R Ashlar’s most recent letter complains that I am unfair in saying that the simple identification of planning with socialism opens the door to social democracy and essentially capitalist “mixed economies,” and that it opens the door to the naive reformist and trade union argument that raising wages can prevent economic crisis. But in fact, Ashlar sees the ROLE of planning under socialism in a very limited, narrow and frankly non-revolutionary way: as simply a way of achieving the balances (using outputs, data and price controls) that will maximize and accelerate the production of consumer goods.
He doesn’t see the command over production by the oppressed through the dictatorship of the proletariat as a means of leading the ONGOING transformation of society. For instance, when I mention the need for planning to ensure the military survival of socialism, of bringing industry into areas that capitalist “logic” would abandon, of creating new means of reducing inherited class distinctions, etc., he says in so many words “Oh I’m for socialism, and it is unfair to suggest I’m not.”
But then (reading closely) his usage of “socialism” suggests that he views the word rather differently from communists. Socialism is a transition period. And we use the heights of power as a powerful instrument of that transition to global, classless communist society. And, I don’t think I’m unfair in thinking that he doesn’t seem to understand, or respond to, that point, which was the main point of my letters both to him and Vasiliy Pikhorovich.
And what does it mean to NOT put those tasks prominent in an understanding of planning? And Mao’s ten major relationships are a wonderful example of this. And it is also contained in the Maoist critique of “goulash communism” — where there is lots of talk about the “rights” of the people (rights to food, to education, to a job, to security, etc.) but somehow the most important right (the right to rule and transform society) is forgotten. This is in the Critique of Soviet Economics (which was also by Mao).
And what does it mean for the formerly oppressed to wield power over the economy? For some, that simply means “Gimme!”, as if the interest of the masses of people is simply more consumer goods.
And these two things are related: If the key crime of capitalist economics is that it prevents the people from getting consumer goods (if that produces both poverty AND crisis), then the goal of planned economics is simply to reverse this — to prevent crisis by the same means it ends poverty — by providing more goods at the grassroots. And it is worthwhile to explore what this leaves out of the picture.
For example: U.S. imperialism let Detroit die. And with it the Appalachian coalfields, and steel towns like Johnstown, Pennylvania. It is ruthless and heartless. Just walk through what it means for a whole city of highly trained working people (with homes and lives) being drained of work and investment! This is something that socialist planning would make inconceivable. Or when the monopoly capitalists chose to shift steel production to South Korea or Brazil, those decisions didn’t consider what happens to the tens of thousands of working people producing coking coal for steel production. It just gets shut down. And they…. well, they survive as best they can.
Lenin says “Workers are free as the birds, to go wherever there is corn available.”
This suggests an aspect of planning that isn’t related to balances, prices, or the maximizing of consumer goods. It points to a whole OTHER TASK of socialist planning. And it relates to my military point. Or the need (in socialist countries) to organize machine production so that the economy creates the level of machinery that will enable collectivization of agriculture.
There is a case of a need for urgent socialist transformation that places REQUIREMENTS on the planned economy. And the need (in this case) is not a narrow consumerist need, but a need from the point of view of the communist road to provide machinery to cooperative and collective agricultural forms.
Here is another example from his essay: Ashlar writes: “While I certainly agree that socialism is much more than just expanding social consumption”. . Okay. that seems fair enough. But then in the next sentence, he says: ” I still consider this to be a critical part of the socialist revolution, especially on the global scale, where some nations, at the expense of others, appropriate the majority of the social product. Redistributing that product is one of the central elements of the global revolution.” So when he moves to describe how planning serves larger goals of socialist revolution, he AGAIN mentions the sphere of distribution of produced goods!
I am talking about changes needed in the direction of production (investment, division of labor, mental/manual, military defense, etc.) But even when Ashlar acknowledges socialist revolution AND internationalism (which is a good thing to acknowledge!) — it is still in the realm of how goods are distributed.
In light of that. There are three aspects to the relations of production in our communist theory: First is the relations of ownership (which includes planning, socialist ownership forms, etc. And it is a place where we are not confined to “juridical” ownership but also raise questions of defacto control by those following a capitalist road.) The second aspect of the relations of production is relations IN production. Meaning: Are these revolutionized socialist production relations AT THE POINT OF PRODUCTION? Or is it indistinguishable from capitalism (with one-man management, punishments, rigid division of labor, etc.) And finally, the third aspect of socialist relations of production are the relations of distribution. (So distribution does matter, its not insignificant). And that has itself many features (narrowing of inequalities, raising up the bottom in society as a strategic goal, making key commodities cheap (housing, transportation, basic foods, education,) to transform the formerly impoverished conditions, etc.) And this realm involves an approach to wages, prices, physical distribution, etc.
And to us, even when we are discussing “relations of distribution” — it isn’t reducible to simply “more stuff to more people.” It also includes distribution policies that serve our long-term goals (again the abolition of the four alls).
In regard to Ashlar’s points about crisis, he writes:
The value of everything on the market must therefore be greater than the value of all existing funds. Examine: sum up all items available for sale (theoretical revenues) and compare to the sum of their costs (existing revenues). This is why it is always harder to sell than it is to buy. This inequality is the fundamental reason for capitalist crises.
In fact, there are communist counterarguments to Ashlar’s positing of the “fundamental reason” for capitalist crisis. An argument we work with poses that each capitalist makes his decisions based on maximizing his own share of surplus value, and by winning in competition with rivals/competitors. And so there is periodic crisis of overproduction, and the horrific contradiction of people starving amid too much plenty amid warehouses packed with unsold and unattainable goods.
In reality, there is no single, established Marxist theory of crisis. Marx described crises during the first century of capitalist expansion which were relatively cyclical crises of competitive capitalism. Once imperialism emerged, once capitalism had decisively transcended national markets and become rooted in empire, once capitalist competition was established as global rivalry of capital blocs, then the appearance of crisis was not the same as in the 1800s. So, the communists (in the 1920s) came up with a theory of General Crisis — i.e. that with WW1 the world system had entered one common, protracted global crisis… from which it might have temporary ups, but which would persist (overall) as a downward trend. And shortly after they articulated this theory, the great depression happened — so that their expectations suddenly seemed prophetic.
However, applying the theory of General Crisis, the communists worldwide said that the world capitalist system had been (temporarily) rescued from depression by the built-ups and destruction of WW2, and (they predicted) would now, in the 1950s, return to the general crisis, and would slide back into the Great Depression. That was an error in political economy and promoted errors of strategic preparation. On the contrary, imperialism went through a decade of recovery — with U.S. imperialism, in particular, riding high, and the Western Europeans plus Japan each recovering from war. In short, the communists of the late 40s did not really have a sense of how Keynesian economic policies plus new investments in production, plus a restructuring of global economics might produce a period without massive depression.
In other words, I don’t think communists have an elaborated theory of crisis to put forward — other than the one that points to the contradictions that produce capitalist crisis in the 1800s. And it seems like crisis in the twentieth century didn’t follow any single pattern or cycle, but proved more unpredictable, more rooted in the outcome of wars, as well as the underlying drives and violent contradictions of capitalist expansion.
Nat Winn
