The
purpose of discussing socialism as a practical alternative is to
help explain just how simple and straightforward the revolutionary
transformation can be. We need to take positive steps to convince our
fellow-workers that the mechanism of the revolution and
administration inside socialism are simply not that important in the
scheme of things: they should present no psychological barrier to
someone becoming a socialist. We
will keep whatever we can of capitalist structures, unless there is a
very good reason for changing it.
We
must distinguish between the democratic structures for getting rid of
capitalism, and those needed for constructing socialism. The
socialist transformation will require to set out to with the intent
to capture political power across the globe. But developing
decision-making for use inside socialism requires a very different
approach. This distinction requires to be very clearly made.
The
first is necessarily global and top-down in essence, using whatever
democratic structures capitalism leaves us with. It needs to be
"one-size fits-all", so that socialism starts with a
relatively level playing field in terms of workers' class
consciousness across the globe (we cannot have workers in one part
of the world looking to workers elsewhere for leadership or
guidance). But this issue has been well-examined in the past by the
party and recent developments in global communications makes it even
less likely that a socialist consciousness will develop in only
certain parts of the planet.
The
structures of decision-making necessary to implement socialism
however are likely to require to be radically different from those
inherited from capitalism. We should not confuse the organisation of
capitalism with the motive of the market system. Certainly there are
some aspects of production, distribution and the structures involved
in capitalism which strongly reflect the market system it supports
(e.g. armies), however we should be wary of throwing the baby
(decision-making structures) out with the bathwater (the market-based
motive for production). A healthier perspective is to continually
emphasise that capitalism is about social relationships: the social
system, the means underpinning capitalism will be fully available to
socialism. Specifically in relation to decision-making inside
socialism, we should be very wary of rejecting the structures or
lines of communication left by capitalism. Sure, the internal
structures of many organisations reflect their origin, but the
decision-making processes inherited should surely be our first
concern. It is a failing of some anarchist thought to fetishise the
organisation or hierarchy, as being inherently oppresive or
undemocratic. Rather than re-inventing the wheel or developing new
decision-making structures separate to and different from those of
capitalism, we should by default use the existing systems, unless an
alternative is clearly better. When I drive on the A1
road
I am following a route first made by Roman armies 2000 years ago: it
doesn't however mean I necessarily approve of Rome's imperialist
expansion.
Similarly
we should view capitalism's decision-making structures as a social
tool developed by humans and currently used to smooth the operation
of capitalism. In the hands of a socialist majority, a switch will be
flicked in this machine, and - with a little tweaking here and there
- it will be available to help enable socialism. Socialism will not
mean more meetings, committees etc: it will be a simpler version of
production and decision-making than inside capitalism. If we don't
present these arguments, by default it tends to be assumed that we
are proposing some sort of unattractive continual global referendum.
In
many ways the Socialist Party
emphasise
the use a socialist majority may make of existing capitalist
structures. Specific organisations are well-identified (eg UN WHO,
ILO etc)
Capitalism has four main decision-making systems of interest to
socialists:
A.
Firstly there is traditional local democracy, such as local parish,
district or regional councils. In these, decisions are primarily made
by and with regard to the interests of, a local community, defined
geographically. Decisions can have a non-quantitative, non-monetary
basis (eg visual impact of a new factory; safety concerns regarding a
new by-pass)
B.
Secondly there is National and Supra-national democratic structures,
such as governments, the European Union, and the UN. At these levels,
decisions are made with little impact on any particular locality and
tend to be monetary-based. This is the level that various sectors of
the capitalist class argue over how surplus value should best be
apportioned and spent (taxation, wage levels, training and
productivity investment, trade and tariff barriers etc). It is
understandable that inside capitalism there will be a tendency to try
and make these decisions at the highest level possible, where voters
have less interest and less clout. Few people are interested (for
example) in UK recycling and waste disposal options, but when a
company wants to put an incinerator upwind, the village hall is
packed out. Fortunately for the capitalist class, they don't need to
come to your village hall and present the reasons why a certain level
of unemployment should be accepted in the village. I would argue that
while we can take some of capitalism's democratic leftovers, we
should do so critically, and not blindly mimic the "levels"
of decision-making that capitalism provides us with, nor
over-emphasise the importance of the "upper" non-local
levels of decision-making. I suspect that the more this issue is
examined, the more apparent it will become that decision-making
inside socialism will involve a huge shift from the global to the
regional, and from the regional to the local.
C.
Thirdly, there is decision-making within
the workplace. Primarily this is regarding how
production is organised. This has always been an area of interest to
the left-wing, but strikes me as being of little interest now. "Can
the workers run industry ?" is an old question that the left
(via nationalisation) and the Party have addressed. It appears an
outdated question now, one that few people actually ask. The
workplace (particularly industrial ones) was the battleground in the
60s and 70s, as various left-wing strands of thought sought to
fetishise the worker and the "point of production", and
infiltrate trade unions for recruitment purposes. Instead we would
argue that capitalism is a social relationship, that workers
experience the class struggle in the many different ways, and that
the workplace is not necessarily where workers' consciousness can be
changed. That no-one really asks the question "can workers run
industry ?" anymore, is to me, a measure of the extent to which
capitalism has - on the one hand - managed to control workers outside
of the workplace through consumerism, and - on the other hand -
within the workplace has had to empower workers.
Capitalism
does not fit with human beings too easily. As work (at least in the
north/west) shifts from banging metal to using a mouse, capitalism
needs workers to be able to use their brains, make decisions and take
responsibility. This requirement cannot be turned on and off to suit
the capitalist, so workplaces are increasingly being organised on a
less hierarchical basis, with "quality circles" and upward
appraisals (you appraise your manager), and providing control over
when and how you work. In some sectors, employers are falling over
themselves to offer flexible working with flat management structures
ina "fun" workplace environment of cafes and pool tables:
workers are responding less and less to simple increased salaries.
Little wonder that less doubt is now expressed that workers can
actually run industry - it is more apparent than ever before that
they already do so.
D.
The final decision-making arena is one that is not discussed in the
1985 report, but one which is - in my view - the most important. Most
decisions regarding production and distribution are made inside
capitalism by companies, firms, etc. Not so much with regard to the
qualitative aspects of how a process is undertaken (that is discussed
at 'C' above), but rather the simple quantitative issues of how much
should be produced.
Of
course, inside capitalism this simple issue is massively complicated
by the fact that the raw materials coming into your factory, and the
product being shipped out, will change in price by the second due to
market, and (if you export/import) currency fluctuations, as hundreds
of different and anarchic "business cycles" interact.
Nevertheless
it should be recognised that the structure of
supplier(s)-producer-customer(s) when multiplied up across the
economy represents easily the most important decision-making system.
(For example, the UN meets once every ten years to discuss
Sustainable Development and your local council may employ one officer
to address the subject. Yet the businesses in your area will make
literally hundreds of decisions every day which will impact on this
one issue).
Socialism
would not seek to replace this decision-making structure. We should
not try and make decisions about production through a separate
local-regional-global democratic structure. We would keep companies
and firms as they are. People would go and work as normal in them
inside socialism. They would look at projections for demand of their
product or service, whether directly from "consumers" or
other firms ("customers"), they would establish production
requirements for the week/month/year, and they would source suppliers
and place orders for the raw materials they in turn will require on
the basis of quality, turnaround and proximity.
If
we put to one side those industries and services which will fall into
total or almost complete disuse inside socialism (e.g. advertising,
marketing, insurance , banking, military etc), the rest of capitalist
production will carry on, if not quite seamlessly, then at least in
much the same way as before. The only differences being how the
factory or firm or office is organised internally (which would be
left to the people themselves to sort out), and the absence of wages
or prices. Companies would switch suppliers, and win or lose
contracts on the basis of the quality and turnaround they can provide
for their product. Resource depletion, transport costs and energy
usage factors of production would start to be taken into account in a
way that capitalism can only talk about. Decision-making would be
devolved to the "consumer". The market system does empower
the individual when it makes him/her a consumer, but only of course,
if they have some money. Socialism would not discard this: the
individual "consumer" in a money-free society will
ultimately make the decisions on production, articulated through
their demand when they take from the common stores of goods,
according to self-defined need.
Many
defenders of "free-market" (if there is such a thing)
capitalism, call it an efficient system. And it is - compared to
centralised state capitalism. Far better to have individuals deciding
what products and how much they want to consume, than some central
committee. The only problem with capitalism of course is that -
expressed through money - some individuals have many more
opportunities to make decisions than others do. While billions have
$1 per day to vote with, Bill Gates and Richard Branson and a few
others have millions of dollars-worth of nice votes to make.
Many
non-socialists (and socialists for that matter) have expressed the
view that socialist production will be a matter of meetings,
referenda, committees etc. I would argue that we should not be
seeking to establish democratic structures to decide and then dictate
production levels throughout the "economy". Millions and
millions of self-organised, self-defined units of production which
occupy specific niches in the global economy, are already in
operation inside capitalism, waiting to be transformed by the missing
element (class-conscious workers) into the means of production and
distribution that will define socialism.
These
production units will not really have any power though - they will be
responding to consumer demand. Do we want to go down the route of
establishing local committees on glass production etc? Instead, the
responsibility will be left to the producers (who are of course also
consumers in their own right it should be remembered).
Where
strategic decisions - rather than ones merely responding to demand -
require to be made, (or there is a significant increase or decrease
in demand) this may require production units in a particular industry
to make decisions among themselves. Again this is not wishful
thinking - this mimics what happens inside capitalism, with industry
trade bodies. However rather than being mouthpieces for the
capitalist class of that sector, they will be making decisions on
behalf of the consumer to try and meet the changing demand
requirements in that locality.
Society
will delegate responsibility then, for glass production, to the
relevant production units (sand quarrying, glass factory, general
distribution networks). There will however be some areas where
society will want to retain ultimate control. Two scenarios where
decision-making regarding production will require "external"
input are discussed here.
Firstly,
perhaps increased demand for glass requirements will require more
workers, or diversion of natural resources from another sector of
industry. This could be achieved by diktat, by means of a council
decision (at local, regional or global levels depending on the
geographical scope of the problem). Alternatively however we should
not forget the chaotic, self-organised decision-making model that is
underpinned by the consumer. This is a highly democratic user-defined
decision-making model that capitalism has claimed for itself but in
fact operates on a distorted basis. Consumers in such a situation
will also be far more free than they are inside capitalism, to make
decisions based on more than just their material needs (e.g. for beer
in a glass bottle) , and will switch to non-glass products if glass
is getting scarce. Inside capitalism the consumer is just that and
nothing else. In socialism though they are also producers in social
production (e.g. factories), they are also producers in another sense
- of waste. Recycling is a sensible measure and (again) one that
capitalism finds extremely difficult to develop to any real extent,
but which will occur where needed inside socialism as the consumer
(informed and involved in society) feeds back decreased consumption
of glass and increased recycling.
The
second scenario where decision-making regarding production cannot
just be left to the producers, is where local issues impact. The
siting of a factory, the construction of a road etc may have positive
impacts for society as a whole, but will have negative ones for those
who have to breathe in traffic fumes or have the visual impact of a
factory. Delineating the plusses and minuses of such developments,
and trying to ensure that the benefits and the disadvantages impact
fairly is a massive problem inside capitalism and it will remain a
problem inside socialism. The way of resolving the issue will be the
same - by means of decision-making at the appropriate level - local
(for those affected by proximity) versus regional/global (for those
affected as consumers). Of course, what causes so much of a ("Nimby")
problem inside capitalism is the emotional attachment placed by
someone on their property, the potential "amenity value"
financial impact (e.g. reduction in value of their house), and the
perception that someone is making money at their expense. While
socialism would avoid or reduce some of these concerns, it is
important to be realistic and recognise that it would not remove them
all.
Brian
Gardner
Glasgow
Branch