Return-Path: Delivered-To: andy@mira.net From: JulioHuato Date: Sat, 13 Dec 1997 16:59:09 EST To: miballar@leland.Stanford.EDU Cc: andy@mira.net (Andy Blunden), Cemal@magnet.com.tr (Mustafa Cemal), ysw@mail2.quiknet.com (Yale Wishnik), ktlau127@netvigator.com (lau kam to), annette.schlemm@t-online.de, mclemee@igc.apc.org (Scott McLemee), h.weslaty@lancaster.ac.uk (Hager Westaly), hmeng@athena.valpo.edu (Hao Yu Meng), universe@palmera.colimanet.com (Rafael Francisco), steve@kiwi.gen.nz (Steven Taylor), ozgurn@netas.com.tr (Ozgur Narin), regionx@netconnect.com.au, TSIAMBAS@aol.com (Nectarios), defteri@superonline.com (Iskender Savasir), Hipsterdoofus1@juno.com (Kenneth Ferris), pashton@alphalink.com.au (Paul), hipsterdoofus1@juno.com (Kenneth Ferris), DennisNFD@aol.com (Dennis Dixon) Subject: Re: economic theory (3) Organization: AOL (http://www.aol.com) TO CC LIST: I've been assuming that everyone in the list is interested in this discussion. One person has already asked me to remove him from the list, which I did. Please feel free do the same at your convenience. **** I agree with Mike that socialism, to deserve the name, would have to exclude the capitalist relation (wage slavery). Additionally, "wage," or however we call it, would be a way to control what is given and taken so that there's no overdraft in the social account. People in a future society may come up with a better formula to keep this control. "If we're really talking about the workers making the revolution themselves and not just about some self-appointed vanguard seizing the State and then guiding the proles to the classless society, we're assuming a level of sophistication which exceeds that of today's wage-slave. After organizing themselves as a class to do away with capitalism, workers may not be in any mood to hear about how they must mature further before enjoying the fruits of their labor. We have an old saying in the Wobblies, "Labor is entitled to all it creates". If workers make a revolution thinking like that, they're probably going to be mature enough, in a grassroots democracy, to restrain wackos who demand 5 cases of spaghetti when on package will do." I can see the possibility of having a highly "sophisticated" proletariat taking political power. Indeed, workers would need to change dramatically in order to become fit to take political power. That's why day-to-day class struggle is so important. It'll be no little sophistication. They would need to develop a lot of collective confidence, organizational habits, and political skill, grow in many senses, increase what has been referred to as their "class consciousness" to assault power. But whether such sophistication would be enough to do away with a "self-appointed vanguard" is something that I honestly doubt. I don't think this has to do with their mood. I think we should expect that workers who take political power will demand to see (and feel) a significant improvement in their standard of living and ability to control social life. All that will go along with a growing sophistication as consumers. Their needs will expand. The problem is that the productive apparatus (including the producers as the conductors of such apparatus) will lack the "maturity" necessary to keep up with those demands. That contradiction between workers as consumers and workers as producers will accompany the process for quite a while. I don't think the US, Europe, or Japan will be the exception, because that's where workers are most likely to expect (and demand) more from the apparatus. Whereas some sectors of the "middle class" may be interested in a "simplified lifestyle" (a trend that I don't condemn), it seems to me that workers would be rather pushing for a more "dignified lifestyle," which, in practice, will mean more consumption. It seems to me that the organization of workers as a class is a long process that traverses (a) class struggle within capitalism/preparation to take political power, (b) political revolution/taking and consolidating the workers state, (c) transition/the workers state focused on building socialism, and (d) socialism/building communism. The process will only end with the arrival of communism which would coincide with the fading away of all class relations. Meanwhile, internal differentiation among the producers will not disappear, which is, yes, full of risks. I expect that once capitalist and commodity production is left behind and the level of productivity and culture among producers grows and evens out at an international scale, the risks posed by such internal differentiation will diminish considerably. Still workers will want to go for full communism. Obviously, the further you are from communism, the sharper the labor division between producers, and the more a "self- appointed" vanguard is required. In any event, the workers will always have some degrees of freedom to select which self-appointed vanguard they wish to follow. The conquest of political power will need to be carried out by a highly differentiated mass of producers or ... be postponed until the conditions that are specific to communism (self-direction of the whole working class) spontaneously appear within capitalism. Again, some level of self-direction among workers will be necessary and will be gained before conquering the political power, but the conditions to do away with a "self-appointed vanguard" are very unlikely to appear by then. Capitalism, as it drives productivity, increases the socialization of production and, with it, provides material conditions for collective action and organization. But only that. Even if we ignore the counter-tendencies (that atomize workers), this is far from abolishing sharp social differences among producers. Political action within capitalism should do something to increase the awareness of workers about their conditions, but by itself, such action will not change these social conditions. And it is the social conditions (labor division, competition among workers, "diversity," etc.) which determine their differentiation. Now, how will a highly differentiated working mass ("the actually existing workers") be able to take political power and prepare for a transition process without a leadership? I don't deny the danger posed by a "self-appointed" vanguard. It may crystalize in a hated new oppression over the workers. The history of the USSR is still fresh and the reality of "actual socialism" is evident. But all the same, a vanguard carries with it the possibility of assisting the process by which the individual producers may assume unmediated control over the social life. It depends on how conditions, circumstances, and the effectiveness of leadership and workers play their respective parts. Workers will need to build in their organization checks and balances to limit the risks (and a proper digestion of the historical experience will help much), but there is no safe vaccine against these risks. "History" will not stop playing cruel pranks to the workers' movement. And I'm afraid that, in practical terms, waiting for workers to become so sophisticated that a leadership becomes unnecessary amounts to postponing socialism to an indefinite future. I understand this is a very old and contentious issue. I am very interested in discussing it and grasping its implications. "Since we have agreed that a socialist society would be classless, I don't think that we can talk about having a State, a government maybe, an administration of things maybe; but not a State. Again here, Julio, you may be referring to the notion of the "dictatatorship of the proletariat", where the State does exist, as well as classes ruled by the proles or even an association of proles and peasants (not a Party ruling in their name)." Exactly. I think Mike is absolutely right here. The last paragraphs of the note he refers to are concerned with the transition, not with socialism proper. I said it, but I should have been even more explicit. Now, in my second note I share concerns about why I think a transition would also be necessary in the US. That, of course, is connected to my view that workers -- enlightened and radicalized, but not fundamentally different from today's workers -- will be the ones to assault political power. Julio PS: Hey Mike, what's "IMO"? :)