|
Reply to a cargo-cult Leninist: Powerful Agitation Requires Confronting the Crisis
of Theory Ben
Seattle, January 26, 2008 Contents: ------------ 1. Intro: powerful agitation requires a marriage between our current struggles and our future
goal 2. The politics of workers' rule Many independent organizations will exist 3. The proposal to rename the communist movement 4. The struggle to build a party: community, political transparency and confronting the crisis of
theory 5. Economics in the transition period: and the struggle of the working class to exercise
control 6. The struggle for integrity: The issue is line, not author 1.
Intro: powerful agitation requires
a marriage between
our current struggles and
our future goal In November 2007 I posted a criticism [1] of an
article by Joseph Green on "socialist health care" [2]. I said that the article surrendered to the usual
mythology which equates working class rule with the rule of a single
organization that has a monopoly of power and suppresses its opponents. I said that such a surrender greatly weakens
the agitation. I said that we need a system of agitation which not only
encourages various struggles for partial
demands (such as universal health care) but which also makes clear that the root of all the problems of our society
is the class rule of the largest capitalists (ie: the bourgeoisie) -- and that we must overthrow this system of bourgeois
I also asserted that, for the sake of clarity, we must
make clear that workers will have the fundamental
democratic rights of speech and organization after bourgeois rule is
overthrown. And I also supported a
proposal by a group of revolutionary activists in Samara, Russia to rename the goal of our movement from
"socialism" and "communism" to something new--in a way that
was analogous to Lenin's proposal to
change the name of the revolutionary movement from "social-democracy"
to "communism" after the great
betrayal of 1914 (ie: when nearly all the social-democratic parties
supported the mutual slaughter of worker by worker known as the first world
war) since the betrayal of the communist parties of Russia, China and elsewhere
was fully comparable to the betrayal
of 1914. Joseph Green has responded with a seventeen thousand
word article which discusses a number of important topics related to my
criticism [3]. The differences between Joseph
Green and me concern the nature of
politics and economics in the
period after bourgeois rule is overthrown.
In the present period, our differences concern how to build a system of powerful agitation and a revolutionary organization which is
deserving of the respect and loyalty of the working class. In addition to this, Joseph, in his reply, also
repeatedly describes, at great length, political views which he believes that I
hold. The great majority of Joseph's
descriptions of my views are not accurate -- and this kind of inaccuracy (plus
the length of Joseph's reply) makes it difficult for readers to follow our
exchange. However, political exchanges
concerning important principles can be highly valuable, even if they contain
many inaccuracies. It is my intent to
summarize the important principles which are being discussed and to reply to
Joseph in a way that is accurate, concise, calm -- and focused on the
principles that are decisive to our movement. We should keep in mind that the exchanges between
Joseph and me are not for the purpose of convicting either of us of thought
crimes. Rather, our focus must be on
what actions, and what principles, are decisive in creating a
system of powerful agitation and an organization with the ability to unite the
working class and lead it to victory. 2.
The politics of workers' rule: Many
independent organizations will exist The main criticism that I made of Joseph's article
concerned a problem in a single sentence, where Joseph describes how workers
will run society after bourgeois rule is overthrown. Here it is again: The government and politics won't be run
by a rich elite, but by the working class, through its
own political party and through mass organizations of the entire
working population. The problem with this sentence, I noted, is that it
will be understood by many (if not
most) readers as describing the kind of
political system that existed in the former Soviet Union or that exists today in China: where a _single party_ has a monopoly of power and suppresses all organized opposition--and
where workers do not have the
fundamental democratic rights of speech
and organization. The governments in the former Soviet Union and today's
China are widely described and popularly known as "communist" and
their flags feature the hammer and sickle icon--the identical icon that appears
on the cover of the journal of the "Communist Voice Organization"
where Joseph's article appeared. So it would be important, and necessary, for agitation
(especially from an organization that describes itself as communist and is
festooned with the symbol of the repressive Soviet and Chinese regimes--and
which favorably describes a single-party system of government as the
alternative to the current system of bourgeois rule) to make clear to readers
that, when society is run by the working class -- everyone will have the
fundamental democratic rights of _speech_ and _organization_ -- and the political life of society will be
characterized by a very large number of
political organizations which will be _independent_
of one another. This is what Joseph's article fails to do. Furthermore, any readers of the article who dig a
little deeper and look at the other articles by the Communist Voice
Organization (CVO) -- will also fail to find _any_ clarification whatsoever concerning whether: (1) workers will have
the fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization (2) there will be
a distinction in principle between the workers' state and workers' political parties Empty Words Joseph's article (and other CVO articles) _do_ say
that "socialism" will be different from what existed (or exists) in
the Soviet Union (or China) -- but the differences are explained by the use of
empty words and meaningless phrases rather than more concretely in terms of (1)
democratic rights or (2) a political system featuring a large number of
organizations which are independent rather than being under the thumb of a
single ruling party. Instead of confronting the key ideological weapons that the bourgeoisie aims against the concept of workers' rule
(ie: that any attempt to replace bourgeois rule can supposedly only create a
police state with low productivity) Joseph contrasts socialism to capitalism by
means of largely meaningless phrases like "a new way of life for the
entire population" (ie: phrases that we have heard a thousand times from
the Soviet Union, China and even North Korea) that promote a lot of cynicism
[4].
many
different possibilities In order to illustrate what is wrong with Joseph's
description of "socialism" as the rule of a single party (and a
system of subordinate "mass organizations" to which everyone belongs
and which are controlled by the ruling party) I have created a chart (see above)
illustrating four kinds of scenarios for workers' parties following the
overthrow of bourgeois rule. Many
variations are, of course, possible but these basic scenarios are enough to
illustrate something of the range of possibilities. Joseph's
article describes a police state Joseph's description of the rule of a single party
will be seen by many (if not most) readers as corresponding to the 4th scenario
-- which is that of a police state
such as the former Soviet Union or today's China. That is the basic problem with the description of
"socialism" presented in Joseph's article: instead of _challenging_ the dominant view (promoted by both the bourgeoisie and by cargo-cult
Leninists) that workers' rule must take the form of the rule of a single party with a monopoly of power -- Joseph's article _surrenders_ to this conception. Joseph elaborates on this in his lengthy reply to my
criticism: The working class would supposedly not be able to run society if
there were disagreements serious enough to require more than a single party: You
believe it is absurd to imagine that the bulk of the class-conscious workers
would unite behind a single party because of all the different things they
might disagree on. But, if there are disagreements on what policies a party
should advocate, there will be the same disagreements on what policies the
government should implement. If your
reasoning were valid, it would be equally absurd to imagine that the working
class could rule. Joseph’s argument leaves us with a fantastical picture
of workers’ rule as a society without
any serious disagreements. Any
activist who accepted this kind of thinking would be unable to defend the goal of workers’ rule (ie: the central goal capable of unifying everything
that is healthy in the progressive movement) against the bourgeois ideological offensive which
proclaims that “only capitalist society can accommodate a diversity of
views”. Joseph’s views, therefore,
represent a formula for leaving
activists naked and defenseless on the most
important ideological question of our time. Joseph
admits multiple parties might exist after all Amazingly, only three paragraphs after saying this,
Joseph turns around and contradicts himself—and admits that his description of a single-party state may be mistaken. It is possible,
he notes, that the working class will
rule through _several_ parties rather than a single party: If
workers can actually run the affairs of a country on a class basis, and if this
is a stable rule, then it means that they have overcome their divisions and, in
some sense, have formed a political party. That's what it means to act as a
class on political issues. This party,
or party in a broad sense, might be organized in a better or worse fashion, and
might formally be divided into several organizations. Joseph also admits that, if the working class rules
through a single party, that this party _might_
allow opposition parties to exist: But
even if a single proletarian party maintains the stable support of a majority
of the population, this doesn't necessarily mean that other parties, if they
haven't risen in revolt against proletarian rule, will be suppressed. So Joseph has admitted that the 1st and 2nd scenarios
in my chart are possible. But if Joseph admits
that the description of single-party rule that he presents in his article may
be mistaken (ie: that it would have been more accurate for Joseph to have added
two words and write of the working class ruling through "its own political
party or parties") then why does Joseph not agree to present a
more accurate formulation in future agitation?
I believe that Joseph should agree to do so. More than this, I believe that Joseph should recognize the need to deal with the 3rd and
4th scenarios in my chart: the workers' party could be captured by the enemies of the working class and there would be a
need for an alternative workers' party
to replace it. Furthermore, the working
class will need the fundamental democratic
rights of speech and organization in order to make this happen so that
scenario 3 unfolds rather than scenario 4.
So, in order to have more depth on this question, I believe that
Joseph's organization (the CVO) must investigate
the relationship between (1) the fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization that workers will have
and (2) their ability to effectively
control the politics, economy and culture of society after bourgeois rule
is overthrown. The CVO has, so far,
totally ignored this question--as if this issue did not exist--or was only
being raised by liberals and anarchists. But the simple truth is that this question is
vital to developing an understanding
of how the working class will be able to
run society, defend its interests and maintain power after it overthrows
bourgeois rule. The party
vs. the state Joseph also appears to be confused concerning the distinction between the workers' party and the state. In his lengthy reply
to me, he writes: ...
if there is no ruling party, the state apparatus may find itself independent of
outside political control. Thus the possibility exists that the government
itself would emerge as the ruling party. ... the government would not only have its
hands on the reins of power, but it would emerge as the only unified,
country-wide political force. It is unclear what Joseph is thinking here. Only a few paragraphs earlier, Joseph
admitted that working class rule may take the form of a system involving
multiple parties--but Joseph also described these multiple parties as being a single
party "in a broad sense". It is not necessarily incorrect, by the way, for Joseph
to describe (in the course of a lengthy letter discussing theory) a system of
multiple parties as being a single party "in a broad sense". After all, we sometimes refer to the
bourgeois system of parties here in the US as consisting of a single Demopublican
party--since both parties serve the same imperialist masters and are loyal to
core imperialist values. In an analogous
way, a system of proletarian parties would share core proletarian values. However, my criticism (that launched this
discussion) was of Joseph's article on "socialist health care" and,
in the context of that article, Joseph would have created clarity in the minds of readers if he had referred to the possibility
of multiple parties as well as a single party. In any event, I think that clarity on the party-state question is necessary. The state is a machine. In order to control society the working class
must control the state. It is of
secondary importance whether the working class controls the state machine by
means of: (1) a single
umbrella organization (that has different internal sections that cooperate as well as
openly compete with one another) or by means of (2) a system of
parties which share certain core
values of decisive interest to the working class since both of these descriptions amount to very
similar systems (ie: the 1st and 2nd scenarios in my chart are actually
somewhat similar to one another). The
key point here is that the working class
must control the state machine. What is important to understand is the distinction in
principle between the workers' state
and the workers' party (or parties). The state
has the power of coercion. The power of the party, on the other hand, is based on voluntary actions. This is
fundamental. The state is democratically
controlled by the working class and the masses.
The party may, on occasion, hold views that do not correspond to the
views of the majority of the working class and masses. On such occasions, the party will work to
raise the consciousness of the working class and masses. The party works to influence the working class and masses -- and the working class and
masses control the state. The party does not control the state directly
except inasmuch as party members are elected by the working class and masses to
positions of authority within the state.
But the working class and masses exercise
effective control of the state by various means: elections are a key lever of control but there will be other levers
also related to mass mobilizations
and mass action. Because there will be multiple parties (or, equivalently, a single party with multiple
sections) the state will remain, to an extent, contested terrain. On core questions the various parties that
have influence will unite. On less decisive questions the different
parties (or trends within the same party) will conduct open struggle for influence and support among the working
class and masses. In the course of the 1917 revolution in Russia the bolshevik party and state were
essentially merged. This action was not correct from the point of
view of how workers' rule will function.
On the contrary, such action was an emergency
measure taken in desperate
circumstances. They fact that such a
measure was necessary helps to make clear that what existed in Russia at the
time was not workers' rule as much
as it was an embryonic form of the
same. All of these things are part of taking a serious
attitude toward the theoretical
questions related to how the working
class will rule after bourgeois rule is overthrown. Some argue that such questions are too abstract to deal with today. But I believe that I have shown, with the
help of Joseph Green, that such questions are a vital part of effective agitation today, in 2008. 3.
The proposal to rename the
communist movement In my criticism of Joseph's article on "socialism
and health care" I advocated a decisive
break with reformist and revisionist conceptions of the goal of our movement
and, for this purpose, supported the proposal of a group of revolutionary
activists in Samara, Russia that we abandon the names "socialism" and
"communism" in favor of a new word in a way analogous to how Lenin
advocated breaking with the name "social-democracy" as a name for the
revolutionary movement of the working class. The group in Samara favored the word
"proletarism" as the new name for our movement. They picked this name because it is
consistent with how the historical periods of feudalism and capitalism were
named: after the class that ruled during that period. The proletariat will rule during the
transition period, they argued -- so why not call this period proletarism? That name also has the advantage that, being
a derivative from Latin, it would translate more or less directly into other
languages (ie: as opposed to a word like "workerism" that would be
different in different languages). I was glad to see Joseph, after many years, respond to
this proposal. Unfortunately, in more than four thousand words on the
topic, Joseph avoided dealing with the arguments
that the Samara group advanced for changing the name of our movement. Is the betrayal of the Soviet and Chinese
revisionists on a scale that is comparable to the great betrayal of 1914? I certainly think so. Joseph, unfortunately, does not offer any
opinion on the matter. Was Lenin correct
to advocate changing the name of our movement in 1914? I think so.
Joseph's reply did not touch on this question either. But these questions are highly relevant. The change in 1914 from
"social-democracy" to "communism" amounted to recognizing
that the old name had become hopelessly
compromised and was not capable of being salvaged or redeemed in the eyes
of the working class. The Samara group
argues (and I agree) that the words "socialism" and "communism"
are, in a similar way, beyond redemption. So, if recognizing this reality was correct in 1914--then why would it not be correct to do the same thing now, in the 21st century? Instead of dealing with the arguments put forward by
the Samara group, Joseph opposed their proposal on the grounds that this group
has made a number of errors in practice and theory. Joseph's argument appears to be that if we
support the proposal by this group
to change the name of our movement to "proletarism" -- that this would
amount to an endorsement of every
practical action and theoretical position this group has taken in the course of
its existence. I find such logic to be more than a bit strange. The first principle in struggles over
principle is to recognize that the issue is "line, not author". This
slogan (ie: the issue is "line, not author") has emerged in the
discussion on Mike Ely's blog [5]. Mike
Ely used to be the editor of the newspaper of the RCP, USA. The intensification of the cult-like culture
and atmosphere of this group was finally too much for Mike--and he wrote a
series of letters on his blog critical of the RCP. The response of the RCP (so far) has been to
circulate an internal letter which calls Mike a bunch of names. A copy of this letter got to Mike (who posted
it on his blog). Mike correctly replied
that it does not matter if the various names he was called are accurate or
not. The real issue for revolutionaries
-- is the content of Mike's criticism in his nine letters. Similarly, the issue for revolutionaries considering
the proposal of the Samara group -- is the validity
of their arguments for the proposal.
If Lenin was correct to
advocate changing a name that was beyond redemption in 1914 -- then why would
such a course of action be incorrect
today? The errors that the Samara group has made and is still
making (ie: sectarianism in practice and various eccentric theoretical views)
are essentially irrelevant. The experience of the Samara group, on the
other hand, is highly relevant. These people
were arrested and sent to prison camps
because they organized Russian workers in the only way that was possible in a
police state (ie: in secret—underground) under the "communist"
regime. The experience of this group
stands as total refutation to the apologists of the revisionist regimes who claim that only
"counter-revolutionaries" were suppressed in Soviet Russia. Further, these same people were arrested again—this time by Yeltsin's government
after organizing a highly successful action in which hundreds of striking
workers shut down the main street of a mid-sized Russian city for several
months. The fact that the leaders of
this group were arrested by Yeltsin again demolishes the arguments of the
revisionist apologists who would otherwise claim that this group is just a pawn
in the hands of the Western imperialists (ie: Yeltsin was allied with the
Western imperialists at the time). Joseph has accurately (with a few notable exceptions)
criticized the errors of the Samara group.
Part of Joseph's analysis appears to be based on my work (which Joseph
quotes) criticizing many of the errors of this group. But the issue remains: "line, not
author". Again: (1) Was Lenin
correct to advocate abandoning a name beyond redemption in 1914? (2) Has the
betrayal of the Soviet and Chinese revisionists been on a scale comparable to the great
betrayal of 1914? (3) If Lenin was
correct to advocate changing a name that was
beyond redemption in 1914 -- then why would such a course of action be incorrect today? It is of course possible (even if highly unlikely)
that Joseph may support the proposal to change the name of our movement but is
in favor of another name. If so--then of
course Joseph could suggest a name that he believes would be more
suitable. But I doubt this will happen. I have no doubt that Joseph is capable of writing four
thousand, or forty thousand, or four hundred thousand words on this (or any
other) topic. What is unclear is whether
Joseph will answer these questions. Experience shows that Joseph asks questions. He rarely answers them. 4.
The struggle to build a party: open community, political transparency
and confronting the crisis of theory Joseph, in his reply to me, raises this topic amid a
shower of accusations that I am supposedly opposed to building the
revolutionary party of the working class. Joseph, in his actions, is working to build such a
party. So am I. Joseph and I, however, have different conceptions of
what this party will be like and how it will be built. A revolutionary party of the working class will
mobilize the workers to defend their own material interest in many kinds of
struggles. It will create a system of
agitation for this purpose. I think that
Joseph and I are agreed on this much. My view is that building a genuinely revolutionary
party also requires something more: (1) building an
open community of supporters (2) a commitment
to political transparency (3) a willingness
to confront the "crisis of theory" that makes it extremely difficult for
even the most dedicated and militant revolutionary
activists to
understand how society will function when it is
run by the working class. I have written, in many places, on these topics,
including "Cargo-Cult Leninism vs.
Political Transparency" [6]. Joseph and the CVO, it would appear, oppose this
orientation. Any readers who may doubt
me, for example, on the CVO's commitment to political transparency--can verify
this for themselves: email the editor of the CVO journal and ask them to give
an explanation for why they refused to oppose, in print, the US imperialist
bombing campaign during the Balkan war.
The US military actions in the Balkans were used, among other purposes,
to help prepare public opinion and pave the way for further US imperialist
actions -- such as the invasion of Iraq.
It is clear to me that it was a mistake for the CVO to refuse to oppose
the bombing campaign. But they have
neither admitted their mistake nor explained the reason for it. Instead they give doubletalk of various kinds
(ie: they disagreed with US diplomatic actions and ambitions in the Balkans but
took no stand to oppose the bombing itself).
If any reader can find out why the CVO refused to oppose the bombing --
please let me know. In the meantime, it is clear to me, and a good many
others, that a genuinely revolutionary organization, or party,
would be more open with its agenda
and its politics. I have also written, in various places, about the central task that will unite revolutionary
activists: the creation of a
revolutionary news service that will offer comprehensive news, analysis and
discussion from the perspective of the material interest of the working class
and which will also provide a platform
for the struggle of trends. Joseph and the CVO, in spite of their many errors, are
doing a lot of good work. I believe
their work will assist in various ways the struggle of the working class to
build its genuinely revolutionary party. This party may, at times, take the form of a system of parties -- or it may take the
form of a single party with different
internal sections which cooperate on core
issues but publicly oppose one
another on other issues. I believe
that Joseph and the CVO oppose this conception of a revolutionary party in
favor of a party that is more monolithic
and speaks with a single, authoritative
voice. Part of the work to build a party, it is clear to me,
is to work to better understand the kinds of principles which must guide this
party and guide its organization. I have
written on these topics in a way that I have tried to make calm and clear and
accessible to readers. I would like to
see Joseph and the CVO make an effort to do the same. For example, if they support the idea of a
monolithic revolutionary organization that speaks with a single voice (as it
appears they do) then it would be helpful if they were to explain why they think this is best. And it would also be helpful if they were to
recognize that honest and sincere activists may disagree with them--and cut
down on the kind of name-calling and word-twisting that reduces readership and
audience. These are important topics
essential to building the kind of genuinely revolutionary organization which
the working class needs. We want
activists to be interested in these topics and to find our discussion of the
principles that matter to be concise,
calm and clear. Our actions show what is in our hearts.
Let Joseph show the depth of his commitment to building the
revolutionary party of the working class by means of supporting open, clear
discussion of the fundamental principles
that must guide this party. 5.
Economics in the transition period and
the struggle of the working class to
exercise control Any attempt by the working class to run society will
succeed or fail on the basis of its ability to "deliver the
goods". The working class and
masses will need food, clothing, shelter, transportation, electricity, health
care and culture. If the workers' state
is unable to deliver these things--then large sections of the working class and
masses will conclude that the bourgeoisie ran things better. I described how this would work in part 5 of
the anarcho-leninist debate on the state [7]: the
bourgeoisie would simply move in and pick up the pieces. "We may be
corrupt", they would tell the masses, "we may steal you blind",
they would say, "but at least we know how to run things". And the boys would be back in town. We need, today, at least a general understanding of how the working class will be able to run
the economy and provide for the needs of the masses--in a way that will be
_better_ than what the bourgeoisie
can do. We don't need to have this understanding in order to
draw up detailed blueprints for how we will run things in the future (any
attempt to do such a thing would be both foolish and impossible) but for
another reason: the historical experiences of the Russian and Chinese
revolutions have created so much confusion
and uncertainty concerning how the working class would run a modern economy--that
the predominant idea today is that
any attempt to replace the capitalist system is doomed to failure. We need
confidence in a bright future In order for a revolutionary movement to emerge and
become powerful--hundreds of thousands
of activists must have confidence
that something better than capitalism is not only possible--but inevitable. So we must, for this reason, tackle the existing
conceptions of how the working class will run a modern economy. Again: we have no interest in or need for
detailed blueprints--we have a need to understand, in a realistic way, only the
most general principles--so that we can sweep
away the existing misconceptions and build the confidence necessary for a
revolutionary movement that can defend
the idea of workers’ rule against the immense
weight of the bourgeois ideological
offensive against the goal of
workers’ rule (the most important idea of the 21st century). Central
Planning is no magic solution Today the predominant idea is that the working class
would attempt to run things by means of what is often called a "command economy" in which central planners will issue directives to factories and other
producing units concerning what goods and services to create and
distribute. This appears to be Joseph's
conception also (although he usually speaks of "social planning",
"overall planning" or a "general plan" or even
"conscious control" when he means central planning). However, we need to be careful not to consider central
planning to be some kind of magic
solution that will solve all problems.
Central planning is a necessary tool for some kinds of problems but is
incapable of solving others. Central planning plays an important role today in all
capitalist economies (for example the role in credit and finance played by
central banks--or the highly efficient and centralized systems used to build
cars and planes by Toyota and Boeing).
But central planning also has important limits. Any attempt to run an entire modern, complex economy on the basis of a central plan
would result in fiasco. The central planning bottleneck would never
have the ability to anticipate or respond to the many millions and billions of adjustments and changes of course that countless small producing units will
need to make in order to deal with rapidly changing conditions. So any modern economy, whether it is run by the
bourgeoisie or the working class, will make use of some amount of centralized
planning--but centralized planning can never be used to run an entire modern,
complex economy. So, in understanding how the working class will run
the economy--we need to think "outside the box" of central
planning--and focus on the larger issues. There are two large issues to consider. 1) The
working class will inherit a commodity economy First, the working class, after it overthrows the
system of bourgeois rule, will inherit
an economy based on commodity
production. A commodity is anything created for the purpose of sale or exchange. An economy based on commodity production is
an economy which is dependent on the circulation
of capital. The workers’ state, as it emerges, will not simply
wipe out the existing economy and reorganize everything from scratch. Rather it will expropriate the largest
corporations and run these corporations itself. These expropriations may be initiated by workers at the companies
who take them over--or they may be initiated by the workers’ state--or they may represent various combinations of
both. But the expropriated corporations
will in many cases continue to be run in ways similar to how they ran
before--in the sense that money and
money accounting is likely to be used in many ways for some time. And the products and services which are
produced will, in most cases, continue to be exchanged for money (ie: they will still be commodities). And most workers will continue to exchange their labor for wages (ie:
their labor will be a commodity). So, in many ways, the
expropriated corporations will still be based on commodity production and
will be subject to what are known as "the
laws of commodity production" [8].
The laws of commodity production are also sometimes called the
"laws of the market" or "market forces". Adam Smith called these laws the
"invisible hand". Joseph has
called them the "iron hand". Joseph appears to argue that if the workers’ state
expropriates these corporations and runs them all according to a central plan--that this will somehow
free this section of the economy from the laws of commodity production. But if that is Joseph’s argument--it is not a very
solid one. The laws of
commodity production operate any time that commodities are created. Now if the workers’ state expropriates the
largest corporations and runs them in accord with a big central plan--then it will, in many cases, be violating the
laws of commodity production. For
example the workers’ state might say that bread
will be sold for less than its market price might be. Or that unskilled
labor will be given a wage higher than its market price would be. Now this kind of intervention by the state will, in most cases, be a good thing--but
it will also carry a cost. The cost emerges in various ways, including,
sometimes, shortages or other ways
that things can get out of equilibrium. And these shortages can also be addressed by
further state intervention. And
sometimes the cost emerges in the form of bureaucrats
who accumulate so much power that there is a danger of corruption. The workers’ state will decide, based on the
experience it accumulates, how much intervention in the "laws of the
market" is necessary and useful.
This is another way of saying that the state (guided and controlled, in
various ways, by the masses) will decide how much of the activity of the
expropriated corporations will be run in accord with a big central plan and how much activity will be organized on the
basis of the laws of the market. But I consider both
categories of economic activity (ie: a big central plan as well as
market-oriented activity) to be a form of state
capitalism. Even the activity which is organized in accord with a
big central plan is, in my view, a form of capitalist economy because most of
the goods and services created by this plan will be exchanged for money (or some kind of money-equivalent) and because workers will still exchange their labor for money-wages. And there will still be some kind of circuit of capital (even if it is
modified from how capital flows under bourgeois rule). Joseph (it appears) argues that nearly 100 percent of
the activity of these corporations will be organized on the basis of a big
plan. I do not have much of an estimate
myself. I think it is probably a safe
guess that, at least in the first few years, between 10 percent and 90 percent
of the activity of the expropriated corporations will be organized on the basis
of a central plan and the inverse (ie: between 90 percent and 10 percent) would
be organized more along market lines with smaller amounts of state
intervention. A guess that is less safe,
but more specific, would be that the center
of gravity of the state capitalist sector would, at least for the first few
years, be in activity that creates good and services for the market. I made a big
chart as part of my work in the anarcho-leninist debate on the state
showing my view of how the different sectors of the economy would develop over
time. The chart is not a blueprint (even though many of my
political opponents insist on calling it such) but is more of a visual aid to help readers understand
the relationship of the three primary
sectors of the economy: private
capitalist, state capitalist and moneyless
gift economy (where everything is given away for free and there is no
exchange--no commodity production--and where the laws of commodity production
do not apply).
In my chart both
sections of the state capitalist sector (ie: the activity based on central planning and the activity based
more on production for the market)
are colored blue. The differences
between these two sections, in my view, are minor compared to their
similarities. The big question here is not the distinction between (1) the
parts of the state-capitalist sector that are organized on the basis of a big
central plan and (2) the parts of this sector that are organized on the basis
of producing for the market. Much more
fundamental is the question of who
controls the state capitalist sector in the first place? 2) Who
controls the state capitalist sector? The state-capitalist sector will be controlled by the
state. The working class and masses will
control the state. Everything comes down to the question of who controls
the state. Joseph argues that the state capitalist sector which I
believe will dominate the early period of working class rule will be “Stalinist
state-capitalism”. Joseph is overlooking
the question of who controls the state.
Under Stalin the working class did not control the state. Under working class rule, however, the
working class will control the state. This little detail that Joseph overlooks makes all the
difference in the world. How will the working class control the state? Will it be through one big party? Will it be through a system of parties? Maybe.
But, more fundamentally, the working class will rule because it will be
able to self-organize. We cannot predict the exact organizational
forms the working class will use. These
forms will depend on the conditions and history of struggle in each country
where the working class comes to power.
What we can say—is that the self-organization will be possible because
workers will have the fundamental
democratic rights of speech and organization. Contested Terrain The working class will use the rights of speech and
organization as weapons of immense power
to defeat the incompetence,
hypocrisy and corruption that will inevitably
emerge even within the workers’ state.
Joseph fails to understand this and argues that the state-capitalist
sector of the economy that I describe would be dominated by bureaucrats and
petty tyrants: You
describe the state sector as "state capitalist economy". It will
still use money and commodity production. But more than that, you regard that
it will be dominated by "state-appointed bureaucrats" who do pretty
much as they please, independent of the working class. You say that workers
might be able to run some of the state corporations, but you regard that,
overall, this sector is the realm of state bureaucracy. Astute readers will note that any time Joseph uses the
phrases “you regard” or “you believe” or “you view” or “your reasoning is” – what
follows will usually be a misrepresentation of my views. The state-appointed bureaucrats will not be able to "do pretty much as
they please, independent of the working class". The state-capitalist
sector will be a battleground of sorts.
One tendency would be for
state appointed bureaucrats to dominate everything. But this will be countered by the opposite tendency: for
the workers (both within an enterprise and in society at large) to assert their
control over the various enterprises. In some situations one tendency might
come out on top, and in other circumstances the other tendency will win. Often
what might emerge are partial victories for each side. But the main thing to
keep in mind is that as long as the enterprise is based on commodity production -- it will tend to be a field of struggle in
which the playing field is tilted against the workers and a lot of energy will
be necessary to keep things from getting out of hand. This is why the gift economy (where there are no
commodities and the laws of commodity production have lost their power) is the only
fundamental way out. Joseph’s
secret plan Joseph, by the way, argues that working class rule
will have a transitional economy that will have something new and different from the state-capitalist sector that I have
described in my work. However, after
announcing this with great fanfare, Joseph does
not tell us what will be new and different.
Instead Joseph points us to a collection of articles at the CVO website
[9] that will supposedly tell us. This is typical Joseph, who can write lengthy articles
(as if he were paid by the word) without really saying anything other than to
show readers how smart and knowledgeable he is.
I have looked at Joseph’s articles on the transitional economy in years
past as he wrote them. I do not remember
anything that was new that Joseph described and I believe the reason for this
is that there is nothing there. It is all a shell game. “Go here to get the answer.” And when you go there--you find another signpost
telling you to go somewhere else … until you give up and realize there is
nothing there. If Joseph could tell us what was new and different in
his conception of a transitional economy he
would have summarized it in his seventeen thousand word reply to me instead
of wasting his (and our) time with criticisms of insignificant and irrelevant
details of the work a small group in Samara.
The best that Joseph has come
up with is to say [10]: …
the working population as a whole must be increasingly involved in directing
production and dealing with all the common concerns of society as a whole. …
Step by step, the working class must learn how to control the economy, both as
an overall whole and workplace by workplace. This refers both to workers
learning how to administer their own workplace, and learning how to unite in
large regions and on a countrywide basis to give overall direction to the
economy. But such talk is empty
coming from someone who refuses to
recognize that the working class will be able to self-organize on the basis of the fundamental democratic rights of speech and organization. It is because
the workers will be able to self-organize that they will be able to step by
step become increasingly involved in directing and dealing and controlling and
learning and administering and uniting and giving overall direction and
everything else under the sun. Joseph vs.
the gift economy Joseph has been on a rampage against the idea of the
gift economy as the economic foundation
of a classless society ever since I first described it in 1995. The idea of an economy and a society that
runs just fine without any need whatsoever for a central authority that tells
everyone what to do—just seemed so unnatural
to Joseph that he declared that it was really just a form of capitalism. It was a peculiar kind of capitalism—with no
capital, no money, no wages, no trade or exchange—where everything was created
and given away for free with no strings attached other than the expectation
that what was given away would be used wisely.
But it must be capitalism,
Joseph thundered—because it had no
central authority. Instead, each
individual was guided—by the simple authority of their conscience and
consciousness—to create whatever they believed was best for themselves and
society. As my reward for concluding
that such an economy represented the destiny of humankind—Joseph called me a
“neo-conservative” and his partner, Frank, claimed I was an anarchist. Joseph
retreats with his tail between his legs Joseph has silently
retreated from the most stupid of the arguments he made in 1995. Joseph no
longer claims that the moneyless economy must be a form of capitalism simply
because it is not guided by a supreme and all-wise central authority. It is likely that Joseph eventually realized
that this argument relied on nothing
but the emotions of attachment to a
central authority rather than any understanding of the laws of commodity
production. Unfortunately, rather than
admitting that he was mistaken when
he announced, with blasts from ten thousand trumpets, that I was making an
argument for “eternal capitalism”
[11] — Joseph has simply abandoned
his previous absurdity and cut his losses—and
now argues that the self-organizing moneyless economy simply would not work
very well. Joseph now offers five arguments why the moneyless
economy would not work: (1) Terrifying
Toxins Joseph argues that without a central authority the
moneyless economy would not be able to ban environmental toxins: You gave an example of your views by referring to what
would happen if society had to make a choice between two products,
one which was easy to produce but poisonous, and the other which was
harder to produce but was safe. It turned out that it was impossible, in
cooperative anarchy, to altogether stop the production of the poison. You
saw the problem as one of what proportion in which to produce the
products, and said this would be settled by how many consumers wanted to buy
each product, how many factories wanted to produce each product, etc. Before replying—I should note that in this argument
Joseph talks of consumers buying
products. No one would or could buy anything in the moneyless
economy—because nothing is for sale
and everything is given away for free. Joseph may have forgotten, as he wrote this
sentence, that he is no longer claiming that the moneyless economy is a form of
capitalism. Or maybe this is an error
that Joseph made out of habit (kind of like how Dr. Strangelove’s hand would
sometimes reflexively give the nazi salute). Of course, if we are discussing the period during which
the workers’ state still exists—then
the state itself, as a representative of the will of the masses, could take
action by passing a law or regulation.
But if we are discussing the period after
the workers’ state has withered away—then there will be no central authority with the ability to create laws enforced by
armed bodies of men. In this situation
we can ask ourselves: How will a society
with no central authority—where nearly all wealth is created by the
self-organizing moneyless economy—prevent the production of environmental
toxins? I explained how this would work at length during my
original debate with Joseph in 1995. If
it was really necessary to stop production of the toxin altogether—and if some
production unit consisting of volunteer workers failed to understand this and
continued to produce it—then people in society at large (as well as other
producing units) would have the ability to apply as much pressure as would be
necessary to stop production of the toxin.
Media campaigns would mobilize
public opinion. The volunteers who
worked to create the toxin would feel compelled to answer to public
opinion. If more pressure was necessary,
the producing units which supplied raw materials to the unit that manufactured
toxins could threaten to cut off
supplies. And if the supplier units
refused to take action—then they also could be targeted and the struggle would escalate. If the toxin was really so bad that it should
not be produced at all—then people in society would have a thousand ways to use
their words and actions to stop production of the toxin. On the basis of self-organization,
there would be many independent groups
which would investigate and monitor the production, distribution and proper
disposal or recycling of toxins. Some of
these groups would have great authority
(not in the formal sense of having official status given by a central point of
control—but rather the authority that comes from reputation and the development
of conscious public opinion) and
these groups would likely play a decisive role in the scenario I have outlined
above. (2) The
Threat of Turmoil When I explained, in 1995, how workers in a society
without a central authority would be able to take whatever action was necessary in order to stop production of a dangerous
environmental toxin—Joseph seized on this to claim that the strongest and most
severe actions would become “routine” and, as a result, there would be so much
turmoil in society that the trains would not run on time. Joseph recycles this argument below: My
article of 1995 on your "mailed fist" excerpted a number of your
enthusiastic descriptions of the war-like trials of strength that would be a
routine affair under cooperative anarchy. For example, if two factories
disagreed with one another on something, such as the proper environmental
protection measures, what would they do? You wrote that the workers of one
factory would "stage a *labor action* (possibly similar to a strike or
slowdown or at least a dampening of enthusiasm) in order to *put pressure on
the rest of the workers* to rethink their positions." So in capitalism, workers
strike against the bosses, but in the gift economy, they will strike against
other workers. And if the strike didn't work, they would look to shut down the
offending factory through having its suppliers deny it raw materials. And if
that doesn't work, they would proceed to "strikes, slowdowns,
boycotts", with each side "targeting or aiding their *allies and
enemies". |
