Planning for Socialism

Capitalism has become an obsolete system that ought to be got rid off. A relatively small minority recognise this and are consciously anti-capitalist, but most continue trying to satisfy their needs within the system rather than by overthrowing it. It is natural that the question of what is the alternative to capitalism should be raised. It is frequently said that there can be no blueprints for the future because the people themselves will decide how to build the new society as they are building it. Too many talk about “revolution” in the abstract, and fail to put any flesh on to the bones of it. And when they do,  people are rightly cynical about the “policies” and “programs” whether “revolutionary” or not. Once bitten, twice shy.

If the revolutionaries do not form a political party that aims to take power from the capitalist regime then the old regime must continue. It will not just disappear in a burst of anarchistic enthusiasm. If the revolutionary party does not propose alternatives that are more desirable and effective than those capitalism, then why should anyone support a revolution? So we need to go beyond denouncing the existing system and start offering constructive options for workers to choose from, even though any such proposals are bound to be more generalisations at this early stage.

Socialism” would NOT have wage labour,  NOR commodity exchange through money. It would be quite possible to abolish these social relations left over from capitalism all at once. Wage- slavery will be eliminated by abolishing the social institutions of wage-slavery themselves, not by regulatory reforms and prohibitions against maltreatment of workers. It is a social revolution as profound as abolishing the ownership of slaves by slave owners.

 Critics of socialism point to the drab, boring existence of the old Eastern European bloc where everything was subject to central planning, everything subjugated to the state-owned enterprises. Socialism does not imply the restricted range of products available in those economically backward so-called socialist countries any more than it implies the lower standard of living, longer working hours or lower cultural levels common in those countries as compared with advanced Western countries. However socialist advocate society planning its production and distribution but are not advocates of THE PLAN.  We seek to co-ordinate the requirements for labour of different occupations and skills in each industry and locality and in each establishment. Far from discouraging new technology, to save jobs, we would facilitate its speediest implementation, to provide leisure. When production is geared to social needs rather than profits, it is quite feasible to cope with increased labour productivity by simply reducing the hours of work which can then become a voluntary activity.

 No matter how much state ownership and “planning” there may be in a market economy, if production and investment decisions are at all regulated by “the market”, they must be subject to market movements. Simply directing state owned enterprises to adhere to a central plan could not work while they were still basically oriented towards a market economy. If the products have to be sold on a market, and there is no market to sell more of that product, then its no good having the government telling a state owned firm to hire more workers. Those workers might just as well be paid unemployment benefits direct - their services are not required.

Many on the Left feel that all problems of control should be resolved by “decentralisation of authority” to permit more room there is for local level units to determine their own affairs. It, however, does not mean that the every problem can be mysteriously avoided by “decentralisation”. Some anarcho-syndicalists seem to imagine that if everybody democratically discusses everything, production units will be able to exchange their products to supply each other’s needs, and to supply consumer goods for the workers, with no more than ’co-ordination” by higher level councils of delegates from the lower level establishments. Actually things are not so simple, and any attempt to realise that vision would only mean preserving market relations between independent enterprises, still not working to a common social plan. The concept of the right to vote at the work-place can not in itself transform bourgeois social relations into co-operative ones. Modern  industry in capitalism  has always been based on capitalist production for profit, and nobody actually has much experience in how to run it any other way. Indeed many people allegedly on the “Left” seem to be unable to conceive of it being run any other way, and dream of somehow going back to a smaller scale of production, for it to be “more human”. On the contrary, it was precisely small scale production that was suitable for capitalism, while the development of huge transnational corporations with a single management for entire sectors of the world economy, proves that the socialisation of production makes private ownership an anachronism. The only experience we have of labour for the common good has been in a few community not-for-profit projects and some co-operatives. Everything else is based on people working for wages under the supervision of bosses to produce commodities for sale on the market. Often voluntary community projects also end up adopting a boss system too, or remain hopelessly inefficient and get entangled in factional disputes that can not be resolved without a clear chain of authority, and in effect, “ownership”. Then they go under and reinforce the idea that capitalist production is the only system that can really work.
The mentality that equates “popular”, “democratic” and “co-operative” with “local” or “community” projects is a  mentality that accepts the necessity of a  ruling class to manage the affairs of society as a whole. We do not just want to create some free space within which slaves can manage some of their own affairs. We want to overthrow the slave owners and abolish slavery altogether. The question of centralisation and decentralisation of enterprise management, is quite separate from the question of abolishing commodity production.

Planning decisions will have to be taken by somebody, whether they are called the workers council, Industrial Union or the factory committee. The communist solution is to dissolve the antagonism between separate enterprises so that each is directly aiming to meet social needs as best it can, rather than responding in its own separate interests, to an external compulsion to do so. Having a factory management (the workers themselves), who are dedicated to meeting social needs, would solve it completely, since they would interpret planning directives from a social viewpoint rather than a narrow one.

How do you decide whether to build a steel mill, or a hospital, or a  power station? Not just by democratically consulting steel workers, or hospital patients, or construction workers, or delegates from all three and others concerned. There must be some definite economic criteria for decision making. It is no good just saying we will build socially useful things like schools and hospitals instead of profitable things like steel mills or power stations. You need steel to build schools and hospitals, and you need electric power to run them. At present the only criterion according to which goods and services are produced and investments are made to produce them, is market profitability. Some public services superficially have different criteria, but the “cost-benefit analysis” they use includes interest on capital as part of the costs, and measures benefit by what would be paid for the service if it was marketable. Government funds can only be invested if the overall social rate of return is sufficient to allow payment of interest on borrowings directly, or by taxes raised from sections of the economy that have benefited indirectly. Despite loud squeals from the “private sector”, no government projects are based on expropriation. It all has to pay for itself on the market, and return interest on the funds borrowed from the private sector. It is a specific function of the capitalist (or state official) to allocate investments. It does this rather blindly, and with colossal waste, but it does do it and whatever is wasted, is often a loss to the particular capitalists concerned, as well as to society as a whole. The capitalist parasites are not even very good at keeping track of their own wealth, as is shown by the various multi-million dollar frauds that have been coming to light. In fact even their investment function is carried out for them by accountants, advisers, brokers etc who receive a share of the spoils, but are not the actual owners of the capital they invest.

Workers and the communities they live in and serve, will communicate with others similar bodies and determine what needs to be done, what tasks requires accomplished and what should receive the priority. Human need rather than capitalist greed. It is not utopian, much of the technology and information exists now, they simply have to be deployed for the common good instead of individual gain.