Date: Sat, 03 Aug 1996 04:04:44 -0700
Subject: Re: Necessary economic institutions for socialism


First I would like apologise to Mark Adkins. As I stated I am a novice in this medium I think I 
may have been too agressive and obviously I have been patronising. re:

>Just a note to Greg Schofield: I'm perfectly aware of the CIA's
>dastardly deeds, Mr. Schofield.  Nor do I "have a problem with
>the word communism."  I simply asked a user what Marx meant by communism,
>and if & how this was different from the Soviet Communism most people
>associated the term with.  I'm also well aware that communist parties
>in different countries at different times can have vastly different
>characters, particularly at the rank and file level.

I apologise for the tone of response without reservation.

Secondly Hugh Rodwell disputes a claim that I made when addressing Mark's question;
>>... many of the necessary economic institutions for socialism have already been
>>created within fully blown late capitalism.

Hugh Rodwell wrote:
> Not that I think either of us would say that 'many' or even any at all 'of
> the necessary economic institutions for socialism' already exist. You're
> probably being very abstract about this. But, to start a discussion,
> perhaps you could specify some of these necessary institutions?

I wish I could be better prepared to answer this question, unfortaunetly I do not have 
anything like a fully worked out approach, rather it is a number of dissparate points which 
interconnect. What is offered below is a fairly inadequate elaboration. 

First I do not mean to be abstract in this assertion at all, in fact just the opposite. I am 
stating that many of the concrete insitutions of socialism are already present. I might add that 
you would probably not disagree that there are also many abstract conditions for socialism in 
existence, but this has little to do with what I am saying.

Second I must preface my position with something else that you disagree with in my reply:
>>I would suggest that at least in terms of the economy in early proletarian socialism is
>>nothing more than state capitalism.As you suggested that I refer to some past correspondance (which I will as soon as I am able) I 
will not attempt to argue this point at this stage, but for the sake of answering the question 
above I would ask you to assume that this could be a reasonable position.

Third I must add a strong reminder that at no stage am I proposing anything short of the siezure 
of state and social power by the proletariat as an absolute precondition of the successful use of 
such institutions, however this does not preclude raising these matters as part of a political 
platform of communists in the struggle to unite the working class before such an event (I hope I 
have covered my arse on this).

Finally I reach the difficult part, I have to draw a distinction between classical pre-WWII 
capitalism and post-1945 late capitalism. Roughly speaking, the latter period being marked by the 
full flowering of joint stock and transnational companies at the economic level, the creation of 
a true welfare infrastructure (the inadequacies of which not withstanding), the enmeshed role of 
the state with corporate strategies on a large scale. The critical but necessarily weak link in 
the control of the means of production for the bourgeoisie however lies in a transformed class 
structure which relies on a massive public and private management/bureacracy. It is this element 
rather than any institution which is the underlying focus of this approach.

The institutions which I speak of all revolve around the need of the bourgeois owners to make 
sure that their managements substantially act in their interest (there is great antogonism at 
this point). These institutions are at once legal and regularitory, but also include the economic 
intellgence agencies(both public and private) necessary to keep, however lightly, a hand on the 
day to day functioning of large company and state enterprises. The tax and auditing facilities, 
reserve banks, even the polic and judicial offices can also be included. 

Obviously the functioning of such bodies is rarely ever effecient. However if such bodies simply 
become farcical then the bourgeoisie is under a real threat of chaos (which happens from time to 
time). None of these fine tuning insititutions existed in any real way under classic capitalism, 
the parallel functions were mostly carried out by private torts and very occassionally by 
official committees following some crisis or another, in otherwords such institutions are 
characteristic of late capitalism.

I am suggesting that, due to the socialisation of capital, the bourgeois world is wide open for a 
two pronged attack. Directly from below the general incompetance and anti-worker nature of 
management whose interference in production is usually creates a crisis - if not worker's control 
then at least worker's self-management might be both a tactical and strategic goal. 

>From above the demand that the already established institutions:

1) actually fulfil their role fully. 

2) use their powers to reduce the some anti-social behaviour of companies (i.e. the enviroment, 
but also wages and conditions, safety, training, childcare, etc) - the area of directors 
liabilities is one begging for inventive interpretation and amendment. 

3) take over these institutions and use them directly in the interests of proletariat as 
economic directing bodies.

My points are:
 
1)It is not necessary for dictatorship of the proletariat to remove capitalists by political 
means when the economic and legal measures already exist that in time and in the right hands 
would (in order):
     a)displace their social/economic function.
     b)exstinguish their control over the means of production.
     c)and finally deny their expropriation of labour. 

2)Nor does the early period of socialism have to suffer the economic dislocation of moving too 
fast and articificially towards a planned economy. 

3)Furthermore the methods learnt by the working class in achieving power remain essential to 
exercising that power when they in fact dominate society (the unity of means with ends). There is 
absolutely no reliance on spontaneous innovation in this regard, although in struggle 
unpredictable and innovative solutions will spring up.

In general this political approach would fall into a category that Marx described as buying the 
bourgeois out(originally raised in regard to the UK). In effect probably the very last thing to 
go would be the dividends (one could go as far as to say that the bourgeoisie might even enjoy a 
shortlived increase in their wealth by the economy coming under proletarian control)

Obviously the above is a primitive way of expressing a point, however it is an area that is not 
beyond serious exploration. The aim is to work towards a communist program that creates some real 
resonance amongst the working class and recognises their sophistication.

Anyhow thanks Hugh for your response, intellectual stimulation is a rare commodity in Darwin and 
I hope to hear from you again.

Greg Schofield
Darwin Australia



     --- from list marxism2-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---