The Content of Socialism / Communism
_____________________________________
- How can the Working Class transform the
'Economy' in its own interests ?
1 Introduction
1 We first produced this pamphlet over six
months ago in the Autumn of 1994 - it arose out
of a discussion some of us were having on 'the
Russian Revolution and all that'. Whilst we
could have gone over all the old ground, that is
now a sterile debate and we preferred to
concentrate on working out a vision of a future
society and how it might work rather than
limiting ourselves to the Russian question.
2 We asked for 'feedback', We wanted others to
take up what we argued, pick holes in it, offer
alternatives and so on. Whilst it would be wrong
to say we were overwhelmed with the response
we received - enough of you did take up the
challenge for us to now issue a second edition
which incorporates much of the response and
gives us a chance to put in our own 'update'. To
those of you who did take the trouble to
contribute - our thanks. Of course it goes
without saying that we still want feedback - it's
still possible, although increasingly we doubt it,
that we have got something fundamentally
wrong.
3 And we must acknowledge our debt to a
previous generation - much of what we wrote
and continue to adhere to is actually quite
dated - and reflects our own particular
development as activists in the 70s and the
influence of the German and Italian Left's
critique of the Bolsheviks and the Third
International in the period 1914 to 1935. To that
extent 'RAB' as it is now known, reflects a
DOWNTURN in the international working class
movement of the period. Many of the people of
this period later became Council Communists
[although we would not call ourselves that], and
their ideas re-surfaced in the midst of the new
movement after May 1968 in France. It is
possible that we are still reflecting too much of
that earlier movement, a movement that
defined itself as much against the existing
movement as for anything itself. Today's
movement has not yet 'defined itself' - indeed
one of its strengths may be its refusal to be
defined in the terms of the past.
4 One of the difficulties any new movement will
have is in freeing itself from the categories of so
called 'economic science'. Wage labour, prices
and commodity forms are not 'God-given' nor
externally imposed. They are the product of
human history and society. We can trace their
appearance and rise at certain stages in the
development of society, and just as assuredly
we can imagine their fall and replacement with
newer and better forms.
5 We insist on the view that the working class
IS a revolutionary class precisely because in its
daily life it must grapple with and discover or
create newer, higher and better forms of
'economy'. But it cannot do this without at the
same time fashioning for itself the intellectual
tools to understand what it is doing. Part of our
purpose in writing this is to begin this task of
fashioning these tools however badly or
clumsily.
6 But one thing we are sure of - from the point
of view of the working class, whom we conceive
to be the overwhelming majority of the
population, capital, class rule, the wages
system can only be abolished if the workers
themselves can master the production and
distribution process AND run it according to
clearly defined and equitable rules. We have
advocated the use of labour time to allow this. It
is possible to advocate other measures or units
of calculation - and we would welcome other
contributions based on them. Even so such
units are only transitional - our ultimate
objective must be to do away with such
measures altogether. Once 'work' has become
a voluntarily accepted necessity rather than a
compulsion for the mass of the population, that
is once it becomes an expression of a purely
individual personality - then there is little point
in trying ot measure it beyond a certain socially
determined minimum.
7 The aim therefore of the newly liberated
workers administration should be to decrease
the compulsory working week or day to the
point where it can disappear entirely - to enable
individuals to do / contribute as little or as much
as they want. So that the organising principle of
a fully communist or human society can be
'from each according to his abilities to each
according to his needs'.
8 So there you are - don't keep your criticisms
to yourself - let us know what you think. We're
quite prepared to admit that what we present
here isn't fully worked out, nor the whole
answer - but then neither does the 'Left' have
any answers - and we do believe that we are at
least asking better questions
2 Preface
1 'There Is No Alternative !' - said the Iron Lady
in 1981, and she kept on repeating it, like a
litany, until we nearly all believed her. But the
1980s were not a conspiracy, nor a plot against
the working class by one woman [or even one
political party]. We saw the same changes
taking place internationally - the old Social-
Democratic consensus worked out after the
Second World War of 'full employment', health
care, education and so on is all being
unravelled by newer more aggressive so called
'right wing' regimes. For our part we accept that
it is impossible to go back to those days - and
this is acknowledged by the Labour Party and
its Social Democratic equivalents all over the
world.
But why did things have to change anyway?
2 The usual answer is 'because of the crisis of
capitalism', and it is true that since the 1970s
the world economy has seemed far more
insecure than in the years preceding, The post
war 'boom' has definitely come to an end. But
our view is that it was the working class itself
which was the active factor in the situation. We
precipitated the crisis in the 1970s when we
collectively refused to accept the conditions of
continued exploitation. We used 'full
employment' to constantly change jobs, in
some factories labour turnover was 20% PER
MONTH, shortage of labour, lack of 'skilled
labour', poor motivation, absenteeism and so
on was a constant preoccupation for personnel
departments. Alienation, sabotage, poor
quality control and so on was widespread - and
all this is without talking about the more
'obvious ' signs of class conflict, such as strikes
and so on. In Italy, FIAT boss Agnelli talked of
the 'ungovernable factory'.
3 EVERY CHANGE in capitalism and therefore
our lives - the end of the 'mass worker',
'flexibility', short term contracts, increasing
insecurity, social atomisation, increasing state
control of our lives - all these things are only
understandable as a RESPONSE by the
system to our refusal to 'play the game' as it
was understood ie. 'A Fair Day's Work for a Fair
Day's Pay'.
4 So she was right, there was no alternative for
her and her like, except to attack us in order to
continue the process of value production and
extraction. And the attack is continuing.
Moreover the movements we were all part of in
the 1970s have today lost their way and
become recuperated. We need to acknowledge
and account for this. In this connection the Left
and what we call the 'old movement' of mass
parties and trade unions has played a crucial
role - as diverters of peoples own struggle.
Unions demand the monopoly on political ideas
just as they insist on a monopoly over 'rights of
representation' : they are the unique sellers of
wage labour.
5 Similarly all the parties of Left and Right have
no real alternative - all of them accept the
capitalist view of the world, which is why politics
today is also in such a crisis. If the political
parties are all more or less saying the same
thing - why should we turn out to vote for them
or take any part in the 'political process' ? It is
when we see the widespread alienation from
and indifference to 'politics' today, that we judge
it timely to produce this essay.
6 For we have got an alternative - what follows
is not the product of 'our heads alone' [of
course if the ideas are not clear or badly
expressed or contradictory, then that is our fault
and we fully expect to be criticised for it.] This
essay is a reflection of a real practical struggle
of millions of people, of a real movement we
outlined above and a product of a study of our
own history. And when we turn to this history
we find we have to reject the scientific
pretensions of those paid mouthpieces of our
rulers who call themselves economists, AND
the picture of the world given to us by the Left.
Lenin's 'Imperialism, the Highest Stage of
Capitalism' CANNOT now be considered the
last word in analysis
7 Everyone today who is 'oppositional' - from
'new age' travellers or the unemployed to anti-
roads protesters, to those taking part in the
miners strike and the anti-poll tax campaign or
who opposes the new changes in 'Public Order'
legislation, is expressing in a fragmentary way
our need to create a picture of the world,
different from and in opposition to the one we
get fed every day. Since 'economics' is no more
than the ideology of our rulers, we need to
construct an 'economics' of our own. What
follows is our attempt
3 Should We Be Writing A Blueprint?
Well actually we are not.
1 What we are trying to do is work out the
general principles of how a new form of society
might be organised. These principles must be
simple enough for all to understand, elastic
enough to preserve all the diversity of the
human spirit and most important given the
history of the past 80 years, not give rise to any
exploiting elite.
2 We have borrowed ideas and conceptions
elaborated by Marx and Engels as we
understand them. But they too would not claim
to have 'invented' them. The working class of
their day had already 'discovered' itself. Notions
such as class, alienation, surplus value and
exploitation were an everyday reality for people
of their time. In addition they never claimed any
originality for their view of a future society; what
they did claim was to put the likelihood of a new
and different society on a sounder, more
scientific footing. Socialism or Communism was
no longer the dream or fantasy of assorted
Utopians constructing ideal societies out of their
heads, but was finally identified with an existing
class within society. A class moreover that was
everywhere in struggle, and that was trying to
develop some conception of itself and what this
struggle represented. Marx and Engels merely
saw themselves as part of an existing social
movement. All they sought to do was to give it
cohesion and direction - and by uncovering the
laws as they saw it, of capitalist development,
to help such a movement on its way to its
ultimate objective.
3 MOST OF THEIR work was a 'critique' of
existing society - that is capitalism. They knew
that a new society would have to wait on the
continued development of the working class
and its own practical struggle. They attempted
to be part of its own movement, part of its
process of self education and self discovery,
and because the movement of the working
class is, as we hope to show, a dynamic
process. That is why they revised some of their
earlier conclusions as a direct result of our own
history - we are thinking here of the lessons of
the Paris Commune of 1871.
4 BY CONTRAST today nearly 80 years after
the first international revolutionary wave, we
have a working class that is confused,
disorientated, hesitant, still burdened by the
legacy of the failure of its first revolutionary
attempt. As yet oppositional voices within
society are feeble and isolated, not even sure
why they are themselves oppositional and
above all not sure of the way forward - so all
the more reason to look back at our own
history, as we have done, to look for pointers to
the way forward.
5 It is when we attempt to do this that we
encounter criticism. We are told we should not
be writing blueprints - that it will be all right
'come the revolution', as though creating a
totally new kind of economy was a completely
automatic, unconscious process. In our view
the 'Left' from the Labour Party to latter day
Bolsheviks will not engage in an exploration of
future communist society because their view of
the future looks uncannily like the society we
have already got. When these people study the
Russian Revolution for instance, it is not to
learn about its failures, but to know of its
'successes' - in order that they can repeat them.
4 'Old' Movement is Part of the System
1 WE NEED TO leave the conceptions of the
'old movement' [and the 'Left'] and of the
Second International way behind. We know that
nationalisation and state control of the economy
do nothing to alter our position within society -
instead it actually reinforces it. Capitalism has
used the programme of the old movement to re-
stabilise itself and insulate itself from the
challenge of the working class. This is what
Keynes meant when he said in the 1930s, 'we
are all socialists now'. This actually signified a
DEFEAT for the working class.
2 The purpose of this essay is not however to
show how the 'old' movement of the Social
Democratic parties and trade unions is now part
of the status quo. This is becoming daily more
obvious. If we are to be truly oppositional we
have to be able to show what our alternative is
and how it might be achieved.
3 In the past because of this old movement'
communists and socialists have found
themselves having to argue for a transition
period lasting several generations, into a far off
distant future. As a consequence of the views
above, socialism became a programme of a
political minority to which the mass of the
population ceded power. The party or other
political minority would then be obliged to
'educate' the masses into socialism or
communism using the power of the state.
4 IN REPUDIATING this view, this hangover
from the Second International, as we do, we
merely point to the reality of capitalism as we
experience it today. We base our ideas and
understanding on the experience of what it is to
be working class today. In our view - alienation,
lack of power over ones own life and work, the
reality of wage labour, is what gives rise to
communism - not the programme of a political
group irrespective of its social origins, and most
definitely not the 'school of hunger and
desperation' brought about by economic crisis,
[though that is real enough].
5 In addition we argue that capitalism is
sufficiently developed, indeed in many senses
over developed, such as to make a transition to
communism a relatively SHORT process.
5 The Blind Alley of Reformism
1 ONCE, at an earlier period of capitalism, the
Labour Party in Britain, like Social Democratic
parties everywhere, gave a voice to
'oppositional' forces - it said 'vote for us', build
and support this party and we will give you 'full
employment', 'cradle to grave security', a
welfare state, health service, education, 'equal
opportunity for all' and so on. The new
communist parties of the period never
challenged these notions. The majority of the
population accepted them at face value, and
indeed for many of the 'Left' this programme still
constitutes the reality of 'opposition' politics
today.
2 Our argument however is different just as
today's reality is different - the material basis for
such a programme is gone forever, 'full
employment', a welfare state, Keynesian
'demand management' that made this illusion
possible have been swept away by the harsher
economic climate of the 1980s. Instead we are
told to accept the reality and 'logic' of the
market. The old ways of state planning and
nationalisation will no longer work their
medicine. The mass of the population must be
made to feel the rigours of economic 'laws' that
now work on a truly global basis - no wonder
there is discontent.
3 So, as part of an effort to articulate a genuine
opposition, we have written this essay. It is an
attempt explain 'economics' from the workers
point of view. It is not an attempt to turn
workers into economists - in fact just the
opposite - we want to show how workers - and
only the workers movement - can and indeed
must abolish 'economics' altogether.
4 This 'old movement' - the Labour Party, trade
unions, the Left of all shades and so on have
always shared the same basic underlying
assumptions, that is - once a 'workers' or a
'peoples' government 'came to power' in
Parliament and took control of industry, finance
etc. then we would have 'socialism'. For good
measure they added a bit about 'democracy',
'workers control' or whatever. Some like the
Fabians and Christian socialists actually argued
that capitalism was growing into a form of
socialism with the growth of socialised property
forms like joint stock companies, 'friendly'
societies' and so on. The first 'revisionists' led
by Bernstein in Germany hoped to use the
power of the capitalist state to discipline and
bring into line the 'anarchy' of the capitalist
market and at the same time introduce the
above mentioned reforms. So they hoped to
avoid any nasty scenes of violence or other
popular outbursts. Today this programme has
largely been achieved. This movement having
entered the 'corridors of power' and become
part of the state, is now profoundly conservative
and reactionary. It needs to change its 'image'.
So the buzz word of these people is
'community' and 'community values'.
5 The important point is that such notions have
NO REAL MEANING in the modern world, they
serve merely as a mask to hide the reality of
class society and to prevent an alternative from
developing.
6 The Historical Experience
1 THE FIRST WORLD WAR had in reality
already shattered forever these cosy notions -
the largest pre war movement, the SPD in
Germany, put itself at the head of a popular
movement against the war and moved straight
in to take over the Kaiser's State and
immediately set about disciplining [by shooting
them] the working class into a new state
capitalist/state socialist order. It should be
noted that state intervention and salaried jobs
for members of the Social Democratic parties
was an international tendency in all 'advanced'
economies that found its theoretical justification
in the work of John Maynard Keynes, who quite
openly admitted that from the point of view of
the existing order, it 'would be better to rob the
working classes' of surplus value by means of
slow inflation and so avoid a general social
crisis such as they had just endured, than
require the workers to submit to the laws of the
'free market' which might provoke a more
generalised response. The critique of the 'Right'
[von Mises, Hayek etc.] that this
'Prussian Socialism' as they called it, involved
curtailing individual liberty and the growth of an
all embracing state power that intervened 'too
much' in economic and social life and 'distorted'
the market, was dismissed as an old fashioned
orthodoxy. The Right went into an eclipse from
which it only re emerged in the 1970s when the
fragility of the Keynesian solution and the
movement of the 'mass worker' became
apparent.
7 Effects on the 'Old Movement'
1 HOWEVER FOR OUR purposes we must
consider what the effects of these ideas were in
the 'workers movement' of the time. And now
we see that the break in the old movement
between Social Democracy and the Bolshevik
inspired 'Left' was not as great nor as deep as
might be supposed.
2 As far as the Russian Revolution is
concerned, a study of all the tendencies inside
the working class [and that includes the
Bolsheviks] will show that at no time were the
workers ever able to rise above and challenge
the well established notions of Social
Democracy. Lenin himself boasted that they
had the beginnings of STATE CAPITALISM in
Russia and that every effort should be [and
was] made to copy and develop and improve
on all the latest 'scientific' management
developments in capitalism and especially
developments in the German economy [
Taylorism and so on]. Now we can criticise
Lenin and the Bolsheviks, but where was the
alternative ?
3 The point is that the existing SOCIAL
DEMOCRATIC idea of socialism, of state
control of the economy 'in the interests of the
working class / majority of the population'
conformed to what appeared to be being done -
for the majority of the working class, THIS WAS
SOCIALISM. And indeed this has defined
socialism and politics, Left and Right, ever
since.
4 Socialism was seen as a form of better
management of the existing economy not its
transformation nor abolition. To their credit, the
Anarchists had the merit of advancing the
slogan 'ABOLISH THE WAGES SYSTEM' - but
a slogan was all it was, and in the chaos of
disruption, forced requisitioning, barter and
wholesale theft that was 'War Communism' in
Civil War Russia, does anybody seriously claim
that a new and higher form of economy was
being created ?
5 WORSE THAN THIS however, is the almost
complete silence on this issue since the
revolutionary wave of 1917 - 23 subsided.
Radical or oppositional critiques of capitalism
have made hardly any headway within a
working class dominated by international Social
Democracy and its twin the Stalinised
Communist Parties and the organisational
structures and outlook that they spawned.
6 Capitalism re-stabilised itself on the back of a
workers movement [social democracy, trade
unions] which the newly bolshevised
communist parties never broke from. So far as
we are aware, only in Germany and Italy did
movements manage to exist independent of the
Third International, and who had clearly broken
at all levels with Social Democracy. And only in
the 1930s did what remained of an isolated and
demoralised German Left begin to try and
construct a theoretical answer to the question
that the Russian and German workers did not
know how to answer in 1917 - 23.
[A translation of a summary of their views and a
discussion of them by the Italian Left is
available from the publishers.]
7 Having dumped all the old assumptions and
seen the total collapse of the 'old movement' we
can now go back to our original question at the
start of this essay.
And that is - How do workers begin to
socialise the economy, how do they
transform the economy in their own
interests ?
8 COMMUNISM, SOCIALISM OR WHATEVER
we call the new form of society cannot be
defined negatively. That is, it is not a form of
society with all the negative features of
capitalism - money, wage labour, sexual
division of labour, hierarchical relations,
commodity production, pollution, etc. etc. taken
away.
9 INSTEAD COMMUNIST minorities must be
able to show how such a society might work.
We must be able to lay bare and elaborate its
'economic' laws of motion. We must be able to
show its theoretical principles and in the
absence of a practical movement that is in the
process of working out concrete answers to this
question, then at the very least we must raise
the question and keep it at the forefront of the
workers own agenda.
10 We saw that the workers movement of the
early period was not able to successfully bring
about a socialisation of the existing economy
even though the existing socialist movement
did successfully manage to 'nationalise' areas
of it. Now society is never static and so the
consequence of this failure [of which the
communist movement of the time was a part]
was that capitalism continued, but only by
responding to this failed challenge of the
working class and incorporating the 'old'
movement into its management. The workers
movement is ALWAYS a factor in the capitalist
response and part of our ongoing discussion
should be the part played by that old workers
movement in the management of the system
today and conversely, what the form and
content of a new workers movement is likely to
be, given what we all accept has been the
DEFEAT of a previous economic and sectional
movement, that of the 'mass worker', which we
took part in, in the 1970s and 1980s, and the
continuing CAPITALIST REORGAN-ISATION
OF THE LABOUR PROCESS
8 Abandon the Old Conceptions
1 If we want, however, to play a part in shaping
and moulding this new movement then it is vital
that we go beyond the conceptions and
philosophy of this earlier period. It is moreover
essential to get beyond the simple minded
opposition of 'Leninism' versus 'libertarianism'.
We have enough practical experience now to
say that socialism / communism is not merely
the MANAGEMENT of EXISTING society by
the workers - if it is only this, THEN IN
REALITY NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
2 HERE WE HAVE to come to grips with some
basic theoretical conceptions - if this is the first
time some readers have come across these
notions, this is only a reflection of the lack of
any real Marxist tradition within the working
class of this country. The basis of exploitation
of workers under capitalism lies in the fact that
workers find themselves separated from the
means of production. Through ownership of
these means, the capitalist not only deprives
the worker of any independent means of
earning a living, but also disposes of the
product of the workers labour, and thereby
controls the lives of the workers and their
families. And this ECONOMIC SUBJUGATION
of the workers [employed and unemployed] and
all those dependent on wage labour remains
true despite the most perfectly developed
'democracy' and the 'equality of opportunity' this
is supposed to bring about. So its not 'equality'
or 'justice' that we need, such things are
impossible in a society split into antagonistic
classes. Instead we need to free ourselves from
this relationship.
3 In order therefore for the working class to be
free, this separation must be ended. The
means of production must become the
COLLECTIVE PROPERTY of the producers
and a new legal order must be created where
the working class can collectively dispose of the
product of their labour. This task can only be
that of the 'FREE AND EQUAL ASSOCIATION
OF THE PRODUCERS'.
4 The working class must not only seize the
existing world; they must also terminate forever
the historical cycle of capital and END THE
PROCESS OF VALUE PRODUCTION AND
EXCHANGE. Both Leninism and libertarianism
insist on opposing forms of organisation of
society - party versus councils, forms of
management of society, but both equally
neglect the content. For them the working class
continues to be just that - a class separated
from the productive process and the products of
its labour. This content of a communist society
is what this essay is all about.
5 Instead the workers movement of the post
First World War period had a reformist practice,
even if dressed up in revolutionary phrases.
This was the content of the mass struggle in
practice - a practice which we have already
seen failed to adequately challenge capitalism.
THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION died because it
had to develop capitalism in Russia -
irrespective of the intentions of its leaders -
management of the existing productive
apparatus, and the accumulation of further
capital were it prime tasks. Critics, appalled by
this development, have developed other
conclusions - that workers, as opposed to Party
management, was necessary. Since that time a
more or less coherent outlook has been created
with different forms of management at the core
- workers councils versus party state, [note that
all descendants of the Bolsheviks - Stalinists,
Trotskyists of all hues, are united by this Party
state conception].
6 BOTH THESE VIEWS ARE OF NO USE
TODAY IF NOT ACTUALLY REACTIONARY.
THEY MUST BE ABANDONED.
9 Capitalism as a System of Production and
Reproduction of Value
1 Capitalism is not a system of management. It
is not a change of bosses that we need -
Labour for Tory, Left wing for Right wing,
communist for capitalist. It is not important who
manages capital : indeed we have plenty of
experience of workers managing capital, which
has not had the effect of ending exploitation nor
any of the other evils of the capitalist system.
Capitalism is a system of given production [and
distribution] relations of which management is
merely a part. A revolutionary analysis
therefore must aim at ending these relations
and moreover not as some far off ultimate goal
but as IMMEDIATE, PRACTICAL POLITICS.
2 We first have to understand how this system
works, and this is not especially difficult. Once
we get behind the fetishised forms as they
appear and are described by the ideological
mouthpieces of our rulers - the economists. As
workers we know that we 'exchange' our ability
to work for wages. With these wages we are
able to buy the products of other workers labour
in order to live and reproduce other workers.
Explained this way, it becomes obvious that
capitalists, bosses, those who merely own and
control the assets that we have created, are
'surplus to requirements' [as today many are
finding out]. In practice we already run and
maintain the productive apparatus that makes
any kind of social life possible. Capitalists
merely appropriate or rob us of the value of
what we produce, since we are obliged to
spend our wages on purchasing the product of
other workers.
3 To some extent the future society is already
'knocking at the door' - we need to get beyond
the above notions - of commodity relations, the
'law of value' - and transform the nature of work
itself. [Since 'work' is the source of 'value' in
capitalist society - if we transform work / abolish
work then we get rid of value - and all those
dependent on it]
4 WORK TODAY is for most of us a
compulsion, an intrusion into our lives - we
work simply as a means to secure our
existence and reproduce our lives. In addition
and this is a post Second World War
development in capitalist society, it is
increasingly clear that much of what constitutes
'work' today serves no useful purpose
whatsoever. It exists simply to maintain the
social domination of capital or what is the same
thing - wage labour. Marx called this the
change from the formal domination to the real
domination of capital - and it was this period,
when capitalist social relations dominate the
entire globe, and therefore when labour is truly
socialised that he called the end result of
capital's historic mission - that of preparing
human society for a transition to communism.
5 One thing therefore above all others that a
communist society must be able to do is to
once again make work an intrinsic part of life, a
simple expression of ourselves as human
beings associated with others. If this can be
done - then we move away from the realm of
necessity and then real, truly human, history
can begin. We will return to this aspect when
we deal with the transition from capitalism to
communism.
6 The problem therefore divides into two. Firstly
what institutions do we as workers need to
create to express our ability to meet our needs?
And secondly what sort of relationship should
these institutions have to one another, that is
what are the 'economics' of the new society ? It
should be clear that these two questions are
inter-related. Precisely because the working
class is the producer class in society, we
envisage the institutions that this class creates
as the basis for a new society. If production is
organised by the producers themselves [and
we will see how over time everyone will be a
producer in the new society] using a socially
valid and universally endorsed form of
calculation, then there is NO ROLE
WHATSOEVER FOR A STATE. We do not
need a state to unify or centralise our
'economic' decision making
10 Create New Social Relations
1 TO ANSWER THE second problem first, we
must first of all understand how these relations
are expressed at the moment in capitalist
society, and this is in the peculiar form of the
exchange on a market of 'values'. Now crudely
[very crudely] the value [or price] of
commodities is mostly directly related to the
labour time used to produce them. Labour time
therefore determines the entire social
organisation of production and distribution.
Capitalism as a social system has taken this
principle which is valid for all societies
throughout history, to an extreme level by
creating a class of people who only have their
[life] time to sell and who are entirely dependent
on this hidden relationship which is expressed
in the form of wages. We now live in a society
where all labour is now COMPLETELY
SOCIALISED [that is nobody can live
independent of the world market] in spite of
understandable attempts by some groups in
society to escape or evade the consequences
of this fact.
2 The upside of this relationship is that it has [at
enormous social cost] created an immense
productive capacity in the economy. So much
so in fact that it is now perfectly possible to
modify / destroy that wage labour relationship
altogether. [This is what we mean when we say
communism is objectively possible now even if
it is not felt as a necessity yet by the mass of
the population.]
3 The only way time can become 'free' is by
making the products of that time free as well.
The products of our work can all be compared
with one another in terms of the time taken or
spent producing them. So now we can, if we
choose, suppress prices, markets and so on
and make distribution of all products 'free' in
exchange for the 'time' of the producers.
ONLY THE 'FREE AND EQUAL'
PRODUCERS THEMSELVES CAN
ORGANISE THIS.
4 This can become the organising principle of
our new society. Time for the citizen of a new
society need no longer be divided as it is now
into 'free time' where he / she is free to do as he
/ she likes [always provided that they have the
wherewithal] and compulsory time at the
service of a boss or some impersonal capitalist
institution [state or private].
5 IT FOLLOWS FROM this that there can be no
role for money or other forms of exchange.
Money, commodity production, exchange of
values are all forms of an economy based on
private ownership [and it should be noted here
that state ownership IS private ownership from
the point of view of the worker.] One of the
things that we think a communist economy will
do, because all production is socialised and is
therefore the collective property of society - is
be able to calculate the real or true costs of
production by the use of a unit which is
universal and flows directly from the productive
process itself - and that is average social labour
time.
6 Money by contrast is only indirectly a
measure of cost and it certainly cannot be used
as a unit of distribution for individual
consumption. Only when the producers
themselves know the true costs of production
can they take control of or manage the
production process
11 A Society Based on Labour Time
1 ALL TIME CAN become 'free time' which is
now both idle time and time for any higher
[including socially productive] activity. In other
words it is now possible for the working class to
ABOLISH ITSELF as a class and at the same
time production itself can be freed from the
fetters that capitalist society has put upon it .
Already we are way beyond 'forms' of
management [which in any case is as we have
already said increasingly superfluous.]
2 We must now turn to elaborating what
necessary 'laws of motion' or rules such a new
society might have. [We will come back to our
first question about what institutional forms the
workers need to create later.] We must show
what is still determined by necessity and is
therefore a permanent feature of what we here
have called communist society, and what is
merely historically determined, and can
therefore be done away with.
3 We have already theoretically shown the
possibility of the working class creating a new
form of society - a society in which 'free time'
can become the right of all and not simply that
of privileged minority. And we have set
ourselves the longer term task of demonstrating
the 'economic' dynamics of such a society.
Before however we can do that we have to be
able to show practically how we can achieve
the transition from one society to the other.
Very largely and initially at least this is a
political problem which is very amenable to this
kind of analysis.
12 Creation of New Forms - New Political
Tasks
1 IT IS A MATTER OF history that the working
class has already created the form of its rule
over society in this transition period. We refer of
course to workers councils or soviets [the
Russian word for council]. These are
institutions or organs of workers collective
power based on units of production and
distribution, using binding and mandated
delegates. They have combined all aspects of
power - legislative, executive and judicial - in
the one body and conduct their affairs using
binding and mandated delegates.
2 Given the many changes within the working
class since these institutions first saw the light
of day, we cannot yet say how these organs
might be modified or altered in conformity with
these changes. [To some extent we touched on
this in our discussion of 'post-Fordism' and the
rise of 'social' movements, and it will be
necessary for us to return to this aspect at
some stage.]
3 Now we know that the independent existence
of such institutions was short, and it is not our
purpose here to go into the reasons for this.
The main purpose of such institutions is to act
as a mechanism whereby the will of the working
class can be generalised, centralised and
unified into an assault on the capitalist system
as a whole. This is why we say it is initially a
political problem - a question decided first and
foremost by a clash of forces within society and
crucially for the working class a test of its
consciousness, its will to create a communist
society.
13 Role of Communist or Political Minorities
1 IN THIS REGARD we cannot let the role of
Communist minorities, parties or other kind of
organisation pass without mention. Political
minorities of workers or other social groups will
always arise as people try to confront and
understand the society around them. [The
millenarian and communistic sects in
Cromwell's New Model Army during the English
Civil war were an early example of this
phenomenon.] In this sense arguments for or
against 'the party' are nonsensical - prior to the
experience of Leninism, nobody would have the
questioned the notion of people coming
together to express a common point of view. In
the situation we describe above, it is height of
criminal irresponsibility not to have some
scheme, design or strategy to put before the
workers and their mass organisations. In writing
this we are putting down a marker for the
future, we are part of the process whereby the
working class discovers in its own practice a
way forward for itself.
2 In addition it is IMPOSSIBLE for a political
minority to bring about new social relations on
behalf of or 'in the name' of the mass of the
population by a 'coup d'etat'. Political
organisation for us acts within and as part of an
existing social movement - we do not see
ourselves as separate from or outside of any
particular movement of the working class. That
communists SHOULD organise themselves as
a self conscious minority seems to us self
evident and a necessity.
14 The Process of Socialisation
1 The immediate task of whatever
administration the workers set up in an area
where they manage to defeat state power
include the following :-
ABOLITION IN these areas of wage labour, all
forms of trading, hiring and firing, all forms of
money including the repudiation/cancellation of
all debts public and private, the market
economy, commodity production etc., etc. -
2 Only the 'soviet' power - that is the masses
organising themselves - can guarantee these
as features of communist society. It is the
practical effect of these decisions which roots
the soviet power firmly in the minds of the mass
of the population, that is gives these measures
MATERIAL FORCE.
3 As far as is possible all production should
simply be for use and distribution should be
based on the needs of the population as
expressed in the institutions that the working
class has created - this is what the slogan 'all
power to the workers councils' means.
4 It is a new form of state power based on a
new form of state. [For the moment we cannot
do without a state - but it should always be
remembered, a state is a necessary part of any
society that is still divided into classes. We are
as yet, talking of a society where although
perhaps a majority are represented in these
new institutions, a significant minority - former
capitalists, bureaucrats, and the like still exist.
Integration of these people into society cannot
be a forced affair, it rests purely on the success
and SUPERIORITY of the new relations of
production and on the new society which the
councils are establishing]
5 Note straightaway, that this is already the
lower stage of socialism / communism [the two
are the same].
6 Although some transitional forms may
survive, such as some form of rationing of
goods which the communist economy may
temporarily not be able to supply in full,
production and distribution is emphatically for
need - profit, money and so on are consciously
suppressed.
7 What most clearly separates this transitional
stage from later stages, is simply the need to
see this lower stage as part of a process in
which more and more features of communism
are introduced, as the revolution is extended to
cover more geographical areas of the globe,
and as production and distribution for use can
be extended to all areas of social life.
15 Dictatorship of the Proletariat ?
1 THE OTHER IMPORTANT aspect of this
transitional stage, other than the immediate
creation of the basis of a communist 'economy',
is the recognition of this necessity for the
working class to have a form of state. Marx and
Engels in common with most activists of the
nineteenth century called this state the
'dictatorship of the proletariat'. This has since
led to much confusion, to the extent that it
might be better to do away with the phrase
altogether.
2 Now our idea of this state form can be found
in the central role we ascribe to the councils or
similar bodies created by the working class
themselves that we described above. In our
discussions on the role of the trade unions and
other institutions that the workers have created
in their struggle with capital, we have neglected
to look at the kind of organisation which the
working class needs and is obliged to create in
this struggle. Time and again we have seen
how workers in struggle have been forced to
create institutions which combine both a mass
accountability and have a capacity for
centralised and unified action. Here we have
the institutions of a new society in embryo
. This
is why the working class is the revolutionary
class. All functions executive, legislative and
judicial are combined in the one body.
3 HOWEVER IT would be a mistake to see in
this form a new kind of state. We have stated
before that the new economy is not unified or
centralised through a state. And in any case
given the history of so called 'workers states'
since the notion was first developed it might be
best to clarify what we mean. A 'state' always
means police backed up by other armed forces
to enforce property relations, international
recognition by other states, stable frontiers, a
network of ideological institutions to promote
the cult of a leader or a new ideology.
4 What the workers need by contrast is an
organisation that has no stable borders, no
permanent organisation at all in fact - since it is
bound to disappear.
5 In this sense we have gone beyond and
surpassed 'bourgeois' forms of 'democracy'
where an atomised mass surrenders its power
to 'representatives' who because they are
subject to party machines and other influences
of a 'commodity form' of economy, are therefore
removed from the control of this atomised mass
of constituents.
6 Nobody except professional politicians and
manipulators takes this form of democracy
seriously.
7 Today; although the mass of the population is
cynical of such ideas as 'democracy'; mostly
because of the weight of the counter
revolutionary history of the Russian Revolution,
a revolution that so obviously 'failed', they find it
difficult to go beyond this cynicism and develop
a new conception along the lines we suggest.
Much of this confusion was illustrated when that
symbol of the old world, the Berlin Wall came
down in 1989. Only in the middle of class
struggle when workers emerge as a collective,
independent force is it possible for such
conceptions to take root and become a material
force in their own right.
16 A New Society
1 IF WE INSIST as we do on all power being
transferred to these institutions, then whilst it is
true we still have a state power, an authority
which may upset those of an Anarchist
persuasion - it is nevertheless the power of the
immense majority. Those who are excluded can
at any time take their place in such institutions
provided they accept the reality of soviet or
council power and the new relations being
established. It is a new form of power based on
new property relations and it is a state in
transition to a non state. In so far as the
councils succeed in establishing their rule over
a significant part of the world economy, and in
so far as the threat of capitalist restoration
recedes, then so does the power of the state
'wither away' - then we can move on to the
'mere administration of things'.
17 'Economics' of Communist Society
1 Our next task must be to show how this new
economy the soviets / councils are creating
might work and therefore how we may move
from the lower to the higher stages of
communism.
2 THIS IS THE FINAL section of this dialogue
or 'chautauqua' where we set out to explore the
dynamics of a communist society or at least a
society in transition to communism.
3 We have seen that the creation of a new
society is a largely a political act. Political
because it relies heavily on the mass
consciousness of the working class and on their
creation of institutions appropriate to their rule
over society. We also saw that on no account
should such institutions wait until such time as
they have control over an entire economy. [Nor
should they wait until there is a 'majority' of
votes for such a course of action - the working
class has no need for such 'democratic'
scruples]. Instead we argued that these
institutions should begin immediately to
SUPPRESS capitalist categories such as
money, wage labour, all debts, rent, interest,
etc. and begin production for need, with
distribution based also on need as expressed
through these institutions.
4 Whilst initially at least this can be done on the
basis of the existing productive apparatus and
existing technology, which is why we say
communism is objectively possible now, soon
the workers administration will be obliged to
make conscious choices, to begin planning a
new society. At this point what present day
economists call 'opportunity costs' will arise.
5 How do 'costs' manifest themselves in a
society without money, a market and so on ?
We'll answer that in a moment.
Meanwhile back to the 'political' movement.
6 One of the first decisions a workers
administration must take in the area of the
'economy' which it controls is to conduct some
kind of census. This is not just to find out what
the population needs [and to ratify those
'spontaneous' measures of socialisation which
have already occurred such as land and
housing seizures], but also to find out what
resources it has at its disposal and what needs
it cannot satisfy from its 'own' resources. From
this exercise can be calculated [in hours of
socially necessary labour] what is needed to
maintain the population at its existing level of
consumption [or better]. The other main
decision for the workers movement is on the
length of the average working day/week. Here
we would argue that it be CUT BY AT LEAST
50% to take effect immediately. In addition to
workers released from 'socially unproductive'
tasks, for instance much of local authority
administration, or most 'shop work', plus the
reabsorbtion of the unemployed, our main
argument for this step is to increase the amount
of 'free time' at the workers disposal which will
allow them to take part in the extension of the
revolution, especially in those 'social' areas
perhaps as yet untouched by the new economy
- such as education, health, 'domestic' life,
consumption, leisure and so on. With the
fundamental change assured in production
relations we can only begin to speculate what
changes might come about in these areas.
However these are for the citizens of the new
society to work out for themselves. [In addition
although society as a whole may need to
calculate its requirements in hours of socially
necessary labour, we do not advocate workers
being 'paid' in vouchers or labour time
certificates. All consumption is 'free'.]
7 At a stroke therefore we can accomplish two
things : -
1] Reintegration of previously marginalised or
'unproductive' layers of the population into
productive activity and the political process, via
'work' based institutions.
2] Participation, because they are freed from
their present level of 'productive activity', of the
mass of the population in the decision making
process in these institutions which enables
them to extend the revolution.
17 Extend the Revolution or Die{bold}
1 THESE TWO POINTS are vital, for they
guarantee the mass basis of the new society,
and thereby lessen the likelihood of success for
attempted counter revolution.
2 Those outside of this process - bosses,
bureaucrats, police and so on - have no social
role, no point round which they can focus. They
may have political representation or 'rights' only
in so far as they accept the new social reality.
For the mass of the population, their continued
participation in the revolution and its extension,
their management of the new economy, is the
only guarantee that the old world will not return.
3 Now we can return to the question of the
dynamics of a communist 'economy'. The actual
running of the economy is not the task of
technical specialists - unlike in Russia in 1917
we have no need for former capitalists and
technical experts to 'run' the productive
apparatus for us. This is something the working
class has actually been doing since it came into
existence, Our rulers have trained us, educated
us and socialised into running their system, it is
the capitalists and their managers who are
surplus to requirements, as even now they are
finding out.
4 Decisions on 'investments' or finding out how
much a certain production process 'costs' are
now transparent and capable of being
calculated and decided on by anyone.
5 All costs are expressed in socially necessary
labour hours - the total requirements for society
both in terms of consumption and investment
can be calculated and alternatives decided on
by simple voting in the councils. 'Enterprises'
can be expanded or shut down in response to
needs as directly expressed.
[ For a much fuller discussion of this aspect -
readers should obtain copies of the texts
mentioned in Section 7 paragraph 6]
6 As these needs are expressed in the
councils, the means to meet them, the
technological choices that are made can be
made to reflect the new society. We have seen
in our discussions that technology and its
application to the productive process and social
life is not neutral, but determined by the class
struggle and the capitalist need to control the
working class. Only with the mass of the
population finally in charge can real choices be
made about technology. [Ecologists and other
'green' politicians take note].
7 Almost certainly therefore after this 'breathing
space' to take stock, we will find not 'socialist
construction' or any other drivel of this type, but
more probably a SHUTTING DOWN OF
WHOLE AREAS of the old economy which are
not socially productive in any sense.
18 Conclusions
So now let us sum up
1 It should be clear that there is no 'economics'
of a communist society - although we have
talked of a communist 'economy', this is simply
to distinguish it from a capitalist one. There are
no 'objective' laws of economics to which the
future citizens of a communist society must
submit. 'Economic' decisions are not taken
'behind the backs' of the producers themselves.
This is what we mean by decisions becoming
'transparent' - nothing is decided in advance.
There is no role for 'economic' specialists of any
sort. We can finally talk of the abolition of the
'dismal science'.
2 But . . . . there's always a but. Communist
society just like any other society in history
cannot abolish necessity - that is that minimum
level of productive activity necessary to
reproduce society. To that extent some form of
'work' is still a requirement for the majority of
the population. In so far as capital itself has
abolished boring and repetitive production tasks
with the introduction of machinery [only to
reintroduce this form of 'work' in the so called
'service' sector] 'work' can now become
meaningful and purposeful activity, an intrinsic
part of life rather than an obligation upon it.
3 Also, communist society cannot do without
calculation - that is the four laws of arithmetic.
There will always be the need for society to
calculate beforehand how much labour time,
means of production, means of subsistence it
can invest in a project which may not yield any
of these for some time, nor produce any useful
effect on other areas of the economy. In
capitalist society this is achieved, if it is
achieved at all, blindly, with much waste, with
all the participants subject to the laws of the
market. [For a modern example look at the
financing of the Channel Tunnel]
4 In communist society by contrast such
projects are conscious decisions of society, to
which only natural disasters can have an
adverse effect. Communist society can do this
because the producers themselves decide how
much of their and society's labour time they are
putting in - and this decision can become the
basis for thousands of others throughout
society.
So that's it then ?
Well actually no.
5 We are very conscious that in our attempt to
cover 'all the bases', it may seem that we have
missed or not adequately dealt with an issue or
maybe made a loose formulation here or there.
So be it. For instance we have hardly touched
on the more 'social' aspects of new society, but
that was not the task we set ourselves. It is
more important that the general thrust of our
argument is taken up, than the details be
correct in every particular. Real movements
have ways of sorting out these theoretical
deficiencies one way or the other.
6 In any case we could probably have written
much more, but the bones of an answer to the
question we posed at the beginning should now
be in place.
7 We asked the question which the Russian
and German workers couldn't answer in 1917 -
23 and which has hardly had a chance to be
realistically posed by a mass movement since.
19 - How do the working class socialise the
economy ?
1 This is the highest task any workers
movement can set itself. It is at the same time
the MINIMUM on which it can insist. Everything
else is illusion. Only when a mass movement
begins to seek practical answers to this
question will any real change be achieved. It
should be obvious from the foregoing that no
ready made plan exists in some politicians
pocket or in the programme of any political
party, and that no Government however 'radical'
can even begin to substitute itself for the mass
activity of the working class itself.
'The Emancipation of the Working Class is
the Task of the Working Class Itself.'
2 If you find yourself agreeing / disagreeing with
the foregoing, don't keep it to yourself. GET IN
TOUCH. Above all don't think you are the only
one thinking along the lines we have indicated.
The more we can encourage debate on these
issues, the quicker the ideas can be turned into
reality.
Copywright: This essay may be freely
reproduced by any tendency, grouping or
individual genuinely seeking the emancipation
of the working class from capitalism.
Copywright merely prevents it being poached
by capitalists and their friends and we know
who they are. Where any material is reprinted
or quoted we would very much appreciate it if
you would also say where it is taken from and
quote the address below. Thanks.
DG MAY 1995
PO Box 37
Liverpool
L36 9FZ
Merseyside
UK
e-mail<graemi2006@rmplc.uk>
15 Pages A4 - Words 9700 -