by Waistline2
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? ^^^^^^ CB: Yep, I feel you. However, unfortunately, I am skeptical about industrial society and its bureaucracy going away, going "post". I think one could argue that it is going "super" rather than going "post". The breaking up of the factory concentration based on the revolutions in communication and transportation, and cyberizing machines makes the world's technological regime approach one big industrial factory, which seems more superindustrial than postindustrial to me. I guess some sort of superindustrial bureaucratic element might enter in , even in the Ex-SU. Somebody sitting at a desk on WallStreet can mess with some worker's life in Ex-Leningrad ?
