There is much contention in Marxist theoretical circles about the potential for a revolutionary alliance between the proletariat and the peasantry. Many in the West may be confused about this debate because they believe that there is no such thing as "the Peasantry" anymore. That certainly is the case in all the developed countries of Europe and North America. However, a peasantry of sorts does exist in the developing world.
How can we define people as peasants when feudalism no longer exists? We much shape our answer around how peasantry functioned. In the feudal era, peasants were subsistence farmers who owed a share of their crops to their feudal lord in return for protection and a place to live and farm. Modern peasantry is similar but with a subtle difference. Modern peasants are subsistence farmers who either own their land but the plot is too small to form a profitable commercial operation or, more commonly, who rent their land from a larger landowner in exchange for either money rent or rent in the form of a portion of their crop earnings. This makes modern peasantry virtually the same as medieval peasantry, minus the religiously motivated hierarchy of feudalism.
So, how does the existence of modern peasantry matter to Marxists? The simple conclusion is that these modern peasants make logical allies for the revolutionary proletariat in places where the proletariat is not large. In fact, the Marxist school of Maoism believes that in unindustrialized states only an alliance between the Proletariat and the peasantry can overthrow capitalism. This notion makes sense.
If it makes so much sense then why is there contention between Marxists on this issue? Most of the disagreement stems from the idea that only the proletariat can be revolutionary in character. What does that mean? Basically, it is a tenant of Marxism that the proletariat is oppressed in a special way by Capitalism, namely by being alienated from the fruits of their labor, and that means that only the proletariat can be truly revolutionary. Other groups can join the revolution but they would not be considered fundamentally revolutionary. This assertion makes sense but following it dogmatically can reduce the chances for revolution in underdeveloped areas to nearly zero. This is because in underdeveloped economies the proletariat may form a small majority of the population.
Besides this theoretical disagreement, what other reasons would Marxists have to oppose an alliance with the peasantry? Because the peasantry is not fundamentally revolutionary, the fear is that if they were to be allies in a revolution then they would extort concessions from the proletariat that would not benefit the development of Socialism. One example concerns land reform. Collectivization is the fundamental form of agricultural organization in a Socialist society. Peasants would be vehemently opposed to collectivization and would instead press the proletariat to enact land redistribution. While not inherently counter-revolutionary, this can hold back Socialist development because land redistribution would enable to peasants to become petty bourgeois landowners and allow the continued existence of market economics in agriculture. This is but one of numerous examples.
Despite all of this, it is my belief that the positives outweigh the negatives in many instances regarding the alliance between peasants and the proletariat. This is because in undeveloped economies the only hope for revolution may be in the alliance between workers and peasants. The proletariat must always be careful to maintain the revolutionary character of society but some concession may be necessary to facilitate revolution. However, given the proper path of economic development towards industrialization some concession are not necessarily a bad thing. The uneven development of Capitalism around the world all but necessitates the alliance in some areas because there are likely to always to be places in the world where the peasantry outnumbers the proletariat. Without the alliance of workers and peasants those areas may never see revolution.
Showing posts with label Theory. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Theory. Show all posts
Monday, December 8, 2014
From State Capitalism to Communism
Since I last wrote on the Marxist case in favor of State Capitalism as a transitional stage between Capitalism and Socialism, I have decided to write what I consider to be the logical progression that would follow from the early establishment of State Capitalism in a proletarian democracy through to Communism.
Under State Capitalism in its early stages the State would have to hold absolute control over the direction of the economy. This would likely take the form of some kind of central planning body. This body would set production goals and prioritize distribution of goods and services to different areas. The primary goal of this central body would be the ensure that all people get the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.) in high enough quantities to enable them to live a secure existence. Once that goal has been achieved the State would begin to use its central planning power to increase the productive capacity of all goods and services in a effort to move society towards post-scarcity. Socialism, by its very nature, requires the existence of post-scarcity in order to thrive. Karl Marx admitted in his own writings that Socialism could only work in highly industrialized societies because of both the need for the majority of the population to be proletarian and the necessity of the economy to be able to adequately provide for the people through high productive output.
As State Capitalism wanes in its usefulness, Socialism will, as said earlier, emerge when either a post-scarcity or nearly post-scarcity society has been achieved. Under Socialism the proletariat will directly take over the management and distribution of goods and services. How exactly this would function can be only speculated because we in the present time are not anywhere near post-scarcity and do not know what such a society could even look like. Trying to envision a post-scarcity society is, for us, like a feudal lord in the 12th century trying to envision modern capitalist society. Even if we can see hints of what that new society may look like, the future will be so radically different from today that we are nothing better than fortune tellers gazing into a crystal ball. No matter the details, the primary goal of the Socialist system will be to progress society towards Communism. As society moves through post-scarcity people will realize that it is no longer necessary to accumulate goods. Because the proletariat will control distribution, overconsumption will be mitigated through societal controls. However, as we move through post-scarcity these controls will cease being necessary. People will come to understand that should they need something, they need only go and get it. Because everything will be so freely available people will eventually stop hoarding goods. Most likely such a post-scarcity society will also be so highly automated that manual labor will be virtually eliminated. This will enable people to pursue science, philosophy, art or anything else free from the constraints of wage labor. At this point society will likely have moved through Socialism and on to Communism.
Socialism, like State Capitalism, will still require the existence of the State in some form. However, the Socialist State will have a much reduced role in managing the economy or maybe even no role. The key role of the Socialist State will be preventing the reemergence of Capitalism. As the proletariat takes the reins of economic management there may be some opportunists or former capitalists that will try to use the newly decentralized economy to reestablish Capitalism even if only on a local level. The State will therefore have to act as an agent of revolution in order to protect Socialism from these opportunists. Eventually, however, economic progress and automation will be so great, and goods so readily available, that people will so no need to pay for goods and so Capitalism will have no mechanism to maintain its existence. Prices would be so low that the accumulation of wealth and capital would be impossible and serve on the purpose of personal vanity. After society moves into post-scarcity and the threat of the reemergence of Capitalism is gone the State will cease to have a true function other than providing political unity. Even in a Communist society there may be some form of central deliberative body but it would probably have little function other than to keep the people of the world united on a political level.
This whole description is, by its nature, speculative. We cannot know what the future will hold. We also cannot know how Capitalism will end. If there is not a political revolution installing a Socialist party into power then it is likely the eventually Capitalism will cease to exist naturally. As we have seen over the course of its existence, Capitalism is always seeking to increase its own productive capacity. Eventually Capitalism will have increased the industrial capabilities of society to such a point that there will be no need for people to purchase anything due to such a ready abundance of goods. Once that happens Capitalism will crumble on its own because it will lose the ability to accumulate capital in such an oversaturated economy.
Under State Capitalism in its early stages the State would have to hold absolute control over the direction of the economy. This would likely take the form of some kind of central planning body. This body would set production goals and prioritize distribution of goods and services to different areas. The primary goal of this central body would be the ensure that all people get the necessities of life (food, water, shelter, education, healthcare, etc.) in high enough quantities to enable them to live a secure existence. Once that goal has been achieved the State would begin to use its central planning power to increase the productive capacity of all goods and services in a effort to move society towards post-scarcity. Socialism, by its very nature, requires the existence of post-scarcity in order to thrive. Karl Marx admitted in his own writings that Socialism could only work in highly industrialized societies because of both the need for the majority of the population to be proletarian and the necessity of the economy to be able to adequately provide for the people through high productive output.
As State Capitalism wanes in its usefulness, Socialism will, as said earlier, emerge when either a post-scarcity or nearly post-scarcity society has been achieved. Under Socialism the proletariat will directly take over the management and distribution of goods and services. How exactly this would function can be only speculated because we in the present time are not anywhere near post-scarcity and do not know what such a society could even look like. Trying to envision a post-scarcity society is, for us, like a feudal lord in the 12th century trying to envision modern capitalist society. Even if we can see hints of what that new society may look like, the future will be so radically different from today that we are nothing better than fortune tellers gazing into a crystal ball. No matter the details, the primary goal of the Socialist system will be to progress society towards Communism. As society moves through post-scarcity people will realize that it is no longer necessary to accumulate goods. Because the proletariat will control distribution, overconsumption will be mitigated through societal controls. However, as we move through post-scarcity these controls will cease being necessary. People will come to understand that should they need something, they need only go and get it. Because everything will be so freely available people will eventually stop hoarding goods. Most likely such a post-scarcity society will also be so highly automated that manual labor will be virtually eliminated. This will enable people to pursue science, philosophy, art or anything else free from the constraints of wage labor. At this point society will likely have moved through Socialism and on to Communism.
Socialism, like State Capitalism, will still require the existence of the State in some form. However, the Socialist State will have a much reduced role in managing the economy or maybe even no role. The key role of the Socialist State will be preventing the reemergence of Capitalism. As the proletariat takes the reins of economic management there may be some opportunists or former capitalists that will try to use the newly decentralized economy to reestablish Capitalism even if only on a local level. The State will therefore have to act as an agent of revolution in order to protect Socialism from these opportunists. Eventually, however, economic progress and automation will be so great, and goods so readily available, that people will so no need to pay for goods and so Capitalism will have no mechanism to maintain its existence. Prices would be so low that the accumulation of wealth and capital would be impossible and serve on the purpose of personal vanity. After society moves into post-scarcity and the threat of the reemergence of Capitalism is gone the State will cease to have a true function other than providing political unity. Even in a Communist society there may be some form of central deliberative body but it would probably have little function other than to keep the people of the world united on a political level.
This whole description is, by its nature, speculative. We cannot know what the future will hold. We also cannot know how Capitalism will end. If there is not a political revolution installing a Socialist party into power then it is likely the eventually Capitalism will cease to exist naturally. As we have seen over the course of its existence, Capitalism is always seeking to increase its own productive capacity. Eventually Capitalism will have increased the industrial capabilities of society to such a point that there will be no need for people to purchase anything due to such a ready abundance of goods. Once that happens Capitalism will crumble on its own because it will lose the ability to accumulate capital in such an oversaturated economy.
Wednesday, December 3, 2014
The Marxist Argument in Favor of State Capitalism
Following the Russian Revolution, Vladimir Lenin stated that he believed that the State should take on the functions of the capitalists by planning and directing the economy. Lenin himself called this state ownership of the means of production State Capitalism but he did not mean it in the slanderous sense that the term carries among Marxists today. Today, many Marxists use the term to deride the policies of Stalin and as the beginning point of their criticism of the Soviet Union. I believe that State Capitalism can in fact be a good method for the eventual development of Socialism and then Communism.
First, what is State Capitalism? State Capitalism is, put simply, the State ownership of the means of production. In a proletarian democracy the State is in the service of the proletariat and so in this way under State Capitalism the proletariat owns the means of production through the State by proxy. This however should be distinguished from State Capitalism under a bourgeois democracy where the State would instead be owned by the capitalists. For this reason, State Capitalism would only be desirable under proletarian democracy. Thus State Capitalism holds a precarious position because of the role it can play depending on the ruling political organization.
Next, why is State Capitalism good in proletarian democracy? Following a successful revolution it will be necessary for the new socialist state to set priorities for the redistribution of wealth and commodities as a way to ensure that the needs of the proletariat are met and to ensure the destruction of the capitalist class. These goal cannot be quickly achieved without centralized direction of some kind. Therefore, the ownership of the means of productions through the State is advisable. While the direct ownership of the means of production by the proletariat would be able to achieve the same goal, it would be less efficient because of the disjointed nature of the redistribution in such a decentralized system. In the event of a peaceful transition away from Capitalism, State Capitalism would be the most logical step. This would most likely be in the form of the nationalization of all industries. The State would then become the guarantor of the proletariat's need and work to redistribute wealth in the economy.
All of this is not to say that State Capitalism is Socialism, it is not. However, State Capitalism is in my opinion like Socialism in that it can be a transitional stage on the way to Communism. As the wealth in the economy is redistributed, the capitalist class is destroyed, and the needs and wants of the proletariat satisfactorily met the system would need to transition to Socialism, or the direct ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. This would remove the State from its role as economic planner and in its place the proletariat would directly assume the role of managing the production and distribution of goods and services. The State could then transition to being a kind of watchdog to ensure that Capitalism does not reemerge. As the proletariat more efficiently distributes goods and services, the State would no longer have any need to exist. This would lead to the State ceasing to exist and would finally usher in true Communism.
I feel that I must state again that State Capitalism is not meant as an end state, a necessity, or even necessarily desirable. My intention is to show that State Capitalism under a proletarian democracy could be used to speed up the transition to Socialism or at least to ensure that such a transition happened efficiently. Too often State Capitalism is described as Capitalism with a Marxist face. Instead we should try ad view it as one of many possible tools in the transition from Capitalism to Communism.
I also fell the need to describe some of the potential pitfalls of State Capitalism. We can learn much from the failure of State Capitalism in the the Soviet Union and China. In the USSR we saw the State latch on to its role as economic planner and refused to give up its status. This led to the entrenchment of the state bureaucracy and the eventual failure of the USSR due to economic stagnation and poor management. The opposite has happened in China. Because State Capitalism in China failed to properly industrialize the nation, when the US came knocking with offers to build factories on the condition that corporations be allowed to run them, the Chinese jumped on the opportunity. This ushered in the end of State Capitalism in China and the restoration of true Capitalism. Both of these examples can occur under State Capitalism given enough time and so a rapid transition from State Capitalism to Socialism in a necessity. However, given these potential problems, it is still my belief that effective use of State Capitalism can be used as a way to transition from Capitalism to Socialism efficiently. By using the State to direct all of the economic powers of society towards increased production we could move into a post-scarcity society in which Socialism can thrive. In fact it has often been noted by many Marxist theorists that without the proper level of economic development Socialism is doomed to fail. State Capitalism can be the engine that drives that development.
I would like to counter some possible criticism stemming from the belief that I am trying to assert a more or less gradual change from Capitalism to Socialism. Rather, my emphasis in using State Capitalism is that it much be coupled with rapid and radical changes in economic conditions. Failure to do so could result in the entrenchment of State Capitalism as in the USSR or the reversal of the revolution and the reemergence of Capitalism as we have seen in China. I would also like to say that I am not saying the State Capitalism must be implemented. If in the course of the revolution it becomes apparent that a direct transition to Socialism is possible then by all means that is the more favorable route. But given the current distribution of wealth across the globe it is my belief that some period of State Capitalism would be necessary in order to bring those less developed parts of the world up to a modern standard of living. By using the State as the engine of this process we could quickly usher in a new age for humanity where no person is forced to go without the basic necessities of life simply because of the economic conditions where they live.
First, what is State Capitalism? State Capitalism is, put simply, the State ownership of the means of production. In a proletarian democracy the State is in the service of the proletariat and so in this way under State Capitalism the proletariat owns the means of production through the State by proxy. This however should be distinguished from State Capitalism under a bourgeois democracy where the State would instead be owned by the capitalists. For this reason, State Capitalism would only be desirable under proletarian democracy. Thus State Capitalism holds a precarious position because of the role it can play depending on the ruling political organization.
Next, why is State Capitalism good in proletarian democracy? Following a successful revolution it will be necessary for the new socialist state to set priorities for the redistribution of wealth and commodities as a way to ensure that the needs of the proletariat are met and to ensure the destruction of the capitalist class. These goal cannot be quickly achieved without centralized direction of some kind. Therefore, the ownership of the means of productions through the State is advisable. While the direct ownership of the means of production by the proletariat would be able to achieve the same goal, it would be less efficient because of the disjointed nature of the redistribution in such a decentralized system. In the event of a peaceful transition away from Capitalism, State Capitalism would be the most logical step. This would most likely be in the form of the nationalization of all industries. The State would then become the guarantor of the proletariat's need and work to redistribute wealth in the economy.
All of this is not to say that State Capitalism is Socialism, it is not. However, State Capitalism is in my opinion like Socialism in that it can be a transitional stage on the way to Communism. As the wealth in the economy is redistributed, the capitalist class is destroyed, and the needs and wants of the proletariat satisfactorily met the system would need to transition to Socialism, or the direct ownership by the proletariat of the means of production. This would remove the State from its role as economic planner and in its place the proletariat would directly assume the role of managing the production and distribution of goods and services. The State could then transition to being a kind of watchdog to ensure that Capitalism does not reemerge. As the proletariat more efficiently distributes goods and services, the State would no longer have any need to exist. This would lead to the State ceasing to exist and would finally usher in true Communism.
I feel that I must state again that State Capitalism is not meant as an end state, a necessity, or even necessarily desirable. My intention is to show that State Capitalism under a proletarian democracy could be used to speed up the transition to Socialism or at least to ensure that such a transition happened efficiently. Too often State Capitalism is described as Capitalism with a Marxist face. Instead we should try ad view it as one of many possible tools in the transition from Capitalism to Communism.
I also fell the need to describe some of the potential pitfalls of State Capitalism. We can learn much from the failure of State Capitalism in the the Soviet Union and China. In the USSR we saw the State latch on to its role as economic planner and refused to give up its status. This led to the entrenchment of the state bureaucracy and the eventual failure of the USSR due to economic stagnation and poor management. The opposite has happened in China. Because State Capitalism in China failed to properly industrialize the nation, when the US came knocking with offers to build factories on the condition that corporations be allowed to run them, the Chinese jumped on the opportunity. This ushered in the end of State Capitalism in China and the restoration of true Capitalism. Both of these examples can occur under State Capitalism given enough time and so a rapid transition from State Capitalism to Socialism in a necessity. However, given these potential problems, it is still my belief that effective use of State Capitalism can be used as a way to transition from Capitalism to Socialism efficiently. By using the State to direct all of the economic powers of society towards increased production we could move into a post-scarcity society in which Socialism can thrive. In fact it has often been noted by many Marxist theorists that without the proper level of economic development Socialism is doomed to fail. State Capitalism can be the engine that drives that development.
I would like to counter some possible criticism stemming from the belief that I am trying to assert a more or less gradual change from Capitalism to Socialism. Rather, my emphasis in using State Capitalism is that it much be coupled with rapid and radical changes in economic conditions. Failure to do so could result in the entrenchment of State Capitalism as in the USSR or the reversal of the revolution and the reemergence of Capitalism as we have seen in China. I would also like to say that I am not saying the State Capitalism must be implemented. If in the course of the revolution it becomes apparent that a direct transition to Socialism is possible then by all means that is the more favorable route. But given the current distribution of wealth across the globe it is my belief that some period of State Capitalism would be necessary in order to bring those less developed parts of the world up to a modern standard of living. By using the State as the engine of this process we could quickly usher in a new age for humanity where no person is forced to go without the basic necessities of life simply because of the economic conditions where they live.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)