“Socialist Planning Beyond Capitalism”
- This topic has 32 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 2 weeks, 3 days ago by
.
-
Posts
-
This person liked it.
‘ [16] It is unfortunate that Soren Mau did not follow the implications of his excellent book Mute Compulsion in his speculations of a post-capitalist society (Mau, 2023a) which appears untroubled by questions of commodity relations and the socialisation of the productive forces (Mau, 2023b). Phil A. Neel and Nick Chavez draw this out in their critical response to Mau. Their effort to think through the technical aspects of a socialisation of productive forces under socialist relations comes closest to the spirit of Bettelheim in the current context. Neel and Chavez, (2024).’
(That’s at ‘Charles Bettelheim and the Value-Form: The Problem of the Real Socialisation of the Productive Forces in Socialist Transition’ by Roberto Mozzachiodi at https://www.historicalmaterialism.org/article/charles-bettelheim-and-the-value-form-the-problem-of-the-real-socialisation-of-the-productive-forces-in-socialist-transition )
The first draft of our election address for the local council by-election in Lambeth, London, stated that “the council … cannot abolish the value form.” The Party’s Executive Committee, although agreeing with this, changed it to “cannot abolish the profit motive” on the grounds that the original version might not be immediately understood by too many voters.
Pity in one sense as it would have taken the discussion from academic circles into the real world. While they talk there about it we try to spread the idea amongst the working class generally. I wonder how the academics would react to the objection we met that this amounts to advocating “universal shoplifting”. Come to think of it, that’s not entirely wrong. It’s certainly a simple way of putting it.
Came across this today. A few paragraphs in and it’s already looking a bit iffy. The Soviet Union was not socialist but also not capitalist either, cos there were no markets. (Really? What did your average punter do in a Moscow supermarket if not engage in a market transaction?)
There is also something further on alluding to the concept of a social fund from which various deductions are made (an idea that appears in the Gotha Critique). To me, that’s a nonsensical idea and implies the existence of a universal unit of accounting (otherwise, how could you make these aforementioned deductions?). We dont need a universal unit of account in a post-capitalist society. Only calculation in kind
Still, the text makes some interesting points nevertheless
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.