File spoon-archives/marxism-international.archive/marxism-international_1997/marxism-international.9712, message 2


Date: Mon, 01 Dec 1997 13:05:00 +0000
From: "João Paulo Monteiro" <jpmonteiro-AT-mail.telepac.pt>
Subject: M-I: Communist society: a dialogue (2 of 4)



--------------A6D16BABB294446D80E56076

Ken:
>So a comparison has to be made between revisionist society and
transitional society, and not
>only between revisionist society and socialist society. The
transitional society has features
>which are not simply the same as those of socialist society. Nor is the

transitional society
>simply part way to socialism in some quantitative sense. For example,
the role of the
>revolutionary party drops out of classless society altogether. So does
the class struggle, and
>the state itself. In fact the economy looks radically different from
the transitional economy.


I use the term socialism (when I use it at all) as synonymous of
transitional society or, when
considered on its political features, dictatorship of the proletariat.
The transition we're talking about
here is to communism. So, you have capitalist societies, then
post-revolutionary (or socialist)
societies and finally communism. I don't believe in "building
socialism". In my view, this is precisely a
revisionist ruse. They meant to say that they were building something
that wasn't quite communism
yet (keep cool, folks). But then they intermingled socialism and
communism in a confusionist way
and nobody was sure anymore if they were still moving towards the goal
or if, well, that was it
already. Ultimately, they were hoping to brush the question under the
carpet as a conceptual trifle.
Or they would say -a classical revisionist act - that the movement was
everything and the final goal
nothing.

On my view, what we have to build, in a post-revolutionary society, is
communism. So, in examining
the revisionist regimes, we have to compare them to a sound assessment
of the transitional tasks
towards communism, as we can understand them today with (at least some)
hindsight.


Ken:
>In this regard, although capitalist and socialist elements are mixed in

the transitional
>economy, I don't think this can be understood as that part of the
economy is fully communist
>and another part capitalist and they fight. The socialist or communist
forces in the
>transitional society certainly do fight the forces of retrogression and

capitalism, but the
>communist forces are not organized in the way classless society is:
>* A classless society has no party and no government; and yet the
communist parts of the
>transitional society support the proletarian dictatorship and the
proletarian party.
>* The working class seeks to develop a social control over production
in the transitional
>society; and yet there is no separate working class in a classless
society.
>* A classless society has no class divisions, and a transitional
society does. Can one say that
>one part of the transitional society is classless and another part
class-divided? Wouldn't that
>be like saying that a working-class suburb today is a nucleus of
classless society because the
>bourgeoisie lives elsewhere?
>* Can one part of the economy have a standard 40-hour week, and another

part a standard
>20-hour week? And how can one part of the economy be entirely free of
money and
>commodity production while some stubborn parts of the economy are still

based on
>commodity production: how do they exchange products?


I don't think you have fully understood my picture of the transitional
society. First, I must stress that
this is a purely conjectural sketch. It has happened nowhere, as yet.
And it depends on the existence
of high levels of productivity and a certain amount of affluence.

In my view, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a work week FOR
ALL. Lets say, a 20 hours
week. Nobody works 40 hours anymore. Everybody - including the remaining

capitalists - works 20
hours, for a wage. With that wage, people can purchase goods that are
still produced and distributed
through mercantile mechanisms. However, since people have lots of free
time they start (under the
guidance and control of the workers' power) engaging in free community
work. The product of this
work is distributed freely.

Lets suppose I work on a computer factory. On my free time, I cultivate
oranges just for fun. You
will have to spent part of your wage to purchase my computers but you
can have my oranges for
free. Or you will have the choice of buying oranges still produced on a
mercantile basis, if they look
better to you or if you’re a die-hard bourgeois ideologue. The
dictatorship of the proletariat will
supervise all this process. It will direct the resources from one sector

to another. It will repress
efforts of the capitalist class to enlarge the reach of the mercantile
relations or recover political
power. A certain amount of competition exists then, between a capitalist

and a communist sector.
The dictatorship of the proletariat will see to it that it develops on
the right direction. Private
capitalism is only tolerated where and as long as it is necessary to
provide certain goods.

As productivity levels rise, work for wages begins to shrink. Say, after

50 years, we can impose a
15 hour week FOR ALL. Maybe we can now put a end to all private
capitalists, placing all means
of production under social ownership. Maybe we can reinforce social
control of all units of
production. We are all proletarians now, as wage workers, and
SIMULTANEOUSLY, we are all
communist producers. Since we have still more free time, more goods can
now be produced and
distributed entirely free of the circuits of capital. At the end of the
process, say in 100 years, ALL
PRODUCTION is communist. No distinction of classes subsists. The state
withers away. In my
view (and this is where our views diverge) no separate administrative
apparatus will be needed to
regulate the economy. In fact, there is no economy. This is the part
where instant electronic
communication enters, balancing the offer and demand of goods. The
allocation of productive
resources is automatically channeled to where people freely place their
demands most. It is
"anarchic" in the sense that nobody has power to direct and control the
free initiative of the
producers. However, remember, this is not capitalist offer and demand
we’re talking here. There is
no market and the law of value was abolished. This is entirely free
production and distribution. It just
means that society will self-regulate itself. It will produce and
consume according to its free will and
design.


Ken:
>This brings up the question of what social planning and planned
production is, how it differs
>from the bourgeois conception that a tyrant tells everyone what to do,
and why--in a classless
>society--an overall administration of things is not the same thing as a

government. These are
>among the central issues of both the classless society and the
transitional period.


Planning is an indispensable tool during the transitional period. Market

mechanisms will function in it
too, in the progressively shrinking interstices left to it. But I have
problems accepting a separate body
of planners in a full communist society. For as much democratic control
is exercised over it, a
tendency will always be present for it to constitute itself into a new
oligarchy. And the danger exists
that this body of planners will build pressure for de facto
appropriation of the means of production.

I know you mean to say that ALL OF SOCIETY will do this planning, so
there is no separate body
of planners at all. But I see no way this can be done, unless through
(electronic) instant democracy
mechanisms. Since we are talking of the allocation of resources (or the
mere "administration of
things") can I assume that your view is not that distant from mine after

all?


Ken:
>With respect to the theory of the transition, you are correct that I
didn't fully understand the
>image of communist society that you were putting forward. I appreciate
the fact that you
>don't get offended by my misunderstanding, but instead take the time to

explain your vision.
>Actually, I still have a number of questions of clarification to ask
about your views.

>The question of planning in the future, fully communist society seems
to be of these issues in
>which we are trying to figure out what each other means. You have
certain questions about
>what I mean by planning by all of society, while I don't understand how

planning can be done
>simply through instant electronic communication.

>It's true we're still trying to figure out what the other one thinks
about communism. But then this has
>been true ever since there is a communist movement, and that goes a
long way back from Marx >and Engels. People have been fighting for
communism for millennia, and nobody ever has had a >clear idea of how it

>would work.


Communism is such a compelling idea, that everybody just assumes that it

must be feasible. Or is it a
recollection from another - perfect - world, before the fall?... I'm not

a religious man. If communism
is not a religious illusion (and that is still an hypothesis), then it
must be a powerful collective intuition.

On scientific work, when you can imagine a mathematical equation of
great beauty and symmetry,
people will say: This is so devastating, IT MUST BE TRUE. And it
generally is.

Marx was not a religious man either. But when he wrote the "Critique of
the Gotha Program", he
was clearly on the borderline of science and visionary prophecy.

My whole idea is that, we are now entering a stage in capitalist
civilization where we can not only
imagine communism (and the picture gets clearer and clearer), we can
actually begin to see little bits
of it popping up spontaneously. Our duty is to study these matters in
detail and start filling the gaps.
At the end, we will no longer have just a vision, but a very concrete
and detailed political programme
for transition. We can show - with facts, figures and graphics - that
there's a way to go from here
and communism is just around the corner. Only then, probably, will the
proletariat rise for a definite
account settling with the bourgeoisie.


Ken:
>You say "I know you mean to say that ALL OF SOCIETY will do this
planning, so there is no
>separate body of planners at all. But I see no way this can be done,
unless through (electronic)
>instant democracy mechanisms."

>Actually, I think there will be some type of administrative apparatus.
Will they be "separate
>bodies"? Yes and no. They will NOT be separate bodies in the sense that

they are not
>alienated from society as a whole; they are not separate from and above

society; there will
>not be a separate class of people that serves on them and rules over
the excluded people; and
>they will be linked to actual practice. But they ARE separate bodies in

the sense that they
>actually exist as an administrative apparatus, as actual bodies.


I have many problems with this. It breaks the perfect symmetry of our
vision, and so far this is the
best guaranty we have. It also runs against some of the most established

features of communist
society: the abolition of social division of labor and of the
distinction between mental and manual
labor. A separate administrative body will create its own "separate"
science and methods of
direction. There will be "separate" academies for it. This means common
people will be alienated
from important aspects of the decision of their lives. It's a matter of
time and we will end up falling
back into a class society.


Ken:
>Marx and Engels held that large-scale production requires a certain
labor of supervision; and
>it also requires a certain direct authority. They weren't shy to point
out that whether it is
>factory production or sailing a ship, there has to be such an
authority. They distinguished in
>principle between the repressive nature of such authority in today's
society, and the
>supervision necessitated by large-scale production. Only large-scale
production creates the
>possibility that workers can be freed from such slavery; but
large-scale production is
>inevitably coordinated production, coordinated effort.

>The key question of communism, on which it rises or falls, is whether
such coordination can
>be achieved without oppression. The capitalists say no, and thus
communism is unrealistic
>and utopian. Marx and Engels said yes--if the means of production are
social property, if the
>class division in society is eliminated, the coordination and
administration of production can
>lose their political character and become an administration "of things"

and not an oppression
>of people. Marxism says that it isn't the existence of the
administrative apparatus itself that
>creates oppression, but the division of society into classes. The
anarchists say no--anything
>but direct democracy is oppressive, and they don't realize that they
are thereby enchaining the
>masses to the marketplace.


After reading this, I have the impression that your anti-revisionism
hasn't gone quite deep enough yet.
With this, we could easily find ourselves in the same old revisionist
shit-hole again. You go from the
social "property" of the means of production to the elimination of class

division. This is exactly the
Stalinist approach.

But the class division of society is not a function of the property of
the means of production. It's
rather the other way around. A certain class division in society
(product of certain RELATIONS OF
PRODUCTION) creates this form of appropriation of the means of
production. Propriety is a mere
juridical (bourgeois) concept. If we are to move away from capitalism,
we cannot just proceed by
expropriating the bourgeoisie and keep an eye on the enemy within (two
line struggle). We must
transform the relations of production. And this can only come about when

the forces of production
are mature enough for it.

Sure enough, large-scale production is coordinated effort. But how will
this effort be coordinated? If
we coordinated it by traditional bossing methods (through a separate
body of planners), we haven't
moved away an inch from the capitalist relations of production. The
correspondent appropriation
patterns will follow soon enough. You can scream and shout and make a
thousand and one "cultural
revolutions". This will come about inevitably.

And how will this "administrative apparatus" restrict itself to the
"administration of things"? What do
you (or rather Engels) mean by that? Will "things" just start moving
around upon hearing the voice of
the administrative apparatus? Doesn't it need to command people to do
this and that work, after all?
It's decisions (however democratic and participatory), aren't they
enforceable? Doesn't it need a
repressive apparatus to ensure obedience then? Isn't this a State? So
there you have it: a State in
your "classless" society. This paradox stems from a flawed approach to
the transition, that is, we are
still stuck on the revisionist marshes.

--------------A6D16BABB294446D80E56076

HTML VERSION:

Ken:
>So a comparison has to be made between revisionist society and
transitional society, and not
>only between revisionist society and socialist society. The
transitional society has features
>which are not simply the same as those of socialist society. Nor is the
transitional society
>simply part way to socialism in some quantitative sense. For example,
the role of the
>revolutionary party drops out of classless society altogether. So does
the class struggle, and
>the state itself. In fact the economy looks radically different from
the transitional economy.
 

I use the term socialism (when I use it at all) as synonymous of
transitional society or, when
considered on its political features, dictatorship of the proletariat.
The transition we're talking about
here is to communism. So, you have capitalist societies, then
post-revolutionary (or socialist)
societies and finally communism. I don't believe in "building
socialism". In my view, this is precisely a
revisionist ruse. They meant to say that they were building something
that wasn't quite communism
yet (keep cool, folks). But then they intermingled socialism and
communism in a confusionist way
and nobody was sure anymore if they were still moving towards the goal
or if, well, that was it
already. Ultimately, they were hoping to brush the question under the
carpet as a conceptual trifle.
Or they would say -a classical revisionist act - that the movement was
everything and the final goal
nothing.

On my view, what we have to build, in a post-revolutionary society, is
communism. So, in examining
the revisionist regimes, we have to compare them to a sound assessment
of the transitional tasks
towards communism, as we can understand them today with (at least some)
hindsight.
 

Ken:
>In this regard, although capitalist and socialist elements are mixed in
the transitional
>economy, I don't think this can be understood as that part of the
economy is fully communist
>and another part capitalist and they fight. The socialist or communist
forces in the
>transitional society certainly do fight the forces of retrogression and
capitalism, but the
>communist forces are not organized in the way classless society is:
>* A classless society has no party and no government; and yet the
communist parts of the
>transitional society support the proletarian dictatorship and the
proletarian party.
>* The working class seeks to develop a social control over production
in the transitional
>society; and yet there is no separate working class in a classless
society.
>* A classless society has no class divisions, and a transitional
society does. Can one say that
>one part of the transitional society is classless and another part
class-divided? Wouldn't that
>be like saying that a working-class suburb today is a nucleus of
classless society because the
>bourgeoisie lives elsewhere?
>* Can one part of the economy have a standard 40-hour week, and another
part a standard
>20-hour week? And how can one part of the economy be entirely free of
money and
>commodity production while some stubborn parts of the economy are still
based on
>commodity production: how do they exchange products?
 

I don't think you have fully understood my picture of the transitional
society. First, I must stress that
this is a purely conjectural sketch. It has happened nowhere, as yet.
And it depends on the existence
of high levels of productivity and a certain amount of affluence.

In my view, the dictatorship of the proletariat imposes a work week FOR
ALL. Lets say, a 20 hours
week. Nobody works 40 hours anymore. Everybody - including the remaining
capitalists - works 20
hours, for a wage. With that wage, people can purchase goods that are
still produced and distributed
through mercantile mechanisms. However, since people have lots of free
time they start (under the
guidance and control of the workers' power) engaging in free community
work. The product of this
work is distributed freely.

Lets suppose I work on a computer factory. On my free time, I cultivate
oranges just for fun. You
will have to spent part of your wage to purchase my computers but you
can have my oranges for
free. Or you will have the choice of buying oranges still produced on a
mercantile basis, if they look
better to you or if you’re a die-hard bourgeois ideologue. The
dictatorship of the proletariat will
supervise all this process. It will direct the resources from one sector
to another. It will repress
efforts of the capitalist class to enlarge the reach of the mercantile
relations or recover political
power. A certain amount of competition exists then, between a capitalist
and a communist sector.
The dictatorship of the proletariat will see to it that it develops on
the right direction. Private
capitalism is only tolerated where and as long as it is necessary to
provide certain goods.

As productivity levels rise, work for wages begins to shrink. Say, after
50 years, we can impose a
15 hour week FOR ALL. Maybe we can now put a end to all private
capitalists, placing all means
of production under social ownership. Maybe we can reinforce social
control of all units of
production. We are all proletarians now, as wage workers, and
SIMULTANEOUSLY, we are all
communist producers. Since we have still more free time, more goods can
now be produced and
distributed entirely free of the circuits of capital. At the end of the
process, say in 100 years, ALL
PRODUCTION is communist. No distinction of classes subsists. The state
withers away. In my
view (and this is where our views diverge) no separate administrative
apparatus will be needed to
regulate the economy. In fact, there is no economy. This is the part
where instant electronic
communication enters, balancing the offer and demand of goods. The
allocation of productive
resources is automatically channeled to where people freely place their
demands most. It is
"anarchic" in the sense that nobody has power to direct and control the
free initiative of the
producers. However, remember, this is not capitalist offer and demand
we’re talking here. There is
no market and the law of value was abolished. This is entirely free
production and distribution. It just
means that society will self-regulate itself. It will produce and
consume according to its free will and
design.
 

Ken:
>This brings up the question of what social planning and planned
production is, how it differs
>from the bourgeois conception that a tyrant tells everyone what to do,
and why--in a classless
>society--an overall administration of things is not the same thing as a
government. These are
>among the central issues of both the classless society and the
transitional period.
 

Planning is an indispensable tool during the transitional period. Market
mechanisms will function in it
too, in the progressively shrinking interstices left to it. But I have
problems accepting a separate body
of planners in a full communist society. For as much democratic control
is exercised over it, a
tendency will always be present for it to constitute itself into a new
oligarchy. And the danger exists
that this body of planners will build pressure for de facto
appropriation of the means of production.

I know you mean to say that ALL OF SOCIETY will do this planning, so
there is no separate body
of planners at all. But I see no way this can be done, unless through
(electronic) instant democracy
mechanisms. Since we are talking of the allocation of resources (or the
mere "administration of
things") can I assume that your view is not that distant from mine after
all?
 

Ken:
>With respect to the theory of the transition, you are correct that I
didn't fully understand the
>image of communist society that you were putting forward. I appreciate
the fact that you
>don't get offended by my misunderstanding, but instead take the time to
explain your vision.
>Actually, I still have a number of questions of clarification to ask
about your views.

>The question of planning in the future, fully communist society seems
to be of these issues in
>which we are trying to figure out what each other means. You have
certain questions about
>what I mean by planning by all of society, while I don't understand how
planning can be done
>simply through instant electronic communication.

>It's true we're still trying to figure out what the other one thinks
about communism. But then this has
>been true ever since there is a communist movement, and that goes a
long way back from Marx >and Engels. People have been fighting for
communism for millennia, and nobody ever has had a >clear idea of how it
>would work.
 

Communism is such a compelling idea, that everybody just assumes that it
must be feasible. Or is it a
recollection from another - perfect - world, before the fall?... I'm not
a religious man. If communism
is not a religious illusion (and that is still an hypothesis), then it
must be a powerful collective intuition.

On scientific work, when you can imagine a mathematical equation of
great beauty and symmetry,
people will say: This is so devastating, IT MUST BE TRUE. And it
generally is.

Marx was not a religious man either. But when he wrote the "Critique of
the Gotha Program", he
was clearly on the borderline of science and visionary prophecy.

My whole idea is that, we are now entering a stage in capitalist
civilization where we can not only
imagine communism (and the picture gets clearer and clearer), we can
actually begin to see little bits
of it popping up spontaneously. Our duty is to study these matters in
detail and start filling the gaps.
At the end, we will no longer have just a vision, but a very concrete
and detailed political programme
for transition. We can show - with facts, figures and graphics - that
there's a way to go from here
and communism is just around the corner. Only then, probably, will the
proletariat rise for a definite
account settling with the bourgeoisie.
 

Ken:
>You say "I know you mean to say that ALL OF SOCIETY will do this
planning, so there is no
>separate body of planners at all. But I see no way this can be done,
unless through (electronic)
>instant democracy mechanisms."

>Actually, I think there will be some type of administrative apparatus.
Will they be "separate
>bodies"? Yes and no. They will NOT be separate bodies in the sense that
they are not
>alienated from society as a whole; they are not separate from and above
society; there will
>not be a separate class of people that serves on them and rules over
the excluded people; and
>they will be linked to actual practice. But they ARE separate bodies in
the sense that they
>actually exist as an administrative apparatus, as actual bodies.
 

I have many problems with this. It breaks the perfect symmetry of our
vision, and so far this is the
best guaranty we have. It also runs against some of the most established
features of communist
society: the abolition of social division of labor and of the
distinction between mental and manual
labor. A separate administrative body will create its own "separate"
science and methods of
direction. There will be "separate" academies for it. This means common
people will be alienated
from important aspects of the decision of their lives. It's a matter of
time and we will end up falling
back into a class society.
 

Ken:
>Marx and Engels held that large-scale production requires a certain
labor of supervision; and
>it also requires a certain direct authority. They weren't shy to point
out that whether it is
>factory production or sailing a ship, there has to be such an
authority. They distinguished in
>principle between the repressive nature of such authority in today's
society, and the
>supervision necessitated by large-scale production. Only large-scale
production creates the
>possibility that workers can be freed from such slavery; but
large-scale production is
>inevitably coordinated production, coordinated effort.

>The key question of communism, on which it rises or falls, is whether
such coordination can
>be achieved without oppression. The capitalists say no, and thus
communism is unrealistic
>and utopian. Marx and Engels said yes--if the means of production are
social property, if the
>class division in society is eliminated, the coordination and
administration of production can
>lose their political character and become an administration "of things"
and not an oppression
>of people. Marxism says that it isn't the existence of the
administrative apparatus itself that
>creates oppression, but the division of society into classes. The
anarchists say no--anything
>but direct democracy is oppressive, and they don't realize that they
are thereby enchaining the
>masses to the marketplace.
 
 
After reading this, I have the impression that your anti-revisionism
hasn't gone quite deep enough yet.
With this, we could easily find ourselves in the same old revisionist
shit-hole again. You go from the
social "property" of the means of production to the elimination of class
division. This is exactly the
Stalinist approach.

But the class division of society is not a function of the property of
the means of production. It's
rather the other way around. A certain class division in society
(product of certain RELATIONS OF
PRODUCTION) creates this form of appropriation of the means of
production. Propriety is a mere
juridical (bourgeois) concept. If we are to move away from capitalism,
we cannot just proceed by
expropriating the bourgeoisie and keep an eye on the enemy within (two
line struggle). We must
transform the relations of production. And this can only come about when
the forces of production
are mature enough for it.

Sure enough, large-scale production is coordinated effort. But how will
this effort be coordinated? If
we coordinated it by traditional bossing methods (through a separate
body of planners), we haven't
moved away an inch from the capitalist relations of production. The
correspondent appropriation
patterns will follow soon enough. You can scream and shout and make a
thousand and one "cultural
revolutions". This will come about inevitably.

And how will this "administrative apparatus" restrict itself to the
"administration of things"? What do
you (or rather Engels) mean by that? Will "things" just start moving
around upon hearing the voice of
the administrative apparatus? Doesn't it need to command people to do
this and that work, after all?
It's decisions (however democratic and participatory), aren't they
enforceable? Doesn't it need a
repressive apparatus to ensure obedience then? Isn't this a State? So
there you have it: a State in
your "classless" society. This paradox stems from a flawed approach to
the transition, that is, we are
still stuck on the revisionist marshes. --------------A6D16BABB294446D80E56076-- --- from list marxism-international-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---


Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005