On 11/14/20 4:52 PM, michael a. lebowitz wrote:
/_
_/_I drew upon the same quotes in the "Overture" of my Contradictions
of Real Socialism_
COUNTERPUNCH, OCTOBER 3, 2012
The Contradictions of Real Socialism
<https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/the-contradictions-of-real-socialism/>
BYLOUIS PROYECT <https://www.counterpunch.org/author/lp/>
Facebook <https://www.counterpunch.org/#facebook>Twitter
<https://www.counterpunch.org/#twitter>Reddit
<https://www.counterpunch.org/#reddit>Email
<https://www.counterpunch.org/#email><https://www.counterpunch.org/2012/10/03/the-contradictions-of-real-socialism/print/>
Several months ago the Crooked Timber blog held a seminar on Francis
Spufford’s “Red Plenty
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1555976042/counterpunchmaga>”, a
novel that was widely embraced as a kind of postmortem on the USSR. The
title refers to the apparently foolish beliefs of Soviet leaders,
scientists and economists in the 1950s and 60s that “plenty”—in other
words, consumer goods—could be achieved through central planning based
on advanced computing technology.
Using a cast of characters both fictional and real (including
Khrushchev), Spufford tries to capture the heady optimism of the
post-WWII period, when both the USA and the USSR were experiencing rapid
economic growth. In the first chapter, the representative character is
Leonid Vitalevich Kantorovich, a real-life mathematician committed to
introducing scientific methods into Soviet factories, in this instance a
plywood factory to which he was attached:
The management wanted help tuning the orchestra up. To be honest, he
couldn’t quite see what the machines were doing. He had only a vague
idea of how plywood was actually manufactured. It somehow involved
glue and sawdust, that was all he knew. It didn’t matter: for his
purposes, he only needed to think of the machines as abstract
propositions, each one effectively an equation in solid form, and
immediately he read the letter he understood that the Plywood Trust,
in its mathematical innocence, had sent him a classic example of a
system of equations that was impossible to solve. There was a reason
why factories around the world, capitalist or socialist, didn’t have
a handy formula for these situations.
For Spufford, and for the social democrats and liberals who run Crooked
Timber, economics is reduced to machinery and markets. The USSR failed
because the bureaucracy rejected the advice of the mathematicians and
computer scientists but more importantly because it relied on central
planning in defiance of the wisdom of markets. As had supposedly been
proven by Von Mises and Hayek, it was impossible for planning to work
since it could not set prices accurately, nor could it provide
resources—whether human, machine or raw material—to factories in a
timely fashion. Of course, it would be unseemly for self-avowed leftists
to openly pledge allegiance to the Austrian school. Instead they refer
to Soviet and Eastern European economists who after becoming
disillusioned with planning began to push for market solutions using
language that could have been lifted out of a Von Mises or Hayek text,
even though they had the supposed benediction of being a Marxist at some
point in their career. While not quite nearly so bad as David Horowitz’s
Front Page, the “god that failed” theme is fairly pervasive at Crooked
Timber.
Sounding like someone who has joined Marxists Anonymous, John Quiggin, a
member of the Crooked Timber moderation board and the author of the
weak-tea Keynesian “Zombie Economics”, confesses at the start of his
“Red Plenty or socialism without doctrines
<http://crookedtimber.org/2012/06/09/red-plenty-or-socialism-without-doctrines/>”:
“I was once, like most of the characters in the book, a believer in
central planning.
He is much wiser now, advising us: “Hayek and Mises had the better of
the famous socialist calculation debate of the 1920s and 1930s.” In
making his connection between the Austrians and Kornai, Quiggin writes:
In 1956, Kruschev [sic] makes his famous promise of overtaking the
US, and it seems quite credible, but a decade later, all belief in
the promise of plenty has been lost. As the book ends, the
mathematical programmers charged with making the plan work are
pushing the benefits of prices – some at least, like Janos Kornai,
would complete the journey to the free-market right, and advocacy of
the ‘shock therapy’ approach to post-Communist transition.
I doubt that Michael Lebowitz, the author of six books promoting the
socialist alternative to capitalism, would have bothered taking part in
Crooked Timber’s seminar even in the highly unlikely event that they
would have invited someone to an event stacked even more in favor of
bourgeois hegemony than a League of Women’s Voters presidential campaign
debate. But if he had, I am sure that he would have come out on top.
What’s entirely missing from the calculations of Francis Spufford and
his friends at Crooked Timber is the role of working people in whose
name the revolution of October 1917 was made. In the entire cast of
characters of “Red Plenty”, there is not a single coal miner, assembly
line worker, or truck driver. The only reference to working people is
toward the end of the novel
when<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583672567/counterpunchmaga>bureaucrats
fret over food riots that led to the Novocherkassk massacre of 1962. If
I had written about such a clash, I would have been far more interested
in what motivated the workers than how technocrats searched to find a
permanent solution to the unrest.
When Spufford refers to the management wanting help in “tuning the
orchestra up,” I could not help but think of the same metaphor used by
Lebowitz in the title of his latest book “The Contradictions of Real
Socialism: the Conductor and the Conducted
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1583672567/counterpunchmaga>”.
For Spufford, the orchestra is primarily machinery and the factories
organized around them, with the human beings who produce goods and
service mostly an afterthought. For Lebowitz, they come first:
This is what we need to keep clearly in mind when we think about
socialism. Social production organised by workers is a necessary
condition for the full development of the producers; it is not
something to be put off to some future society. “As long as workers
are prevented from developing their capacities by combining thinking
and doing in the workplace, they remain alienated and fragmented
human beings whose enjoyment consists in possessing and consuming
things.” Once we grasp Marx’s insight into revolutionary practice,
the importance of that key link of human development and practice,
we recognise that the process of building socialism must be one of
simultaneously producing new socialist human beings—that is, two
products rather than one.
Return, though, to Marx’s metaphor for the general necessity for a
directing authority where many individuals cooperate—the orchestra
conductor. Think about how that particular conductor enforces the
division of labour of the players (including the separation of
thinking and doing) in order for them to perform the predetermined
score as a harmonious unit; and think about what he
rejects—spontaneous creation, collective interaction among the
players, jazz.
The orchestra performs the music. But what is the joint product in
this process? What development of human capacities occurs in this
social labour process under the direction of the orchestra conductor
as described above? Certainly, this process is far more rewarding
than isolated, individual activity: “When the worker co-operates in
a planned way with others, he strips off the fetters of his
individuality, and develops the capabilities of his species.”
Certainly, too, the members of the orchestra can take pride in their
collective accomplishment.
For Michael Lebowitz, socialism is not just about “efficiency” or GDP or
other conventional economic indicators that are the daily bread of
bourgeois economists and even some socialists. He stresses throughout
all his books the need for overall development of the human being under
socialism, and in particular the “combining of thinking and doing” as
Marx put it. For the disciples of both Von Hayek and his ostensible
adversary John Maynard Keynes, not to speak of the bureaucracy featured
in “Red Plenty”, the worker will always be a “doer”, not a thinker. The
criterion favored by all of them is whether consumer goods get produced
in a cost-effective and timely manner–Spufford’s “plenty” so to speak.
For Lebowitz, automation is no panacea. What the Soviet scientists of
“Red Plenty” failed to realize is that the “information society” model
puts the conductor on top of the orchestra as a supreme authority on
what gets produced and how it gets produced. Those at the bottom are
simply information providers that help planners make decisions. In other
words, the distinction between doers and thinkers remain.
For the vanguard to be able to direct the economy as a single
nation-wide “factory,” it must be certain that all the information it
requires for planning is transmitted accurately from below and
consolidated and that all its decisions on production (sectoral
distribution and growth) be transmitted accurately downward to each unit
of production. And all of this must be done in a timely manner without
the individual players being able to deviate from the score. But this
requires the perfection of the specifically vanguard mode of
production—a computerized, cyber-netic economy, “computopia”!
In short, the development of a single automated system of control is the
condition for the perfection of direction from above of the national
factory. In the fully developed vanguard mode of production, other than
individual consumers whose atomistic decisions are reflected in
inventory movements, only the vanguard has the power to use its
discretion. Only the vanguard can make decisions with respect to the
plan (and that includes a political decision not to follow the effect of
consumer preferences—that is, politics are in command). In short, the
ultimate decisions are made at the top. Once made, the mechanical
orchestra will carry them out—the conductor will have the perfect orchestra
Much of “The Contradictions of Real Socialism” is a close examination of
Janos Kornai’s evolution. Starting out as a market-oriented “reformer”
in Hungary, he finally ended up on the Harvard University faculty in
1986, only to return to his native land in 2002 to become part of the
elite, both as a Central Bank administrator and a professor. He is now
84 and remains committed to free market institutions despite the fact
that Hungary is a basket case like most of Eastern Europe. Under similar
conditions in the 1930s, Kornai joined the Communist Party after reading
Marx’s Capital. It must be assumed that many young Hungarians will be
going through a similar evolution today, but hopefully not by
affiliating with a party that has outlived its usefulness, if it ever
had any.
After leaving Harvard, Kornai took a post at the Central European
University, an institution created by George Soros, a fellow Hungarian
who provided an endowment of $880 million, making it one of the
wealthiest in Europe. In the 1980s Soros lavished gifts on Eastern
European dissidents, at one point supplying 200 Xerox machines. One
imagines that they were greatly appreciated, as well as the conferences
devoted to the benefits of the free market that they were able to attend
at places like Harvard University—airfare and hotel accommodations
compliments of George Soros. Lest anyone conclude that a charge of
bribery is being raised here, I can only state that Mr. Soros would have
been found guilty of nothing but breaking down an open door since most
of these dissidents had converted to one form of bourgeois economics or
another.
The basic problem that Kornai was trying to address when he was still a
functionary in the Communist Party was shortages. This was a problem
that existed throughout the socialist world (such as it was) and
presented a serious challenge to those in charge. It was reflected
across the board, both in labor shortages as well as capital shortages.
The underlying cause was hoarding, deemed necessary by factory managers
who felt it necessary to supply a cushion in order to meet quotas
assigned by central planners.
For Kornai, the power of the manager over both resources and the workers
was a given. Rather than trying to come to grips with an obvious flaw in
the system, he saw the omnipotent factory manager as a key element in
the socialist system.
Kornai’s main explanation for the shortage economy became the expansion
drive centered in individual enterprise managers. In particular, he
emphasized the manager’s “identification” with the job: “on average a
firm’s manager tries to do his job properly.” He “endeavors to secure
subsistence, survival and viability of the unit put in his charge.” He
wants to guarantee a smooth working process. “He wishes to avoid
confusion and disorder. If only for that reason, he strives for the
largest possible security: procurement of more input and larger
reserves.” The manager further wants to “win his superiors’
acknowledgement, avoid their anger, and to fulfill their expectations:
not only their instructions but also their wishes.”
As the crisis of the Hungarian and Soviet economies deepened, the
tendency of people like Kornai was to cede more and more authority to
the manager, eventually coming to the conclusion that the contradictions
of an economy resting on both public and private interests (expressed
fully by the bonus system) could only be resolved by terminating the
public part.
Lebowitz characterizes the Soviet model as resting on “vanguard
relations of production”, a term used by Kornai to describe what
Trotskyists call a bureaucracy and what others might describe as state
capitalism. Despite the ideological differences, there is general
agreement that socialism does not describe the system that prevailed.
It is the hope of Michael Lebowitz and many others on the left that a
21^st century socialism will result in a new kind of society in which
workers are the real rulers and in which the distinction between knowing
and doing will be resolved as rapidly as possible.
One of the main values of Lebowitz’s research project is to reinvigorate
a movement that has been far too reconciled to an interpretation of
Marx’s writings that places little or no emphasis on human development.
To some extent, this is a function of Marx’s emphasis on the worker as
worker, rather than the worker as human being capable of being
transformed into something more than an agency of proletarian
revolution. Lebowitz argues that this dimension found its fullest
expression in Marx’s early writings, the ones often disparaged as
“early” and overly philosophical. I, for one, was always partial to an
early work that contained an observation that I was always sure to put
on my cubicle walls as long as I was a wage slave (I am now retired.)
“…the worker feels himself only when he is not working; when he is
working, he does not feel himself. He is at home when he is not
working, and not at home when he is working.”
—Economic and Philosophical Manuscripts of 1844
<http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/087975446X/counterpunchmaga>
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Groups.io Links: You receive all messages sent to this group.
View/Reply Online (#3517): https://groups.io/g/marxmail/message/3517
Mute This Topic: https://groups.io/mt/78259752/21656
-=-=-
POSTING RULES & NOTES
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
-=-=-
Group Owner: [email protected]
Unsubscribe: https://groups.io/g/marxmail/leave/8674936/1316126222/xyzzy
[[email protected]]
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
