From: "Greg Schofield" <g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au>
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?
Date: Wed, 13 Mar 2002 09:47:29 +0800


Harald we have quite different intellectual traditions and I will avoid having some ding-dong about anarchism vs communism as I am sure we both are familiar with such "discussions". 

On the otherhand, we may be able to make some simple progress by looking at details and forgetting the rest. There are some points which I disagree with you below, and are capable of clearing up without challenging the bigger concepts.

I must state that I am not fixated on labels. I have worked with many great anarchists where the difference between us in practical terms has been next to zero, and the theortical differences probably not as great as most would think. I also know self-propclaimed anarchists and communists I would not piss on if they were on fire, but that all makes for diversity of any real struggle and is nothing but a banality.

The vital disagreement is the idea of socialist relations of production, which is admittedly a widespread, though erroneous, view throughout the entire left. I must say that I have a better idea now of the basis of your criticism and believe that it is wholly based on a misunderstanding well fostered by the chequered history of the socialist movement.

Comments are below:


--- Message Received ---
From: Harald Beyer-Arnesen <haraldba-AT-online.no>
To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 19:06:01 +0100
Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?

Greg:
I had no idea that it was at all odd to talk about
socialism in class terms. A contradiction in terms has me beat,
could you be a little more explicit?"

Harald:
Well Prolatarian Socialism may have meaning  in the sense of
a movement within the framework of capitalism towards the
abolishment of the proletariat but not as defining a society
where socialist relation dominate, which implies social relation
are no longer founded on wage-slavery and thus the non-
existence of the proletariat.

My response - Greg:
You point is the very point I am trying to make on this list. Yes a lot of leftists prat on about socialist relations of production - they are a fiction and always have been. The transition from capitalism to communism (without classes of any kind, or production relations) is just that a transition where the working class by placing themselves in a ruling poosition face the contradiction of managing their own exploitation - that is the criticial engine of transformation, the contradiction of workers commanding capital.

It is this contradiction which if the socialist movement had been more aware would have also been a critical insight into the actual evolution of the USSR for instance (where workers were not in charge but a rising class of bureacrats).

I have spent some time trying to work out why this important and obvious feature is so absent in the intellectual history of the socialist movement. You and others will probably disagree with this, that it is the inherent concept within Marx's formulation and an obvious one.

The socialist movement has for generations been frustrated that Marx, or Engles for that matter, were not explicit about the relations of production under socialism, more confused is Lenin's insistance that socialism was somehow based on state capitalism. The general rubric is that they did not wish to foster utopian illusions, I beleive the truth adds an ironic twist to this traditional interpretation.

The truth has been that there has never been any room in Historical Materialism for a socialism with distinct relations of production (here meaning socialism strictly as a transitionary period as stage one of communism). In the 19th century communism gathered connations which Marx was often at pains toi distance himself from, across Europe the less utopian concepts were associated with socialism and Marx and Engels tended to use the terms interchangably, sometimes drawing a distinction but often not (the Critique of the Gotha program which is clearly talking about what I am calling Proletarian socialism, but Marx here refers to it as the first stage of communism).

None of this was particularily important at the time for a number of reasons. First and foremost was the private character of the means of production in the 19th and early 20th century. Unless the leading means of production were socialisied (nationalisied whatever) a politically successful poroletariat would have no direct means to manage the economy - its rule would be meaningless in practice as it would be constantly sabotaged by the bourgeoisie.

I don't think there is anything controversial in stating this.

The definition of socialism became the familiar rubric - the socialisation of the means of production under the dictatorship of the proletariat, on which muuch wind has been expended over the years.

The problem has little to do with theory, the problem arises that the millinerian, utopian desires of the early socialist/worker's movement never died. It is this cultural fact more than any theory which created socialist relations of production (and the similar formulation - socialist property relations and the abolishment of the market). People desired a concrete view of the future in a way that differed it from the capitalist present and in this they made an abortion.

To make socialism distinct, a system, elements of future communism were foisted on the transition period, the transition period in this sense stoped being transitionary and became a thing, a reified objective. Again this would not have amounted to much practically but for one other thing which took place in the 20th century - the rise of a bureacratic, managerial middle class (a transformed petit bourgeoisie).

It is this class element of a petit bourgeoisie which reflecting the changes in bourgeois ownership (which through shares and joint stock comapnies became effectively socialisied at least amongst that class) which added the fatal element. It is no accident that the market, more than the relations of production were progressively seen as the enemey, for this suits managers very well.

Somehow socialism became Saint Simon's socialism dominanted by technocrats and planning, but not in any way setting up a contradiction between social power and the relations of production.

I know you dislike Lenin, but have another look at his Imperialism. He makes this explicit in the last chapter though for him it was a throw away speculation in 1914. But the important aspect is how Lenin takes Marx's socialistion thesis (that competition leads to further socialisation of capital - ie towards monopoly), I can see no reason why this socialisation process (purely capitalistic) is not an adequate underpinning for understanding the present situation - in fact I would argue it is essential.

Socialisation of capital changes all aspects of society not the least of which is that other dependant class the petit bourgeoisie. Under these new emerging conditions (emerging throughout most of the 20th century, clearly established in the last 50 years and arguably more or less complete on a world scale over the last few decades) the middle ground gravitated to management and bureacracy (both state and private), It is no accident that fascism called itself national socialism, and in fact had some of the features remenicent of the USSR, or that the USSR seems to prefigure some aspects of present society. These are general tendencies.

The history of the socialist movement for most of the 20th century has been the progressive hijacking of it by these radicalisied petit bourgeois whose dream wass to become the commissars of a  vast new society. It is not an accident that as capitalism itself has moved so far towards such a society that this class element has shed any form of radicalism and simply integrated itself into the great global corporation of the world.

When you talk about the contradictions above in effect you are talking about something which we both agree. The concepts of the past were a contradiction, a blatant class contradiction (at least when viewed in hindsight). Socialist relations of production - give me a break, socialist proerty forms yes but only to the extenbt that private property gives way to a socialisied form - nothing special in this either socialisied is socialisied and as for the market being the main evil other than the labour market I would like someone to point out a free market that is not just a sham for monopoloies to distribute their goods and play their games).

Sorry for venting my spleen, but as you see Harald we have been talking at cross purposes. You are pointing out the very thing I am trying to point out. Ok my tradition is HIstorical Materialism and yours is not but it is reality which provides this common ground not intellectual speculation. I will hold to the classic concepts, not because they are holy writ but because they are rich source of new ideas and clearer comprehensions, but you need not, but let us at least be clear amongst ourselves.


Harald I will not comment on what is below, hopefully the same sentiments could be rephrased in view of what has been said above. If that is the case there is little point in me disagreeing with your mode of expression. I loom forward to your reply.

Harald:
No, I don't distinguish between socialism, communism and
anarchy. To me it makes little sense to do so. While I do not
believe a classless society will be without its own conflicts and
contradictions (and would not even wish it to be so),  and I
am perfectly aware of that a transition to a new foundation of
organising human relations in a material world will pose its
own challenges, I find it utterly senseless to talk about social
relations where wage-slavery continue to prevail as anything
but capitalism. Or if you want to call it socialism, then this is
a "socialism" I would oppose, as I would any class/minority
rule. And to be clear: The existence of a proletariat logically
implies that the proletariat will _not_ be the masters of their
own destinies but to a greater or lesser degree the slaves of
alien social forces and another (ruling) class. Just as today.
Some things are basic, this also from a Marxist perspective,
even if I personnally never considered myself
a Marxist.

Harald






|Nico this helps a little. But such autonegation is Proletarian Socialism.
|
|I can only see a contradiction from the point of view that socialism is
identified with communism completely, or a bizarre point of view that
capitalism is negated within itself before ever proceeding to socialism
(which is a bit late given the present socialisation of the means of
production - in that we have a form of boourgeois socialism and no sign of
autonegation naturally enough).
|
|If Harald is making the first mistake then it is an easy matter of pointing
out the difference between the first phase and second phase of communism
(the first being the transition to the second from capitalism proper). If
the second point of view is what is being touted well I am flabber-gasted as
this is pure ahistorical moonshine.
|
|As a tactic, or even a selforganisational principle, such as "refusal of
work" has a place, but what else is expected of it?
|
|Nico I am sorry about this but I am increasingly dismayed at such basic
misunderstandings, thank you for clarifying these points but I am still at a
loss. Is the historical nature of communism as misunderstood as I am
fearing?
|
|Seriously. Has Harald got socialism and communism mixed up?
|
|--- Message Received ---
|From: Cercle social <cerclesocial-AT-altern.org>
|To: aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu
|Date: Tue, 12 Mar 2002 17:41:43 +0100
|Subject: Re: AUT: What could "proletarian socialism" possibly mean?
|
|The contradiction seems clear in a communisation point aof view :   the
|communist movement abolishes classes,  proletariat abolish itself
|(autonegation), as the class of work in the capital contradiction. Only
|proletariat can lead communist movement, but the realization is
|self-dissolution of proletariat as a separate class in society. That's why
|antiwork movement (refusal of work) is so important to understand
|correctly -- as long as organized worker movement will identify itself to
|work, it will stay inside the capital contradiction and, in revolutionnary
|times, become fetishied work against workers. Seidamn (Workers against
work)
|explain this well about spanish revolution.
|
|For french readers, the review Theorie Communiste explain it as well -- in
a
|sometime unreadable way. Also Gilles Dauv  "les rvolutionnaires ont iols
|une contre-rvolution de retard ?".
|
|Nico
|
|
Greg Schofield
Perth Australia
g_schofield-AT-dingoblue.net.au
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________

Use LesTecML Mailer (http://www.lestec.com.au/)
* Powerful filters.
* Create you own headers.
* Have email types launch scripts.
* Use emails to automat your work.
* Add comments on receive.
* Use scripts to extract and check emails.
* Use MAID to create taylor-made solutions.
* LesTecML Mailer is fully controlled by REXX.
* A REXX interpreter is freely available.
_______________________________________________
_______________________________________________



     --- from list aut-op-sy-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---