{"id":2065,"date":"2019-05-11T15:12:11","date_gmt":"2019-05-11T14:12:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/wsm.prolerat.org\/?page_id=2065"},"modified":"2019-05-11T15:12:11","modified_gmt":"2019-05-11T14:12:11","slug":"decision-making-in-socialism-how-to-meet-needs","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/decision-making-in-socialism-how-to-meet-needs\/","title":{"rendered":"Decision-making in Socialism: How to Meet Needs?"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

In January \u2013 February 2017 the journals of the American leftist organization Solidarity (Solidarity <\/em>and Against the Current<\/em>) published a stimulating article by Sam Friedman entitled \u2018Creating a Socialism that Meets Needs\u2019 (http:\/\/www.solidarity-us.org\/node\/4866). The author considers how production decisions might be made in a socialist society.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

First a few words on Friedman\u2019s political affiliation. His conception\n of socialism is broadly consistent with that of the World Socialist \nMovement (WSM), though he may have a different understanding of the road\n leading to socialism. He makes positive references to several works of \nRaya Dunayevskaya, who was Trotsky\u2019s secretary during his Mexican exile \nbut broke with him in 1939 over his insistence that the Soviet Union \nremained a \u2018workers\u2019 state\u2019 (she regarded it as state capitalist, as we \ndo). She then created a new school of thought that she called \u201cMarxist \nHumanism\u2019. Thus the author appears to belong to a tendency that has its \norigins in the Trotskyist branch of Leninism (Bolshevism) but has moved \nsome distance away from Leninism and toward genuine socialist positions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Consistent conceptions of socialism<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Returning to Friedman\u2019s article, why can we say that his conception \nof socialism is broadly consistent with ours? Above all, because he \ncontrasts his own conception with the ideas of most other recent \nleft-wing writers on post-capitalist society, who advocate a \u2018market \nsocialism\u2019 in which worker-owned firms still hire labour and compete \nwith one another to sell commodities on the market. He argues (as do we)\n that even if such a system were initially to differ in some ways from \ncurrent forms of private or state capitalism it would inevitably \ndegenerate into them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In the author\u2019s conception of socialism production is guided not by \nblind market processes but by decisions consciously and democratically \nmade in the interests of the community as a whole. \u2018Exchange\u2019 is \nreplaced by distribution. Aggregate output is no longer measured and \nassessed in terms of \u2018growth\u2019. All this corresponds to how the WSM views\n socialism or communism.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In contrast to Leninist doctrine, moreover, Friedman does not \nrelegate this non-market and needs-oriented system to the remote future \nof a \u2018higher stage\u2019 of the new society \u2013 \u2018communism\u2019 as opposed to \n\u2018socialism\u2019. It is to be established immediately upon the conquest of \npower by the working class.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

How to determine needs?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Like the WSM, Friedman states that production in socialism will be \n\u2018for use not for profit\u2019 and that its purpose will be to \u2018meet human \nneeds\u2019. This, however, leaves unanswered the question of how to \ndetermine what human needs are.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Our literature frequently gives a simple answer to this question. \nIndividuals will decide for themselves what goods they need. They will \nhave free access to distribution centres where all desired goods are \navailable in abundance. The advance of automation and robotics has made \nit technically possible to generate such abundance with a minimum of \nhuman labour. Elimination of the waste inherent in the money system will\n also play its part. (\u2018Money \u2013 a waste of resources\u2019, Socialist Standard<\/em>, July 2011).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On the other hand, we have also suggested that socialist society may \nfor various reasons make a democratic decision \u2018not to produce certain \nthings even if quite a few people want them\u2019 (\u2018Free access to what? Some\n problems of consumption in socialism\u2019, Socialist Standard<\/em>, \nJuly 2007).  Another article made a specific suggestion that socialist \nsociety might decide not to produce cars (\u2018Cars and socialism\u2019, Socialist Standard<\/em>, March 2013).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The author makes a similar point when he argues that \u2018needs\u2019 for \nspecific kinds of goods will be met only after they have been \u2018socially \nvalidated\u2019 \u2013 that is, after all the possible negative as well as \npositive consequences of their production and consumption for people and\n for the environment have been assessed through the democratic \ninstitutions and procedures of socialist society. The needs of the \ncommunity are to be determined socially and not just by aggregating the \nexpressed needs of individuals.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Friedman\u2019s emphasis on the social validation of needs is connected \nwith his view of socialism in its early stages as a system operating \nunder great stress. He does not view it as a society of abundance. This \nis not to say that he denies the potential<\/em> for abundance. \nRather, he foresees that by the time that socialism is established the \nhuman race will be embroiled in severe climatic, environmental and \nsocial crises. Top priority will have to be given to the tasks of coping\n with and gradually overcoming these crises. Enormous efforts will be \nrequired to halt and reverse global heating, care for masses of \nenvironmental and other refugees, and improve the living conditions of \nthe world\u2019s slum dwellers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For a considerable period, therefore, the potential for abundance \nwill not be fully realized. The author speaks only of achieving a \n\u2018decency living standard\u2019 for everyone. For instance, the choice of \ncrops to grow will have to depend not primarily on what people prefer to\n eat but on how susceptible their cultivation is to drought, floods, and\n other extreme weather events (this example is ours).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

A dual structure of decision making<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Friedman\u2019s conception of decision- making in socialism, like that of \nthe WSM, consists of two elements. The first is the proceedings of \nelected councils at various levels, supplemented by procedures of direct\n democracy such as referenda. The second is the \u2018requests\u2019 (Friedman\u2019s \nterm) or \u2018orders\u2019 \u2013 the term used in the article \u2018Supply and needs in \nsocialism\u2019 (Socialist Standard<\/em>, July 1984) \u2013 that circulate \nwithin the network of production and distribution for material inputs \nrequired to maintain stocks of consumer goods at levels sufficient to \nmeet individual needs.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

For this sort of dual structure to work well it is necessary for the \ndivision of tasks between the two elements and their mode of interaction\n to be clear and effective. For example, the councils could concentrate \non major decisions concerning the overall pattern of production \nfacilities and supporting infrastructure. In order to prevent \noverloading of their agendas, fraught with the risk of neglect of their \nproper function, they must avoid entanglement in detailed decision \nmaking \u2013 although they might issue guidelines to assist those \nresponsible for making detailed decisions.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Routine operational issues are better handled by direct consultation \nbetween workgroups. Provided that requests are reliably fulfilled, their\n circulation should achieve the desired result automatically. However, \nFriedman seems to envisage the councils functioning as clearing houses \nthat receive and coordinate requests, assess how \u2018reasonable\u2019 they are, \nand find workgroups able and willing to fulfil them.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Reliable fulfilment of requests?<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Why does Friedman assign this burdensome task to the councils? The key point is that he does not <\/em>assume\n that workgroups can be relied upon to fulfil requests that they \nreceive. A workgroup may deny a request because it disagrees with the \nassociated production decision \u2013 he thinks it should have the right to \ndo this \u2013 or for less legitimate reasons, in which case it might be \nsubjected to \u2018gentle community and perhaps organizational social \npressure\u2019 (whatever that may mean).<\/p>\n\n\n\n

But how can the true motive be discerned? Surely all denials of \nrequests would be justified by reference to the sole legitimate \nrationale \u2013 principled disagreement. For example, a factory might refuse\n to fulfil a request to change its output mix to meet new consumer \npreferences on the grounds that it considers the request \u2018frivolous\u2019 \nwhen its real concern is to avoid the inconvenience of reorganizing its \noperations.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

By definition socialism is a society of free people. They cannot be \ncompelled to do what they do not want to do, either by brute force or \n(as in capitalism) by threats to their livelihood. We have to assume \nthat they will be sufficiently responsible and self-disciplined \nvoluntarily to do whatever may be required to implement a democratically\n made decision, even if they disagree with that decision \u2013 unless, \narguably, they have good reason to regard the decision as dangerously \nincompetent (if, say, a council has approved an unsafe design for a \nnuclear reactor). Otherwise socialism will have to acquire effective \nmeans of compulsion, but then it will be socialism no longer. This is \none reason why socialism has to be established by a majority of \nconscious socialists.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

STEFAN<\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In January \u2013 February 2017 the journals of the American leftist organization Solidarity (Solidarity and Against the Current) published a stimulating article by Sam Friedman entitled \u2018Creating a Socialism that Meets Needs\u2019 (http:\/\/www.solidarity-us.org\/node\/4866). The author considers how production decisions might be made in a socialist society. First a few words on Friedman\u2019s political affiliation. His…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":2066,"parent":0,"menu_order":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","template":"","meta":{"magazine_newspaper_sidebar_layout":"","footnotes":""},"class_list":["post-2065","page","type-page","status-publish","has-post-thumbnail","hentry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2065","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/page"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2065"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/pages\/2065\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/2066"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.worldsocialism.org\/wsm\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2065"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}