"Maoist economics"

["Chris, London" <100423.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I continue to welcome the clear and assertive (rather than aggressive)
way Gina argues her case. Even though we come from very
different positions it is quickly possible to establish a discussion
about what we are agreeing about and what we are not.

In her response of 9th May she hit the nail on the head as far
as I am concerned. It may be argued whether she correctly
described "maoist economics" but her reply to my challenge
raised the whole question of commodity exchange.

I had challenged with passages about Red Flag Canal itself, that
some of the most heroic activities of the Cultural Revolution
were quite negligent in their use of labour power. For example
taking several years to construct wells out of solid rock for
a dry and stony village on top of a hill.

Gina described the prevalence of commodity production in our western
society, in which virtually everything that can be turned into
a commodity, is.

>>>
In Maoist society, just the opposite is true: while there are still some
limitations on what can be produced due to the restrictions of commodity
production, which is still the norm, if something is NEEDED by the
masses, some way will be found to produce it, even if the production
techniques are not the most efficient; even if it makes no sense from
a commodity production point of view.

So that's the key to understanding this whole quesiton of Maoist
economics:  The whole point is to do away with commodity production
altogether, and return to "natural" production for use, in the future
communist society.  The transition from here to there involves years
of development during which commodity production, essentially
capitalist production, continues to exist, and its advocates contend
with the advocates of non-commodity production, of socialist production,
over which will be dominant and which is the thing to aim for.
<<<<


I want to be very clear here that neither Gina nor I are
ignoring the issue of exploitation which is inherent in capitalism,
but I have long been of the view that we need to analyse also
the non-exploitative dimension of modern capitalism: the triumph
of commodity exchange.

I agree with Gina that certainly to westerners, "maoist economics"
appeared to be going against that. Eg commendable stories that if
a progressive traveller left his or her slippers in a hotel
in one city, in the spirit of "serving the people", "building
socialism", or "proletarian internationalism",  the staff would
move heaven and earth to deliver them *free* to the traveller
in the next city, two days later.

Mao's own thoughts about economics do not provide a clear
way forward, but are in part consistent with Gina's desciption.
Mao seems interested that some counties do not use money at all.
It seems fair to believe that at times Mao was enticed with the
prospect of whether, under the leadership of the Party, the masses
could leap from a primitive collective economic mode of production
through to socialist and perhaps even communist economic society,
without having to go through a stage of capitalism.

This has clearly been rejected now by the present CPC.
On many grounds they are vulnerable to attack as "capitalist
roaders". But if they are to be attacked they need to be attacked
economically as well as politically. At its strongest their case
would be: it is necessary to develop commodity exchange extensively
to stand up to and compete in the world market, but we are still
retaining the possibility of keeping this under some sort of
socialist control.

Gina's response comes close to defining for me a key issue, not just
for China but also the world. IMO socialist have to expect the
present momentum of the development of commodity exchange to
progress and even intensify on a world scale, in range and depth,
to a degree we cannot imagine. This battle will not be won
quickly. People, including us, find the progressive aspect of
capitalism too valuable, in making more abundant the availability
of use values, at ever decreasing labour cost.

The political struggle, which can no longer be fought in isolation
in one country, even a country as large as China, will be to bring
the triumph of commodity exchange under more and more political control
so that production is increasingly for overall coherent social need
and not for the good of capital. That will be a political struggle
as well as an economic struggle, of course. There are class interests
involved.

But to analyse the benefits and the disadvantages of the triumph of
commodity exchange in its own right, is IMO an essential step
in reapplying the marxist approach to the challenges of the
next decades.

Gina is no "Mad Maoist". In a post that is already long enough
I cannot do more than indicate there are passages in Marx's
thinking which are arguably consistent with her approach eg
the call for the abolition of the wages system at the end of
"Value, Price and Profit". IMO there are material reasons for this,
related to the development of economic activity at the time Marx
was writing.

Gina however, will understand that I cannot join her in believing that
Maoist political leadership alone will suffice in taming
and controlling commodity exchange on a world scale.

Chris B
London.


     --- from list marxism@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx ---