|  Home
Subscribe
Notes From
the Editors
The Renewing of
Socialism: An Introduction
by John Bellamy
Foster
What is Socialist Feminism?
by Barbara
Ehrenreich
The Utopian
Vision of the Future (Then and Now): A Marxist Critique
Bertell Ollman
What Is the Soul of Socialism?
by Andrew Blackman
The Soul of Socialism: Connecting with the
People’s Values
by Stephen J. Fortunato
Jr.
Harry Magdoff
is an editor of Monthly Review.
Fred Magdoff is
professor of plant and soil science at the University of Vermont in Burlington.
He is author of numerous scientific articles; coauthor, with Harold van Es, of
Building Soils for Better Crops (Sustainable Agricultural Network,
2000); and coeditor, with John Bellamy Foster and Frederick H. Buttel, of
Hungry for Profit: The Agribusiness Threat to Farmers,
Food, and the Environment (Monthly Review Press, 2000).
|
2 OF 2 | << PREVIOUS |
1| 2 |
A. The Experience of the Soviet Union
Many factors underlie the failure to establish a socialist society in the
Soviet Union. Despite major improvements in social welfare and an impressive
industrialization, a clear road to socialism was never firmly
established—certainly not the socialism Marx advocated. While not
capitalist, neither was the Soviet Union socialist. We have previously
discussed in these pages in some detail our understanding of the economic and
social problems that developed in the Soviet Union.6 We will not repeat all of
the arguments and discussion, but rather give a brief summary of key issues,
occasionally using excerpts from the previously published articles.
While the revolution of 1917 did indeed shake the world, the new
post-revolutionary society faced many hazards. Four years of civil war
disrupted Soviet society, destroyed a good deal of the infrastructure, and
brought much death and destruction. The new revolutionary society also faced
the intense desire of the great powers—the United States, Great Britain,
France, etc.—to crush the Bolshevik Revolution in its cradle. And yet in
the face of extreme difficulties, as soon as the Soviet Union could catch its
breath, it worked with deliberate speed to provide equal access by the people
to housing, education, medical service, and care of the elderly and disabled.
Striking, indeed sensational, was the attainment and maintenance of full
employment at the same time that the West was mired in the Great Depression;
typically in even the richest countries during those years unemployment ranged
between 20 to 30 percent of the labor force.
Harry Magdoff made a tour of U.S. machine tool companies in preparation for
developing a plan for that industry during the Second World War. Time and again
owners reported that their survival in the depths of the Depression was due to
the flow of orders from Russia for its five-year plan. Moreover, pulling itself
up by its own bootstraps, the Soviet Union transformed a backward, industrially
underdeveloped society into an advanced industrial country—one that was
able to equip an army and air force that not only stood up to the German
invasion during the Second World War but also played a major role in the final
defeat of the German army. Still, the ultimate socialist goal was in no small
measure diverted at an early date, largely because of the development of a
privileged bureaucratic elite and a distorted nationalism.
Bureaucracy and Nationalism
The post-revolutionary society in Russia moved far away from the proclaimed
socialist ideal advocated by Marx and Engels. The latter didn’t design
blueprints for a new society nor did they predict in detail the trials and
tribulations of the struggle for socialism—including the possibility of
alternating failure and victory, of battles won and lost, until the transfer of
power from the upper to the lower classes was firmly established. But they
never faltered in their faith in a final victory, learning from the currents of
their time and reaffirming the principles of people’s republics. Thus, the
Paris Commune was not only celebrated but also studied, as in Marx’s
The Civil War in France. Engels’s introduction to the essay pointed
to the distinctly socialist policies of the Commune. Of critical significance,
in his opinion, was the Commune’s attempt to safeguard against the
development of a leadership that could become new masters:
From the very outset the Commune was compelled to recognize that
the working class, once come to power, could not go on managing with the old
state machine; that in order not to lose again its only just conquered
supremacy, this working class must, on the one hand, do away with all the old
repressive machinery previously used against itself, and, on the other,
safeguard itself against its own deputies and officials....
Against [the] transformation of the state and organs of the state
from servants of society into masters of society—an inevitable
transformation in all previous states—the Commune made use of two
infallible means. In the first place it filled all posts—administrative,
judicial, and educational—by election on the basis of universal suffrage
of all concerned, subject to the right of recall at any time by the same
electors. And, in the second place, all officials high or low, were paid the
wages received by other workers....In this way an effective barrier to
place-hunting and careerism was set up, even apart from the binding mandates to
delegates to representative bodies which were added besides.
The Soviet Revolution, in contrast, faced special conditions that led to the
growth of a bureaucracy that came to dominate Soviet society. Trotsky’s
observation at the close of the Civil War is worth noting: “The
demobilization of the Red Army of 5 million played no small role in the
formation of the bureaucracy. The victorious commanders assumed leading posts
in the local Soviets, in the economy, in education, and they persistently
introduced everywhere that regime which had ensured success in the civil war.
Thus on all sides the masses were pushed away gradually from active
participation in the leadership of the country” (The Revolution
Betrayed).
The bureaucracy grew like a cancer during the rough and tough times of
recovering from the First World War and the ensuing civil war. Control over the
economy and society before long was concentrated in a state ruled by a small
minority who had a strong hold on state power. Alongside, an elite sector of
the population—party leaders, heads of industry, government officials,
military officers, intellectuals, and entertainers—rose to become a
privileged stratum. Stratification of the population and hierarchy set in for
the duration, influencing the patterns of accumulation and contributing to
reproducing the new social formation. Stratification brought benefits to the
privileged top: not only in income, but more strikingly in the differences in
the quality of medical care, education, living quarters (country homes as well
as large urban flats), vacation resorts, hunting lodges, automobiles, and
supplies of food not available in markets. Naturally, the more consumption that
went to the elite, the less was available for the rest of the population. And
the privileges and power of members of the upper strata were replicated in
their offspring. However, as distinct from capitalism, there was no inherited
ownership of the means of production.
The hierarchical command system ruled with a heavy hand over most aspects of
civilian life as well as over the economy as a whole. The outstanding features
of its extensive bureaucracy were rigidity and an ever-present sense of
insecurity in the privileged sectors—the need to protect one’s own
interest and avoid expulsion from one’s privileged position, let alone
staying out of jail. As a rule, hierarchy penetrated institutes, industrial
enterprises, and industrial syndicates. Thus, the soviet system produced its
own contradictions: a bureaucratic structure which operated far removed from
the masses and was so rigid and entrenched that it could sabotage economic and
political reforms designed to improve the efficiency of production and
distribution. In keeping with these developments, wide differences in living
conditions among sections of the population, republics, and regions were
created. Within each republic, upper and middle social strata diligently strove
for higher status and a way of life similar to that of the upper and middle
classes of the West.
A second major departure from socialist principles took place on the
nationalist question. In the nineteenth century the Tsars had energetically
acquired extensive areas, consisting of nations with diverse ethnic
populations. The Tsars and nobility had built an empire. Communist Party
leaders differed on how to handle this after the Tsar was overthrown. What
should be done as socialists? Lenin was firm in his stance: create a federation
of states in which each one would have the right to secede. Moreover, the
constitution should provide a rotation of presidents of the Soviet Union from
one nationality to another. Stalin ridiculed Lenin’s policy suggestions as
being romantic. The upshot was a federation in which Russia became the center
and Russification the rule.7
The ensuing economic development reflected the dominant status of Russia. It
is true that after the revolution, the republics in the Soviet Middle East and
Asian republics did advance significantly in a number of respects. For example,
the living standards, education, and cultural facilities of the Soviet Middle
Eastern republics were far above those of the same ethnic peoples on the other
side of the border. Similarly, progress was also spread to Asian Soviet
republics. Nevertheless, major differences between the center and periphery
remained. An official statistical handbook of the Soviet Union reported in
1987—70 years after the revolution: “for the country as a whole 21
percent of pupils are...in schools without central heating; 30 percent without
water piping, and 40 percent lacked sewage” (The USSR in Figures for
1987 [Moscow: Finansy I Statistika, 1988]). These deficiencies, we believe,
indicate the scale of priorities adopted by the Russian center. Thus, in
Turkestan, for example, more than 60 percent of the maternity hospitals, wards,
and children’s hospitals had no running water, and about two-thirds of the
hospitals had no indoor plumbing (Nikolai Shmelev and Vladimir Popov, The
Turning Point [Doubleday, 1989]). The revolution brought significant
benefits to the former colonial areas, but major differences remained between
the core and the periphery. The overall picture is illustrated by the data in
the accompanying table comparing the gross product per capita of Russia and
several Asian republics after seventy years of Soviet power (table 2).
In addition to differences between Russia and the former Tsarist colonies,
major differences also remained in Russia itself—in living standards and
quality of life between Moscow and backward regions.
Planning and the Soviet Economy
Most of the problems that led to the crisis in the Soviet Union in the later
part of the twentieth century are related to the economy and the way it was
organized during the early years of the revolution. It is common to blame the
Soviet Union’s difficulties on the use of central planning. There are even
those who claim that it is impossible to have a planned economy in a large and
complex country, and some offer “market socialism” as an alternative
(see below). However, the economic failure was not of planning per se, but
rather grew out of the particular characteristics of Soviet planning—a
system developed under unique circumstances and which took a very different
direction from that imagined by the early revolutionaries. What happened in the
Soviet Union was, in essence, planning without a realistic plan. The Soviet
Union did not have to embark on an ambitious program of central planning and
massive industrialization when it did in the late 1920s. An important part of
the leadership, led by Bukharin, advocated a slower and more gradual course.
But, once a decision was made, it was inevitable that certain consequences
would follow from the initial goal of an incredible rapid acceleration of
economic growth under unusually strained conditions: a vast increase in the
economic role of the state, extreme concentration of decision making, and harsh
regimentation of the people. The first Five Year Plan set the stage for much of
what was to happen in the Soviet Union—economically, socially, and
politically. The twin goals of rapid industrialization and the build-up of a
strong defense capability—both important given the international
situation—dominated Soviet thinking beginning with the first plan in 1928.
The attempts to implement an overly ambitious plan given the available human
and natural resources—and not developed with broad participation of the
masses—led to the routine use of threats and coercion.
As long as the economy was able to sustain a rapid growth rate, there was
enough maneuvering room to keep the contradictions from reaching the boiling
point and exploding. But when the growth rate slowed down and the economy
finally stagnated in the 1960s–1980s the stage was set for a profound
crisis—one that ultimately led to the reestablishment of a bastardized
form of capitalism. But why did a coercive command economy with strict
hierarchical control—only one of a number of ways to proceed in 1928, but
which performed well in the 1930s and 1940s—begin to stagnate in the later
years? During the early years, there were plentiful supplies of labor in the
cities and more that could be brought in from the agricultural regions as well
as a large endowment of natural resources. It was therefore possible to
organize the building of factories with strong government control coordinating
the use of both human and natural resources, leading to rapid growth in
employment and in production. Appeals to nationalism and the ideals of the
revolution also played a part in inspiring this development, especially when
the country was faced with the threat and then the reality of war.
However, once the post-Second World War reconstruction was finished, a
number of obstacles lay in the path of renewing high rates of growth using a
centralized command economy that attempted to control almost all economic
decisions. In this situation, procedures previously used became
counterproductive. First, there was relatively small growth in the working age
population (because of the huge loss of people of childbearing age in the
Second World War and the general decline in the birth rate). Second, there was
increasing difficulties extracting raw materials, as the easier to work
deposits were depleted. In 1974, before most had recognized a social and
economic crisis in the Soviet Union, Moshe Lewin wrote:
Unnoticed for some time [in official circles] were those
self-defeating features in the economic mechanism that had appeared in the
early 1960s. Growing means devoted to accumulation and investment ironically
led to falling returns on investment and a dwindling growth rate....Research
showed that that the growing cost of the operation slowed down the whole
process, and that the strategies employed had become blatantly
counterproductive and urgently needed revision. The unilateral devotion to
priority of investment in heavy industry, which was supposed to be the main
secret of success, together with the huge injections of labor force and
coercive political pressure, appeared as factors in this slowdown. Yet dogmas
and practices behind them were tenacious. Heavy industry still continued to be
lavishly pampered, at the expense of consumption, with relatively more products
serving heavy industry rather than benefiting consumption. “Production for
production’s sake” certainly expressed the position of the Soviet
economy, and neither the standard of living nor national income adequately
benefited from it. (Moshe Lewin, Political Undercurrents in Soviet Economic
Debates [Princeton University Press, 1974])
As an economy develops, more investment is usually devoted to replace
worn-out or obsolete equipment with better new machines, leading to higher
labor productivity. However, the Soviet emphasis on building and equipping new
plants as the way to continue growth led to neglect of the older factories.
Workers were forced to continue to operate inefficient and obsolete equipment,
with frequent work stoppages caused by equipment breakdowns. The shortages of
raw materials also led to a much slower building of new facilities than
expected.
Efficiency in the Soviet economy didn’t grow as expected because energy
was dissipated in different directions—heads of syndicates were judged by
how many more factories they could build and not by the efficiencies of the
already existing factories. Thus, investment went preferentially into new
factories, many times without having the resources to finish the job. The
planners and syndicate directors did not logically determine what needed to be
produced and for whom and then figure out the best way to go about it. Instead,
building big factories became an ideology.
Factories were generally based on the Ford Motor Company’s former
principle whereby each syndicate made all the different components necessary
for what it produces—glass, ball bearings, steel, etc. In that way of
organizing production a lot of potential efficiency is lost because without
multiple possible suppliers, a production problem in one sector can shut down
the entire syndicate for lack of a part. There were also other notorious
inefficiencies in the Soviet economy. In rural areas there were insufficient
silos for grain storage, resulting in much spoilage. And the lack of decent
roads between country and town slowed down transportation of goods.
Clearly, the social and economic crisis that preceded Gorbachev was not an
accidental phenomenon. As constituted, the Soviet economic system could produce
growth as long as there were ample resources that could be mobilized. But with
the exhaustion of the resources, the magic of the command economy evaporated.
The failure to change from a system chosen during an early stage of Soviet
development—that became a perpetual command and control economy based on
continuous growth of heavy industry and that simultaneously developed a large
and entrenched bureaucracy with numerous privileges and generous
perks—meant that there was no way out.
After Stalin’s death, a number of solutions were discussed and
attempted. But what was needed was an overhaul of the existing
system—brought forth by the revolutionary activity Marx wrote about.
Reforms attempted and projected were sabotaged because they threatened the jobs
or status of the leaders of industry and other privileged sectors. We suspect
among the top dogs there was a growing interest in privatization of the means
of production as a road toward wealth and security for themselves and their
offspring.
B. The Experience of China
When the Red Army, led by the Chinese Communist Party, entered Beijing in
1949, the work needed to create a road to socialism far exceeded the labors of
Hercules. Great hunger raged in the land. The kind of poverty existed that
Gandhi no doubt had in mind when he declared, “Poverty is the worst form
of violence.” There was no health care system while diseases of all types
were widespread. The masses were illiterate. Education was minimal. All these
abysmal conditions combined to produce an amazing fact: average life
expectancy in China at that time was thirty-five years!
The new regime turned the old society upside down as meeting human needs
became the main priority. A nation-wide health system was established and
campaigns were initiated that greatly reduced and sometimes even eliminated
widespread diseases. Educational facilities were vastly expanded and an
extensive literacy drive produced literacy far and wide. The Iron Rice Bowl was
introduced—a system of guaranteed lifetime employment in state enterprises
and a secure retirement pension. And in the early 1950s every peasant got a
share of, to quote Bill Hinton, “that most precious and basic means of
production, the land.” A striking upshot of all these efforts to improve
people’s lives was that average life expectancy rose to sixty-five
years by 1980!
However, the radical social achievements in the absence of meaningful
democracy opened up opportunities for the growth and impact of bureaucracy.
Throughout Mao Zedong’s writings of those years he railed against the new
bureaucracy that not only acted as commanders over their subordinates but also
obtained special privileges for themselves. Time and again Mao made clear the
dangers. Here is the way Mao’s close collaborator, Zhou Enlai, described
the danger:
For quite a long period, the landlord class, the bourgeoisie and
other exploiting classes which have been overthrown will remain strong and
powerful in our Socialist society; we must under no circumstances take them
lightly. At the same time, new bourgeois elements, new bourgeois intellectuals
and other new exploiters will be ceaselessly generated in society, in Party and
government organs, in economic organizations and in cultural and educational
departments. These new bourgeois elements and other exploiters will invariably
try to find protectors and agents in the higher leading organizations. The old
and new bourgeois elements and other exploiters will invariably join hands in
opposing Socialism and developing capitalism. (“Report on the Work of the
Government, 30 December 1964,” as cited in Maurice Meisner, Mao’s
China and After [Free Press, 1986])
At heart, as Mao pointed out, even some in high Communist Party positions
wanted to take the “capitalist road.” Mao’s purpose for
initiating the Cultural Revolution (1966–1976) was to mobilize and engage
millions and millions from all sectors of society—workers and peasants as
well as students and intellectuals—in a struggle against the forces within
the Party that favored the restoration of capitalism. Among most intellectuals
in China and the United States, the Cultural Revolution has been viewed as an
era of inhumane chaos. It is true that the Cultural Revolution was chaotic,
with various Red Guard factions (some were even sham Red Guards, possibly
organized by those under attack to confuse the masses) and many instances of
exaggerated and inhumane treatment of people, including killings. On the other
hand, in the rural areas this period is commonly viewed in a more positive
light—an era when much infrastructure was built and attention paid to
problems of the great mass of people living in the countryside.
A great change—in fact, a reversal—in the direction of
China’s economic and social development, began in 1978, two years after
Mao’s death, when top party officials undertook major reforms that
departed from essential features of the revolution. (See William Hinton,
The
Great Reversal: The Privatization of China, 1978–1989 [Monthly
Review Press, 1990].)
We are not able nor do we desire to diagnose the psychological or personal
aims of the designers of the new direction nor have we tried above to outline
all the twists and turns the Chinese Revolution took following 1949. What has
become clear is that for a long time sharp differences existed within the
leadership of the party about the structure of the society and the strategy of
its development. On one side were those who wished to (a) confront the foreign
imperialists (who in effect controlled and invested in areas on the East
coast), (b) escape from the old feudalist culture, (c) prioritize aid to the
peasants, and (d) overcome Han chauvinism, paying extra attention to the
national minorities. On the other side were those who sought to make China a
great power by giving first priority to industrialization and the speed of its
development.
We write not as specialists on China. The above description is the way we
read recent history, notably the avowed aim to rely on what the
“reform” leaders term “socialism with a Chinese face” (also
sometimes referring to “socialist market economy”). More and more
information is becoming available about important features of the reversal. A
major aim of the revolution had been to create an egalitarian society. And
indeed that was the direction in the first thirty years. “Socialism with a
Chinese face,” in which Deng Xiaoping proclaimed that “to get rich is
glorious,” rapidly moved toward the “capitalist road” that Mao
feared—with the most negative environmental and social attributes of
capitalism, discussed above (section 2), now brought into full force.
China’s new course has indeed resulted in an extremely rapid increase
of production and total national income. Although many are awed at this high
rate of economic growth, it should be kept in mind that much of the growth was
made possible by the infrastructure developed during the revolutionary
pre-“reform” period. It was also made possible by a huge increase in
exports (from $0.6 trillion in 1990 to $4.3 trillion in 2003), financed by
mainly foreign capital making super profits based on extremely low-wage,
disciplined Chinese labor. Under a strategy of highly capital intensive
investing in labor-saving machines, “over 90 percent of the average annual
11.2 percent value added growth in industry in 1993–2004 was in the form
of labor productivity growth rather than employment growth” (World Bank,
China Quarterly Update, April 2005). With the high rates of economic
growth concentrated in automated industries producing primarily for export and
workers unable to organize meaningful militant unions, the wealth created has
not trickled down very far. The result is a very rich upper strata and a
comfortable middle class, replacing the earlier egalitarian order, and as for
the rest: poverty, insecurity, unemployment, and a decline in education and
medical care. The effect of the turnaround on the large mass of poor is finally
being acknowledged in official circles. The political department of
China’s Ministry of Finance issued a report on the subject.
People’s Daily Online (June 19, 2003) ran an article containing the
substance of the document. The article started off by stating that the report
had revealed among other things: (1) “A ceaseless widening of the gap in
income distribution and the aggravated division of the rich and the poor is
occurring” and (2) “Amassed wealth is becoming more concentrated,
with the difference of family fortunes becoming bigger and bigger.”
The rapid development of inequality has now reached the point where
China’s income distribution is almost the same as that of the United
States (see table 3). In addition, the inequality
of income occurs from region to region (table 4),
with much of the growth concentrated in coastal areas.
One of the most important lessons to be learned from China’s reversal
in direction, in our view, is that so-called market socialism has an inner
logic. One step leads to another down a slippery slope toward capitalism. The
defenders of the reversal point to the fact that the state still owns the
remaining nationalized companies. However, that too is changing. In February
the State Council reported that it was now permissible for “private
companies legally [to] engage in oil exploration, set up banks of a certain
scale, provide telecommunications services and operate airlines. Other sectors
now open include utilities, health and education, and defense” (Wall
Street Journal, Feb 28, 2005). And as pointed out by a headline in the
Financial Times (May 1, 2005)—“China gives go-ahead to sell
state holdings.” This process has already begun. It is manifested in a
sale of stock in four state-controlled companies, starting with “the
Shanghai Zi Jiang Enterprise Group, a packaging maker; Sany Heavy Industry,
which makes machinery; Tsinghua Tongfang, a computer company; and the Hebei
Jinniu Energy Resources Company, a coal company” (International Herald
Tribune, May 9, 2005).
4. ‘Market Socialism’ versus Planning
It has been argued that the failure of central planning was the main reason
for the decline of the Soviet economy and the Soviet Union. The Soviet
breakdown even “proves” that central planning can’t work.
Instead, some progressives and radicals have come to favor “market
socialism.” They design models of market socialism that presumably will
cure all ills—models that will fit all sizes and any historical situation.
This approach is based on two assumptions—(a) planning doesn’t work;
and (b) markets can work, under proper control, to bring about a humane and
socialist society. We take exception to both propositions.
It is important to acknowledge the good as well as the bad of Soviet
planning. That style of planning did convert a backward, underdeveloped country
into an advanced industrial society. It did, as noted above (part 3), develop
the capacity to produce a powerful military capacity able to confront the
military power of a highly industrialized country. It was able to save the
threatened industries near Moscow by moving whole factories to the Urals and
training an inexperienced workforce in short order. This could not have been
done without planning. Even the United States had to adopt and enforce a form
of central planning to supply its military for the Second World War (see
below)!
The shortcomings of the Soviet economy, which became evident not long after
recovery from the Second World War, were not a result of the failure of central
planning, but the way planning was conducted. Central planning in peacetime
does not need control by the central authorities over every detail of
production. Not only are commandism and the absence of democracy not necessary
ingredients of central planning, they are counterproductive to good planning.
Before discussing market socialism, we need to acknowledge that markets
themselves have a history and are adapted to different social organizations.
Markets of one type or another have existed for literally thousands of years.
Long before the development of cities with their class stratification, tribes
met periodically and exchanged goods by barter. As classes developed—with
farmers, artisans, government workers (slaves, scribes, kings), priests,
etc.—markets became a routine part of everyday life as products were sold
and taxes collected so that nonproductive workers could obtain such necessities
as food, pots, and clothes. Traditional markets, by bringing goods of various
kinds to one place, provided a convenience to people wanting to purchase those
items.
Although markets were significant under earlier civilizations they took on a
new and critical importance with the growth of capitalism and the
commodification of all products and services as well as labor and nature
itself. Under capitalism, we have in effect four markets that theoretically
work in harmony for the greater good.
First there is the market for consumer goods. Prices for these goods,
according to market theorists, are based on the relative amounts of supply and
demand that supposedly reach a balance when supply equals demand. These markets
also serve to inform producers as to what people want—a guide to
investment and production decisions. For example, do more men like blue rather
than red ties? If people prefer dry cereal a over another, then more of
A should be produced. If people are buying more cars, then perhaps a new
automobile plant should be constructed. Although people consider that they have
free choice to purchase what they want, as we pointed out above (see section
2), the massive advertising effort influences many decisions that people make,
even creating demand for a product that is of little or no use. And, of course,
the general capitalist culture and peer pressure play their role in helping to
create a society focused on more and more consumption.
A second type of market under capitalism is the labor market. The bosses use
this market to select from a reserve of labor that operates under their
control. Except during times of major wars, a sizable pocket of unemployment
remains. Capitalist economies are best served if there is a reserve army of
people seeking work holding down wages; and through the workings of the various
markets, plus conscious policy, the reserve army of labor is always present.
Workers’ wages and conditions of work are subject to the results of class
struggle.
The size and direction of the third market—that for capital
goods—depends on the rate of investment (domestic and in subsidiaries
abroad) and the search for ways to increase labor and capital productivity.
Fourth is the money (financial) market—the headquarters of the
capitalist world. Some of this capital is used to keep production going
(operating loans and capital for expansion) and a large part is purely the case
of money making money. Marx had a representation of capitalist production:
M–C–M'. The first M represents money used to buy the labor, raw
materials, and machinery used to make commodities (C). The sale of the
commodities yields the initial investment plus the surplus value, or M'.
But that is only one of the uses of the money market. In addition, and related
to it, is the process of M–M'. Money makes more money via the stock
market, issuing bonds to business firms and government bodies, and the
mountains of cash in bank vaults, insurance companies, and assets of the very
rich that are invested in a variety of speculative instruments. Money also
makes more money with the creation of credit for the public—through
issuing credit cards, home equity loans, car loans, etc. While all of these
techniques are geared to making profits, whether by investment or speculation,
the ultimate base for M–M' is the surplus value produced by domestic and
foreign labor. The financial (money) market greases the wheels of capitalism
and, like all else in the operating gears of the life and growth of capitalist
countries, stimulates the system and functions by making profit. At the same
time it creates frequent crises because speculation is inherent in M–M'.
(The need for financial markets explains why a stock market and other financial
institutions were inaugurated at an early stage of China’s market
socialism.) The importance of ever growing debt creation—the result of
many M–M' efforts—in keeping the system functioning can be seen from
the magnitude of what has happened over the last thirty years. In the United
States today, total debt—consumer, government, corporate financial, and
non-financial debt—is 300 percent of the gross national product!
In economies controlled via markets, all four types of markets described
above work to reproduce the class structure and meet the needs and desires of
the owners of the means of production and the bureaucracy and other elite. The
relationships of the markets to the social system they serve are generally
absent from the market socialism models being designed. We see no value at this
point to examine each one, but one example will illustrate the issue. One model
holds that while a country’s assets would belong to all the people,
economic units (factories, etc.) will be controlled and managed by the workers
in each enterprise. Products will be sold in markets (thus providing
information for managers to react to market trends), and the taxes paid by each
enterprise will go to a common national pot, to be distributed to the
country’s regions in proportion to the number of people living in the
region. This sounds like democracy, but is it? Even the leading centers of
capitalism have considerable differences in the standard of living among their
regions. That is clearly the case in the United States, England, France,
Germany, and Italy. In view of this, distribution of the surplus on an equal
amount per capita basis would more likely lead to greater differences among
regions. This is because the richer regions already have infrastructure and
equipment in place to allow continued growth with an infusion of even more cash
than they already get from exploiting the poorer regions. Compared to the
wealthy regions, the poorer regions will need a greater expansion of their
infrastructure—industrial equipment, homes, hospitals, and improved
transportation. Therefore poorer regions require a much larger per capita share
of national income if the socialist goal is to attain egalitarian conditions
between regions and to overcome the arrangements whereby the richer regions
draw income and wealth from the poorer ones. It is also reasonable to expect
regional competition for the limited resources available. To avoid conflicts
and waste, ways would have to be found to achieve coordination—in other
words, national and regional planning. And if we consider global inequalities,
these kinds of national market socialism models will only reproduce the
existing disproportions.
To eliminate classes and meet the needs of all the people, consistent with a
healthy environment, planning and controls are essential. This is not to deny
weaknesses and possible shortcomings in a planned economy—commandism,
misdirection by a privileged bureaucracy for its own interests, inflexibility,
absence of democracy in the workplace, etc. Meaningful socialist planning
requires freedom of discussion, the active participation of the workers, and
room for trial and error as society moves along paths never before taken.
Giving up planning and coordination, and instead making investment and
distribution decisions based on markets, leads to abandoning the road to
socialism. The question is in essence a matter of politics, not economics. A
good deal depends on what kind of economic growth is to take place and for
whom. Is the objective simply production for the sake of production—about
things rather than about people? Making resource allocation decisions subject
to market conditions—instead of local, regional, and national
planning—is the best way to produce and reproduce power differences that
will persist. The desires of those that have more are bound to have an
inordinate amount of control over what happens. Even if a factory is run as a
workers’ cooperative, management will be subject to the same forces as
capitalist firms if the market is in control. The workers will have to bow to
the logic of the market, just as the few worker-owned and managed companies do
under capitalism.
Although many maintain that planning is not feasible, there is no way to
obtain a fair distribution of limited resources without central planning. In
capitalist societies a degree of planning is carried out at various levels,
most notably within individual firms. However, even a capitalist society must
develop and use a central plan when faced with monumental difficulties. Without
central planning the United States could not have—in a very short time
during the Second World War—turned its economy around to supply the
armaments, airplanes, battleships, and merchant ships not only for the United
States, but also to supply needed equipment for the British and Soviet armies.
To divert production and raw materials for war production, auto manufacturers
were restrained from providing for civilian markets and builders were
prohibited from erecting civilian housing. Even some military production had to
slow down at times because there were not enough resources to produce the more
urgently required war materiel.
The planning wasn’t perfect and not all conflicting needs were met.
Some firms even sabotaged the plans. But in the end, despite mistakes and
frictions, even these bumbling plans resulted in an incredible achievement. An
important element of the success was that the giant business corporations had
the equipment as well as the experience in planning their own business
networks. The noteworthy creation of advanced industrialization in the United
States (as well as other leading capitalist countries) was necessarily rooted
in central planning at the firm level.
As an aside of some relevance, during the Second World War, Harry was
actively involved in planning for machine-making firms in the United States. It
took a long time for companies to adapt to the central plan, for selfish
reasons and private business mentality. At an early stage, stumbling blocks
were common in the airplane industries, limiting urgently needed production.
One airplane company had more machine tools of some types than was needed but
not enough of another type. Production was stalled in many firms for like
reasons. Harry was called in to try to find a way out and proposed a possible
solution that worked. It involved coordination of supply procedures. Before
long, the plan began to work, in large part by taking the human elements into
account. Business leaders had been trained to be guided by the market.
Bookkeepers and other clerical workers had long-ingrained habits of work where
standard practices had to be quickly changed. The bosses were consulted and
their suggestions helped design details of the plan. Exceptional accuracy was
required of clerical workers. To get the cooperation needed, meetings were held
with the workers, without bosses present. The plan was described and the
reasons for it explained. Then the workers were asked for their opinions and
advice, much of which influenced the final shape of the program.
The skepticism that people feel about the efficacy or even possibility of
central planning admits only the shortcomings while denying the achievements.
There is nothing in central planning that requires commandism and confining all
aspects of planning to the central authorities. That occurs because of the
influence of special bureaucratic interests and the overarching power of the
state. Planning for the people has to involve the people. Plans of regions,
cities, and towns need the active involvement of local populations, factories,
and stores in worker and community councils. The overall
program—especially deciding the distribution of resources between
consumption goods and investment—calls for people’s participation.
And for that, the people must have the facts, a clear way to inform their
thinking, and contribute to the basic decisions.
5. Building a socialist society
We need a new manifesto. Not a blueprint, not a detailed program. But a
project, the vision of a different society, the proof that history has not come
to an end, that there is a future beyond capitalism.—Daniel Singer,
Monthly Review, May 1988
A. Basic Aims of Socialism
It is easy to have a utopian set of ideas or dreams. But there is no way to
foretell what a truly socialist society—humane, ecologically sound,
cooperative, egalitarian, and democratic—will really be like. Dreams must
be adapted to available natural and human resources, to the culture and
peoples’ wants and brought to life through a prolonged struggle. If the
new society is to be socialist, it won’t be constructed along the lines of
models designed by intellectuals or parties. Socialism by its very nature must
be built by the people in accord with their wishes. The result should be one
that the people decide, adapted to the available natural and human resources
and to the developing culture. What we want to do here is present our view of
principles that would contribute to a better world:
1.The elimination of human domination and exploitation of other humans.
2.The first and overriding priority should be meeting the needs of the
poorest, most oppressed, and most discriminated against.
3.A minimum number of basic rights for all people: three nutritious meals a
day; a job; a decent home; good education; health care; and protection of the
disabled and the aged.
4.The elimination of hierarchy among people. At a minimum, real, vigorous
affirmative action must be taken to overcome racial, gender, and ethnic
discrimination.
5.Worker control of the firm, farm, or collective.
6.Rotation of jobs between managers and subordinates and between departments
and work stations. A firm division of labor is supposedly needed for an
efficient society, factory, or office. However, it is important to work towards
reducing the division of labor that helps to perpetuate differences among the
people. Aside from the issue of the drudgery of the assembly line, or the
clerical worker at the computer, the division of labor contributes to
hierarchies. Managers can learn what it means to be a worker and workers can
learn about what the managers do and thus decrease the danger of a permanent
hierarchy developing. (When Che Guevara headed Cuba’s Central Bank, he
would work at an ordinary worker’s job one week a month.)
7.Differences in pay from top to bottom should be small.
8.Referenda and recalls of all officials/leaders should be made easy.
9.The United States should remove its influence from the rest of the world.
All foreign military bases should be abandoned. All American-owned assets
abroad should be turned over to the foreign government or directly to the
workers. In addition, U.S. banks, insurance agencies, etc. should be withdrawn
and all foreign debt owed to the United States should be cancelled.
10. A unity must be re-created between humans and nature. This calls for a
new way of approaching all activities—such as industry, agriculture,
transportation, and housing. Using ecological principles, and based on
attributes of strong natural ecosystems, it is possible to design new ways of
carrying out human activities in cooperation with nature that are more benign
or actually improve environmental quality. Lives can be carried out in harmony
with the nature on which we depend and that provides so many tangible and
intangible benefits. Society can work to enhance and protect the many services
that natural systems provide life on earth, including humans—clean water
(groundwater, surface fresh water, and the oceans), clean air, and productive
and uncontaminated soils. Food can be produced with practices that maintain
human and environmental health, with the humane treatment of animals. Renewable
natural resources can be harvested in ways that protect and respect the
resource and the environment. Habitat for endangered species can be maintained
and enhanced.
B. Empowerment of the People
One of the biggest problems of a socialist transition and transformation is
how to overcome society’s hierarchical structure in the process of
transferring class power to the people. There can’t be meaningful equality
in material goods (housing, automobiles, education, medicine, etc.) all at
once—it’s going to take a long time to satisfy everyone’s basic
needs. On the other hand, you have got to start moving in the direction of
equality.
As noted above, intellectuals and specialists cannot derive a plan for a new
society—it has to come from the people. But a set of principles for
setting priorities can be suggested. Probably the most important is that the
poorest have their minimum needs met—housing, food, education, and medical
care. But the details of what the basic needs are will have to be determined by
the people. Numerous other issues that need to be debated and discussed by
large numbers of people include how to design cities to make them more livable,
what kind of public transportation (local, regional, national, and
international) is needed, etc. Unless issues like these are opened up and
discussed, the people’s needed educational level (or knowledge of the
issues) will never be reached nor will they have sufficient practice working
out solutions to allow taking over power in order to create a new society.
If participation—probably through elected worker and community
councils—does not mean an effective transfer of the power of decision
making in all relevant areas, then it has no real meaning. It is decision
making that has been denied to people by capitalism. The
“democracies” let people participate by—once every four or five
years—putting a piece of paper in the ballot box or pulling a lever or
pushing a button, and then ignoring them and their interests completely until
the next election. To abandon, therefore, the idea of taking hold of state
power, together with its socioeconomic foundation and cultural linkages, is to
abandon any ideas of a meaningful alternative. Thus, the slogan of “think
globally, act locally” and the artificial separation and opposition of
“civil society” and “the state”—and working through
NGOs to accomplish various worthy projects—can mislead people into
thinking that society is being meaningfully transformed in the process. While
able to make modest improvements here or there, such efforts divorced from a
larger struggle to obtain state power are doomed to make only small changes,
which in their cumulative effects can never even approach the transformation of
society.
Empowerment applies to all domains and to all levels of society.
Accordingly, the key to such empowerment—as opposed to generously conceded
“participation” (that is actually effective exclusion for
many)—is that it needs to begin during the struggle before a revolutionary
transformation has occurred. Empowerment can be forged in the radical
re-creation of a socialist mass movement, oriented toward its own enterprise of
instituting a hegemonic alternative to capital’s social order. Following a
revolutionary transformation a progressive self-empowerment can develop through
aggressive popular intervention in the socioeconomic and political spheres,
directly and indirectly defying and challenging the forces and institutions of
the new society. Worker councils can work with the top management, choose
management replacements when needed, and participate in a dynamic interaction
with management over the work process and working conditions as well as future
plans. Democratically elected community councils must also have similar power
to shape the fabric and direction of their communities. This should lead in the
direction of transferring power from the state to the people, with a greatly
diminishing role for the state.
How this might occur must be discussed and debated. But, taking the case of
the United States, what would empowering blacks, Latinos, and the impoverished
mean? How would it be achieved? For example, consider that during the
transformation to socialism a city ghetto is to be changed into a humane and
comfortable neighborhood—pleasant apartments, clean air, good recreation
facilities, etc. How do you actually do it? Expropriate the land? How are
decent living quarters for the occupants arranged during the period between
tearing down the slums and building new houses? How do you get the people
involved in the program, participating in the design of the indoor and outdoor
living spaces they prefer, and determining the way the whole project should be
designed and managed?
The greatest challenge is empowering the most disadvantaged and
discriminated against. Racial, gender, and ethnic differences are ingrained in
the prejudices of those that are privileged or feel themselves so. Without
continual attention to systemic changes, domination and subjugation will
persist. For example, while conditions of blacks in the United States improved
following the legal changes brought about by the Civil Rights struggles of the
1960s, they are still discriminated against and have poorer economic prospects
than whites. A “super” version of affirmative action may be needed to
attain equality for discriminated against minorities. Perhaps the goal might be
their representation in numbers even larger than their proportion of the
population—in schools, universities, as employees, and management at all
levels of government. It is not possible to go into the details, because the
path should be developed, paved, and operated by the discriminated against.
They should have the power to go in the direction they wish.
C. Socialist Aims and Planning
The basic aims of socialism described above cry out for central
planning—because there are limits to resources that stand in the way of
satisfying all aims at the same time. Hence, priorities have to be
established—and this is a political matter in which the people are
involved and their opinions taken seriously. What should be produced and for
whom? Further, the supply of raw materials, component parts, machinery, and
labor need coordination according to the priorities agreed upon. And the start
up of new industries and the expansion of old ones need to be coordinated with
the continued production in older plants.
Central planning does not mean that every bolt and nut needs to be watched
by a central authority. Nor does central planning inevitably require the
abolition of regional planning. It does mean, however, coordinating regional
and/or local plans to fit into a larger plan. No matter what the intentions are
at the start, most of the principles suggested above will be diverted or abused
in the absence of active participation of the people, especially on the basic
strategy and changes in methods of planning.
The greatest potential for harmful aspects to arise is when planning is
managed by an entrenched bureaucratic elite. If the people are to be consulted
and involved, they must have access to all the facts and analyses of alternate
plans. For that reason, as well as for the sake of widening cultural and human
development, it is important to give great attention to adult education. If the
people are to be the masters, if they will meaningfully participate, then they
need to have the means to learn more about evaluating proposed plans, the
long-term ones as well as the shorter ones. The educators engaged in adult
education should have faith in the ability of workers to learn. Harry witnessed
an inspiring example of this when he visited China in 1974. He often inquired
at factories about their schools and this proved no idle question. One factory
visited was especially impressive. It produced a complex machine tool that
could make intricate and extremely accurate curves in metal. In response to
Harry’s inquiry, he was taken to a large classroom where all the seats
were filled by factory workers in overalls, their sleeves rolled up, writing
furiously in notebooks. The teacher was demonstrating on the blackboard the
calculus and use of partial differentials.
While discussing socialist planning in a broad sense, we need to be aware
that eliminating unemployment will be a gigantic project. A huge number, in the
United States probably more than half the workforce, will initially be without
work. Practically all salespeople other than those in stores will be redundant.
In the absence of competition between producers, there is no need for visiting
salespersons. To the extent that salespeople inform buyers about the product or
service sold, their job can be done by a sheet or booklet. In addition, no
employees will be needed for abolished stock markets, advertising agencies,
insurance companies, staffs in manufacturing firms used for sales promotion,
and so on.
What will happen to all these people that had previously engaged in
non-productive labor? There will be plenty of jobs created for social needs in
education, health care, children’s day care, expansion of culture
(theatres, music, writing, and sports), and so on. In addition, hours of work
can be reduced, and longer vacations provided. But this will require local as
well as central planning. Even more complex is the issue of the countries of
the periphery where so many people are unemployed or marginally employed. How
can they quickly become productively employed following a revolutionary
transformation? Certainly many basic needs will have to be met—for food,
housing, education, child care, and health. And this will require many people
working to help carry out the needed construction and production. Also, the
landless will need access to land and small farmers will need access to inputs
necessary to grow crops and raise animals. Again, meeting all these needs and
putting people to work at building an economy at the service of people requires
planning.
D. Needs, Wants, and Limits
In any transition to socialism wants and resources will need to be
constantly balanced with each other. Even in the rich countries, there are
limits to what is possible—everybody’s wants (many created by the
aggressive and omnipresent advertising effort of capitalism) cannot be
fulfilled. Thus, people will have to change to understand the implications of
balancing wants with resources. The transformation of large numbers of people
is not easy, and the environment for the change must fit in with the direction
of the culture. However, it is not impossible for people to change from
competition to cooperation, from desiring things to wanting a different way of
life.
The key goal for a socialist society is to raise the standard of living for
all of humanity so that people may be comfortable, without hunger, disease, and
deprivation. To accomplish this on a world basis, many privileged people may
need to abandon their aspirations for luxury living and escape from the desires
inspired by the leisure class and keeping up with the Joneses. “Live
simply so that others may simply live” is a slogan that has much more
significance in a future socialist society than it does in contemporary wealthy
capitalist countries. A society that provides everyone with adequate levels of
basic human needs—for food, clothing, housing, education, health care,
self expression, recreation—will mean setting goals for production and
deciding on the use of resources in ways radically different from those under
capitalism. “Living the good life,” as Scott and Helen Nearing put
it, does not require a lot of extraneous goods, gadgets, and services. However,
it does require attaining a reasonable basic level of material security and
comfort. People’s lives can be further enriched because there will be more
time for attending public cultural activities plus pursuit of one’s own
hobbies and cultural interests as well as opportunities for truly life-long
learning. In addition, the sense of community, lost in many parts of the world
by the growth of cities and bedroom developments, requiring long-distance
commuting, could be regained as people interact in the democratic process of
setting, implementing, and continually reevaluating priorities for their
neighborhood, region, and country.
Before and during any transition to socialism, there must be widespread
discussion of issues, concerns, and principles. While socialism will likely
arise within nation states, each move in a socialist direction needs to be
considered from a global point of view. For example, it is true that the United
States and the other core capitalist countries (comprising about 30 percent of
the world’s population) have the means to ensure a decent standard of
living for everyone in their borders, and a socialist society could bring it
about. But what happens to the rest of the world? Part of the wealth of the
core is derived from the imperialist relationship with the periphery, and the
economies of the world are interrelated with trade and investments abroad.
Thus, if one of the core capitalist countries is socialized, how should this
relationship be changed? And in the far more likely case, what if an entire
peripheral region (Latin America, for instance) turns to socialism? Foreign
trade will continue to be very important. Some places have certain resources
while others do not. Some countries have an industry of a certain type while
another may not. There is a basis for foreign trade just as there is a basis
for trade and interaction between rural and urban areas in the same country.
But under what principles and rules should trade take place? Can such trade
incorporate the basics of reciprocity, as in earlier societies? And what would
happen to relations with other countries and peoples if there were a socialist
United States? Would there still be boarder guards with dogs and guns to try to
keep out people from Mexico and Central America or would they be welcome?
If we were to examine the input-output requirements of the United States,
where we have data, it would be possible to derive estimates of what materials
would be required to repair the system. The resources required to satisfy a
particular level of needs for everyone in the country can be compared with the
amount of readily available resources. A tremendous quantity of resources are
needed if the 20 percent of the population with the lowest the standard of
living—those living in hunger or fear of hunger, with inadequate shelter,
with limited educational opportunities, and with children in poor health (such
as the asthma epidemic in inner city ghettos)—are to be brought to a
decent standard. Will there be enough steel, aluminum, and other products? One
of the answers might be that—as happened during the Second World
War—you need to reduce the production of private automobiles. Most likely,
even with the vast wealth of the United States, it will mean using resources
now in the hands of the relatively well off and the truly wealthy in order to
provide a reasonable and pleasant living for the poor.
E. The Future of Socialism
The critical social, economic, and environmental problems of the world are
inherent to capitalism. Thus, capitalism must be replaced with an economy and
society at the service of humanity—necessitating also the creation of an
environment that protects the earth’s life support systems. What we have
described above are suggested basic principles and issues that will need
consideration during the construction of a socialist society. The experiences
of the Soviet Union and China indicate that the attainment of a mobilized and
educated populace willing and capable of taking power—understanding the
basic problems and limitations and capable of checking the growth of a new
bureaucratic class or strata—will not come easily. However, we must learn
how to do so if there is to be any hope of significantly improving the
conditions of the vast number of the world’s people who are living
hopelessly under the most severe conditions while also preserving the earth as
a livable planet. This is necessary not only for humans but for all the other
species that share the planet with us and whose fortunes are intimately tied to
ours.
Notes
- William Brandon, The Last Americans: The Indians in
American Culture (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974) 4, 6, 292.
- Joan Robinson, introduction to Rosa Luxemburg, The
Accumulation of Capital (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1951) 28.
- Gary Gardner & Brian Halwell, Worldwatch Paper
#150: Underfed and Overfed (Worldwatch Institute, 2000),
http://www.worldwatch.org/pubs/paper/150.html.
- Mark Nord, Margaret Andrews, & Steven Carlson,
Household Food Insecurity in the United States, 2002, U.S. Department of
Agriculture, http://ers.usda.gov/publications/fanrr35/.
- See Samir Amin, “World Poverty, Pauperization,
& Capital Accumulation,” Monthly Review, October 2003, and Fred
Magdoff, “A Precarious Existence,” Monthly Review, February
2004.
- See “Perestroika and the future of
socialism—Parts I and II” (March and April 1990); “Are there
lessons to be learned?”(February 1991); “A note on ‘Market
Socialism’” (May 1995); and Paul Sweezy, Post-Revolutionary
Society (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1980).
- For Lenin’s views on bureaucracy and nationalism
see Moshe Lewin, Lenin’s Last Struggle (New York: Monthly Review
Press, 1983).
| Top |
|
