Socialism

[anomaly]

In this forum, I invite all minds greater than mine to help me understand the basic economic mechanisms of a socialist economy. For example, how will it generate ample growth, how high will taxes likely be, how much will business be affected by these taxes, and how much harm (or vis versa) can a state run economy do? I plan to read Capital Vol. 1 over the summer, so perhaps I will learn more greatly then, but for now I request that my comrades supply me with some explanations or answers to my above inquiries (mostly so I can more sufficiently debate with capitalists).

[P.O.U.M]

After just coming home from working my 4th day at Ralphs. I am absolutly convinced of the necessity of workers control. The management are complete dicks and do not know what they are doing. Yesterday, they made me work a 12 hour shift. Giving me only a 30 minute lunch and two 10 minute breaks. This was ok, because I was not union yet. Even though the floor manager would not give me the union number... the bitch. They also fucked up my schedule for the first week, so I never knew when to come in.  And they kept calling me when I was at school saying I was supposed to be working. Even though I told them, I have school, I cannot work until later.

There is a definite divide between the management and labor. But that my own experinces. If you want something that it alittle more thought out then check out these...

How the Workers are Robbed
Introduction to Marx's Labor Theory of Value
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism
Marx and Engels on Economics

Definitly check out Wage Labor and Capital and Value, Price and Profit from Marx. Good introductions on economics.

[anomaly]

I read the 'intro to Marx's labor theory of value', and found it quite useful. Thanks. Perhaps the most important point there is the economic dictatorship that is capitalism, and the neccesary surplus that capitalism production creates. The unplanned, profit seeking, anarchy that is capitalism is the culprit here. I suggest a bureacracy, a planned economy, planned right down to the local level. Workers know their factories best, farmers know their fields. Workers shall select a former worker at the factory to plan production, as will farmers on the field, and this shall be overseen by an economist, who is overseen by the government, the local government of course. This way economic production can be made so that needs are met, without the waste of human and natural resources we see under capitalism. This means that we may see a shaky start to the socialist economy, but, like an engine, once it gets going, and experience is gained, productivity is likely to skyrocket.

[ckaihatsu]

Here are a couple of good articles about the workers' cooperative running the Zanon ceramics tile factory in Argentina:

http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/03/1726886.php
http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?SectionID=42&ItemID=6792

I saw Klein's documentary "The Take" -- it's excellent for anyone who gets a chance to see it.


Chris












___

YFIS Discussion Board
http://discussion.newyouth.com/search.php?s=&action=finduser&userid=598

Favorite web sites: chicago.indymedia.org, wsws.org, marxist.com, rwor.org, whatreallyhappened.com, moneyfiles.org, informationclearinghouse.info, blackcommentator.com, narconews.com, truthout.org

Photoillustrations, Political Diagrams by Chris Kaihatsu
http://community.webshots.com/user/ckaihatsu/

[Holocaustpulp]

For any interim clarifications, I invoke good ol' http://www.Marxists.org - not only does it have explanations of all fields in Marxist philosophy, but it also offers many writings of Marxists and quasi-Marxists over time (check out the "encyclopedia of Marxism").

Concerning my personal opinion (that of which also needs an ideological bolster), I believe economic influence by government should be low - as we see in Five Year Plans from Russia to India, centralized control of a government may stabilize conditions, but it doesn't afford for an increase in production.

I also believe that taxes do not have to be necessarily paid as much as they need to factored out production. However, it would be ideal to avoid taxes altogether, and they definitely need to be worked out among regional collectives, not a central bureau or whathaveyou.

The workers themselves are capable of creating the most ample growth, as we see in Venezuela. In the end, my opinions are cradled in this fact.

- Holocaustpulp

[turnoviseous]

centralized control of a government may stabilize conditions, but it doesn't afford for an increase in production.

How do you come to that conclusion?

[redjordi]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp

 as we see in Five Year Plans from Russia to India, centralized control of a government may stabilize conditions, but it doesn't afford for an increase in production.
 

factually wrong. 5 year plans in Soviet Russia created massive increase in both production and productivity of labor at levels never reached under capitalism in similar conditios.

read The advances of the planned economy

best

[Holocaustpulp]

turnoviseous and redjordi: As I mentioned, I am somewhat uneducated in the field of revolutionary economics.

However, the Chinese Great Leap Forward and Pol Pot's relocation of citizens into collectives are just two examples of how a centralized political force can hinder the ability of the masses by coercing them into regressive measures. Even today the Castro government in Cuba controls economic standards and thus has the ability to TAKE AWAY the majority laborers' wages, something that only occurs in dictatorial circumstances, such as capitalism and centralized "socialist" regimes.

Perhaps this indeed is at odds with Marxist and Trotskyist conceptions of the planned economy...

I thank redjordi on the clarification of the Russian five-year plan, however, India's five year plans couldn't keep capitalism motivating the majority of its economy. Even Lenin's NEP had some capitalist connotations. Nonetheless, China and Russia were stabilized by such plans, it is true.

Tyrannical forces should not have a place in economic plans, and such productivity should be accomplished by the workers in an act of self-will, not submission. In the end, I presume my main argument against planned economies is the philosophical restriction of labor from a central force (one that is usually totalitarian, such as the USSR). Thus, I believe that a successful and free revolutionary economy should be decentralized, this reflecting the political decentralization of power. In conclusion, planned economies should have political and economic liberalities.

- Holocaustpulp

[redjordi]

hi,

i basically agree with your conclusion, a planned economy can only work on the basis of democracy (not bourgeois democracy, but workers' democracy). the working class as a whole must participate in the planning and running of the economy, this is the only real incentive that can exist when there is no market competition.

what Russia's 5 year plan show is that even though the bureaucracy and the lack of democratic planning hindered the development of the economy, planning was so much superior to the anarchy of capitalism that the economy achieved rates of growth (not only stabilisation) which were really astonishing.

however, as TRotsky explained, planning could not survive without workers' democracy. as the economy grew more and more complex and diverse (and moved from the production of capital goods to the production of consumer goods) the negative effects of the bureaucracy grew bigger and bigger, until the whole of the soviet economy came to a standstill.

at that point (in the mid 80s) layers of the bureaucracy decided the planned economy no longer guaranteed their privileges and switched over to capitalism and the USSR collapsed. the movement towards capitalism was led by the same corrupt bureaucratic caste that had ruled the country for the best part of 60 years.

comradely

redjordi

[anomaly]

So, basically, all of you agree with me, that we need a planned economy down to smallest detail, the worker's factory for example. And that this smallest detail, the factory or the field, will not be planned by the bureacracy itself but by workers on the factory or field who in effect are part of the bureacracy. Again, I must come to the conclusion that the failure of the Soviet economy was a direct result of the impersonal nature of the bureacracy and the lack of representation for the workers themselves. I propose a bureacracy that of course begins with an elected worker running his own factory or field etc., and that being overseen by and economist, who is overseen by the local governement, who is overseen by the state government who is overseen by a federal government. Therefore planning becomes a personal matter, done by the very people who know what needs to be done best. Only a planned economy can stop the wasting of human and natural resources and in turn stop worker exploitation. I agree with all of you also that this must be a bureacracy based on the priciples of democracy, not despotism.

[ckaihatsu]

I propose a bureacracy that of course begins with an elected worker running his own factory or field etc., and that being overseen by and economist, who is overseen by the local governement, who is overseen by the state government who is overseen by a federal government. Therefore planning becomes a personal matter, done by the very people who know what needs to be done best. Only a planned economy can stop the wasting of human and natural resources and in turn stop worker exploitation. I agree with all of you also that this must be a bureacracy based on the priciples of democracy, not despotism.

I agree completely with the need for a centrally planned economy, but I have to ruminate over this general political structuring you've proposed, anomaly, mainly because, to me, it seems to retain too much of the verticality of the bourgeois political system that we are all too used to.

I continue to appreciate the need for some kind of officializing and regulatory bureaucracy, but I question how the jurisdictions should be drawn up.

I still maintain that the capabilities of today's technology can enable a heretofore-unseen degree of flatness which would keep the bureaucracy (that is, societal overhead) to a bare minimum without sacrificing functionality.

If we take the individual worker as the most irreducible unit of labor power, and the individual factory or workplace as the most irreducible unit of collectivized labor power, then we can work upward from that level to envision those roles in the greater context of society.

How would labor-tasks be defined? How would their completion be verified? How would workplaces decide on paths and schedules of production and integration into the greater economic flows?

Again, I'd like to reference my XML framework proposal, if only as a visualization tool for now:
http://discussion.newyouth.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1656

I'd also like to introduce a general concept in an attempt to find balance between micro with macro planning -- similar to federalism under a bourgeois system. Basically, assuming the existence of Internet-enabled, economy-oriented flows of information (as business interests use today), the local workplace should retain collective veto power through their own, sovereign local production *schedules*.

In other words many workplaces may know of a societal need, but a massively horizontal political structure (akin to the Internet) would enable discretion at the local level as to whether or not to gear up production for the larger good. Any centralization bureaucracy would necessarily publish all production and consumption data with absolute transparency, and even put out calls for foreseen needs for production.

(Please see the text on the left edge of the diagram at this link:)

Political Tendency Spectrum
http://chicago.indymedia.org/media/all/display/9939/index.php


Thanks,

Chris

[anomaly]

Originally posted by ckaihatsu
I agree completely with the need for a centrally planned economy, but I have to ruminate over this general political structuring you've proposed, anomaly, mainly because, to me, it seems to retain too much of the verticality of the bourgeois political system that we are all too used to.

I continue to appreciate the need for some kind of officializing and regulatory bureaucracy, but I question how the jurisdictions should be drawn up.

I still maintain that the capabilities of today's technology can enable a heretofore-unseen degree of flatness which would keep the bureaucracy (that is, societal overhead) to a bare minimum without sacrificing functionality.

If we take the individual worker as the most irreducible unit of labor power, and the individual factory or workplace as the most irreducible unit of collectivized labor power, then we can work upward from that level to envision those roles in the greater context of society.

How would labor-tasks be defined? How would their completion be verified? How would workplaces decide on paths and schedules of production and integration into the greater economic flows?

Again, I'd like to reference my XML framework proposal, if only as a visualization tool for now:
http://discussion.newyouth.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=1656

I'd also like to introduce a general concept in an attempt to find balance between micro with macro planning -- similar to federalism under a bourgeois system. Basically, assuming the existence of Internet-enabled, economy-oriented flows of information (as business interests use today), the local workplace should retain collective veto power through their own, sovereign local production *schedules*.

In other words many workplaces may know of a societal need, but a massively horizontal political structure (akin to the Internet) would enable discretion at the local level as to whether or not to gear up production for the larger good. Any centralization bureaucracy would necessarily publish all production and consumption data with absolute transparency, and even put out calls for foreseen needs for production.

(Please see the text on the left edge of the diagram at this link:)

Political Tendency Spectrum
http://chicago.indymedia.org/media/all/display/9939/index.php


Thanks,

Chris

The questions you raise are quite valid, but I think they can be easily resolved through democratic and bureacratic means as I have described. My goal in this little economic design of mine was to establish a primitive standard as a socialist goal, just as my ideas on the ACP were to establish a standard on political goals. Now that we have these goals primitively defined, we know what we want, and we can begin to seek political power. Do you all agree?

[Holocaustpulp]

anomaly: "So, basically, all of you agree with me, that we need a planned economy down to smallest detail, the worker's factory for example."

Down to the smallest detail, yes, but (as you mentioned) open to democratic debate.

Also, I differ on your view of a possible bureaucracy in a socialist state... we want an atomistic society, not one tangled within an inefficent political mess.

- HP

[anomaly]

Originally posted by Holocaustpulp
anomaly: "So, basically, all of you agree with me, that we need a planned economy down to smallest detail, the worker's factory for example."

Down to the smallest detail, yes, but (as you mentioned) open to democratic debate.

Also, I differ on your view of a possible bureaucracy in a socialist state... we want an atomistic society, not one tangled within an inefficent political mess.

- HP

I do not think such a bureacracy would become quite so 'tangled' because of the emphasis on democratic principles. But I am glad that we've come to a consensus, however vague and general. I believe the time has come for action (also at the moment I'm particularly pissed at the capitalists on my other forum...) so perhaps readers of this can refer to the forum organisation forum and weigh in on my idea...?

[Holocaustpulp]

anomaly: I think we have reached an utterly broad consensus, yet still a consensus. The idea of influencing internet forums should be a secondary action for any willing socialist, however, and party politics should come first.

- HP