Results 1 to 7 of 7
Please criticize or rebuttal this; trying to refine my understanding.
Given my growing distaste for the general Trotskyist, Left Communist and Marxist-Leninist proclamations on "what went wrong" in the Soviet Union, my personal ideas have certainly moved from that mainstream (which, is relatively recluse in the political scene – so perhaps 'mainstream' is even too complimentary).
Most of you probably know that, given the amount of questions I pose, I certainly have a very flimsy understanding of Marxism and the methodology it uses – so please, feel free to criticize (WITHOUT HEGELIAN OBFUSCATIONS!) anything I am incorrect about – I'd like to, of course, refine my understanding. Without further ado:
My general understanding is that socialism generally speaking refers to any movement seeking to supplant capitalism in favor of a regime based on social ownership and management of the means of production. In the more puritanical Marxist conception, it seems to be generally synonymous with communism (or: lower phase communism for Lenin and the Ortho-Marxists). Communism can refer to scientific socialist theory, the movement to establish communism, or the society itself (a classless, and consequently stateless, post-monetary, etc., society). Hopefully my understanding is so-far so-good.
It is on "capitalism" and state capitalism where it gets tricky. Many RevLefters here tend to have varying views of capitalism, socialism, the the space in between them. Some, for an example, have said that a society can only be capitalist, or socialist – that there is no in-between transitory economy. Others have said that the economy, corresponding to the political nature of the proletarian dictatorship, will be one where both the law of value and the law of planning coincide – with the latter being dominant and gradually eclipsing over the law of value. I find the first proposition to be asinine: if there is no transitive nature between modes of production, between capitalism and communism in this case, then it would imply that we can only have one or the other and, consequently, we will arrive at one of two conclusions:
a) that initially, under the proletarian dictatorship, where we will still see money, exchange, and elements of private ownership, we have a communist mode of production(!)
(b) that we have said elements, but this is still a capitalist economy under control of the proletarian state.
"a" requires no explanation for the short-sightedness it implies, but accepting "b" is equally problematic: this would mean that not only does state-capitalism reign as the economy under the proletarian dictatorship initially, but also that the transition from state-capitalism to full communism would have to be abrupt and sudden (if we accept the idea that there is no in between or transitive phase where both modes of production coincide).
Because of such a problematic conclusion, I think it's significantly more accurate to state the following: that the proletarian regime will take control and management over all capital – the banks, the factories, the farms, etc. Given that even Marx highlights in Gotha the fact that the proletarian dictatorship (and even lower-stage communism!) will feature the "birthmarks of capitalism," such as money, exchange, and distribution according to contribution, we can surely say that the prevailing mode of production under the proletarian dictatorship will initially be state-capitalist – i.e., where the state commands and subjugates capital.
But within this state-ownership of capital lies the germ for communist society, and corresponding to the gradual withering away of the state, so too will the law of value give way to the law of planning – in other words, state-capitalism will gradually (as in, they will coexist) give way to the communistic mode of life. To me, this is not unthinkable – feudal relations obviously coexisted (in some places, still coexist) with capitalism. I do not see why the same will not happen between (state) capitalism and communism.
Concretely, when we're talking about the actual implications of what this transition between the modes of production will amount to, I envision it being that there will be no real managerial differences between state-capitalism and communism. It is obvious, to me, that society, which commands capital in the former, will oversee and command production in-kind in the latter. Perhaps this could be done via computing technology, or a congress of regional delegates, who knows.
Regardless, the important factor I'm trying to stress is related to another post of mine before – that the only real, qualitative difference between state-capitalism and communism will be the absence of value, wages, money, etc., in the latter.
So that sums it up. I'm not trying to be some special snowflake and make "muh own ideology" up to feel like a theoretician – but I also do not know if I agree with other explanations on this, and I'm not sure what mine would be labeled as.
Tell me where I'm wrong and why, please – I'm going through a bit of an ideological crisis after being disappointed with what looked like a promising explanation by Bordiga and the Italian Left.
The one problem I have with this (and it's the same problem from your post on worker's self-management) is the issue of hierarchy in the workplace. I've always associated the concept of a socialist society with self-management; that is, workers actively deliberating over the production policy of an enterprise. Yet, as Emmett Till pointed out, such a society would produce complications; how would the needs of workers in one industry be matched with the needs of another industry, not to mention those of society in general. Nevertheless, I do think that self-management is one of the crucial planks in the socialist platform; without it, we are reduced to leaving workers in the same authoritarian workplaces that exist in capitalism, only changing the motives from "profitability" to "social productivity."
Other than that, I see no major problems in your description of "socialism." Michael Harrington wrote an article in Dissent back in the late 70s with a similar idea of a functioning transitional socialist state (as opposed to the inefficiency and bureaucratism in the Soviet Union).
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/arti...-if-they-could
An injury to one is an injury to all -Industrial Workers of the World
The free development of each is the condition for the free development of all -Karl Marx & Friedrich Engels
While there is a lower class, I am in it, while there is a criminal element, I am of it, and while there is a soul in prison, I am not free -Eugene V. Debs
In a certain sense I don't think hierarchy in the workplace can be *entirely* obviated, due to the inherent existence of 'social-bureaucratic' (so-to-speak) politics in such a society -- there will necessarily be a rolling dynamic of directing productive capacities to address and fulfill outstanding needs / wants / demands for whatever, and those who show themselves to be more 'in-step' with these trends will obviously be more socially relevant and "higher up in the hierarchy" so-to-speak, as a result of their proactive activities as 'movers-and-shakers' around social and material trends. (Also, over time, such accumulated experience and expertise in these matters, as with work experience in *any* given industry, would confer *informal* social status and standing.)
But, no, I don't think there'd be any need for any *formal* hierarchy in the workplace, since all workers at a location / enterprise can simply respond appropriately in relation to any and all pertinent available information, in an ongoing way.
I think this 'generic' post-capitalist political-logistical issue is sufficiently addressed with a *nonlinear* approach of 'as many gift-economy centers of production everywhere, as possible', so that if any productivity is in doubt the rule of thumb would be to produce a modest, significant *surplus* (maybe, say, 20%) for that location before tentatively ceasing production. The idea here is that if some 'downstream' enterprise / industry needed certain manufactured materials, it could 'seek it out' *spontaneously* from the 'surplus landscape', with more regularized arrangements to then follow.
And, of course, if *new* (novel) production was needed, then society would have to self-organize to arrange and realize production for that new whatever.
It would be probably be socially *impossible* to do *without* local self-management / self-determination, since there'd always be the unanswered question of 'Could things be done better / more-customized at a smaller, more-local scale, instead of automatically deferring to the larger, broad-scale developed system of planning and coordination -- ?' (In other words there's an inherent trade-off between scale and personalization -- consider one's own grown-and-cooked meals, versus that of either dining out or buying pre-prepared meals. Of course industrial agriculture is far more *efficient* and humane, but the time one may spend on one's own consumption is inevitably bound to be more customized and 'personal'.)
This goes for *any* local production, I would argue, so there should always be 'micro-to-macro' and 'lateral' lines of communication and logistics in motion, as well as the more-obvious 'macro-to-micro' type of planning.
Got a diagram for this kind of thing:
Multi-Tiered System of Productive and Consumptive Zones for a Post-Capitalist Political Economy
I'll elaborate on this 'hybrid-scales-of-production' position of mine by bringing up the example of *water* -- wouldn't *water* be something that should usually be supplied and distributed fairly *locally*, instead of looking to massive potentials for international (inter-continental) cargo shipping of it -- ?
I would never argue for localism on any ideological / principled basis, but would rather point out that local consumers of whatever item may have an abiding *self-interest* in at least being *able* to produce that same item for themselves locally, regardless -- (What if the complex arrangements of broad-scale post-capitalist production and distribution get *interrupted* somehow, perhaps by natural disasters -- it would always be good to have a 'fallback', local option for the production of whatever.)
MarxianSocialist, I don't really see what the problem is. What you seem to be describing is state-capitalism.
The part where I disagree however is the idea of the 'gradual' transformation. I don't see it as being possible. I'd argue it's a transformation of quantity into quality, or a phase-state transition. It's capitalist, I'd say, until it isn't. It's not 'capitalist - less capitalist - not capitalist'.
The difference between 30 seconds past midnight on Jan 1st 2015 and 30 seconds to midnight Dec 31st 2015 is 525599 minutes. The difference between 30 seconds to midnight Dec 31st 2015 and 30 seconds past midnight on Jan 1st 2016 is 1 minute. These are vastly different quantities. But that doesn't mean in any meaningful way that, say, September 2015 was more 2016 than 2015. The transition from 2015 to 2016 is 'abrupt'.
So why is the transition from (state-)capitalism to communism abrupt? Primarily, because of what it is based on, which is property. As long as property is owned, then there are classes, so as long as the revolution has not succeeded, there is no communism. Communism can only happen when the working class controls all property. Not 51% of property, not 99% of property. If the revolution has '99% succeeded' it has not yet 'succeeded' because 'succeeded', by definition means completely succeeded.
'Completion' is the point about the abruptness. Something can be 'nearly' done for a long time; you can make a pie and put a pie in the oven, but you have to wait for it to cook. If you take it out too soon, it isn't done (ie, it isn't 'a pie' in the way you first defined what the pie would be).
One of my favourite metaphors for the revolutionary dictatorship is building a bridge. The revolution begins in a particular place and this is similar to starting to build a bridge across a river. You build a pier at this end and maybe a pier out in the water. But you can't go any further, you don't have the resources and person-power to finish the bridge. Until the bridge actually crosses to the other bank, it's 'not a bridge'. You are still only connected to this bank - you're still on the capitalist side of the river, and the people on this side are still busy fighting off the counter-revolutionaries who want to stop you building the bridge, so you can't collectively just concentrate on getting it done. It's only when you can get everyone on this side involved without devoting time and resources to fighting the bridge-wreckers (protecting the people gathering wood etc) that you can finish it and reach the 'communist' side of the river.
Mataphors schmetaphors but I hope you can see the point I'm trying to make here. Communism isn't something you can have 'a bit of' any more than you can be 'a bit alive and a bit dead'. It's a different, exclusive state.
Last edited by Blake's Baby; 3rd January 2016 at 14:33.
Critique of the Gotha Programme, Pt IV: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1875/gotha/ch04.htm
No War but the Class War
Destroy All Nations
Lucius Accius (170 BC - 86 BC): "A man whose life has been dishonorable is not entitled to escape disgrace in death."
Yeah your water source should be fairly local and this isn't about localism. Localism is petit bourgeois nonsense that you should give your money to local capitalists.
Id imagine for the communist society as much as possible will be produced locally not because of any weird principle but so you don't use shitloads of resources transporting stuff when you don't need to.
It';s not even just that either as you rightfully point out the potential need for a 'fallback' option.
What we have then is two very good reasons for local production.
edit:
I agree about communism but im not sure about life/death. Mitochondria confuse the fuck out of me
Last edited by Rudolf; 3rd January 2016 at 14:35.
"Every nationalism begins with a Mazzini, but in its shadow there lurks a Mussolini" ~ R. Rocker
Yup.
Yeah, thanks -- I still see this as a huge 'gray area' regarding a post-capitalist logistics, since [1] we're not there yet, and [2] such would necessarily vary item-by-item, as for water, or whatever else.
And -- the *administration* for all of this, including water resources, could easily be argued-for for *needing* to be done on a worldwide scale, since such a centralized administration would be a single point of responsibility for ensuring that *everyone*, to the 'last' person, had adequate water, etc. -- rather than leaving it to any subdivision of parallel bureaucratic 'turfs'.
