Re: economics of communist societies

[dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

The C'wo are entirely correct when they say :

>If you are going to criticise revolutionaries from the past=20
>like the GIK or Marx you could at
>least do them the courtesy of reading carefully what they said=20

However I feel they are too modest when they urge us to read Marx and
the GIK and fail to mention their own contribution to the politics and
economics of the transition period. =20

To that end, since it is not yet on their web site, I have put their
1979 article 'The Period of Transition' on mine.

http://www.skatta.demon.co.uk/rednose/index.htm

Rereading it I am compelled to agree with them. How can we fantasists
possibly compete with political science fiction as good as this ?

I particularly enjoyed the sections on the problem of Peasants and of
White Collar Workers. There is also a critique of 'immediatism' and
'futurism' at the end of the article which I feel we could all learn
from.

Of course, given the tectonic shifts in left communist theory, it
could be that there are elements of the article which require slight
nuancing, or parts that need a "change in structure". No doubt the
C'wo can point these out to us.=20

Below are some excerpts, however I urge you all to read the whole
thing carefully, especially in circumstances where involuntary
laughter might be socially inappropriate.

dave

"What do we want ?    Immediatism !
 When do we want it ?   Now !"

***********************************************************
from The Period of Transition in Revolutionary Perspectives 13 (April
1979).=20

"The question of the proletariat's relationship to the vital area of
rural production has always been a particularly vexing one. The
Russian Revolution (1917-21) is an example of the problem though its
lessons must be placed in historical perspective. Lenin was always
looking over his shoulder at the huge masses of the Russian
peasantry."

(...)

"But the existence of workers' councils and the seizure of political
power by the proletariat, that is the global destruction of the
bourgeois state apparatus and its replacement by armed workers'
councils does not automatically represent the establishment of
communism. These are simple though necessary preconditions."

(...)

"During the transition period the party should advocate the methods of
integration of non-proletarian strata into humanity..."

(...)

"As far as the white-collar workers are concerned the increasing
crisis of capitalism will affect them as much as the proletariat. As
the revolutionary situation develops these people will not act as a
class. They will be demoralised and fragmented. Some will take an
active part in the counter-revolution, some, as individuals will join
the proletariat. Those who do join the proletariat should be
integrated as individuals into the social structure of the revolution.
Their integration into the organisations of proletarian democracy is
the surest defence of the interests of the communist revolution. By
this measure the proletariat will prevent them from joining the ranks
of the permanently unemployed and thus a possible recruiting ground
for a future "freikorps" or army of counter-revolution. Those who fear
that this will somehow dilute the communist goals of the revolution,
and fear their possible petit-bourgeois influence, exaggerate the
numerical strength of these disparate individuals represented by
almost no delegates in the soviets. Indeed, as many will find
integration into the soviet only through their new workplaces they
will be hardly represented at all."

(...)

"So far, we have treated the question of the period of transition
"internally" with regard to the areas where the bulk of the
proletariat are concentrated and which constitute perhaps 30% of the
world's population. During the revolutionary upheaval itself, any
outbreaks which occur in the less developed areas of world capitalism
must receive all material and political support from the rest of the
proletariat, since the working class is an international class and has
the same interests and tasks worldwide. But we have no faith in the
"communist" aspirations of the peasantry of these areas, in fact even
where we see state capitalist agriculture in the "third world", there
will, in all probability, be a parcellation of land amongst the
aspirant peasantry, with a return to subsistence of small commodity
agriculture. And there are the additional dangers of the
deproletarianisation of semi-proletarianised groups of workers (e.g.
in Africa). Any enclaves of power within these areas created by
industrial or plantation workers, must be integrated into the
political and economic framework of communism, and serve as the
toehold of communism within the areas of the small commodity
producers.=20

THE "THIRD WORLD"=20

In contradistinction to the situation in Russia in 1917-21, this sea
of small producers poses no great danger to the efforts to socialise
the economy; the working class will not be dependent on these areas
for food production, in fact quite the reverse is the case. And these
producers are in no wise able to organise themselves politically and
militarily against the proletarian power, a fact resulting from their
atomised class nature, and one which communists should accept gladly,
and not try to overcome by urging that they be "represented" in the
State of the period of transition. But workers must have a policy
towards these sections, since by just abandoning them (apart from
humanitarian considerations) would mean that a renewed cycle of
primitive accumulation would start in those areas, and then within a
period of time they would pose a military and political threat to the
building of communism. These strata must be involved in the communist
economy, without forcing them to collectivise, which is impossible
given their huge numbers. Apart from the ideological weapon of
propaganda for communism, and humanitarian aid to these areas, the
main tactic which impels them into communism is economic, and another
reason why the accounting of the social product must be in
labour-time.=20

The councils must insist that the exchange, economic relations between
the communised sector and the small commodity producers be taken out
of the monetary framework and based on equivalent hours of labour; on
this there can be no compromise. For example, if a tractor takes 100
hours a ton of jute 10 hours, then 10 tons of the latter are
exchanged, or more strictly, bartered for a tractor. This form of
exchange will need peasants' co-operatives on the level of
distribution, but these are not political organs. Given differences in
the productivity of labour such an exchange is actually very
favourable to the peasants, and the form of exchange is flexible in
that it allows the proletariat to further favour those peasants who
wish to collectivise, for example by exchanging the hypothetical
tractor for only 7 tons of jute. This in turn helps these groups to
raise their agricultural output and productivity, and is a clear
validation of the superiority of communist agriculture. On these bases
the integration of the small producers, politically and economically,
into the proletariat and humanity, can take place."=20



=20


=20








     --- from list aut-op-sy@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---