Reply To: Rifkin, Mason, Townsend … Reynolds!

Just finished reading his book. Reynolds is an anarchist with a good grasp of Marxian economics and makes the case that technological developments within capitalism are paving the way for

“A state of society in which wage labour and the production of value have been abolished. Each person contributes what they can according to their abilities and each person receives goods according to their needs.”

He calls this society “communism” and says further of it:

“a communist society would not compel its members to work for a wage. It would provide goods to its people for free, allowing them to fulfil their needs without having to worry about artificially produced scarcity. Production would be carried on entirely through voluntary work and would be defined by a cooperative spirit.”

Good stuff. The trouble is that, despite aiming to show that because of technological developments (3-D printers and automation where those who lose their jobs won’t be able to find employment in some other or new section of the economy as with past automation) production based on labour-value will collapse in the course of this century, he doesn’t see such a society as being the immediate aim.

Instead, disappointingly, he sees what he calls “socialism” as the immediate aim as a transition to a communist society. Defined as “a socio-economic system where the means of production are owned by, controlled by and operated for the benefit of the working class”, it turns out to be production for the market organised by workers’ cooperatives aiming to cover their costs. As he himself points out:

“It still requires forms of money, coercive taxation and meaningful scarcity to function.”

Proudhon’s “People’s Bank” is even to be revived.

Disappointing indeed, but nevertheless a straw in the wind that (real)socialism/communism is back on the agenda as an item for discussion amongst critics and opponents of capitalism.