Reform or Revolution

  1. Positivist
    Positivist
    (This is a post by DNZ from a discussion we had in another group which is now being transfered here as to promote broader participation and avoid splintering marxist discourse further on this site.)

    If this group will discuss immediate policy, I think a "reform or revolution" demarcation line can be drawn by platform inclusion or omission of the following:

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Kautsky
    Direct confiscation would complete this quickly, often at one stroke, while confiscation through taxation permits the disappearance of capitalist property through a long drawn out process proceeding in the exact degree in which the new order is established and its benevolent influence made perceptible […] Confiscation in this way loses its harshness, it becomes more acceptable and less painful. The more peaceably the conquest of the political power by the proletariat is attained and the more firmly organized and enlightened it is, the more we can expect that the primitive forms of confiscation will be softened.
    [This refers to tax-to-nationalize schemes, whereby what is taxed is later on used in eminent domain or compulsory purchase.]

    Quote:
    Originally Posted by Me
    In the 1970s, German-born Swedish economist Rudolf Meidner outlined a similarly protracted plan for the increase of real social savings and investment (in turn for, among additional and exclusively public purposes, sustaining real wage growth and the least the limited Keynesian definition of “full employment”), by first means of mandatory and significant redistributions of annual business profits – with no allowances for net loss rebates (the exact opposite of “privatize the gains, socialize the losses” bailouts) – by private enterprises with more workers than a defined threshold, as non-tradable and superior voting shares to be held by geographically organized worker funds; the respective specifics are twenty percent of business profits (again, no net loss rebates), fifty employees, and regional and not union-level organization of wage-earner funds. Naturally, the Swedish bourgeoisie mobilized well-funded opposition towards this decades-long plan to peacefully liquidate them as a class within decades.
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by David Schweickart
    Let us imagine a quick transition from the deeply irrational, ultimately unsustainable economic system we presently inhabit to a democratic, socialist economy, one in which enterprises are run democratically, and economic stability no longer requires keeping our capitalists happy. Suppose we do get a financial meltdown on the scale of the Great Depression. And suppose we had a government newly elected, determined to effect this transition.

    The first thing would be to assure everyone, a la Franklin Delano Roosevelt, that there's nothing to fear but fear itself. I mean, we are not talking about a meteor crashing into the earth, or an incurable plague, or a nuclear war. Pieces of paper have suddenly lost their value. Our resources are still intact. Our skill base is still intact. There's no reason for ordinary people to lose their jobs or see their incomes plummet-no material reason, that is.

    What next? Well, since the stock market has tanked, let the government step in and buy up those now near-worthless shares of the publicly-traded non-financial corporations. (The price tag may well be less than Paulson's $700b. The government can print the money, if need be. In a depression it's essential to stimulate the economy by pumping money into it.) Suddenly our government has controlling interest in all the major corporations. (Notice, these assets are not "expropriated" by the government. They are paid for at full market value.)
  2. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Ah yes, thanks for recalling this post, comrade. I've had comradely discussions elsewhere, and I'll reproduce them here, too.

    (Responding to someone citing the Fifth Amendment)

    Folks, there's a way around that which the left all across the globe should advocate: the coupling of eminent domain / compulsory purchase with prior tax-to-nationalize schemes (special tax levies on windfall profits, operating profits, financial assets, etc.).
    (Responding to someone asking about my proposal)

    The special tax is levied first (again, on windfall profits, operating profits, financial assets, etc.), and then the proceeds are used to nationalize. This is the opposite of what, say, Chavez is doing, using debt financing to nationalize.

    It's also called fiscally "responsible"/"conservative" socialism.
    (A comrade suggesting an alternative form of "compensation" under my proposal)

    How about paying some nationalisation compensation in the form of tax credits? That would be a good way to screw tax avoiders for one.
    (Said comrade clarifying for me)

    Yeah, exactly. One might even describe it as the property being nationalised is itself the tax. This way tax compliant individuals do not lose out, they are fully compensated by way of lower taxes. Those who have been avoiding their taxes on the other hand are merely left wishing that they hadn't.

    The trouble with your original suggestion, while having merit, is that the dishonest would profit from the honest. If your compensation is coming from taxes which you haven't bothered to pay then you really shouldn't be profiting.
    (A related FYI from me)

    FYI (or perhaps you were already a party to the conversation), comrade Cockshott had issue with the tax being levied on profits in the first place, since the cash proceeds would go to the "rentiers" (presumably the dividend recipients) instead of being plowed back into the business. That's why he suggested financial assets.
    (Closure)

    From a debt-averse and budgetary perspective, one could call this a fiscally “responsible” or “conservative” socialism of sorts, whereby a special tax would be levied on some combination of windfall profits, operating profits, and financial assets themselves, and then another combination of cash proceeds, non-retroactive tax credits, and retroactive tax credits (for discouraging tax avoidance) would be disbursed to take the relevant ownership stakes into public ownership.
  3. Workers-Control-Over-Prod
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod
    Originally posted by the not-so-harsh Kautsky:

    Confiscation in this [taxation nationalisation] way loses its harshness, it becomes more acceptable and less painful. . . the primitive forms of confiscation will be softened.
    Well, my problems to not hurting the bourgeoisie's feelings has been solved! LOL. I always thought revolutionary expropriation sounded so fun... But honestly, liquidating the bourgeoisie as a class without an own revolutionary state is reformism, so i pray we liquidate the bourgeois class state-elements before we take the soft route on the expropriation business, yes? All reformer elements in the party would as well need to be purged before such a move towards 'civilised' expropriation.
  4. Die Neue Zeit
    Die Neue Zeit
    Maybe on both counts. However, there's also a political edge to this fiscally "responsible" or "conservative" Socialism or tax-to-nationalize scheme: precisely because of the problem posed by the reformists you mentioned.

    "Ideally," this policy would fit right in with Bernstein's Evolutionary Socialism, but surprise, surprise, Bernstein never advocated this measure.

    It's a "soft" dividing line that determines which reformers should be left with the neoliberals by the wayside and which are committed (and can be left by the wayside later). Put this forth to comrades in Die Linke as a "red holding line" (Oskar Lafontaine), and you'll see exactly what I mean.

    [I meant that last part, btw. You should speak with them on my behalf for this.]
  5. Workers-Control-Over-Prod
    Workers-Control-Over-Prod
    The question here really is, when talking about such (let's be open) [accelerated{at best!}] reformist measures, who holds State power? Has the old bourgeois state been solidly destroyed (or "dismantled", however one likes) and replaced by worker armed bodies? And of course, how much strength the reformers have in the party/workers militancy.