Questions.

[Baseball]

Yep, that's certainly a big part of it, with every tier making votes less and less meaningful.

But how is this even a solvable problem, in the socialist community? The workers at the local potato chip factory can certainly vote to produce X number of potato chips. But the vote means nothing if the farmers do not vote to ship sufficient potatoes; or the truck drivers do not vote to drive sufficient potato chips to its point of destination; or the plastic folks do not vote to produce sufficient plastic bags to put the chips in; or ect ect ect.

The "tiered" system is a way of tying together these disparate concerns and considerations. But as acknowledged, it presents its own problems.

[Fourth Internationalist]

But how is this even a solvable problem, in the socialist community? The workers at the local potato chip factory can certainly vote to produce X number of potato chips. But the vote means nothing if the farmers do not vote to ship sufficient potatoes; or the truck drivers do not vote to drive sufficient potato chips to its point of destination; or the plastic folks do not vote to produce sufficient plastic bags to put the chips in; or ect ect ect.

The "tiered" system is a way of tying together these disparate concerns and considerations. But as acknowledged, it presents its own problems.

For me, the societal control of the means of production, which includes planning at the societal level, will take place under communism rather than having this new type of private property where one group of people own this part of the means of production, and another controls this, etc. without any form of planned production and distribution. Could that even be labelled communism, if a small group of people can control a certain part of 'their' portion of the means of production, essentially holding it away as private property from the rest of society? I do not think it could be.

[Baseball]

For me, the societal control of the means of production, which includes planning at the societal level, will take place under communism rather than having this new type of private property where one group of people own this part of the means of production, and another controls this, etc. without any form of planned production and distribution. Could that even be labelled communism, if a small group of people can control a certain part of 'their' portion of the means of production, essentially holding it away as private property from the rest of society? I do not think it could be.

It wouldn't necessarily be the case that the potato farmers are "withholding" potatoes from the chip folks. They might simply have voted to send their product to the French fry people.
Agreed that some form of coordination is needed.
But how to do that, and remain true to democratic principles, is the concern the other fellow brought up.

[Fourth Internationalist]

It wouldn't necessarily be the case that the potato farmers are "withholding" potatoes from the chip folks. They might simply have voted to send their product to the French fry people.
Agreed that some form of coordination is needed.
But how to do that, and remain true to democratic principles, is the concern the other fellow brought up.

Workers at a particular place of production wouldn't vote to where they send their product. Why should they have that much control? That gives them control of their little section of the means of productions. That's not communism. The planning already set at the societal level would already have laid out what is to be produced and where it will be sent to. Giving a small number of people the ability to override an already set plan makes no sense.

[Baseball]

Workers at a particular place of production wouldn't vote to where they send their product. Why should they have that much control? That gives them control of their little section of the means of productions. That's not communism. The planning already set at the societal level would already have laid out what is to be produced and where it will be sent to. Giving a small number of people the ability to override an already set plan makes no sense.

Indeed it makes no sense. It is a recipe for chaos in production.

The concern of #FF000 is that such an approach is rather undemocratic- and he or she is correct.

I would add that such an approach is not unprecedented-- and there has been shortcomings and problems associated with it.

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

Askin all these questions, askin all the questions, why u askin all these questions, make statements, assuming?

[#FF0000]

The concern of #FF000 is that such an approach is rather undemocratic- and he or she is correct.

Well, I don't think it's undemocratic to say that local producers can't be left totally to their own devices without regard to the rest of society, or that people who live near a resource like lumber or oil can't be allowed to be the only people to decide how the resource is dispensed with. In fact, allowing that, in my opinion, would be undemocratic.

You should read the rest of that paper, I think. Machover does attempt to suggest a solution.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

The most common one is based on a federation of councils. Everyone from anarchists to Leninists paint a picture of a post-capitalist society centered around some kind of tiered structure of workers councils -- with with people electing delegates to local councils, which elect delegates to regional councils, which elect delegates to national/continental/whatever council above that.

Moshe Machover from the Communist Party of Great Britain wrote a pretty interesting paper (PDF link) that made some good points about the shortcomings of the council system. The two that stuck out to me the most, however, were the issues of what the councils would actually represent, and how democratic the model actually is (or rather, isn't). Firstly, people in the council system are represented only in terms of their function or locality -- as workers at a particular plant or as members of a particular region. Secondly, the council pyramid actually dilutes voter power with each tier, and is susceptible to voter burnout and what is called majority deficit.

I'd suggest taking a look at Machover's paper. It's only about 50 pages long, and you can skip right to section 3 (starting on the bottom of page 13) where he illustrates these problems better than I could.

I think there are several problems with this. The first is that the "federation of councils" idea does not correspond, either to the reality of the soviet republic in Russia, nor to anything advocated by Lenin, or the revolutionary Third International.

The RSFSR was, at most, a two-tiered system, with soviets (and sometimes army committees and similar organisations) electing delegates to the All-Russian Congress of Soviets. Delegates from regional congresses of soviets were seated only - if I'm not mistaken - at the First Congress. The one no one cares for. This neat scheme where the local soviet elected delegates to the uyezd soviet which elected delegates to the gubernia soviet which elected delegates to the congress... never really happened.

And it definitely wasn't what the Bolsheviks had in mind. As early as 1918, during the evacuation of Petrograd, you had Lenin and the Bolshevik leadership snapping at Zinoviev and others for running the ephemeral Union of Communes of the Northern Region like a state within a state. The Union was abolished shortly after, and the Petrograd Labour Commune, with its grandiose titles, was transformed back into the Petrograd Soviet.

Second, since when is subsidiarity a socialist principle? It's a talking point for Christian Democrats and the like, not something that has anything to do with socialism. If anything, Marxist socialists sort of assume a kind of anti-subsidiarity - that, as Engels puts it in Antiduhring, the productive forces have grown beyond any control but social control (explicitly contrasting this to the "socialitarian" proposal to have individual communes control "their own" means of production).

But the most important thing is that Machover's analysis is outright individualist. Proletarian democracy is, I would say, about the rule of the proletariat as a class, of the proletariat as a whole. The voting power of individual proletarians is besides the point. And besides, the old slogan of democracy "one man, one vote" would mean, when interpreted this literally, that not only should the bourgeois have the same vote as the worker, the factory worker should have the same vote as the labour bureaucrat, and we can forget about any special representation of minorities or women.

And actually, I would disagree with the notion that the dictatorship of the proletariat will be an "explosion of democracy". For the workers, it will be. For the bourgeoisie, for the peasants, labour bureaucrats etc. - it will be the very opposite.

Depends on who you're asking, apparently. In the transition from capitalism to socialism/communism -- the dictatorship of the proletariat -- you wouldn't have people going around and gathering up people's televisions and furniture and other household items to redistribute. However I think it's more than reasonable to say that people's relationship to possessions would be very, very different in a society where scarcity is eliminated.

I mean, here's what Marx said in the Manifesto, after all:

[snip]

I think you're ignoring that Marx was being sarcastic in that entire chapter. The point isn't "everyone is going to have the inalienable right to possess their car", but "there will be nothing in the way of personal possessions to expropriate, as capitalism robs the worker of everything". In other works, Marx and Engels did specifically tie personal property with class society and the state, for example:

"Thus in the Greek constitution of the heroic age we see the old gentile order as still a living force. But we also see the beginnings of its disintegration: father-right, with transmission of the property to the children, by which accumulation of wealth within the family was favored and the family itself became a power as against the gens; reaction of the inequality of wealth on the constitution by the formation of the first rudiments of hereditary nobility and monarchy; slavery, at first only of prisoners of war, but already preparing the way for the enslavement of fellow-members of the tribe and even of the gens; the old wars between tribe and tribe already degenerating into systematic pillage by land and sea for the acquisition of cattle, slaves and treasure, and becoming a regular source of wealth; in short, riches praised and respected as the highest good and the old gentile order misused to justify the violent seizure of riches. Only one thing was wanting: an institution which not only secured the newly acquired riches of individuals against the communistic traditions of the gentile order, which not only sanctified the private property formerly so little valued, and declared this sanctification to be the highest purpose of all human society; but an institution which set the seal of general social recognition on each new method of acquiring property and thus amassing wealth at continually increasing speed; an institution which perpetuated, not only this growing cleavage of society into classes, but also the right of the possessing class to exploit the non-possessing, and the rule of the former over the latter."

(Engels, "Origins...")

[Diirez]

Personal propery and private property are separate things.

[mushroompizza]

From what I have read of Marx is that once Socialism creates so much wealth for the masses and technology may solve any problem there is no role for government and communism arises. In communism there is no ownership but usership, where only the ones using something own it. And this man who apperantely steals a house probably wont happen, because the fruits of communism give him no reason to steal when he may just aquire a new house for free. And if a weirdo walks into your bedroom and says "this is everyones bedroom man" i pretty sure government or not wed punch him.

[#FF0000]

I think there are several problems with this. The first is that the "federation of councils" idea does not correspond, either to the reality of the soviet republic in Russia, nor to anything advocated by Lenin, or the revolutionary Third International.

You're right. It would've been more accurate for me to say that workers councils have been a part of every substantial worker's uprising and/or have been prominent in rhetoric. The councils didn't even meet anywhere close to what could be called "regularly" in the USSR

Second, since when is subsidiarity a socialist principle? It's a talking point for Christian Democrats and the like, not something that has anything to do with socialism. If anything, Marxist socialists sort of assume a kind of anti-subsidiarity - that, as Engels puts it in Antiduhring, the productive forces have grown beyond any control but social control (explicitly contrasting this to the "socialitarian" proposal to have individual communes control "their own" means of production).

Oh, of course I agree but I'm not sure where you think I said anything different. I was talking about representation in the lowest levels of the councils -- the "grass-roots" tier would represent workers from a very small/local unit (a certain factory or community), with each tier above being made up of delegates from the lower tier.

But the most important thing is that Machover's analysis is outright individualist. Proletarian democracy is, I would say, about the rule of the proletariat as a class, of the proletariat as a whole. The voting power of individual proletarians is besides the point.

I'd have to say, how can you have the former without the latter?

And besides, the old slogan of democracy "one man, one vote" would mean, when interpreted this literally, that not only should the bourgeois have the same vote as the worker, the factory worker should have the same vote as the labour bureaucrat, and we can forget about any special representation of minorities or women.

Maybe but wouldn't capitalists be disenfranchised as a class on a de facto basis on account of being absolutely miniscule in comparison to the working class, as well as no longer having dictatorial control over industry? Same goes for labor bureaucrats, actually.

As for peasants -- who's a peasant in 2015? Virtually all farm workers in the developed world are proletarians now, wouldn't you say?

And as for special representation for minorities and women -- the council system is actually even more problematic in this regard, because a "worker's council" mainly represents people as workers in their industry, and not on the basis of anything else, other than maybe locality.

snip

I don't really see anything in here that contradicts what folks say about personal possession vs. private property, though. But either way, I do see what you're saying about the abolition of possessions as well. Like I said before, it's not a stretch to imagine that in a society of near-absolute abundance, that people wouldn't particularly care if someone borrowed useful items that don't have some personal or private value (e.g. their shovel as opposed to things with their data, their writing, etc.) -- but in such a society, why would anyone bug you about it in the first place?

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

You're right. It would've been more accurate for me to say that workers councils have been a part of every substantial worker's uprising and/or have been prominent in rhetoric. The councils didn't even meet anywhere close to what could be called "regularly" in the USSR

Well, now, they couldn't really meet regularly in the circumstances, could they? In any case, I don't think it's really true that "workers councils have been a part of every substantial worker's uprising and/or have been prominent in rhetoric". This was not the case for the uprising of Hungarian workers in 1919, for example (the Hungarian Soviet Republic was 'Soviet' because it was led by a Revolutionary Governing Soviet - in the end, a short time before the social-democratic putsch it was named the Hungarian SFSR despite only having one federal unit), or the uprising of Bavarian workers. The Spartacist rising was also not overly concerned with workers' councils (in fact the soviets that existed in Germany were overwhelmingly reactionary).

And of course, where workers' councils or soviets or similar formations existed, they were generally part of a two-tier system, with first-level soviets electing delegates to the centre. In fact I honestly can't think of one revolutionary authority that functioned as a "federation of councils", or anyone who would advocate such a thing - except some anarchists.

Oh, of course I agree but I'm not sure where you think I said anything different. I was talking about representation in the lowest levels of the councils -- the "grass-roots" tier would represent workers from a very small/local unit (a certain factory or community), with each tier above being made up of delegates from the lower tier.

I was talking about Machover's argument - sorry if that wasn't clear.

I'd have to say, how can you have the former without the latter?

The proletariat rules if the policy of the state is determined by the class interest of the proletariat - the same goes for any ruling class. Now, this class rule can take several forms. In the bourgeois state, it can take the form of universal or limited franchise - or of Bonapartist dictatorship. For us, the main thing is that a form of social consensus, hopefully reflecting the genuine interest of the class, can be reached and acted on. This consensus will certainly not include everyone and it will not include everyone equally. The worker in the factory is more important to us than the shop keeper in the suburbs.

Maybe but wouldn't capitalists be disenfranchised as a class on a de facto basis on account of being absolutely miniscule in comparison to the working class, as well as no longer having dictatorial control over industry? Same goes for labor bureaucrats, actually.

But why would we give any voting rights to the (former) bourgeoisie? It sounds like the worship of form over content - voting over class dictatorship - to me - and it would inevitably introduce deformations. I think we are better off getting rid not just of the bourgeoisie and the middle strata but of all parties that represent their interests.

As for peasants -- who's a peasant in 2015? Virtually all farm workers in the developed world are proletarians now, wouldn't you say?

Farm workers - if we're talking about hired farm hands - were proletarians for quite some time. But obviously not everyone who works on a farm is a proletarian. Petty land ownership is still quite widespread. These people are peasants - and there are quite a few of them, even in the metropole, where massive subsidies keep them from being ground up by monopoly capital.

And as for special representation for minorities and women -- the council system is actually even more problematic in this regard, because a "worker's council" mainly represents people as workers in their industry, and not on the basis of anything else, other than maybe locality.

Alright, but as I said, no one really thinks that workers' councils are the only institution a workers' state needs - except some of the councilists (by no means all of them). Again, referring to actual practice in the RSFSR, there were numerous organisations, from soviets and factory committees (not the same thing!), to trade unions, councils of elders, army committees, and so on. Although even in the context of "pure" workers' councils, it is not difficult to imagine special women (for example) delegates to help deal with problems that directly concern women in the workplace etc.

I don't really see anything in here that contradicts what folks say about personal possession vs. private property, though. But either way, I do see what you're saying about the abolition of possessions as well. Like I said before, it's not a stretch to imagine that in a society of near-absolute abundance, that people wouldn't particularly care if someone borrowed useful items that don't have some personal or private value (e.g. their shovel as opposed to things with their data, their writing, etc.) -- but in such a society, why would anyone bug you about it in the first place?

The point was not that possession and economic property are the same, but that the latter rests on the former, and that the emergence of the former is associated with the disintegration of the primitive communal society, which was complete with the rise of class society, and the state which "secured the newly acquired riches of individuals against the communistic traditions of the gentile order". So possession, too, is a creature of the class society.

I also don't think the abolition of possession only happens once abundance is reached - it is also something that partially occurs in the transitional period (and capitalism for that matter). Earlier you said that the state would not seize someone's TV or furniture to redistribute but, if we assume that there is some kind of shortage and someone has a lot, why not? Certainly things like apartments, cars etc. will be redistributed.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

I agree that personal property is not beyond redistribution. I think the defense of personal property sometimes receives way too much emphasis from communists and for the wrong reasons. In the effort to reassure people who tend to own a lot of shit (generally westerners), we tone down the complete transformative effect of abandoning class society. It's no longer relevant whether or not the tiny sliver of land your little house sits on is solely controlled by you or not. The circumstances have changed, beyond imagination. That should be what gets the emphasis.

[NGNM85]

I don't really see anything in here that contradicts what folks say about personal possession vs. private property, though. But either way, I do see what you're saying about the abolition of possessions as well. Like I said before, it's not a stretch to imagine that in a society of near-absolute abundance, that people wouldn't particularly care if someone borrowed useful items that don't have some personal or private value (e.g. their shovel as opposed to things with their data, their writing, etc.) -- but in such a society, why would anyone bug you about it in the first place?

I know nobody wants to hear this, but who is ever going to live in such a society? Presuming you mean what I think you mean by; 'near-absolute abundance', (and I believe I do) this is a utopian fantasy. There's absolutely no way to achieve such a thing, certainly not without rendering this planet uninhabitable. (That is, unless, we're talking about using matter assemblers, or some equally fantastical McGuffin.) I don't assume, as (mainstream) economists do, that people's appetites are, literally, boundless, but they want a lot. (Particularly if it's free.) Even if it was possible to satisfy every person's every desire (and it absolutely isn't, under any circumstances) the process of manufacturing all of that stuff (which, again, cannot be done) would absolutely destroy this planet. Again, I know nobody wants to confront this reality, but this idea of a 'post-scarcity' society is just nuts.

[Ethics Gradient, Traitor For All Ages]

At this point, who really questions whether we're going to destroy this planet or not? Of course we're going to destroy it, but that's beside the point. Im guessing by 'near-absolute abundance' he's talking about the basic necessities of life, not yachts and ivory. No, I don't think providing food, housing and basic sanitation for everyone is a utopian fantasy. We already do these things, distribution is just fucked up so that most of it is wasted by a tiny fraction of the population.

[NGNM85]

At this point, who really questions whether we're going to destroy this planet or not? Of course we're going to destroy it, but that's beside the point.

I'm not quite so pessimistic, but it seems likely. My point was that a 'post-scarcity' society is fundamentally unsustainable for the same reason capitalism is fundamentally unsustainable.

Im guessing near-absolute abundance' he's talking about the basic necessities of life, not yachts and ivory.

That's a very creative interpretation, however, it seems obvious that is not what he meant.

No, I don't think providing food, housing and basic sanitation for everyone is a utopian fantasy.

I never said (or even implied) otherwise.

[#FF0000]

I know nobody wants to hear this, but who is ever going to live in such a society? Presuming you mean what I think you mean by; 'near-absolute abundance', (and I believe I do) this is a utopian fantasy. There's absolutely no way to achieve such a thing, certainly not without rendering this planet uninhabitable. (That is, unless, we're talking about using matter assemblers, or some equally fantastical McGuffin.) I don't assume, as (mainstream) economists do, that people's appetites are, literally, boundless, but they want a lot. (Particularly if it's free.) Even if it was possible to satisfy every person's every desire (and it absolutely isn't, under any circumstances) the process of manufacturing all of that stuff (which, again, cannot be done) would absolutely destroy this planet. Again, I know nobody wants to confront this reality, but this idea of a 'post-scarcity' society is just nuts.

Yeah I disagree, and I think we're at the point now where scarcity for the most part is eliminated in a lot of areas. Certainly, for example, when it comes to bare necessities of life. There's no reason that anyone should go without food, comfortable housing, medicine. And beyond that I think there's a lot of luxuries that could be covered for most people as well, especially in a world where planned obsolescence doesn't exist.

I don't believe that getting a new tablet computer is going to be as easy as getting up and getting a glass or water, but at the very least, people will have access to luxuries and technology, and I think this kind of abundance could be produced relatively easily and without totally wrecking the planet. I think logistics is more of a bottleneck than productive capacity is.