Are humans a 'mode of production' in themselves?

[Flying Purple People Eater]

Spelling mistake in the title. It had meant to say 'means'.

Just to note, I am still learning and haven't shaped my full opinions on what I support, so If I sound at all naive or contradictory it's the inexperience talking.


I was chatting with a friend yesterday about the U.S.S.R., with me playing devil's advocate and him quite strongly accusing it of a degenerated capitalism.

After talking for a while, I challenged him about why he opposed the hierarchial nature of the CPSU, in which he responded something along the lines of "from an authoritarian point of view, a proletarian is also a fundamental means of production out of their ability to "manage and produce", thus the 'ownership' of the proletarians or non party-members creates a class system in itself."

He was also explaining how, due to this and subsequently the party's ownership over the means of production, that the Soviet Union was capitalist from the very beginning as it merely changed the system of management while retaining the mode of production. Now I was stumped by this as I'm not really well read in marxian economics or theory, and as mentioned am still cramming my head full of knowledge. But this interested me, so I'd like to pose a question to you guys about it.

What's your opinion on this? Is my friend correct or a babbling maniac? If this is a stupid question, then I'm sorry that my brain is so rotten. But I'd really like some feedback on this.


P.S. Please don't turn this into a sectarian yelling match.

[PhoenixAsh]

Welll....humans represent the means of production "labour". So technically he is correct...

And the opinions on the board are devided as to the nature of the CPSU and the USSR. A lot of members would agree with your friend tht the USSR was state capitalis. What a lot of people would not agree to is that the CPSU "owned" the people per se and that is the reason why they are state capitalist. Labour is traditionally the only thing a person owns. But the means is exploited because the labourer is completley dependend on selling this "labour" to survive.

The CPSU owned means of production. Theoretically they managed them in the name of the proletariat. In practice that created a whole new elite system and hierarchy which acted like the bourgeoisie with the added factor that complaining workers were seen as hostile to socialism and labelled as class enemies or traitors...making it even harder for workers to stand up for their rights. That could be considered as state capitalist.

So yeah...I am one who broadly agrees with your friend.

[Questionable]

The CPSU was not based around a drive for personal profit, as the bourgeoisie are. The products of labor were both divided between goods for the workers, goals set by the Party (Typically science research, military defense, that type of thing), and the expansion of industrial power. It was more of a management system than a class system like capitalism as the Party was not directly benefiting from capital reproduction. However, in the 50s we began to see a drive towards privatization, which lead to a lot of economic and political problems.

The CPSU owned means of production. Theoretically they managed them in the name of the proletariat. In practice that created a whole new elite system and hierarchy which acted like the bourgeoisie with the added factor that complaining workers were seen as hostile to socialism and labelled as class enemies or traitors...making it even harder for workers to stand up for their rights. That could be considered as state capitalist.

Not trying to start a sectarian argument, but the implementation of Five-Year Plans was not a strictly top-down process, and included a lot of cooperation with individual enterprises in order to shape the final outcome. I also remember reading that Soviet workers had quite a lot of input with their managers, I believe Ismail is the one that told me this so I'll try to confirm it with him.

[PhoenixAsh]

The CPSU was not based around a drive for personal profit, as the bourgeoisie are. The products of labor were both divided between goods for the workers, goals set by the Party (Typically science research, military defense, that type of thing), and the expansion of industrial power. It was more of a management system than a class system like capitalism as the Party was not directly benefiting from capital reproduction. However, in the 50s we began to see a drive towards privatization, which lead to a lot of economic and political problems.

Not trying to start a sectarian argument, but the implementation of Five-Year Plans was not a strictly top-down process, and included a lot of cooperation with individual enterprises in order to shape the final outcome. I also remember reading that Soviet workers had quite a lot of input with their managers, I believe Ismail is the one that told me this so I'll try to confirm it with him.

The problem is that the debate over wether or not the Soviet Union was or waqs not state capitalist hugely depend on what definition you use of the term. The traditional critique when appplied to the USSR originates as early as 1918 and definately grew after the implementation of the NEP and in the early and late 30's.

It was argued that the USSR maintained a fairly petit-burgeoisie notion of production and redefined labour according to those notions. Workers were allowed to work where they wated but they mostly worked in state owned enterprises and corporatized organisations; either directly or indirectly.

In many ways the enterprises had very little choice other than to cooperate with central planning. If they refused or if they failed to cooperate to a satisfactory level they soon either vanished or were collectively punished.

And since the party maintained the notion that it was the only entity that operated in the name of the proletariat and therefore was the proletariat is was actually quite hard for workers to actually stand up for their rights....eventhough they were nominally quaranteed in the constitution.

Since the party was therefore rather exclusive and one could only join on several conditions...party members gained valuable privileges and benefits...both social and material. And that created a new bureaucratic class.

[Questionable]

The problem is that the debate over wether or not the Soviet Union was or waqs not state capitalist hugely depend on what definition you use of the term. The traditional critique when appplied to the USSR originates as early as 1918 and definately grew after the implementation of the NEP and in the early and late 30's.

Well, by "capitalism" I presume you mean an economic system with the expropriation of surplus-labor into the hands of bourgeoisie for the sake of generating more profit, with commodities and private ownership as its main features. If that is your definition of capitalism, then no, that was not the Soviet Union. Even the state did not really have this role, it was more of a management system.

It was argued that the USSR maintained a fairly petit-burgeoisie notion of production and redefined labour according to those notions. Workers were allowed to work where they wated but they mostly worked in state owned enterprises and corporatized organisations; either directly or indirectly.

How is this "petite-bourgeoisie"? Also, I fail to see what's wrong with workers having to work at state-owned enterprises. Even Marx said the state must necessarily own these things at first (Gotha Programme, if I'm not mistaken).

In many ways the enterprises had very little choice other than to cooperate with central planning. If they refused or if they failed to cooperate to a satisfactory level they soon either vanished or were collectively punished.

Again, I'm kind of missing what's wrong with this. Obviously bad decisions happened at times, but overall if someone is not cooperating in socialism, why must we accommodate them? It sounds like you're wanting something like council communism, which was tried initially and failed because workers in individual factories simply produced for themselves and no one else. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your position.

And since the party maintained the notion that it was the only entity that operated in the name of the proletariat and therefore was the proletariat is was actually quite hard for workers to actually stand up for their rights....eventhough they were nominally quaranteed in the constitution.

Since the party was therefore rather exclusive and one could only join on several conditions...party members gained valuable privileges and benefits...both social and material. And that created a new bureaucratic class.

This was indeed a problem though, and was something that allowed Khrushchev and others to steer the USSR in the wrong direction. But it should be noted that Stalin and others tried to implement much greater democratic reforms, including direct democracy, but the Nazi invasion meant they had to focus more on the economy.

[PhoenixAsh]

Well, by "capitalism" I presume you mean an economic system with the expropriation of surplus-labor into the hands of bourgeoisie for the sake of generating more profit, with commodities and private ownership as its main features. If that is your definition of capitalism, then no, that was not the Soviet Union. Even the state did not really have this role, it was more of a management system.

In 1964 Yevsei, leading economics professor at Kharkov state university, wrote:

Profit is the expression in money of surplus value. Now surplus value in addition to the measure of personal needs, is necessary for any society to exist and develop. Soviet economists did not invent this term. It was there in slave society, it was there under feudalism and it exists under capitalism, and it is needed every bit as much under socialism as well. Profit (as the expression in money of surplus value) persists in the U.S.S.R., as a commodity-money economy operates in our country and will operate until communism is built.

He goes on to explain what is interpreted in the USSR as profit and why there is an incentive system. In his conclusion he writes about this interpretation of profit and its use:

In the first place, this is a form of accumulating funds to expand production and gratify social needs. In the second place, to a still greater extent than under capitalism profit can serve to gauge the economic efficiency of an enterprise, provided the policy of planning of prices is correct.

In his articles he focusses on the justification of unequal reward systems based on contribution to profit and the incentive and reward systems in place which rewarded contribution or increase in profits and the inequality of rewards based on position and (as he states) responsibilities within an enterprise.

In other words there are differences how the economy operates but clearly distinguishable is that there is a system based on extracting surplus value which in turn is used in an unequal reward system based on contribution to profit and position with profitable enterprises. The state accumulates all profits and redistributes them. according to some principles based in central planning.

How is this "petite-bourgeoisie"? Also, I fail to see what's wrong with workers having to work at state-owned enterprises. Even Marx said the state must necessarily own these things at first (Gotha Programme, if I'm not mistaken).

And that is offcourse where I differ with Marx....since I am not a Marxist but an Anarchist I do not believe in the state, nor in the state owning anything or a vanguard party perse and especially one that exists beyond the immediate period of the revolution. Since that creates forced hierarchy...well...I am opposed to it.

Also I do not understand your question in relation to what I wrote.

Again, I'm kind of missing what's wrong with this. Obviously bad decisions happened at times, but overall if someone is not cooperating in socialism, why must we accommodate them? It sounds like you're wanting something like council communism, which was tried initially and failed because workers in individual factories simply produced for themselves and no one else. But maybe I'm misunderstanding your position.

The use of force to make workers conform does not sound wrong?


I am kind of curious as to which phase of the Russian Revolution council communism was implemented and for what period and who decided that it didn´t suit their needs and why. Could you elaborate on this?

This was indeed a problem though, and was something that allowed Khrushchev and others to steer the USSR in the wrong direction. But it should be noted that Stalin and others tried to implement much greater democratic reforms, including direct democracy, but the Nazi invasion meant they had to focus more on the economy.

I think there was a lot wrong with Stalin and I am not seeing these democratic reforms in his politics.

[Questionable]

In 1964 Yevsei, leading economics professor at Kharkov state university, wrote:


In his articles he focusses on the justification of unequal reward systems based on contribution to profit and the incentive and reward systems in place which rewarded contribution or increase in profits and the inequality of rewards based on position and (as he states) responsibilities within an enterprise.

In other words there are differences how the economy operates but clearly distinguishable is that there is a system based on extracting surplus value which in turn is used in an unequal reward system based on contribution to profit and position with profitable enterprises. The state accumulates all profits and redistributes them. according to some principles based in central planning.

This was post-Stalin and was not the norm in the Soviet Union up until the 60s and afterwards when Soviet economists began to come up with crazy ideas like this about measuring their own performance in capitalist terms. Before then, as Bill Bland notes, ""Under the socialist system which formerly existed in the Soviet Union, the prices of commodities were fixed at all levels by the state. In fixing the price of a commodity, its value was taken into account, but the actual price was determined in accordance with the state's assessment of social requirements. Thus, over a considerable period the price of vodka was fixed above its value in order to discourage its consumption; on the other hand, the price of clothing was fixed below its value in order to assist the working people to buy more clothes. As a result of this price-fixing policy, enterprises in the vodka industry made an above-average rate of profit, while enterprises in the clothing industry made a below-average rate of profit. But since virtually all the profits of all industries accrued to the state and not to the individual enterprises, this was of book-keeping significance only." So you can actually see that state-planning helped them a lot in this field.

And that is offcourse where I differ with Marx....since I am not a Marxist but an Anarchist I do not believe in the state, nor in the state owning anything or a vanguard party perse and especially one that exists beyond the immediate period of the revolution. Since that creates forced hierarchy...well...I am opposed to it.

Ah, I see. There lies an entirely different debate, so for now I'll focus on the economic nature of the USSR.

Also I do not understand your question in relation to what I wrote.

You said the Soviet Union modeled its labor relations after the petty-bourgeoisie. Petty-bourgeoisie are the "small fry" of capitalism, those who own some means of production but not enough to live completely off labor. They are particular to capitalist systems and I'm not sure how you can say they existed in Soviet society. I'd accept the explanation that they were simply bourgeoisie before I accepted that.

The use of force to make workers conform does not sound wrong?

It is wrong in capitalism and other economic modes because it forces to worker to work his life away on something that is against his fundamental class interests, but in socialist states it is well-documented that many of the goods produced by workers came back to them directly. I honestly fail to see why you wouldn't want to work. But in communism this wouldn't be the case.

I am kind of curious as to which phase of the Russian Revolution council communism was implemented and for what period and who decided that it didn´t suit their needs and why. Could you elaborate on this?

Check out Christopher Read's bio on Lenin. He talks a little bit about factories run by individual groups of workers.

I think there was a lot wrong with Stalin and I am not seeing these democratic reforms in his politics.

He was planning on implementing them but WWII got in the way. Check out this link: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr.html

[PhoenixAsh]

It is interesting that you mention Lenin. During the period after the revolution the USSR wielded state controll over privately owned factories and enterprises and subjegated workers controlled factories to one man management systems and actively brought them outside the democratically owned scope....essentially the NEP was state controlled capitalism. And it was described as such. Stalin merely expanded on this practice introducing further hierarchical reforms in enterprises and management and introducing reward systems as I described earlier to expand on profitability. That focus on profittability in combination with the reward system geared towards increasing that profittability is in fact a petty burgeois mentality. Lenin himself used the term state capitalism to describe the system in the USSR.

I know that for Stalin WWII got in the way of democratic reforms. WWII is the most named excuse when it comes to things Stalin wanted to do but never did. So...instead of doing those Democratic reforms he executed his officer staff and then went on to create and found National Bolshevism and revitalised the concept of Greater Russia. After WWII he lived another 8 years...but I guess he was bussy doing other stuff then too.

The use of force to conform workers to the will of the state is bad not because the workers didn't want to work. It is bad because it takes away the principle of direct controll over the means of production in favor of an undemocratic, dogmatic machine that supposes itself to be superior in the knowledge what is good for the worker instead of the worker him or herself.

[feather canyons]

I suppose they are, but humans are a constant. Humans have stayed anatomically the same for 100's of thousand of years. Only our minds are subject to dialectics.

[Questionable]

It is interesting that you mention Lenin. During the period after the revolution the USSR wielded state controll over privately owned factories and enterprises and subjegated workers controlled factories to one man management systems and actively brought them outside the democratically owned scope....essentially the NEP was state controlled capitalism. And it was described as such. Stalin merely expanded on this practice introducing further hierarchical reforms in enterprises and management and introducing reward systems as I described earlier to expand on profitability. That focus on profittability in combination with the reward system geared towards increasing that profittability is in fact a petty burgeois mentality. Lenin himself used the term state capitalism to describe the system in the USSR.

Firstly, you seem to be blending the different economic phases of the Soviet Union into one. The NEP was brought about by Lenin in order to create the productive forces possible for socialism. Stalin actually ended the free market practices present under NEP and brought about collective control. Furthermore, making sure that enterprises are profitable is not the same as focusing them on profit. In the first few Five-Year Plans it was necessary to reduce waste so that the cost of production could be reduced thus insuring the utmost economic growth. After Stalin the Law of Value was said to guide all Soviet industries (Whereas Stalin said it was kept in check by central planning) and enterprises were judged by sheer profitability rather than their ability to keep costs down.

Once again, I don't understand how the Soviet economy was "petite-bourgeois" when petite-bourgeois are the small capitalists. So the Soviet economy consisted of capitalists who didn't own enough means of production to live off labor alone? It just doesn't make sense.

I know that for Stalin WWII got in the way of democratic reforms. WWII is the most named excuse when it comes to things Stalin wanted to do but never did. So...instead of doing those Democratic reforms he executed his officer staff and then went on to create and found National Bolshevism and revitalised the concept of Greater Russia. After WWII he lived another 8 years...but I guess he was bussy doing other stuff then too.

Look at this: http://clogic.eserver.org/2005/furr2.html

[PhoenixAsh]

Firstly, you seem to be blending the different economic phases of the Soviet Union into one. The NEP was brought about by Lenin in order to create the productive forces possible for socialism. Stalin actually ended the free market practices present under NEP and brought about collective control. Furthermore, making sure that enterprises are profitable is not the same as focusing them on profit. In the first few Five-Year Plans it was necessary to reduce waste so that the cost of production could be reduced thus insuring the utmost economic growth. After Stalin the Law of Value was said to guide all Soviet industries (Whereas Stalin said it was kept in check by central planning) and enterprises were judged by sheer profitability rather than their ability to keep costs down.

I don't really agree with the changes you ascribe to Stalin as collective control. The difference of opinion we are having is that you view the party as the ultimate decider in what is good for the proletariat whereas I am seeing the party as the hierarchical strangulator of the workers association and organisations and think that is the most accurate way to describe Stalins centralisation of power within the apparatus and subordination of the workers to that apparatus.

The apparatus and the tremendous bureaucracy appropriated large amounts of surplus value created by the workers in order to maintain itself and created a system of favoritism and privileges towards itself which were both created from social and hierachical power and from wealth accumulated.

Now...we could offcourse split hairs over if this creates a ruling class or if it simply is an act of social parasitism...fact remains surplus value was gained from workers to miantain social inequality and to the benefit of the few who operated and administrated the means of production.

The focus on creating profitable production and create surplus value which could be appropriated by the bureaucracy. And at the same the focus on stiffling workers associations and organisations at the favor of obedience and subjegation of the proletariat. Well that makes the USSR quite bourgeois in nature.

[Questionable]

I don't really agree with the changes you ascribe to Stalin as collective control. The difference of opinion we are having is that you view the party as the ultimate decider in what is good for the proletariat whereas I am seeing the party as the hierarchical strangulator of the workers association and organisations and think that is the most accurate way to describe Stalins centralisation of power within the apparatus and subordination of the workers to that apparatus.

I don't feel that way just because I decided to. I've determined my opinions from an analysis of the Soviet economy. And you mentioned Lenin before which I forgot to comment on, but a lot of those measures you dislike such as one-man factory management were due to the pressure put on them by the Russian Civil War. I know you probably think that's just an excuse but when you're getting attacked from all sides by imperialists harsh measures are necessary, you can't just go jumping into an anarchist commune right away. Besides most of the measures taken to win the civil war aren't fundamental parts of Leninism, I seriously doubt any Leninist would suggest one-man management under normal conditions.

The apparatus and the tremendous bureaucracy appropriated large amounts of surplus value created by the workers in order to maintain itself and created a system of favoritism and privileges towards itself which were both created from social and hierachical power and from wealth accumulated.

This happened but up until Stalin's death the system worked primarily towards the benefit of the workers and bureaucratic favoritism was fought against.

Now...we could offcourse split hairs over if this creates a ruling class or if it simply is an act of social parasitism...fact remains surplus value was gained from workers to miantain social inequality and to the benefit of the few who operated and administrated the means of production.

Again, you're making it sound as if this "ruling class" was living a wealthy life while everyone else starved. The reality of Soviet Russia is much different. The lot of life improved very much and at first Party members had very little privileges. Some of them even had to borrow money. Additionally, the presence of surplus-value gained is not merely enough to classify something as capitalism. There have been many different economic systems where surplus-value was present. What can be looked at is how surplus-value was utilized in order to positively effect the workers.

The focus on creating profitable production and create surplus value which could be appropriated by the bureaucracy. And at the same the focus on stiffling workers associations and organisations at the favor of obedience and subjegation of the proletariat. Well that makes the USSR quite bourgeois in nature.

Again, mere surplus-value is not enough to say that the USSR was capitalist. It had many different economic characteristics from capitalism, including where that surplus-value actually went. The Party did not accumulate all of that surplus-labor into their private hands for their own means, it was put back into things such as necessities for workers, state-run capital, scientific research, and military defense. It had less in common with capitalism than it did.

[RedMaterialist]

Human workers are, in capitalism, a means of production; the resulting relations between people become the mode (or relations) of production.

The use of the word "mode" is now, I think, problematic because of the change in its meaning over the last 150 years.

This also shows why capital is a social relation and why the relations of production are always lagging behind advances in the means of production.