Re: economics of communist societies

[CWO <106361.1743@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> (by way of batcom@xxxxxxxxxxx)]

I (mauro.jr) forward this reply to Bob coming from Jock, now back in GB.
As to the reply of Dave Skatta,... who has to laugh...?
By
****************************************************************************
********
Bob:
>My blood fair boils when I read stuff like this.  What I am going to say
is
>probably out of line, but to hell with it.  We may be fantasists, but we
>never came up with the idea of a state to mediate between the workers
>councils and other classes in a 'transitional society' and we never came
out
>with shit like 'It doesn't matter what Lenin did,it's what he said that
>matters'.  I've heard both from CWO members, at our meetings in
Manchester.
>
>We have treated Jan Appel and the GIK seriously. You can find their work
on
>our website! Also, Jock, you are picking up fag ends of conversations.
I'd
>earlier explained why I thought the GIk adopted labour time vouchers as a
>scheme.  Partly because of the traumas associated with war communism,
which
>they believed to have been part of a deliberate bolshevik plan - not as
>seems apparent the result of a state unable to feed the people or find
>resources for industry resorting to desperate measures.  Partly because of
>the artificial scarcity produced in Europe after World War One and
>compounded by the Depression which made thoughts of abundance seem unreal.
>
>It will take time to move from capitalism to a communism based on free
>access to all the necessities of life. Certainly, early communism will
need
>to find ways to ration scarce resources.  Probably some things will be
>rationed always.  Definitely concepts of need will change and some things
>that seem essential will cease to do so.
>
>What's wrong with labour time vouchers?  Capitalism bases itself on
exchange
>value - exchange value rests on the average of scoially necessary labour
>time involved in the production of commodities.  Why the hell should a
>communist society want to use the same basis for its own calculations and
>distribution?  And don't be so fucking religious.  It doesn't matter squat
>what Marx or the GIK said. (Contrary to what CWO members seem to think).
>Unless of course, that just because Marx said so, that something becomes
an
>iron law which cannot be broken - like the Qu'ran or the Bible.  If tokens
>of some kind exist, what's to stop folk sharing them round, what's to stop
>them finding ways to accumulate them?  They seem to manage well enough
these
>days to get round the rules.  And anyway, whose going to enforce these
rules
>in a communist society - your mediating state?
>
>I don't blame earlier revolutionaries for coming up with ideas and
concepts
>that today appear poorly worked out or misguided.  I do blame those who
seek
>to recreate them in 1997.
>
>Bob
>
>p.s. the latest addition to our website is "Unmasking the Zapatistas",
>reprinted from Wildcat #18.  Check it out.

A brief response.

Bob, obviously boiling blood is not good for thinking. We are glad to hear
that you recognise that there are problems in the transition from
capitalist to communist society.  We have always understood that Subversion
considered this irrelevant (and we know that you have a lot of open
questions between you).  We have debated these with Subversion members but
Bob was not present (however if he reads Subversion 8 there is a hint of
this position in that it states that the working class abolishes itself as
a class the day it takes power).

Furthermore we did not suggest that Harald (who is the real villain here
for suggesting under the title "economics of communist society" that Marx
and the GIK advocated them as the methods of distribution under communism
itself) or Bob should accept as "biblical" the texts from the past.  What
we were making was a methodological point. If we are going to discuss
issues we should first understand (in their context) what revolutionaries
in the past have said, not to parrot them but to frame our own developing
understanding.  This is how we view the contributions of all
revolutionaries including Marx and Lenin. It is not precisely what they
said that counts but the method by which they arrived at their conclusions
that interests us today.

We cannot remember meeting Bob at any Subversion meetings within the last 7
years but we can assure him that the CWO has not only NOT held the view
that the state in the period of transition mediates between classes (the
armed workers councils express the dictatorship of the proletariat) but
that we have been the most public opponents of this idea which is held by
the majority of the comrades of the International Communist Current!  As to
the "quote" about Lenin we woold need to know the context.  If it was the
question about the development of the counter-revolution (over which no-one
person had control despite their intentions) then we might have said it.

We only made our "correction" to your discussion before it got out of hand.
 We would like to explore it further but not on a chatline.  We only
stumbled into this on a comrade's computer.  If you wish to take the issue
further the CWO can be contacted on 106361.1743.compuserve.com or via the
website of the IBRP which my comrade M will no doubt affix to the bottom of
this mess.
Internationalist greetings
Jock
>__________________________________________________________________________

***************************************************************************
*
The Internationalists HomePage is at
        http//www.geocities.com/~italianleft
There is also the link to the Home Page of Battaglia Comunista monthly
organ of
the INTERNATIONALIST COMMUNIST PARTY in Italy
Write to batcom@xxxxxxxxxx
**************************************************************************




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