of these have advanced past mere conjecture... never mind amassing even a fraction of the literature devoted to Soviet planning mechanisms


Also, what you seem to see as glitches in the system (e.g. the absence of working class control and the existence of bureaucratisation) would actually better be understood as the system's defining characteristicsHow so? I mean, I always assumed that the essence of a planned economy was.... well, the planning

I know that there is still a tendency in communist circles to fall back hissing and making the evil eye whenever someone mentions "centralisation and bureaucracy" but frankly you are going to get a degree of both in any advanced economy. Anyone who says you can coordinate a nationwide electric grid, steel industry, or simple factory floor (examples) without these simply doesn't know what they are talking about. Ironically enough the model that minimises these features is none other than a free-market economy....

[Vanguard1917]

Perhaps you know of another non-market economic model that has been realised on a large scale?

I don't know a socialist 'economic model' that has existed in practice, simply because one has not as yet existed in practice.

My question to you was why should we aspire to a non-socialist social system (since you argued that the Soviet system was both non-socialist and also the only alternative to capitalism that we have)?



How so? I mean, I always assumed that the essence of a planned economy was.... well, the planning



I would dispute your characterisation of the Soviet economy as a 'planned' economy. Market forces may have been abolished, but spontaneity in production still prevailed. This was the result of the absence of workers' management. Remember, in order to be a viable alternative to the market as a system of production, socialism relies completely on the conscious planning and decision-making of the working class. The absence of this should be our starting point in evaluating what kind of society the Soviet Union was.



I know that there is still a tendency in communist circles to fall back hissing and making the evil eye whenever someone mentions "centralisation and bureaucracy" but frankly you are going to get a degree of both in any advanced economy. Anyone who says you can coordinate a nationwide electric grid, steel industry, or simple factory floor (examples) without these simply doesn't know what they are talking about. Ironically enough the model that minimises these features is none other than a free-market economy....


OK, but this does not mean that the bureacracy should rule society. In a society ruled and managed by workers, 'bureaucrats' (as well as technical experts) are accountable to the class in power. And, to paraphrase Lenin, everyone takes turns in being a 'bureaucrat' - so that no one becomes a bureaucrat. The bureaucracy does not rise above the working class as a ruling stratum of society - as it did in the Soviet Union.

[ComradeOm]

My question to you was why should we aspire to a non-socialist social system (since you argued that the Soviet system was both non-socialist and also the only alternative to capitalism that we have)?I also made clear that I advocate significant alternations to the Soviet model. As for why I favour this, and I've mentioned this a number of times, the planned economy remains the only viable alternative to the market. Simple as. There are of course the various merits of a command economy but for me that is the overriding reason when compared to alternate proposals


The absence of this should be our starting point in evaluating what kind of society the Soviet Union wasAgain, I have never claimed that the USSR was socialist or that its economy was without flaws. You have continually ignored my assertions that adjustments would have to be made to accommodate 'democratic' (read: 'workers control') practices in any socialist economy

Now unless you can demonstrate that working class input is inherently at odds with a planned economy (ie, the two cannot exist together) I'm struggling to see your objections


OK, but this does not mean that the bureacracy should rule societyI'll have to ask you to point out where I advocated this. Obviously this is one of the major areas to be considered when building a planned economy that does not repeat the errors of the USSR. Indeed the role of bureaucrats in society is destined to be a major issue for any socialist experiment

[Vanguard1917]

Now unless you can demonstrate that working class input is inherently at odds with a planned economy (ie, the two cannot exist together) I'm struggling to see your objections

My objection is precisely that a planned economy requires workers' control and management. The Soviet Union did not have a planned economy, as you claim it did. Like i said above, spontaneity in production prevailed, even though the market was abolished. Rather than being directed and managed consciously (something which 'planning' implies), production was dictated by a bureaucratic elite cut off from masses. This was not a 'planned economy', and it certainly was no model for a socialist economy - which, i repeat, depends wholly on the conscious decision-making of the working class if it is to be able to replace the market as a more advanced mode of production. In order to win power away from the hands of their masters, the Soviet working class needed to resort to revolutionary means, just like any other non-ruling working class. It was not so much 'adjustments' that were needed as working class overthrow of the existing social order.

[ComradeOm]

My objection is precisely that a planned economy requires workers' control and management. The Soviet Union did not have a planned economy, as you claim it did. Like i said above, spontaneity in production prevailed, even though the market was abolished. Rather than being directed and managed consciously (something which 'planning' implies), production was dictated by a bureaucratic elite cut off from massesNow that is quite a bizarre comment. On the one hand of course I'm working within the language of.... well, everyone else really. That the USSR possessed a planned economy is simply a fact. Can you point me to a credible expert on the Soviet economy who insists that it was not planned?

That's not the truly odd nature of your assertion though. One the one hand you claim that there was no planning... yet you then turn around and insist that 'production was dictated by a bureaucratic elite'. Now I, as an ignorant layman, would have assumed that this elite 'dictated' economic affairs using a sophisticated planning (there's that word again) apparatus comprising a vast array of extremely impressive mathematical models - that formed a real cutting edge in linear programming and computational optimisation techniques - with the economic mechanisms of the market being replaced by concious decisions by economic planners. One might be tempted to call that 'planning'

Now obviously the economy of the USSR was not socialist (yet again I am forced to repeat that) but it is absolute nonsense to claim that this planned economy (the archetype of that category) was not 'directed and managed consciously'. Your statement doesn't even make sense unless you have arrived at our your own definition for 'planning'


This was not a 'planned economy', and it certainly was no model for a socialist economy - which, i repeat, depends wholly on the conscious decision-making of the working class if it is to be able to replace the market as a more advanced mode of productionSo you've said. I'm not sure why you keep saying this as I am fully in agreement with the idea of the 'conscious decision-making of the working class' forming the engine of any socialist economy. Again, I challenge you to provide a reason why this is not compatible with a planned economy


In order to win power away from the hands of their masters, the Soviet working class needed to resort to revolutionary means, just like any other non-ruling working class. It was not so much 'adjustments' that were needed as working class overthrow of the existing social order.I'm sorry, are we discussing a future post-revolution scenario or the social order of the mid-20th C USSR?

[Hit The North]

I think the distinction is between a planned economy based on control by producers and consumers and a command economy based on target setting by a bureaucratic elite and imposed on the producers from above.

Stalin's five year plans were fundamentally coercive, reinforced by political terror.

[Vanguard1917]

That's not the truly odd nature of your assertion though. One the one hand you claim that there was no planning... yet you then turn around and insist that 'production was dictated by a bureaucratic elite'.


So, conscious economic planning is the same as economic decisions being made by a bureaucratic elite? Does this seem correct to you?



Now obviously the economy of the USSR was not socialist (yet again I am forced to repeat that) but it is absolute nonsense to claim that this planned economy (the archetype of that category) was not 'directed and managed consciously'.


It wasn't, because there was no system of economic regulation in place. The law of value was abolished by the 1930s and no socialistic system of economic regulation emerged in its place (mainly due to the impossibility of building socialism in one country). As a result, there was no conscious allocation of society's resources. There was anarchy in production, where the bureaucracy allocated resources and labour-time into what it viewed as 'priority areas'. So, for example, Soviet production was able to come up with achievements in certain areas (e.g. space exploration and military technology), but it could not keep its stores stocked with basic foodstuffs. This was the result of the lack of a conscious production plan, which was itself the consequence of the absence of workers' management.


I'm not sure why you keep saying this as I am fully in agreement with the idea of the 'conscious decision-making of the working class' forming the engine of any socialist economy. Again, I challenge you to provide a reason why this is not compatible with a planned economy


A socialist economy is not 'compatible' with a consciously planned economy. To suggest that this is the case would imply that it's possible to isolate the two. Conscious economic planning is inseparable from socialism. One cannot exist without the other.

[ComradeOm]

So, conscious economic planning is the same as economic decisions being made by a bureaucratic elite? Does this seem correct to you?Of course its the same. How else was the USSR running its economy... by studying tea leaves? Why do you refuse to believe that bureaucratic elites are capable of economic planning? Your insistence that planning is only possible with 'working class control' is ridiculed by the vast body of literature devoted to exactly that under capitalist or state socialist regimes. Nonsense


As a result, there was no conscious allocation of society's resources. There was anarchy in production, where the bureaucracy allocated resources and labour-time into what it viewed as 'priority areas'. So, for example, Soviet production was able to come up with achievements in certain areas (e.g. space exploration and military technology), but it could not keep its stores stocked with basic foodstuffs. This was the result of the lack of a conscious production plan, which was itself the consequence of the absence of workers' managementI'm sorry but this conversation isn't going to go any further. Your above statement reveals a complete lack of understanding as to the nature or character of Soviet planning (of course... you deny that there was even such a thing) methodology or indeed the very basics of planning. Imagine having to allocate resources...:rolleyes:

[Vanguard1917]

Of course its the same. How else was the USSR running its economy... by studying tea leaves? Why do you refuse to believe that bureaucratic elites are capable of economic planning?

Because, from a Marxist perspective, no society other than a socialist one is capable of conscious planning of society's resources. Your argument that bureaucratic dictatorship of the economy is the same as a system which plans production consciously, makes no sense at all from a Marxist perspective.



I'm sorry but this conversation isn't going to go any further.


That's your choice.