Re: Socialism Now (Socialisation)

["Greg Schofield" <g_schofield@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Socialisation and socialism with good reason are seen as similar propositions.

The tendency within capital for the approrpriators to appropriate one another leads to greater and greater socialisation of production quite apart from the role that the working class may play politically.

Class is the all important defining concept and despite all the immense socialisation that has occurred the ruling class remains unmistakably, even triumphantly, bourgeois.

Socialism, proletarian socialism, has been for many the simple idea of planning replacing markets, a role thought to be reserved for one class - the proletariate. I hold however, this is a complete misreading of classic historical materialism, that its ancestory lies in the second International (and much further back - Saint Simon for instance) was for different reasons made into idol since 1917 and has carried forth in both the "Stalinist" and "Trotskist" traditions. As you said and I agree most people would assume that socialism is on par with the elimination of markets.

Obviously the two are not disconnected, however, the objective of eliminating markets is not the centre piece it has been assumed to be. My argument that historically significant socialisation of production has already taken place and from this planning (corporate) has dominated free market limitations, merely underlines the historical difference between now and Marx's day and hopefully underscores the insufficiency of the present Socialist movement's pre-occupations.

Ironically, as stated in my first reply, the conditions today (dominated by the corproate plan) could well mean that in certain areas it may be in the immediate interest of the working class to re-introduce some free markets to replace monopoly guild markets, just as in some areas where markets current operate (however dominated) it may also need to install planning measures.

The key to proletarian socialism lies and has always resided, in first directing production in its interest. The first step is a class managing its own exploitation in order to further its interests as against being exploited in the interests of another class (there is of course a resolving contradiction in the first proposition which moves towards eliminating exploitation altogether).

In a struggle to direct production no tools (markets, whatever) are barred by theory - the practical task of achieving such control determines what is useful (for instance NEP in the early USSR). To fetishise planning beyond the actual ability of control is to follow in the footsteps of the present bourgeoisie (excessive growth in non-productive labour), which ironically seems to be following in the steps of the late USSR.

My attempts to point out the dimishing role of the free market, the dominance of corporate planning and the tremendous amount of socialisation carried out by the bourgeosie, is made in the effort to re-centre our concerns with raising a political platform which does articulate the immediate interests of the working class by taking into account the historical changes of the past century. It is our fetish with markets and command planning which, I believe, blinds us to raising practical measures through which the proletariat can begin to exercise its interests in directing production.

In conclusion, markets (free or otherwise) act as a social governor on production today and will also act in a similar role under proletarian socialism, until this is dissolved into a future communism, that is capital labour, exchange-value, continue until they are replaced in practice by conscious production.

Fred I hope this makes things clearer. My concern is that our concepts have become fixed on what is, in terms of today's world, mere anachronisms. The "free market" is all but gone, private capital has long been replaced by socialisied capital, it is our common illusion to deny both these developments, to talk politically as if classic capitalism was still the dominant form, unless this dream is dispelled it is our movement which politically cripples working class struggle. We are quite capable of studying modern capitalism and seeing the role and plans of super-monopolies, but politically we have become reductionist.


Greg Schofield
Perth Australia



--- Message Received ---
From: Frederick Guy <f_d_guy@xxxxxxxxx>
To: pen-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Mon, 19 Nov 2001 08:12:59 -0800 (PST)
>Subject: [PEN-L:19698] Re: Re: Socialism Now

Just because companies have monopoly power and owe
their power (property rights and all) to the state,
doesn't mean that market mechanisms have become
unimportant. Markets serve as a serious constraint on
the choices open to the directors of almost any
company. This is why I ask what you mean by
'socialism': to many, this means doing away with
markets, and if this is what you mean I think you
seriously underestimate the role of markets in making
the current system function, when you say that the
current system is already substantially socialised.
Fred