Re: Socialism Betrayed/4 - value and the industrial system
Waistline2 wrote: Socialism Betrayed by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny contains an underlying theory grid that evolved from the evolution of the Communist Party USA . . . in my opinion . . . and limited to the industrial phase of development. I read SB as well and also consider it worth reading, but was less impressed. I was disappointed that the book almost solely focuses on inner-party conflict and, contrary to what one might expect from an historian like Roger Keeran, it presents a socialist version of the great man history (if that is possible) we were supposed to have rejected from bourgeois historians. Their conclusion: one man, specifically Mickail G. is responsible for the collapse of the USSR, and along the way competing personalities representing two trends in the CPSU fought over the direction of development. Where is the working class? Also, questions such as why a second economy necessarily arose out of the planned economy aren't really addressed except as they relate to the history of the personalities that dominate the book? Why would workers and the mass of the population turn to the SE? Why would they need to? What does this say about how the USSR was developing socialism? Does it have anything to say about planning itself? Also, I have to say I didn't think the unqualified (or at the most very underqualified) defenses of Stalin were just way too much to handle. Likewise the attacks on those in the Soviet party that criticized Stalin by the authors of this book (and by implication everyone else), calling them social democrats or being aligned with imperialists etc., was unconvincing. Also, (another also) the authors handling of the question of democracy seemed out of another era altogether. The book does contain a lot of useful information, I think, about the Soviet economy and some Party-related history. I'd give it 2 and 1/2 red stars. Joel Wendland _ Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE! http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
Re: Socialism Betrayed/4 - value and the industrial system
The intention was to do perhaps two more pieces on "Socialism Betrayed" focusing on the Epilogue. In my opinion how one assess Soviet socialism and its overthrow pushes the boundary of how the past generation of communist workers and Marxist understood the law of value, its operations and the context called the industrial mode of production - with the property relations within. The question of the second economy or the black market as an attribute of the industrial mode of production is important because one cannot liquidate the act of exchange - outside the bound of legality, under conditions of relative scarcity and industrial bureaucracy. For instance the pipes under the kitchen stink leaks and one sign up for repair and goes on the waiting list. A waiting list exits in the first place as a manifestation of shortage of plumbers or plumbers being deployed for more important work in the national economy. I happen to know Ivan the plumber next door and we go back twenty years and he does things for me and I do things for him to shortcut the system. These simple and not so simple acts of exchange of labor cannot be outlawed and becomes a vortex drawing people into the value relationship because acts of exchange of labor under these conditions must reach a certain equilibrium or you deny the labor input to your family. People turn to the second economy (SE) for the same reason they do it in America . . . and everywhere else on earth, today . . . to increase consumption and gain access to greater services. Yes, this is simplistic but far to often true in real life. The point is that the industrial mode of production is advanced productive forces looking through the prism of history and primitive looking through the prism of a vision of the future . . . on hundred years of development of computers, digitalized production processes and advance robotics. "Socialism Betrayed" assembles all the pieces of the puzzle and I do not object to their treatment of leaders as manifestation of classes, class fragments and policy. How the puzzle is assembled is what challenges everyone's ideology and thinking. The authors pose in an easy to read framework every fundamental question in my opinion. I assemble the puzzle differently. The fact of the criticism of Stalin and the actual policy of those putting forth the criticism cannot be dismissed, although Stalin remains the bone in the throat of the communist movement that can neither be swallowed of spit up. The fact of the matter is a policy shift - beginning with Nikita K. on the emphasis of developing heavy or light industry, which determines the rate of reproduction and extensive expansion of the industrial mode of production. This is an issue that may never be solved in our lifetime. Sides were taken and I never took Nikita K. side . . . and have always been firmly within the Stalin polarity concerning the operation of the law of value and why it cannot be abolished under industrial socialism. This question of democracy is not an abstract category depending on ones belief system. To ascertain "where was the working class" one has to dig into the fact of society administration, the culture of the average Soviet citizen, rates of incarceration compared to say . . . bourgeois America today . . . forms of organizations engaging the average citizen . . . scale of trade union organizations . . . actual working of Soviets and cooperative societies . . . vacation time . . . educational levels, etc. How the Soviets developed industrial socialism has no framework of real comparison in the sense that we can speak of how America developed the bourgeois mode of production and compare it with say Germany, England or Japan. Ones ideological bent . . . which in American tends to be utterly bourgeois, needs to be suspended and Soviet society be looked at on the basis of tits own internal development on a hostile mode of production in a hostile world. These are sharp questions that cannot be treated lightly. Why could they not overcome the law of value? Melvin P. Waistline2 wrote:"Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny contains an underlying theory grid that evolved from the evolution of the Communist Party USA . . in my opinion . . . and limited to the industrial phase of development.I read "SB" as well and also consider it worth reading, but was lessimpressed. I was disappointed that the book almost solely focuses oninner-party conflict and, contrary to what one might expect from anhistorian like Roger Keeran, it presents a socialist version of the "greatman" history (if that is possible) we were supposed to have rejected from bourgeois historians. Their conclusion: one man, specifically Mickail G. is responsible for the collapse of the USSR, and along the way competing personalities representing two trends in the CPSU fought over the direction of
Re: Socialism Betrayed/4 - value and the industrial system
Is there no way to get to communist society more directly from relative scarcity, as might be the case in the wake of war or "natural" disaster? A dogmatic economic-determinist interpretation of Marx suggests not, but I think that's too narrow, at least in the present and likely future circumstances: communism could be a political necessity for survival not a luxury we can afford thanks to material development of the forces of production, much as that would be appreciated. many more comments to make on your critique of KK on "socialism betrayed" but just passed through some fever dreams (might have been my brush with West Nile) and have a lot of work to catch up on keep on pushin' d Reply Keep on Pushin . . . Can't stop now . . . move a little higher! I do hope you feel better "D" and recover quickly. "Socialism Betrayed" by Roger Keeran and Thomas Kenny covers a lot of ground. I enjoyed this book because it consolidates a lot of events and key figures in Soviet history in an easy to read format . . . without being to "ideologically thick." It is true that I come from a different body of politics and theory development and gained some real world experience as a machinist/job setter. All industrial machinery operating on the basis of electromechanical processes run in the same direction or operate on the same universal principles in every country on earth. And all of them have the same red, white, yellow and green buttons that governs the transfer process and cutting, machining and stamping. The new technology is different and I remember the first advanced robot places at our plant (which is not advance by today's technology). We called the robot "Henry" and he was a sight to see. "Henry" was not accurate but had "vision" . . . and his real problem was that he was built by a company using old technology and Chrysler would have done better going to Japan, where the extensive and intensive development of their heavy industry and robotics producers took place on a different curve of development than the incremental industrial development in America. Being a union guy . . . I had no interest in eliminating jobs and gave less than a fu*k about the companies rate of profits . . . to a degree. I was not going to cut off my nose in arguing with my face. The bond between labor and capital that is the basis of the industrial system ties the worker to capital by a million threads. No one can magically leap outside this relationship and become a super revolutionary. It is not possible. Not being able to leap outside the structures of a society that form the two basic social classes as the economic logic and driving impulses of a system of production is a theory proposition. The workers are not going to one day "wake up" and overthrow capital because they can compel capital - through the bond that binds them together, to meet their basic needs . . . even while ever greater section of labor are ousted from the production process as meaningful employedlabor. It ain't happened and aint going to happen because it can't. The two basic classes of a social system are never free to overthrow the system of production they composed and it has never happened in human history. Something else must happen for a social system to be overthrown. I have a duty to bring an understanding of extensive and intensive development and evolution . . . in its concreteness, . . . to bear on this subject. Perhaps that is my purpose. This is not your "father's Marxism." "Socialism Betrayed" contains an economic approach that attempts to unravel the economic essence of Soviet socialism and how various leaders fought over direction. Keeran and Kenny traces the inner party struggle over economic policy and pinpoints Nikolai Bukharin as representing what would later emerge as the policy of Khrushchev and subsequent Soviet party leaders. Several real theory problems emerge in any discussion over the economic basis of communist society. These theory problems are legitimate in as much as Marx's clearest statement concerning the economic basis of communism is perhaps contained in his Critique of the Gotha Program. By communist society I specifically mean a society that has completed . . . completed . . . the transition Marx calls "between capitalism and communism." In this sense my basic proposition is that one cannot leap to communist society on the basis of an industrial mode of production. From this point of view my proposition can be called economic determinists or techno-communist. I do not object to these labels because history is the supreme arbiter of theoretical disputes . . . And it is understood that I am putting forth a radically different conception of communist experience and viewpoint based on American history and personal experience. What has been called the communist movement for the past 150 years has not really been an economic movement of
