| Theory |
|
"Market Socialism" -- Are We "For Sale"? August 12, 2003 by RedStar2000 |
The "common wisdom" in bourgeois circles has it that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the eastern European "people's democracies" was due to the failure of their "command economies".
Modern "complex economies" involve "too many variables" to "plan" successfully. It is claimed that even the most sophisticated computer programs running on the most massive supercomputers would nevertheless fail to meet some demands while overproducing unwanted products.
Only a "free market" can "quickly adjust" to changing demands, moving resources rapidly from sectors where demand is inadequate to sectors where demand is growing.
So we have been told--in very authoritative tones--and so many have believed, including some socialists. They have not chosen to "give up" on socialism--the authoritative bourgeois recommendation--but instead have offered one or another version of "market socialism".
===========================================
The Semi-Free Market
Socialist "free markets" work somewhat differently from their capitalist counterparts, at least initially. Enterprises produce commodities for sale in the marketplace and consumers make choices depending on their needs and their ability to pay; but enterprises that successfully anticipate consumer demand remit their profits to the state, increase the direct rewards to the employees, or invest in expansion of the enterprise; unprofitable enterprises must shrink, convert to some other product more in demand, or be dissolved.
It's not altogether clear to me where the initiative for those changes will originate. In a capitalist market, the capitalist himself initiates those changes from the profit-motive. Perhaps a "socialist enterprise" would develop a "management structure" capable of those kinds of decisions or perhaps the enterprise employees would make such decisions democratically. It's also possible that the state apparatus itself might intervene, saying directly "you must make more of this and stop making that".
Class Structure in Market Socialism
With the abolition of the capitalist class as such and with no individual opportunity to invest in the means of production, "market socialism" has, initially, a very simple class structure. Those who are employed in some enterprise--the working class; those who are not employed at all--non-workers; and those who work in some capacity directly for the state apparatus.
For employed workers, the key is their paycheck. The more they make, the better off they are, the greater their access to consumer goodies in the marketplace. They have a direct incentive to mobilize in whatever ways they deem effective to increase their pay. This could take the form of votes in an assembly of employees, a special resolution in a regional or national parliament, or even a strike...the refusal to produce some product in high demand unless they receive a greater share of the proceeds.
For non-workers, their lack of money with which to purchase necessities in the marketplace puts them in the same position as they are under capitalism. It does not matter if the regional supermarket is full of food, they must go hungry without money. It does not matter if there are thousands of vacant apartments on the market, they must be homeless without money. Or they must convince some employed individual or some larger collective to support them.
How many people are non-workers is difficult to estimate now and will be even harder to estimate in the future. We know that it's very difficult for anyone under the age of 15 to earn enough money to live on. We know that the capacity for useful employment begins to decline at an accelerating rate after the age of 50. We know that some percentage of people are effectively "unemployable" due to physical or mental disabilities, extreme drug/alcohol abuse, etc. And we also know that there is something of a long-term trend for fewer and fewer workers to be able to produce more and more...due to the growth of sophisticated technology.
There's no reason, in principle, of course, that "market socialism" cannot have a "social safety net" just as some capitalist countries have one now. How generous it will be is problematical; some workers express considerable resentment of non-workers and presuming that "market socialism" is democratic, the "safety net" might be closer to that of the United States (almost none) than to that of Scandinavia (fairly decent).
Finally, there are those employed directly by the state apparatus. Whether elected or appointed, they are likely to see themselves as responsible for "society as a whole" and deserving of generous rewards for assuming such a "burden". This is especially the case when one remembers that access to consumer goodies is a "measure of status" in any market economy.
There is no doubt that "market socialism" would initially be far more egalitarian than any class society that exists now...though perhaps slightly less egalitarian than the centrally-planned economies of the 20th century.
But there would be differences...and the real question is how those differences would work out as a result of the functioning of the market.
The Market At Work
Whenever income in the form of money determines your access to life's necessities and luxuries, you are drawn towards a "world-view" that emphasizes the increase of your income at the expense of all other considerations. People are certainly capable of resisting that temptation and many do; some cannot.
How that phenomenon will manifest itself is impossible to predict; but that it will manifest itself is certain. There will be a "pressure" to increase income differences over time and while it might be politically or even morally resisted for a time, it does not go away. The market, like the "devil" of the middle ages, never sleeps but is always looking to snare another "soul".
Non-workers, at least those who have some capacity for purposeful activity, will turn to crime--some form of "private enterprise"--for what they cannot obtain by employment. Employed workers will agitate in one form or another for increases in wages. State employees will seek "perks". All are acting in response to the demands of the market...you must have money, as much as possible, or you're fucked.
One can certainly imagine steps that might be taken to mitigate this phenomenon; but it can't be escaped altogether as long as a market exists.
Does this mean that "market socialism" "must" devolve back into capitalism? I would expect that to happen, but I'm not sure that it's possible to "prove" that. Perhaps the best that can be said at this point is that there would be a tendency to restore capitalism but that there would be not be an "absolute inevitability" about it.
As long as that tendency is resisted, there won't be capitalism. But there will be a gradual growth in inequality of income and, eventually, accumulated wealth. Human ingenuity will be brought to bear on the problem of how to invest that wealth to make more wealth--if there are no legal ways to do it, perhaps some semi-legal or even illegal ways can be found.
And so it will go.
The Communist Alternative
Communism proposes, of course, the complete abolition of markets, wages, prices, etc. Since anyone has access to the necessities and luxuries of life regardless of what they do (even if they do nothing at all), the motives of accumulating wealth--security and status--are rendered meaningless. It is thought that people, being rational, will no longer bother with an activity (accumulation of wealth) that has become pointless.
To "de-couple" work from material reward also means that work is chosen only for its intrinsic satisfaction; status will be conferred on demonstrated competence in work that is considered socially useful.
Thus the "pressure" on "market socialism" to return to capitalism doesn't exist under communism. There might well be some "greedy" individuals in the early years of communist society...but there will be no material reinforcement of greed. In fact, I'd expect greed to be seen as a form of "obsessive-compulsive disorder"...an irrational obsession requiring professional help.
Which would be freely available, of course.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 27, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
...in your version of communism how will production be coordinated? By central planning?
Tough question.
First of all, I think "central planning" got a "bad rap"...it actually did produce what was planned for (except in agriculture). If you want lots of consumer goodies, you have to plan for that...they won't fall out of the sky.
I think there are probably a large number of ways that production and distribution could be "coordinated" and different ways might be appropriate for different products.
The role of a "Central Economic Planning Board" might be purely advisory...their supercomputers and economic models will tell them (and they will tell us) that if you do A, the outcome will be B. And we will decide in small or large groups if B is worth A.
Likewise, such a central board could easily keep track of what was actually happening--the "card-swipe" technology that exists today and is spreading around the world will record the fact that a consumer in New York just picked up (not "bought"...) a pair of size 10 gloves and a consumer in Madrid just picked up two bathing suits, size 6, and so on. The information is also sent to the production units that made those gloves and bathing suits. It would not take long (a few months? a few years?) before you'd have an extremely accurate picture of how demand for different consumer goods ebbs and flows and producers would know with considerable accuracy when to make more and when to shut down for a vacation or convert to making something else.
But remember, I'm speculating here...there could very well be other, better, ways to do it.
quote:
And your claim that
"there are those employed directly by the state apparatus. Whether elected or appointed, they are likely to see themselves as responsible for "society as a whole" and deserving of generous rewards for assuming such a "burden"."
would seem to apply to your communist system as well. Unless you are arguing for anarcho-communism.
They might "think it", but there's no way to act on it. They can only go to the distribution point for some particular consumer goodie and take it home with them...just as anyone can.
If they want a nicer apartment, their name goes on the waiting list like everyone else's. Or they can try to find someone who'll swap apartments with them...that might be pretty common in early communist society. But the "rent" is still zero.
Of course, they (or anyone) can try to "work the system" in some fashion to gather an outrageously disproportionate share of the common wealth. Those card-swipe technologies might come in handy again...keeping track of who has picked up a third television set in less than a year. Questions will be asked.
But without money or markets, there's clearly a limit to what anyone can accumulate and there's no incentive for anyone to work for or assist the greedy.
Things will be ragged for a while...some people will attempt to have a personal computer in every room...and so on. But it's nothing that can't be controlled--public shame will be a powerful weapon in communist society.
I think the words communism and anarcho-communism really mean the same thing...it's just a historical accident that we have two words instead of one.
--------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on July 29, 2003
--------------------------------------------------------
quote:
..., what do you think about using market socialism as a "transition stage" to full-blown communism?
I couldn't "rule it out", of course. What people would have to do to make that happen is want to do it very much and actually take concrete steps to make it happen.
Maybe the best way to put it is that communist society requires a conscious effort in order to come into existence...it doesn't "naturally emerge" from class society (though its material conditions do).
If people want a classless society, they have to consciously make that happen.
Certainly there will be a "period of transition" no matter what...the question is that is it worthwhile to set up an elaborate functioning system called "socialism" (market or state) before proceeding to the real goal?
I see nothing to be gained in that "detour" and much danger in it. Of course, there will probably be all kinds of quasi-markets, bartering arrangements, etc. in the early post-revolutionary years...but why institutionalize them, make them "semi-permanent" and get people used to the idea that the market still exists or will exist indefinitely into the future?
If communism is what we want, why not just "take the plunge", accept the fact that there will be difficulties, strive to overcome them, etc.?
The folks who are promoting "market socialism" do not, in my opinion, think that classless society is even possible. They've come up with this new "product" so it will look as if they have a "plausible alternative" to capitalism...something they can show will really "work" under the same assumptions (or most of them) that people proceed upon now about "human nature", "incentives", "consumer choice", etc.
If the plan is very well thought-out, it's quite likely that it would "work". My criticism is that it would "work" in a bad direction.
Of course, there certainly would be real communists in a "market socialist" society that would argue vigorously for classless society...but they might have an even tougher time than we do now (or at least as tough).
It might take as much as 50 or 100 years for "market socialism" to develop class conflict to the point where communism started to look "plausible" again. (It might take a lot less, too.) But whatever new elites have emerged will be just as hostile to us (and just as repressive) as the capitalist class is now. Classless society means nothing to them--consolidating their gains and becoming a new ruling class is their priority.
So my answer is: if people want communism, then there's no reason not to proceed in that direction at once, as quickly as we can. And if people don't want communism, then whether we keep capitalism, set up state-socialism, or "market socialism", will not make a significant difference...in the progress towards communism.
Pretty much all the phenomena that we associate with any class society will still exist or will re-emerge...and all the old battles will have to be fought again.
-------------------------------------------------------------
First posted at RedGreenLeft on July 29, 2003
-------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
It is not the decision of the enterprise whether to increase rewards, but the decision of society. Likewise the amount available from profit for expansion are also determined by society.
I don't think it matters all that much who makes the actual decision; the point I was making is that people at all levels will have a strong material incentive to increase their share of the social product at the expense of others.
That is inherent in a market economy; the more money you can acquire, the more consumer goodies you can buy. Your social status also rises, of course.
quote:
Do you, for example, even know exactly what it is that the models say cannot be optimised without a market? It is not simply ‘production’ in general (although there is a very strong suspicion that it is true even of this).
I shamelessly admit that I not only do not "know" but I don't even care!
Optimization is not my goal. I don't "worship" at that "church".
That's not to suggest that optimization is not a consideration; but it is one of many and certainly not the most important.
quote:
In a market socialist society there is perhaps some incentive for workers as a whole to wish the unemployed to stay unemployed if you assume that the unemployed have no vote. But of course they have exactly the same voting rights as anyone else.
Yes, they have the "right" to be outvoted by the employed majority over and over again...until they are too weak and sickly to be able to drag their sorry asses to the polls at all.
quote:
If all you mean is that people who cannot, or will not, contribute to society have no natural entitlement to participate in the fruits of society then I’m afraid I agree. I can’t see why they should. I’m not a bleeding heart liberal.
That's the spirit! When the lazy bastards get hungry enough they'll work...or they'll die and good riddance.
quote:
But having said that do you seriously believe that any socialist society (by its very nature educated and inclined to act co-operatively) is going to cut the safety net for people who cannot contribute. Good god, man, even Liberal Democracies don’t do that.
Well, actually they do...and they're doing more of it with every passing year.
But, I was simply suggesting a possibility, not an inevitability. More than once, I have heard working-class people express solidarity with other workers, contempt for the bosses, but equally bitter contempt for "welfare bums". Granted that attitudes change, I suggest that in any market economy, there will be temptations in that direction. Whatever someone else gains by not working is something that you lose by working...that's how a market operates. A unit of currency taken from your pocket and placed into the pocket of a non-worker is, to you, a loss.
quote:
Sorry but the jump from ‘there is a tendency to want to increase your wealth’ to ‘therefore accumulated wealth will be allowed’ is hogwash. This is without even mentioning (again) that accumulated wealth is not the same as accumulated wealth which can be used to aquire more wealth (cumulative wealth) which is actually what is at the heart of Capitalism.
Sorry, but you must have skipped the rest of the paragraph...
Human ingenuity will be brought to bear on the problem of how to invest that wealth to make more wealth--if there are no legal ways to do it, perhaps some semi-legal or even illegal ways can be found.
I didn't mean to suggest, by the way, that this will be a wide-spread phenomenon...it doesn't need to be. One embryonic proto-capitalist does not a counter-revolution make. But the market is truly relentless (a point I note that you did not dispute)...anyone who can figure out a scheme to make money from money is going to prosper and others will learn.
Whatever institutional barriers you erect will delay this, perhaps for a considerable period of time. But even those "in charge" of such barriers have been known to be tempted...and to yield.
quote:
Some people may indeed want to aquire more wealth than society wishes them to. But the point is that the mechanisms don’t allow them to do it.
Sure it will. Individual A is a skilled worker who earns more than enough to live on comfortably. He can purchase luxury goods with his surplus or he can stuff it in his mattress. Should he choose the latter option, at some point he has accumulated considerable wealth. Your mechanisms prevent him from legally investing it to earn more money...but he has a strong incentive to find a way to do it illegally or semi-legally.
Human ingenuity, remember?
quote:
Contrast this with your ideas - where presumably exactly the same desire is present (in fact given your implementation model the desire won't merely be present but will have been very recently acted upon) but with nothing at all to prevent it happening and I’m lost as to how you can continually bring up an objection which you justify only by saying ‘I feel it inevitably will happen’.
I guess you skipped my response to that question, so I'll repeat it...
quote:
They might "think it", but there's no way to act on it. They can only go to the distribution point for some particular consumer goodie and take it home with them...just as anyone can.
If they want a nicer apartment, their name goes on the waiting list like everyone else's. Or they can try to find someone who'll swap apartments with them...that might be pretty common in early communist society. But the "rent" is still zero.
Of course, they (or anyone) can try to "work the system" in some fashion to gather an outrageously disproportionate share of the common wealth. Those card-swipe technologies might come in handy again...keeping track of who has picked up a third television set in less than a year. Questions will be asked.
But without money or markets, there's clearly a limit to what anyone can accumulate and there's no incentive for anyone to work for or assist the greedy.
Then there's this...
quote:
Economically, some level of inequality is good...the challenge is to find the equilibrium point at which inequality does the most good with the least ill effects.
A curious statement based, I presume, on the various market-oriented theologies that prevail among bourgeois academics these days.
For communists, economic inequality has no utility whatsoever; practical equality--where everyone gets what they need--is the goal.
When you stop and think about it, what other goal makes any kind of sense?
-----------------------------------------------------------
First posted at Che-Lives on August 6, 2003
-----------------------------------------------------------
========================================= |
|
| |
|
|
Navigation |
·
Welcome
·
Theory
·
Guest Book
·
Hype
·
Additional Reading
·
Links
·
Contact
|
|
Latest Theory
Collections |
· Communists Against Religion -- Part 19 June 6, 2006
· Conversations with Capitalists May 21, 2006
· Vegetable Morality April 17, 2006
· Parents and Children April 11, 2006
· The Curse of Lenin's Mummy April 3, 2006
|
|
Defining Theory
Collections |
·
What Did Marx "Get Wrong"? September 13, 2004
·
Class in Post-Revolutionary Society - Part 1 July 9, 2004
·
Demarchy and a New Revolutionary Communist Movement November 13, 2003
·
A New Type of Communist Organization October 5, 2003
·
The "Tools" of Marxism July 19, 2003
·
Marxism Without the Crap July 3, 2003
·
What is Socialism? An Attempt at a Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
What is Communism? A Brief Definition June 19, 2003
·
A New Communist Paradigm for the 21st Century May 8, 2003
·
On "Dialectics" -- The Heresy Posts May 8, 2003
|
|
Random Quote |
| ...I have been attempting a fundamental critique of the world-wide failure of the Leninist paradigm. I bluntly call for communists to reject it!
|
|
Search |
| |
Statistics |
|
·
There have been 2 users active in the past 15 minutes.
|
|
