Which models of socialism work best IYO? How can we visualize them graphically?

[RedSonRising]

I've been meaning to ask the forum as a whole what specific model(s) of socialism each of you considers the best, whether historically existent or theoretical or a combination of both.

Although revolutionary movements are organic, building a lasting and democratic socialism requires a sophisticated level of social engineering. For all of the materialist dressing-downs of capitalism that happen regularly on here, there's a lack of talk about adequate political organs, revolutionary government systems, and functional production planning. Maybe I just miss them, maybe I look in the wrong parts of the forum (mainly politics), or maybe it's just not a discussion priority for posters. But in my view, it should be. Not only is articulating socialist models a potential obstacle when trying to explain and validate socialism to an average person, but a real-world obstacle in imagining a post-capitalist world.

My next question is, can we put these models into cohesive graphics that make the structure of the system readily apparent? It's one thing to speak and hear about collective ownership and decision-making, it's another to see it laid out. I'd like to see if anyone is interested in creating graphics depicting existing models of socialism, failed or otherwise, as well as different theoretical models. These could be powerful educational tools, as well as extremely useful for our own purposes.

I'm imagining something in the spirit of (but not as crude as) this type of thing:



Hope to see some replies. Given the purpose of this board and the intelligence of its posters, I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to describe the execution of the system & society we all wish to see made real.

[ckaihatsu]

I fully agree with this sentiment and will note that I've done some things along these lines already, on display at this thread:


Political (educational) diagrams, for revolutionaries

tinyurl.com/ckaihatsu-diagrams-revleft


I'd also welcome any input and discussions that grapple with the aspects of *implementation* of a socialist-type materialist 'economics', or general workings.

[Jimmie Higgins]

building a lasting and democratic socialism requires a sophisticated level of social engineering.

While I am a big fan of "utopian imagination" and I do think that the revolutionary movement needs to present optimistic visions that can help rally people (pessimism, dystopia, all go with the flow of contemporary capitalist thought and attitude imo), I also think the quoted statement is a bit contradictory. We need someone, some group to socially engineer a democratic society?

I think a lack of utopian vision is demobilizing for the left, but I also think that utopian-planning can be just as demobilizing for the people the left wants to reach and encourage to become revolutionaries. The last thing workers want is some professional coming in and telling them they have a great new plan for how things will work. Socialists are not the middle-management of society.

Besides, I think the big question of the feasibility of socialism is not the how, but the who. When people ask, "how is this supposed to work" what the are really asking, in my experience, is "who's accountable... some bureaucrat or dictator isn't going to pick my clothes and housing for me or have the power to send me to a camp if I disagree, are they?"

In bourgeois revotions, they didn't really set out with blueprints (they had broad "ideals" to try and unify their class together and to rally the non-aristocracy populations behind their class), where capitalists and merchants existed they sought to expand their existing areas of power (more autonomy for business, more power over city governance, etc) and organs that helped them project that power (independent presses, republican clubs or popular assembilies). It's different for workers because we can't win "autonomy" from capitalism, we have to actually have to confront it more directly, earlier on in the process of revolution.

But I think the answer to "how is this supposed to work" is similar in that revolutionaries would need to champion and seek to help expand existing organs and locations of worker's power. But in different places and times, this might be different. In Russia, it was worker's councils, but maybe somewhere else it would be neighborhood-meetings in working class parts of cities and towns. If the Spanish revolution had been different maybe it would have been a national-union that was the organ through which workers organized themselves and projected their class-power. etc.

So there are many practical questions which will come up, but I think they will be part of the democratic process. This is probably an unsatisfying answer, but I think it's the true one. Right now, class struggle is low or in defeat and so in some ways the "how" and the "who" of socialism seem as equally abstract, but really the only subjective influence we can have is on trying to help organize existing workers in expanding their power and ability to fight back and hopefully fight offensively for their independent class interests.

[ckaihatsu]

While I agree that the phrase 'sophisticated level of social engineering' isn't the best, and tends to evoke a 'blueprint' mentality, I think RSR's post as a whole shows that the political inclination *isn't* towards a blueprint approach, but rather is aiming at something of a 'model' -- a possible overall *organization* for socialism -- which is certainly reasonable.

The following came up at another thread, which happens to be relevant here -- while there wouldn't be differing *class* interests in a post-class society, the lack of differing class interests doesn't automatically mean that everyone in the world would be living and working in lock-step, as though the enitre globe only tackled one project at a time, in perfect unison....

As the 'demanders' in communist society are the same as the 'suppliers', it's ludicrous to suppose that there will be a massive disjuncture between what we *want* and what we *get*. Unless you think everyone is going to be going 'I want a sandwich but I can't be bothered to make me one! Why am I such a hateful moron that I won't even make me a sandwich? I should have a revolution to remove myself from sandwich making, then I'll be free to make... oh, no wait hang on...'.

Directed at any given individual, this would be a solid reminder of the post-capitalist society's realized liberation / empowerment, and unfettered access to the means of life and living (self-determination), for anyone.

*However*, there'd still be the material reality of 'not everyone will be self-contained / self-sufficient for their own needs'. A nominally-or-more *complex* economy will instantly mean that not all people are producing for their own consumption only, but rather that they are doing 'specialized' tasks, relative to those they are producing-for -- others.

While I myself abhor specialization, I still think that it would be inevitable in a post-capitalist society that has the *slightest* collective ambition, where it would benefit on the whole by *not* leaving everyone to do all requisite tasks evenly, as through steady rotations through all work roles.

So if such a society predominantly wants 'public transportation', such would require efforts from the granular, individual scale, towards the *collective*, overall general, *common* scale, while *not necessarily* obligating absolutely *everyone* to be an active participant towards the realization of this public-transportation-for-all.

In such an entirely realistic case, who would be the 'demanders', who would be the 'liberated-laborers', and who would be the 'consumers' -- ?

Working backwards, the answer for the latter would have to be 'potentially anyone and everyone would be consumers' since an egalitarian social order couldn't place arbitrary *conditions* for consumption on anyone, as with some kind of 'official' social status.

The 'liberated laborers' would have to receive *some* kind of commensurate social consideration for their 'specialized' efforts, since it's unlikely that *everyone*, to-the-person, would be evenly involved in just one-thing-at-a-time, like a public transportation project.

And the 'demanders' could be a critical-mass of overall public sentiment, enough to garner efforts that yield policy proposals, 'buy-in' over vast geographic terrain, volunteers, etc. -- but they wouldn't necessarily, automatically also be *liberated laborers* and/or *consumers*.

So, to conclude, there *is* / would-be a realistic 'operational' 'disjuncture' among the various socio-material roles in a post-capitalist society -- the original thread topic is *valid*, in asking 'how to manage [material] supply and demand' within this kind of social context.

How to manage supply and demand in a planned economy?

http://www.revleft.com/vb/threads/19...98#post2870998

[ckaihatsu]

I'm imagining something in the spirit of (but not as crude as) this type of thing:



Hope to see some replies. Given the purpose of this board and the intelligence of its posters, I imagine it shouldn't be too hard to describe the execution of the system & society we all wish to see made real.

One point I find myself frequently emphasizing is that of 'de-specialization'....

The dreaded problematic with any 'command economy', as reflected in the diagram, is that some strata of society is relatively privileged in their elitist positions as 'planners' (bureaucrats), with their concomitant control over the main sectors of the economy -- with them thus being arguably in-control over all of society / civilization / humanity as the result.

I think the watchword for revolutionaries should always be 'de-specialization', to encourage approaches that ensure no 'special' work roles, as for purely managerial or administrative tasks, would be implemented -- roles that would *remove* certain persons from regular 'on-the-ground' types of socially-necessary labor, for the everyday functioning of society.

In this spirit I'm critical of any 'council' approach, due to its inherent substitutionism for the raw aggregated political will of the masses, and I'm critical of any 'labor vouchers' / currency approach, due to the instrument's specialized (exchange) function for material-economic matters.

To address the argument of 'What *would* you do, then', I developed a model that doesn't require any kind of (post-capitalist) governmental-type body, like a bureaucracy or council, nor does it require any economic *exchanges*, as from the use of Marx's 'labor vouchers'.

The introduction / description is at the following blog entry, with a diagrammatic illustration after that:


A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673


labor credits framework for 'communist supply & demand'

[RedSonRising]

Thanks for the posts so far and sorry I haven't come back to it. I appreciate the understanding that I'm not going for an imposed blueprint, but looser models of broad organization that the working class should have in mind when taking control of workplaces and institutions, through whatever model that happens.

I always found the labor voucher system interesting, it got prevalent use in Anarchist Spain, but that diagram is very difficult to follow, even though it seems like it has all the right pieces in place. ckaihatsu , would you be open to creating an alternative, more accessible visual? Sorry for not being able to comprehend it.

[ckaihatsu]

Thanks for the posts so far and sorry I haven't come back to it. I appreciate the understanding that I'm not going for an imposed blueprint, but looser models of broad organization that the working class should have in mind when taking control of workplaces and institutions, through whatever model that happens.

Yup.

I've always been surprised, back to my beginnings around (only revolutionary) politics, that there isn't much -- if anything -- of post-capitalism-minded 'models'. It's always seemed to me that the question of a liberated production should really be more nailed-down in advance, for the sake of political cohesiveness today, and for potential implementation tomorrow.

I always found the labor voucher system interesting, it got prevalent use in Anarchist Spain, but that diagram is very difficult to follow, even though it seems like it has all the right pieces in place. ckaihatsu , would you be open to creating an alternative, more accessible visual? Sorry for not being able to comprehend it.

No prob -- I'd suggest looking over my blog entry for the 'labor credits' proposal. The crux of it is reproduced here, and then feel free to address me with any specific issues regarding the blog entry or the illustration that come to mind.

A post-capitalist political economy using labor credits

To clarify and simplify, the labor credits system is like a cash-only economy that only works for *services* (labor), while the world of material implements, resources, and products is open-access and non-abstractable. (No financial valuations.) Given the world's current capacity for an abundance of productivity for the most essential items, there should be no doubt about producing a ready surplus of anything that's important, to satisfy every single person's basic humane needs.

[I] developed a model that [...] uses a system of *circulating* labor credits that are *not* exchangeable for material items of any kind. In accordance with communism being synonymous with 'free-access', all material implements, resources, and products would be freely available and *not* quantifiable according to any abstract valuations. The labor credits would represent past labor hours completed, multiplied by the difficulty or hazard of the work role performed. The difficulty/hazard multiplier would be determined by a mass survey of all work roles, compiled into an index.

In this way all concerns for labor, large and small, could be reduced to the ready transfer of labor-hour credits. The fulfillment of work roles would bring labor credits into the liberated-laborer's possession, and would empower them with a labor-organizing and labor-utilizing ability directly proportionate to the labor credits from past work completed.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?bt=14673

[RedSonRising]

So, after reading through your posts, forgive me if I simply missed this, but I'm having trouble visualizing the role of labor vouchers in your model. I see a contradiction, because on one hand, you have a scheme for labor vouchers with varying degrees of "value", but on the other hand, say they aren't used as means to purchase goods and instead describe free access to goods. Is it only surplus that would go into the "free access" category, at least initially? Or, if free access is a universal principal, what exactly is the point of having vouchers with ascribed values in the first place?

Again, sorry if I'm missing something basic. I just want to understand it so I can translate it into an easily accessible visual.

I plan to use arrows and brief explanations to accompany the following symbols, which represent workers, the means of production, the state/planning committees/community councils, goods/products, vouchers, and consumers.



I'm also wondering if it would be most useful to collectively agree upon (ha.) and map out historically existing models first.

[ckaihatsu]

So, after reading through your posts, forgive me if I simply missed this, but I'm having trouble visualizing the role of labor vouchers in your model.

To be clear and precise, in my model the units are called labor *credits* -- labor *vouchers* are from Marx's formulation.

I see a contradiction, because on one hand, you have a scheme for labor vouchers with varying degrees of "value",

The labor credits don't have 'value' in the sense of being exchangeable for goods of any kind, as we're used to using with currency. I don't think 'value' would be the correct term to use regarding the labor credits since they actually reference a real-world baseline of labor *hours*.

but on the other hand, say they aren't used as means to purchase goods and instead describe free access to goods.

Yes, this is correct -- the free-access gift economy of communism is taken as a given socio-economic reality for the functioning of the labor credits system, which is *optional*. If a post-capitalist society can do a full gift economy for literally *everything* without hiccups, then that would be communism, free-and-clear.

But if there were any emergent social issues over -- for example -- what kind of work is actually 'socially necessary' (and *needed* to be done), or about *who* should be doing certain kinds of work, that may happen to be distasteful, then the labor credits method would be applicable and workable.

Here's a handy example from a past thread:

[If] simple basics like ham and yogurt couldn't be readily produced by the communistic gift economy, and were 'scarce' in relation to actual mass demand, they *would* be considered 'luxury goods' in economic terms, and would be *discretionary* in terms of public consumption.

Such a situation would *encourage* liberated-labor -- such as it would be -- to 'step up' to supply its labor for the production of ham and yogurt, because the scarcity and mass demand would encourage others to put in their own labor to earn labor credits, to provide increasing rates of labor credits to those who would be able to produce the much-demanded ham and yogurt. (Note that the ham and yogurt goods themselves would never be 'bought' or 'sold', because the labor credits are only used in regard to labor-*hours* worked, and *not* for exchangeability with any goods, because that would be commodity production.)

This kind of liberated-production assumes that the means of production have been *liberated* and collectivized, so there wouldn't be any need for any kind of finance or capital-based 'ownership' there.

---

Is it only surplus that would go into the "free access" category, at least initially? Or, if free access is a universal principal, what exactly is the point of having vouchers with ascribed values in the first place?

At this point you may want to also look at the 'underlying model' of labor credit functioning:


communist supply & demand -- Model of Material Factors




I'll use relevant excerpts from it to address your questions here....

communist administration -- All assets and resources will be collectivized as communist property in common -- their use must be determined through a regular political process of prioritized demands from a locality or larger population -- any unused assets or resources may be used by individuals in a personal capacity only

consumption [demand] -- Individuals may possess and consume as much material as they want, with the proviso that the material is being actively used in a personal capacity only -- after a certain period of disuse all personal possessions not in active use will revert to collectivized communist property

http://www.revleft.com/vb/blog.php?b=1174

---

Again, sorry if I'm missing something basic. I just want to understand it so I can translate it into an easily accessible visual.

I do appreciate your attention to this, but I don't think the 'communist supply & demand' / 'labor credits' system can be represented in an iconic format like the one you've started -- consider the fact that *any* approach has to cover both the 'social' / *political* side of things, *and* the 'economic' / *material* side of things, as well, concurrently, so that the two realms are complementary.

To be clear, while I can't control your actions, I do *not* give permission to you or anyone else to attempt a different graphical depiction of the 'communist supply & demand' / 'labor credits' system.

I plan to use arrows and brief explanations to accompany the following symbols, which represent workers, the means of production, the state/planning committees/community councils, goods/products, vouchers, and consumers.

[IMG]https://i.gyazo.com/6176a24db292687801791131cd56452f.png[IMG]

Just f.y.i., I have severe reservations with any kind of 'committees' or 'community councils' for a post-capitalist context since such is inherently *substitutionist* for the raw aggregated political sentiment of any population. (And of course 'vouchers' implies 'value', which implies 'exchangeability for goods / products', which implies *currency* however it may happen to be administrated.)

I'm also wondering if it would be most useful to collectively agree upon (ha.) and map out historically existing models first.

It would be interesting to see efforts at the latter, and would probably make for politically beneficial discussions around such interpretations.

[RedSonRising]

Please excuse the bump, I wanted to return to this project with an emphasis on historical models. Would anyone volunteer to collaborate on creating basic visuals describing the economic systems and institutions of the Soviet Union (in differing periods), Anarchist Catalonia, Yugoslavia, and Cuba (in different periods)?

[ComradeAllende]

Please excuse the bump, I wanted to return to this project with an emphasis on historical models. Would anyone volunteer to collaborate on creating basic visuals describing the economic systems and institutions of the Soviet Union (in differing periods), Anarchist Catalonia, Yugoslavia, and Cuba (in different periods)?

I can't make a visual, but I would say that the best model for socialism would either be the NEP under Lenin (mostly to develop an industrial economy without Stalinist-style collectivization) or some democratic version of Yugoslavia's work councils. Or maybe try what the Czechs were doing in Prague in 68: focus less on heavy industry and more on consumer goods.

[RedSonRising]

I can't make a visual, but I would say that the best model for socialism would either be the NEP under Lenin (mostly to develop an industrial economy without Stalinist-style collectivization) or some democratic version of Yugoslavia's work councils. Or maybe try what the Czechs were doing in Prague in 68: focus less on heavy industry and more on consumer goods.

The NEP would be a great place to start IMO. So the "levels" I suppose would be the nationalized "commanding heights", the restricted small-scale capitalism of Soviet agriculture, operating within the framework of the Soviets, Central Committee, and Politburo.

Throwing this image I found here just to have a reference point.