PEN-L message, Re: Venture Communism/morped/ Socialism Betrayed

>I'd be interested in further comments on Keeran and Kenny's "Socialism Betrayed." I'm not sure what to think. They put a lot of emphasis on the destructive role of the black market, but it's not clear what they propose should have been done about it. (They do more or less make the claim that Andropov was on the right path, but that everything was later taken too far by Gorbachev's "reforms" and the pace of the changes outstripped themselves, etc.) Should the black market have simply been repressed? But how do you actually do that? Part of their explanation is also that the consumer propaganda from the West created consumer needs that had to be met by the black market -- and they seem to imply that tighter controls over media and publishing should have been kept and strengthened. <

Comment

"Socialism Betrayed - Behind the Collapse of the Soviet Union" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny is worth owning and reading several times. On a scale of 1 - 10 . . . I would rate it 7.5. The 2.5 which prevents it from being a "10" . . . are highly theoretical and . . . has to do with the specific ideology and politics of the authors. Nevertheless, I would suggest the book to anyone seeking a general view "of what happened" ushering in the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Why do communists fight over questions of extensive versus intensive development and financial markets as regulators of production? To answer the question one has to develop an understanding of the mechanics of industrial production and the shape of reproduction as determined by different property relations.

Is central planning the essence of industrial socialism and why is it necessary to speak of industrial socialism and not simply socialism? Central planning is a method of "something else" and not . . . "the something else." If Central planning is the method of something else then we have to define the "something else." First of all central planning means the allocation of resources and labor power towards economic development and expansion . . . and this exists not as an abstraction . . . but in relationship to planning on the basis of property rights. Individuals owning the power of capital or capitalism and endowed with the legal right to invest and organized the material power of production gives a specific shape to how reproduction takes place and on what basis. The "basis" is "what is profitable to me as an individual corporate entity" and this individualism becomes the driving feature of a system of reproduction.

Individuals owning the power of capital as factories and having the social power - authority, to hire labor power and put it to work, or accumulate the power of money as property can reinvest this money into production and create a distinct shape of the cycles of reproduction.

What is fundamental to socialism and most certainly industrial socialism is the property relations or the property rights of individuals . . . acting and behaving as individuals. Property relations does not mean "workers control." Property relations or property rights refer to the rights of individual members of society in relationship to the factors of production.

Property rights under Soviet industrial socialism meant that individuals did not have the legal right to convert money possession or governmental authority into individual ownership of the means of production . . . especially in the industrial infrastructure. Individual ownership of means of production imparts an individual will to reproduction that comes into conflict with other individual wills as competition over market shares.

In Marx "Critique of the Gotha Program" he makes this fairly clear and when speaking of the transition to a communist society, states that nothing but means of consumption can pass into the hands of individuals.

According to the Communists in the Soviet Union - writing during the early 1960s, what you had in the Soviet Union under Nikita Khrushchev, was the development of a caricature of the bourgeoisie . . . these are their exact words . . . and not simply a "petty bourgeoisie."

Keeran and Kenny's insights and articulation of the extensive and intensive development of the second economy (black market) is extremely insightful and important and explains how "the caricature of the bourgeoisie" was able to usher in the counter revolution and abolish public property in the industrial infrastructure and change the cycle of reproduction. What is the origin of this "caricature of the bourgeoisie" . . . according to the Soviet communist?

This "caricature of the bourgeoisie" is not a petty bourgeoisie as I understand the meaning of the term or "small scale producer" laboring in the second economy but an excretion of the state . . . while the low scale producer in the second economy is an _expression_ of shortage and the value relationship in any industrial society.

Then it is helpful that one has an understanding of the history of the system that was the dictatorship of the proletariat . . . which was never reducible to the state or the party. The system of the dictatorship of the proletariat is described in remarkable detail by Mr. J. Stalin as the series of transmission belts - organizations of people, that allows production and distribution to take place outside the bourgeois property relations and not just Soviets.

This system of transmission belts required central planning as the basis of extensive industrial development.

There is of course the question of the bureaucracy that needs to be unraveled and part of this is because of the impact of the ideologists. Those not familiar with the mechanics of the evolution of industrial society . . . falsely collapse the state, government and party system with the industrial bureaucracy as an incomprehensible mass. Although these categories can overlap, are inseparable in real time and even in personnel they are distinctly different in real life . . . although in totality we are dealing with an industrial process driving society.

We need to convert the language of Sovietism into American categories and concepts.

An American equivalent would be the difference between going to the Welfare agency and receiving stipends and going to work for say Chrysler Motor Company . . . and then being stopped by the police for a traffic violation. At the Welfare office you face a bureaucratic state order and bureaucrats . . . hired personnel of the state, responsible to the state agency. At Chrysler you face the full weight of the industrial bureaucracy, responsible to a corporate entity and if you are the type to take part in factory circles you face the weight of the inner corporate politics of the company (party politics) . . . as it is regulated by the state authorities.

Under Lynn Townsend there was one kind of management style and behavior . . . another under Ricardo and yet another under Lee Iaaccoa and another under his predecessor. All different CEO's were subject to . . . and operated under the impact of the federal, state and local government bureaucracy and their specific laws . . . but the difference between the industrial bureaucracy as production and the state bureaucracy is rather clear.

There is of course the inner corporate politics of different Ceo's and the Union . . . which I faced as a union representative . . . or the American equivalent of party politics in the Soviet Union. The inner "party politics" of a CEO cannot be belittled because each one assembles an apparatus that is loyal to its vision and by definition faces a rebellion from the preexisting bureaucracy.

I have some real experience with this process. As the German owners consolidated control of Chrysler Motors layers of corporate bureaucracy was shattered and eliminated along with their corresponding counterparts in the Union which provoked a semi-crisis in the union. Restructuring of General Motors and Ford Motors provokes a corresponding crisis in the party or rather union.

This would be the rough American equivalent to Soviet industrial socialism, its state structures and its party politics . . . which the average worker is not subjected to . . . yet, the average workers is subjected to the industrial bureaucracy, which is lead by these "party types" or corporate leaders and management. The corporate leaders and management is subject to the state bureaucracy.

You feel me?

There is of course the police and the traffic ticket. You get stopped for running a red light and it is discovered you owe child support. You are hauled off to jail and have to post a bond and become directly subjected to yet another bureaucracy . . . not merely the state bureaucracy . . . but the state as it is organized on the basis of industrial communications, structures and organizational forms. What all these different facets of the social and economic system have in common is that they are part of the industrial bureaucracy in society.

Industrial bureaucracy does not grow out of politics or political policy as such . . . but the manufacturing process which evolved from handicraft under feudalism or the feudal bureaucracy.

The bureaucracy does not grow out of the state but rather the states act as mediator or the societal force of mediation of bureaucracy . . . according to Marx in the German Ideology. In other words the Soviet did not suffer from a historically inevitable bureaucratic degeneration as the result of the lack of world revolution, political policy and notions. Bureaucratic degeneration as a category of history means that the mode of production is undergoing change and compelling changes in the structure and form of organization of all the administrative agencies in society.

A certain bureaucratic stagnation in all societies are not immune or separate from changes in the technology of a given society . . . but really refers to what in America is called the "Peter Principle." The Peter Principle basically states that human beings are generally raised to their level of incompetency in social structure. It you are a good worker or manager in a system you can get promoted and there is a level at which we are all promoted that is outside of our reach and ability . . . but we got to that level based on certain skills. Human beings are generally raised to their level of incompetency within a system.

Then there is of course the issue of scarcity and privilege. Only those with access and "means" can attain privilege.

There are some profound theoretical difference and issues is unraveling Soviet socialism on its own basis and a need to speak and reinterpret Soviet socialism on the basis of our own experience with our working class and in a language that makes sense.

The fact of the matter is that no society can leap to communism on the basis of the industrial system in the first place.

Part of the problem with a reasonable critique of "Socialism Betrayed" . . . is its underlying theory and ideological concepts . . . although the book is loaded with excellent facts and reasonable insights.

"Socialism Betrayed" is a decent book worth every penny because it describes a process with enough details to understand when Soviet Society hit the barrier of transition from industrial society on its own basis and history. Gorbachev was not a mistaken leader but the personified internal danger to socialism that will be with us until counter revolution is not possible. "Until counter revolution is not possible," does not mean "world revolution" but a material development in the means of production that makes it impossible to go back to industrial society.

For the bourgeoisie the danger of the counter revolution or the return to feudalism was averted when there no longer existed a feudal society to go back to. No development short of the destruction of humanity can take us back to feudal social and economic relations because there no longer exists . . . in this reality and on a world scale . . . anything to go back to. To go back to feudalism America, Great Britain, South America, the former Soviet Union, China and Japan and Korea and other countries would have to be wiped off the face of the earth.

There is a rationale explanation of why the counterrevolution could succeed in the first place. This has to be explained before we can decipher the threat to socialism and what happened in the Soviet Union. The counter revolutionary petty bourgeois intellectual hit men on the left flank of the imperial bourgeoisie say the problem is a lack of world revolution and Stalinism but common sense tells us the danger of counterrevolution to the bourgeoisie was averted at a certain stage in the quantitative expansion of the industrial system which made it impossible to go back to the old society.

Do you feel me?

"Socialism Betrayed" is an excellent book to begin the discussion of Soviet Socialism and if more comrades purchased it in the next two weeks . . . we could unravel this issue over the next month or so . . . Intelligently.

We would also revolutionize our understanding of our moment in history and the meaning of classes and antagonism . . . and applied dialectics. Applied dialectics means capturing our moment in history and measuring how we got here against the development in other countries.

Melvin P.