[robbo203]

Has anyone come across Gavin Kitching’s book “Karl Marx and the Philosophy of Praxis” (1988)? Kitching, who I have just been reading, seems to be sympathetic to some aspects of Marx’s thought but is highly critical of his economics and in particular the labour theory of value. Much of his criticism seems to focus on the question of whether machines produce surplus value Briefly, Kitching argues that Marx employs a completely arbitrary “accounting procedure” to sustain his argument.  If a machine has 1000 hours of Socially Necessary Abstract Labour (SNAL) embodied in it then the maximum amount of SNAL hours that the machine can possibly transfer to each product, according to Marx, is dependent on the number of products produced over the life time of the machine itself.  So if the machine lasts for 1 year and is used to produce 50 products, the maximum value transferred from the machine to each product is 20 SNAL hours. But, contends Kitching, Marx is just inventing an example to fit the theory.  There is no reason why a machine, by amplifying the productive power of the worker should not transfer, say, 2000 SNAL hours in total over the lifetime of the machine, meaning double the number of SNAL hours embodied in the machine itself.  After all a machine can work for a longer amount of time than went into the making of that machine.  So why arbitrarily set the limit of SNAL hours it can transfer to just 1000? By the same token there is no necessary reason why the worker should be producing more value than that required to reproduce and maintain herself.  That is to say, the entire surplus value could in theory be produced by machines.  Marx is in effect rigging the whole discussion with those hypothetical examples of his in Das Kapital, using arbitrary figures plucked out of thin air Of course, if Kitching is right this has enormous implications for the whole edifice of Marxian economics. For starters, the whole concept of the “tendency for the rate of profit to fall” goes out of the window since one cannot sensibly talk any longer of the rising organic composition of capital as machines replace labour power.    In theory this means “capitalism” could happily continue even if we had a totally robotised and automated system of production.  The machines would be happily churning out surplus value while the proles are left to languish on the dole paid for out this surplus value. I say capitalism but since capitalism is predicated on generalised wage labour this would hardly be capitalism any more insofar as generalised wage labour would disappear. A revolution would no longer be necessary to make it disappear. The capitalists themselves would, as it were, be the agents of the system’s destruction by going down the road to technological innovation. And this all seems to centre on this vexed question of whether machines can add value or produce surplus value. Personally, I think Kitching is making an elementary blunder in his treatment of the labour theory of value but I would like to hear what others think…… 

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

  Robbo, my reply to you is more or less the same as that to Alan.Then you are restricting socialist delegates to voting for a capitalist framed bill, with all the baggage that entails.  Not a very bright strategy for a “socialist” reformer to cripple his “socialist” drafting hands, and meekly vote on capitalist designed legislation.  He’s already crossed the boundary to reformism, why not go the whole hog? 

 No this is not the case TWC, Endorsing refromism is very clearly not at all the same as endorsing a particular reform,  Reformism is the pro–active advocacy of a package of reforms as part of an electoral strategy. That is to say you are putting forward this package in the hope of attracting electoral  support on the promise of implementing these reforms if elected.  This is obviously not somethimg a socialist party can do and as a socialist I would oppose such reformism. A socialist party can only stand for socialism and nothing else.  But there is absolutely no contradiction between that and socialist delegates voting on refroms put forward by others on the basis of their merits or otherwise from the standpoint of working class interests.  For example, if a bill came before parliament re-introducing national conscription or makiing it a criminal offcnse to criticise the monarchy,  would you still urge  that socialist delegates abstain from voting?  That would be madness frankly

twc wrote:

 Socialist delegates are in parliament to propagate the socialist case and to expose capitalist legislation for exactly what it is; not to endorse it.  Endorsing (shonky) capitalist legislation just as surely “sends a message” of abject admission of socialist defeat.  You seem eager to be “doing something” that “sends a message”, however capitalist at the core, instead of crafting a message that exposes the rotten core of capitalism to the light of day.Why on earth waste precious socialist time and effort in supporting the damn social system we seek to eradicate?

I am not suggesting socialist delegates should not take every opportunity in parliament to propagate the socialist case.  Of course they should and all  the more so when they are voting for or against particular peices of legislation. As always they need to point out the limitations of such legislation.   But also they must take up a position as decided by the movement in gneral as to what is in the best interests of the workers = however fleeting or ephemeral – under the circumstances prevailing. I made the point earlier about Marx's attitude to promoting the 8 hours working day.  You wouldnt dispute – would you? – that a reduction in the working day would benefit workers and mitigate the rate of exploitation.  Juliet Schor in her book, The Overworked Americanm notes that American workers worked an average of nearly one month more per year in 1990 than in 1970.  One reason for this – apart from the rising costs of fringe benefits vis-a vis-overtime rates which made it profitable for employers to get their workers to work longer hours – was the decline in trade union power in America.  And here's my point.  Can you not see the sheer cognitive dissonance between saying socialist delegates should not vote in favour of (but simply abstain on)  measures that reduce the rate of exploitation such as restricting the length of the working day and yet urging workers in their trade unions to militantly resist the attempts of employers to increase the rate of exploitation by extending the working day. That would send out a very mixed message indeed to the detriment of the socialist movement itself.

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 

robbo wrote:

By reducing the rate at which it is robbed, pehaps?  Isnt that of some benefit? 

But that flies in the face of “return on investment”, which is the driving force of capitalism, and manifests itself as the driving motive of the capitalist.A capitalist parliament, with or without socialists, has to guarantee social reproduction.  But social reproduction is capitalist reproduction, and remains so, whatever the rate people are robbed at, for they are still robbed.Parliament is there to guarantee this driving force of social reproduction, i.e. to act on behalf of dear old capital expanding itself.The robbing I refer to is the essential mechanism of capital expansion, i.e. Marxian exploitation. Watch the capitalists panic when their precious market rate falls!  It is life or death to those whose motive drives the system—those bearers of the will of capital to expand itself.Reducing the mere rate of robbing is a fantasy solution of liberal humanism in an illiberal inhuman world. It forgets, or fails to comprehend, that we are dealing with a dynamical process that is necessarily insatiable.We dealing with something enormous—an entire social system, or mode of production.  Not fixing its minor unfixable problems.The socialist case is diametrically opposed to liberal humanism—a position that wallows in glorious defeatism.The socialist case abolishes the illiberal inhuman conditions that generate liberal humanism.  Ours is a consciously victorious case. 

 TWC nobody is disputing that while capitalism lasts workers will be exploited.  This is a red herring.  What we are talking about is the hypothetical situation in which there exists a minority of socialists delegates in parliament and how they should respond to leglslation put forward by those in power.  It is NOT being suggested that such delegates should themselves actually propose any such legislation which would indeed be reformist. For instance, one of the ways in whch the rate of exploitation is increased or reduced is by increasing or reducing the length of the working day i.e. absolute surplus value.  Marx himself saw the question of the length of the working day as being one of vital importance to workers.  In 1866 he wrote on behalf of the International Workingmens Association "The legal limitation of the working day is a preliminary condition without which all further attempts at improvements and emancipation of the working class must prove abortive….The Congress proposes 8 hours as the legal limit of the working day.". Marx himself was a bit of refromist in this respect Now suppose a situation arose in which legislation was proposed which would shorten the working  week.  Are you telling me, TWC that the socialist delegates in parliament would abstain on the vote even if it had a direct bearing on the rate at which the working class was exploited?  I find that hard to believe I repeat again.  Its not a question of trying to fix an unfixable problem.  No one is disagreeing with the contention that problem of exploitation is unfixable in capitalism.  Its a question of what sort of message you are sending out by abstaining on  a peice of leglislation that could mitigate but never eliminate the exploitation  of workers.  Unless of course you think that reducing the working week has had absolutely no benefits whatseover to workers,  Do you?

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 I don't support majority rule no. I explained my views in my earier posts so i really don't want to go into another detailed post. What i think basically is that if we let things to be decided on a majority vote, those who aren't in the majority will be marginalized. I think its sort of a herd mentality

 CP, what you are effectively saying is that you think it is better that a minority should marginalise the majority than that a majority should marginalise a minority.  Individuals in the minority carry more weight in your book than individuals in the majority and should therefore be able to overrule the latter.  This is exactly the circumstances under which that phenomenon you fear most – mob rule or the knerk yerk, irrational, over reaction of the disenfeanchised – will occur.  It is the blind lashing out against the systemic contempt of the minority establishment shown towards the majority Treating everyone as equal, as carrying equal weight means treating everyone with respect.  This is why in a true democracy, while the will of the majority will and should prevail, there exists the optimal conditions in which every attempt will be made to accomodate  the wishes of the minority – that is to say, to compromise with the minority rather than marginalise them. Conversely it provides the optimal conditions for the minority to treat with respect the wishes of the majority, As long as you have class ownership of the means of production iyou have a fundamentally adversarial  social mechanism in place by which the majority will be permanently marginalised with all that that entails

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

ALB, note carefully that I did not claim that reforms “were inevitably detrimental to working class interests”.Instead I issued the challenge: “how on earth can anyone tell what reforms are beneficial to the working class in a system based on robbing it?”

By reducing the rate at which it is robbed, pehaps?  Isnt that of some benefit?  

twc wrote:

Again, on the point about “stopping a war”.  Wars are stopped every second week in the Middle East.  People have won Nobel Peace prizes for stopping wars that continue to rage.I repeat, with variation, “how on earth do you stop wars when the system continually breeds warfare in the first place?”There are no permanent solutions for these conundrums.

Well, if war is prosecuted under capitalism because the population in general, being nationalistically minded, acquiesce and even enthusiastically support such a thing, then I put it to you that to the extent that a socialist movement grows, to that extent will it become more and more difficult for capitalist states to wage such wars in the so called national interests. They will increasingly lack the mandate to do such a thing..  There may even come a time in the twilight years of capitalism when wars will cease to exist. The machinery of capitalist propaganda will by then have become so effectively spiked that it can barely function at all This is an important point to emphasis – the qualitative and indeed cumulative impact of the growth of a robust socialist movement on the very dynamics of capitalism itself. We dont emphasise this point enough. The growth of the socialist  movement will in itself signiificantly alter and radicalise  the entire social environment in which it occurs.  That in turn will have a powerful selective influence on the nature of the oppositional forces  that  the movement will then face. For instamce, I cannot imagine the continuation of any kind of significant ultra authoritarian or fascist movement surviving under these circumstances.  Two such totally opposed worldviews cannot both flourish in the same soil We sort of recognise this argument when we say, come the time a socialist movement can be counted in the millions, the parties of capitalism will most likely be more generous in the refrorms they offer.  Indeed we shall probably see a signficant shift in the patten of state speinding away from such things as defence (or for that matter, splashing out 200 million quid plus on refurbishing the royal housejold such as has just been sanctioned) to spending on things like healthcare.  The social priorites will change as the social envirornment changes.  Thats Historical Materialism 101 and it has important implications for the role of socialist delegates in parliament at this stage But we dont emphasis this argument enough, frankly.   It is one of the most powerful arguments that you can possibly make against taking up a reformist position – that ironically the quickest route to achieving what the reformists want inside capitalism is to repudiate reformism itself!

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

 

robbo wrote:

The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s. 

 Precisely.  Like health, it’s threateningly expensive to support.  It threatens return on investment.

 Yes but the point is that it is not the provision of education per se that is threateningly expensive but the extent of that provision and only temporarily so .  Hence the slight drop in real terms  since approx 2010 .   But this will surely change as economic conditions pick up. Capitalism needs a relatively educated workforce , more so now than ever before in this "Information Age". "Education education education" has become the mantra of capitalist states the world over. They understand its critical importance to the self expansion and accummulation of capital

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

robbo wrote:

I think (twc) has an overly mechanistic ring about it.

No. A scientific determinist ring, like all science—the science of necessary process, or else no science at all.In place of deterministic science you skirt perilously close to the fantasy fiction:Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy?The Party case has always been that capitalism requires democracy to legitimate itself.So far, democracy has not lived up to its originally perceived threat to the capitalist system, and has so far failed to put a dent in capitalism itself, which continues to rule triumphant over whichever democratic team has the dubious privilege of “running” it.On the contrary, capitalism has knocked “capitalist sense” into its left opponents, democratic or anti-democratic as the case may be.Once Socialism is on the move, a parliamentary electoral system—no matter how gerrymandered or jury rigged—is powerless to stop it.You seem hung up on the meerest details of hypotheticals.

 I dont recall having said anything of the sort, TWC… When did I suggest: Socialist representatives get magically elected to parliament, under a South-American old-style dictatorship,where they defiantly denounce the tyranny that elected them and advocate the universal right to parliamentary democracy? My point was totally different. I was making a distinction between political reforms and economic reforms. I was saying that it was quite right that the party should say workers should struggle for political reforms that would enable a socialist party to operate in a relatively democratic environment . You cannot effectively operate a socialist party in a dictatorship. I further argued that this struggle for basic democratic rights   is in no sense reformist .  In fact ironically I am rather supportive of your line of argument which suggests that reformism is essentially focussed on the economic dimension/realm of capitalism. I certainly do not envisage socialists representaives being somehow "magically elected" to parliament under dictatorial conditions.  How on earth did you manage to draw this conclusion? 

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

I repeat, how on earth can anyone tell what will “benefit the working class” in a society based on robbing it? 

 TWC would you not say that reducing the rate of exploitation is of some benefit to the workers even if its predicated on the fact that workers  are exploited in a society that , in the final analysis, cannot be run in the interests? Also, I wouldnt say its strictly true that "It is precisely education and health provisions that currently threaten capital’s ability to expand itself".  According to this site:Education spending now represents around an eighth of overall spending. The share of spending devoted to education has risen over time; it almost doubled between 1953–54 and 1973–74, from 6.9% to 12.5% of total spending. It then remained fairly stable, dipping in the early to mid 1980s, before rising to around 13% throughout the 2000s. Figures 1a and 1b show the alternating periods of flat and rising real education spending over the second half of the twentieth century, as well as education spending rising as a share of national income over time. https://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/fiscal_facts/public_spending_survey/education Yes there has been a slight dip in spendng in real terms from roughly 2010 onwards as you can see from the accompanying graph but, to be pedantic, it is not the provision of education that currently threatens capital’s ability to expand itself but rather the extent of that provision,  Capitalism would barely function if at all if it made little or no provision – particularly now in the "information age" The same sort of conclusions generally apply also to healthcare provision.  See here http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/healthcare_spending  Of course , there is no such thing as a free lunch in capitalism and the financing of these elements of the social wage out of general taxation  (the burden of which falls squarely on the capitalists alone),  will express itself as a compensatory downward pressure on real wage levels  (disguised as tax deductions on the workers pay slips).  But again, this is affected by the ability of workers to organise and resist such pressure ,  It is not automatic in the way water finds its own level

[robbo203]

twc wrote:

Capitalism can’t be reformed to benefit workers without threatening its very own conditions of existence—capital acting as capital, i.e. private capitalist-class return on investment dominating all social practice,  i.e. dominating the working class.By what criterion can anyone judge that a “reform” will bring “benefit”, to the working class, when the entire social system reproduces itself by exploiting the working-class?Capital necessarily reproduces itself to the detriment, not to the benefit of the working class!The process of capitalist reproduction ensures that its conditions of continued repetitive existence are necessarily self-correcting, self adjusting, self adapting.In short, if you temporarily weaken capital, it systemically reacts and survives, because society must function and, under capital’s domination, society must function on its terms of existence, or not at all.And because capital adapts to its very own nature, any temporary “benefit” to its class enemy necessarily succumbs to capital’s own necessity.The class struggle, fought out under capitalist conditions, of capital simply acting out its very own inflating self—expanding itself through employing the working class—cannot permanently be won against it on a field it already controls.If working-class benefits, that threaten capital’s ability to expand itself, could be won under capitalist dominant conditions, why Socialism?

I understand what you are saying here and have a lot of sympathy for the argument but, even so, I think it has an overly mechanistic ring about it. Its implications can be interpreted as endorsing a somewhat fatalistic view of the world. That, in turn, could react upon or sap, the intensity of class struggle to resist the downward pressure exerted by capital on working conditions and wage levels. After all, it is historically the case, surely, that workers have been able to secure improved conditions and wages and that there was nothing automatic about this.  The capitalists did not grant these improvements out of the generosity of their hearts.  They had to be struggled for There's that great quote from Marx in Value Price and Profit: "Profits [or wages] is only settled by the continuous struggle between capital and labor, the capitalist constantly tending to reduce wages to their physical minimum, and to extend the working day to its physical maximum, while the working man constantly presses in the opposite direction. The matter resolves itself into a question of the respective powers of the combatants."  So the question of struggle cannot be excised as a factor in determining the social outcome – even if the system is rigged in favour of capital as you rightly point out.  This is true even at a time of recession when relative wages and conditions are being pushed downwards by the inexorable force of capital readjusting to adverse circumstances.  If workers did not offer some resistance their plight would be even worse. There's one more observation I would make. We are talking about reforms that would vaguely bring benefits to workers.  But specifically in the context of the socialist case against reformism (which I fully support) what does this actually mean? I put it to you that there are some "reforms" that dont actually fall under the general rubric of "reformist" in that sense, at all.  For instance, how would a reform in the field of civil liberties, such as the extension of franchise, be subject to the inevitable readjustments capital makes in the face of workers’ demands that you speak of?  I think when we are talking about reformism we are referring to a specific class of reforms that are economic in character.  That is to say, their FOCUS is the economic sphere and their FIELD of operation is political – the state via state legislation.  Trade Union struggle is NOT reformist because even if its focus is also the economic sphere, its field is not political (but economic) In short, what makes a reform “reformist” in these terms is the specific configuration of its focus and its field being the economic sphere and the political sphere, respectively.  Any reform offering a different kind of configuration does not strictly come under the rubric of reformism. I think this is implied in the argument you present which focuses on the essentially economic character of the process by which capital readjusts to ensures its own reproduction to the detriment of workers interests.  But you dont tend to find something similar going when the focus is the political sphere.  For instance, what sort of compensatory adjustment has capitalism made in response to the demand that the franchise be extended that is analogous to what goes on in the economic sphere?  All the evidence suggests that there is a long term secular trend towards the bourgeois democratisation of political life.  Places like China and North Korea are holding out but in time they too will succumb to this political process.  Several decades ago almost all of South America and Africa was subject to political cum military dictatorships but the situation is quite different today This is important because the SPGB has always rightly said workers need to struggle for basic democratic rights in the first instance.  I fully endorse this position and would argue that in no way is it reformist.  It lacks the specific configuration of FIELD and FOCUS that would make it reformist and therefore subject to a kind of capitalist clawback or readjustment process you speak of So to conclude – when the first socialist political delegates are elected to political office, it is important that it be clearly understood by everyone that they are elected for one purpose only: the establishment of a socialist society.  That will happen once the requisite electoral majority is achieved and indeed saying this is in itself the guarantee against reformism since it flatly rules out the possibility of these delegates forming a “socialist government” to administer capitalism (since automatically once such a majority is achieved, socialism follows).  In other words, it intrinsically rules out a reformist ticket. However it doesn’t rule the possibility of socialist delegates in parliament considering the reforms advocated by others on the basis of their merits as far as promoting the interests of the working class is concerned.  In no way can this be construed as encouraging the idea that capitalism can be operated in the interests of the working class.  All it will be doing is tipping the balance of forces a little more in favour of the workers in a larger struggle that the workers cannot win while they remain committed, by default or design, to the continuation of capitalism itself

[robbo203]

rodmanlewis wrote:

 But why should we help workers who resolutely choose to continue to vote for the continuation of the conditions they later fight against? Of course, most workers haven't come across the socialist case, but those who do and reject it should have to learn to stew in their own juice.

 Taking that attitude though is not going to encourage them to see the error of their ways.  I fully agree with ALB on this.  Socialists should contest elections solely on a socialist ticket but, in office and whilst still a minority, should consider voting in favour of certain  reforms on the basis of their merits in benefitting the workers, however temprarily.  Needless to say this does not mean advocating such reforms as per the old Second International's  minimum programme. History has decisively demonstrated that you cannot ultimately put forward both a mimum (reformist)  and maximum (revolutionary) programme and by the very nature of things the former will prevail at the expense of the latter

[robbo203]

John Pozzi wrote:

And of course, where there are no commodities like natural light, energy, air, water, land, food, shelter, climate, law, biodiversity, exchange, and consciousness, there is no life. You are living in the world of Smith and Marx where the commodities (products) of labor were thought to be the base of the economy. The were wrong. The Physiocrats knew that it's the products of nature are the base of our economy. – Play with it.  Consciousness is in your biology.

John you are jumbling up a number of different things under the general rubric, "commodity".   Natural light is not a commodity – it is not bought and sold.  Food for the most part today is a commodity although there is a still a vibrant peasant subsistence sector in  many parts of the world where food is produced directly for consumption not for sale. Contrary to what you say Marx was fully aware of the significance of the "products of nature" as appropriated and transformed by human labour.  He regarded human beings as part of nature different from other parts simply by virtue of being "self aware" and capable of reflection and abstract thought (though I think that is too cut and dried given the advances in our understanding of animal behaviour)

[robbo203]

John Pozzi wrote:

The Global Resource Bank is a direct democratic economic theory of social organization that advocates that the means of production, distribution, and medium of exchange are owned and regulated by a global community that utilizes GRB ecos as their medium of exchange,  i.e., GRB socialism.What do "we" seek to use in your SOCIALISM as your medium of exchange?

John,  I was going go make more or less the same point as Tim. Exchange necessarily implies the exchange of property titles and consequently by definition precludes the notion of common property.  It is meaningless and not sensible to talk of property titles being exchanged amongst those who own in common the property in question which in socialism involves the entire apparatus of production  itself.  If there is no exchange there can be no mderium of exchange – money Any kind of quid pro quo exchange involves both the acquistion of new titles and the forfeiture of old titles to the things being exchanged on the part of both parties to an exchange and therefore is based on some form of private property

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

I don't support mob rule, it may sound nice but I guarantee it will go to shit very fast. The state needs to exist for the stability an advanced civilization needs. If you give all the power to the people soon enough you won't have a civilization anymore. It will be replaced with chaos, disorder, lawlessness, a burnt shell of what society once was basically.

 Just as a matter of interest, does this mean then that you oppose the concept of democracy altogether? I actually take the direct opposite view – advanced civilisation actually needs democracy and can only truly flourish when you have democracy..  Even within capitalism in which we have a fairly rudimentary form of democracy called "bourgeois representative democracy" there is a discernable correlation between economic progress and the extent to which bourgeois democratic rights are permitted.  Authoritarian regimes tend on the whole to be less economically developed – though there are exceptions I also completely reject your equating of democracy with  the term "mob rule".  Mob rule is only the flipside of the same coin on which rule by the state exists,  Mob rule arises precisely in response to the inadequacies and repressiveness of state rule,  It is not an alternative to state rule but the progeny of state rule. Mob rule, with all that it implies – the irrational, emotive, knee jerk of the masses to an intolerable situation – is not what democracy is about – at least not in the sense that we envisage democracy in a socialist society.  Because such a society will be a classless society it will ipso facto be a stateless society and by calling for the retention of the state you are effectively calling for the retention of class society. You are effectively calling for the retention of the very conditions under which mob rule asserts itself

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 my computer just shut off b4 i could save my f'ing comment i got to start all over…What i meant by a planned economy is an economy based on producing products for use.Under your envisionment of communism there will be no mechanism for a minority to leverage power but what I was trying to say is that communism can not be implemented perfectly as you envision. Democracy is a double edged sword, it lets the majority exurt its will through a popular vote but at the same time represses the will of minorities, which could lead to human rights violations. There needs to be a balance between the power of the state and the people, with one extreme you have totalitarianism and the other you have mob rule.never heard of a natural economy but my guess is that it never even existed lol

 I understand what you are saying but be aware that the concept of a "planned economy" has other connotations and is usually associated with  a command economy model of state capitalisn such as existed in the Soviet Union which we socialists do not support in any way.  A "natural economy" is essentially a non-exchange or non-monetised  economy and in that sense has certainly existed.  Peasant subsistence production is an example of this. As I and others here have tried to explain the concept of democracy in socialism/communusm that  we put forward is something much more nuanced than you are attempting to portray.  For a start, we do not envisage the continuation of the state in communism,  The state is a particular kind of institution that can only exist in a class based society.  In communism there are no classes – because the means of production are held in common – and therefore there can be no state. There will be democracy in communism, however,  as a  natural extension of common ownership but democracy will be a multi-faceted and multi-level phenomenon, operating at different scales of social organisation – local regional and even global.  A further point is that the scope of democratic decisionmaking, though it will be significantly wider than is the case today , will have limits and will need to have limits.  It has to be counter balanced by considerations that bear upon the freedom of the individual or indeed  the minorities you speak of (meaning democracy will tend to take a consensual. form based on compromise rather than an adversarial form)  In fact, I have always argued that the great bulk of decisions in a communist society – if we are to be quite literal about this – will not be democratically-based but individually-based,  For instance it would be up to you as an individual to decide what you wish to consume or what work you wish to contribute.  This is implicit in the communist slogan "from each according to their abilities to each according to their needs." Where democracy comes intio the picture is when you have decisions that need to be made that have unavoidable collective or joint impacts.  It is quite right that the people who are going to be significantly affected by a decision  should have a say in it.   The only alternative to that is to have decisions imposed on you from above and I am sure you wouldnt agree with that! So certainly democracy has a very important role to play in a future socialist or communist society but it is not quite the role you seem to imagine

[robbo203]

Capitalist Pig wrote:

 You assume that people are capable of running a planned economy on their own, people are only motivated through materialism, and civil liberties will always be upheld by a complete democracy. Your idealogy only thrives in a perfect world with perfect conditions and perfect people who all share the same collectivist ideas. Reality and ideology are like completly different things, you claim your model is applicable in reality and when problems come up you shield yourself from them saying that it is impossible for it to fail. With the populace being the ones that write and enforce the laws, people will simply pick and choose which laws they want to follow which means no law or order. Your idea is good in concept, but bad in practice.what i mean by a planned economy is a economy based on directly meeting needs and wants instead of through exchange as in a capitalist one.

 I am not assuming any of the things  you say, CP and I certainly have not suggested that socialism would be a perfect, problem-free society.  Rather my argument hinges on the point – which you have still not addressed –  that there wil be no mechanism inside a socialist society by which a minority could leverage political power over others in a way that might threaten thier "civil liberties". Again I ask you – show me how this could be done when goods and services are available on a completely free access basis .   You talk about "materialism" but this is a very materialist observation I am making! Thank you for explaning what you mean by a "planned economy",  I think the descrition is misleading however for the reasons I stated – that every kind of economy involves planning and that, if you mean by a planned economy specifically a system of centralised society-wide planinng then this will definitely not be what socialism is about.  I think the term that you are searching for is not a planned economy but a "natural economy" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_economy

[Author]

Posts