Eleven Talking Points On 21st Century Socialism
[Contribution to the Reimagining Society Project hosted by ZCommunications...]
The current discussion around socialism in left and progressive circles in the
1. Socialism's fundamental building blocks are already present in
2. Socialism is first of all a democratic political system where the interests and organizations of the working class and its allies have attained and hold the preponderance of political power and thus play the critical leading role in society. It is still a class society, but one in a protracted transition, over hundreds of years, to a future classless society where exploiting class privileges are abolished and classes and class distinctions generally wither away, both nationally and globally. So socialism will have classes for some time, including some capitalists, because it will be a mixed economy, with both public and private ownership, even as the balance shifts over time. Family farmers and small proprietors will both exist and flourish alongside cooperatives. Innovative 'high road' entrepreneurial privately-held firms will compete with publically-own firms, and encouraged to create new wealth within an environmentally regulated and progressively taxed system. Past efforts to build socialism have suffered from aggravated conflict between and among popular classes and lack of emphasis on building wide unity among the people.
3. Socialism at the base is a transitional economic system anchored in the social mode of production brought into being by capitalist development over several centuries. Its economic system is necessarily mixed, and makes use of markets, especially in goods and services, which are regulated, especially regarding the environment. But capital markets and wage-labor markets can be sharply restricted and even abolished in due time. Markets are a function of scarcity, and all economies of any scale in a time of scarcity have them, even if they are disguised as 'black' or 'tiered' markets. In addition to regulated markets, socialism will also feature planning, especially on the macro level of infrastructure development, in investment of public assets and funds, and other arenas where markets have failed. Planning will especially be required to face the challenges of uneven development and harsh inequalities on a global scale, as well as the challenge of moving from a carbon and uranium based energy system to one based on renewable green energy sources. The socialisms of the last century fell or stagnated due to failure to develop the proper interplay between plans and markets.
4. Socialism will be anchored in public and worker ownership of the main productive forces and natural resources. This can be achieved by various means: a) buying out major failing corporations at penny stock status, then leasing them back to the unions and having the workers in each firm—one worker, one vote—run them, b) workers directly taking ownership and control over failed and abandoned factories, c) eminent domain seizures of resources and factories, with compensation, otherwise required for the public good, and d) public funding for startups of worker-owned cooperative businesses. Socialism will also require public ownership of most finance capital institutions, including bringing the Federal Reserve under the Treasury Department and federal ownership. Lease payments from publically owned firms will go into a public investment fund, which will in turn lend money to community and worker owned banks and credit unions. A stock market will still exist for remaining publically traded firms and investments abroad, but will be strictly controlled. A stock transfer tax will be implemented. Gambling in derivatives will be outlawed. Fair trade agreements with other countries will be on a bilateral basis for mutual benefit.
5. Socialism will require democracy in the workplace of public firms and encourage it in all places of work. Workers have the right to independent unions to protect their social and daily interests, in addition to their rights as worker-owners in the governance of their firms. In addition to direct democracy at the plant level, the organizations of the working class also participate in the wider public planning process and thus democratically shape the direction of ongoing development on the macro level as well. Under socialism the government will also serve as the employer-of-last-resort. Minimum living-wage jobs will be provided for all who want to work. Socialism is committed to genuine full employment. Every citizen will have a genuine right to work.
6. Socialism will largely be gained by the working class and it allies winning the battle for democracy in politics and civil society at large, especially taking down the structures and backward laws of class, gender and racial privilege. Women have equal rights with men, and minority nationalities have equal rights with the majority. It also defends equal rights and self-determination among all nations across the globe; no nation can itself be fully free when it oppresses another. Socialism will encourage public citizenship and mass participation at every level, with open information systems, public education and transparency in its procedures. It will need a true multiparty system, with fusion voting, proportional representation and instant runoff. Given the size and diversity of our country, it is highly unlikely that any single party could adequately represent all popular interests; working class and progressive organizations will need to form common fronts. All trends are guaranteed the right to speak, organize, petition and stand for election. With public financing as an option, socialism can restrict the role of wealth in elections, moving away from a system, in effect, of "one dollar, one vote" and toward a system more reflective of "one person, one vote." These are the structural measures that can allow the majority of the people, especially the working class and its allies, to secure the political leadership of government and instruments of the state by democratic means, unless these are sabotaged by reaction. Some socialisms of the past used only limited formal democracy or simply used administrative means to implement goals, with the failure of both the goals and the overall projects. Americans are not likely to be interested in systems with elections where only one party runs and no one can lose.
7. Socialism will be a state power, specifically a democratic political order with a representative government. But the government and state components of the current order, corrupted with the thousand threads connecting it to old ruling class, will have to be broken up and replaced with new ones that are transparent, honest and serve the majority of the people. The US Constitution and Bill of Rights can still be the initial basic organizing principle for a socialist government and state. The democratic rights it has gained over the years will be protected and enhanced. Government will also be needed to organize and finance the social development benefitting the people and the environment already mentioned; but the state power behind the law will be required to compel the honest use of resources and to protect people from criminal elements, individual and organized. Forces who try to overturn and reverse the new socialist government illegally and in violation of the Constitution will not be able to do so; they will be broken up and brought to justice. Our society will need a state power for some time to come, even as its form changes. Still, government power has limits; under socialism sovereignty resides in the people themselves, and the powers of any government are necessarily restricted and subordinate to the universal and natural rights of all humankind. Attempts to ignore or reject these principles have severely harmed socialist governments and movements in the past.
8. Socialism will be a society in harmony with the natural environment, understanding that all economies are subsets of the eco-system and ignore it at their peril. In its economics, there are no such things as "externalities" to be pushed off downstream or to future generations. The nature of pending planetary disasters necessitates a high level of planning. We need to redesign communities, promote healthier foods, and rebuild sustainable agriculture—all on a global scale with high design, but on a human scale with mass participation of communities in diverse localities. Socialism will treasure and preserve the diversity of nature's bounty and end the practice of genetic modification to control the human food supply. We need growth, but intelligent growth in quality and wider knowledge with a lighter environmental footprint. A socialism that simply reproduces the wasteful expansion of an earlier capitalism creates more problems than it solves.
9. Socialism values equality, and will be a society of far greater equality of opportunity, and far less economic inequality. In addition to equal rights before the law, all citizens and residents will have equitable access to a "universal toolbox" of paid-up free public education for all who want to learn, for as far as they want and are able to go; universal public pre-school care; a minimum income, as a social wage, for all who create value, whether in a workplace or otherwise; our notions of socially useful work, activity that creates value, has to be expanded beyond market definitions. Parents raising children, students learning skills, elders educating and passing traditions to younger generations--all these create value that society can in turn reward. Universal single-payer health care with retirement benefits at the level of a living wage is critical to start. Since everyone has access to employment, the existing welfare system can be abolished; individuals will be free to choose the career path and level of income targets they desire, or not. There are no handouts for those able to work, but there are also no irrational barriers to achievement.
10. Socialism is a society where religion can be freely practiced, or not, and no religion is given any special advantages over any other. Religious freedom remains a fundamental tenant of socialism, but naturally neither its practitioners nor anyone else can deny anyone the benefits and protection of civil and criminal law, especially to women and children.
11. Socialism will require an institution of armed forces. Their mission will be to defend the people and secure their interests against any enemies and help in times of natural disasters. It will not be their task to expand markets abroad and defend the property abroad of the exploiting classes. Soldiers will be allowed to organize and petition for the redress of grievances. Armed forces also include local police, under community control, as well as a greatly reduced prison system, based on the principle of restorative justice, and mainly for the protection of society from individuals inflicted with violent pathologies and criminal practices. Non-violent conflict resolution and community-based rehabilitation will be encouraged, but the need for some coercive means will remain for some time.



Markets are a function of scarcity
By Administrator2, Site2 at May 27, 2009 07:37 AM
Hi Carl, Justin Podur here. I was wondering if you could elaborate on the idea that markets are a function of scarcity. I've actually never heard that before. In fact I have sometimes thought that with enough scarcity the only way for people to survive would be fairly rigid planning.
Reply this comment
Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By Davidson, Carl at May 27, 2009 13:54 PM
From Wikipedia, but you can find a discussion in many economics textbooks:
Goods (including services) that are scarce are called economic goods (or simply 'goods' if their scarcity is presumed). Other goods are called free goods if they are desired but in such abundance that they are not scarce, such as air and seawater. Too much of something freely available can informally be referred to as a 'bad', but then its absence can classified as a good, thus, a mown lawn, clean air, etc.
Economists study (among other things) how societies perform the allocation of these resources — along with how societies often fail to attain optimality and are instead inefficient.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By McGehee, Michael at May 27, 2009 15:32 PM
carl, similarily i cant help but notice that on more than a dozen occasions you write what socialism will be or what socialism is and whats its features are, as opposed to what it can or could be. the difference is the difference between possibilities and certainties and im curious as to why you think these things are certainties (and this applies to comments about classes and markets too) or whether other possibilities exist and whethery they are preferable or not.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By Davidson, Carl at May 27, 2009 21:37 PM
Every country calling itself socialist or taking the path to socialism, past or present, has had both classes and markets, even if they tried to deny their existence. The level of development of the productive forces has a long way to go before these things can pass into history. It's best to manage, regulate and restrict these things as a new order is being developed, rather than to try to impose a utopian plan of abolition at the point of a gun.
I am a communist strategically. I want, in the end, to abolish all classes, including the working class, through a fully cybernated, fully automated, high-design society of abundance. I want to see the withering away of states and markets as well. But that vision is anchored in a starting point that realistically assesses the level of productive forces, not only here but worldwide. What I'm proposing is a plan to get from here to there, and the understanding that it's going to take a while.
In other words, I think Bukharin has won out over Stalin, Trotsky and the later Mao and Pol Pot on these matters. In many parts of the world, socialism will proceed through an NEP rather than by skipping or going around it.
But in addition to studying some history and theory, I've also learned a great deal by actually working in factories, and running small businesses as well, and I like to take stock of my ideas in the context of these realities as well. There's nothing quite like the test of practice.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at May 28, 2009 04:52 AM
Carl,
It seems like you interpret (incorrectly) the statement "Markets are a function of scarcity" as meaning "scarcity necessarily implies markets".
In fact, what your own argument below implies is the reverse: "markets necessarily imply scarcity".
Scarcity is a necessary, but not a sufficient, precondition for markets. One can envision other means of allocating scarce resources than markets. I don't want to give a academic list of examples, but a case in point is the parecon iteration model often discussed right here on ZNet. (Unless one chooses to call that a market too, in which case I would argue that the word "market" loses much of its meaning.)
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By Davidson, Carl at May 28, 2009 06:07 AM
I agree there are other methods of divvying up scarce resources. Rationing in WW2 was an example. But as you parents can surely tell you, a 'Black Market' in these goods quickly emerged, including a Black Market in ration coupons. So the ration systems gets enforced by police and jails.
There are also tiered systems, where the masses get ration coupons and the party elite get special stores where they can buy whatever they have money for.
On a small scale, intentional communities, like the Amish, do away with the labor market in the construction of barns, by simply volunteering to help each other out. but this requires a degree of ideological cohesion I don't think you're likely to find on a large scale on a sustainable basis.
So yes, one can come up with all sorts of models, including ParEcon, that attempt to get around markets. My own model restricts capital markets and labor markets are even abolished on the micro level of worker-ownership, but markets in goods and services are regulated, but maintained. Under what I describe, people are free to practice PareEcon if they like, and even get some assistance, but its not imposed universally. I see no future for a system that requires use of police power to snuff out the buying and selling of consumer goods for money in a marketplace, especially in a country like ours.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By McGehee, Michael at May 28, 2009 07:30 AM
"I see no future for a system that requires use of police power to snuff out the buying and selling of consumer goods for money in a marketplace, especially in a country like ours."
Why? Because its not practical or because its not preferable?
You make that statement as if using authority to "snuff" out an undesirable practice is a bad thing and as if the "selling of consumer goods for money in a marketplace, especially in a country like ours" is benign. If we want an economy that does not nurture inequitable outcomes based on unethical standards then having institutional boundaries that restrict those unethical standards is warranted and ethical, in my opinion.
The reason for abolishing markets completely, and which I agree with, is that they instrinsically lead to inequalities and breed injustices (i.e., the use of bargaining power for profit motives that create income inequalities that get passed down through generations and lead to class divisions). Hahnel gives some good examples in The ABCs of Political Economy.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By Davidson, Carl at May 28, 2009 20:03 PM
It's not preferable because it's not practical.
Socialism has to be built step by step, and the steps have to be chosen wisely.
Just think about it. Just on the level of small businesses, of which there are millions in our country, how would you propose that they be forbidden to hire, say, a dozen workers, make a product, and distribute it to stores for sale? How would you forbid ordinary people from spending their money on these products, if they wanted them? It can't even be done with contraband like reefer, let alone foodstuffs, clothing or household goods. How could you shut down the farmers markets alone? You would have to aim a repressive apparatus at the masses themselves, or at least a sizeable section of them. So its not practical, and because of the means required, not preferable either.
We have bigger fish to fry. We have to take control of capital markets and turn them into social investment funds, to begin the rapid restructuring of an enenrgy system from carbon and uranium burning to renewable. We have to deliver health care and schooling to all. We have to close the gap of savage inequalities between North and South.
If groups of workers and consumers want to set up ParEcon plants or stores, fine. No need to stop them. But we have much more important things to do than getting rid of markets in goods and services, together with the small-to-medium sized businesses that are going to be around for a while.
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By Corbett, Jean-Francois at May 29, 2009 05:22 AM
Carl, you write:
> I agree there are other methods of divvying up scarce resources. Rationing in WW2 was an example. But as you parents can surely tell you, a 'Black Market' in these goods quickly emerged, including a Black Market in ration coupons.
Well yes, there was a partial rationing system for certain goods, but that system was immersed in an otherwise market system for all other goods, services, and labor. The inequities in power ensuing from the prevalent market system of course led to the more powerful (rich) actors being able to subvert the rationing system and leverage it to their advantage (increased consumption) through a "black" market, which really was only an tiny extension into "forbidden" territory of the rest of the regular market economy [*].
But what if the prevalent economic model lead to no such power disparities, and also *already* allocated (scarce) goods in a fair way to everyone, on the basis of collective negotiation / participatory planning? Who exactly would then be left to go out and do trade in a market? In other words, if you pretty much already have been allocated your fair share of what you asked for, and I too, then why would we try to sell and buy stuff to and from each other?
The only case I can see is if the participatory planning bit didn't work perfectly and people in general were dissatisfied with what was allocated to them. Well, to me, that's just an argument for refining whatever methods are used in the participatory planning process for the next time -- and not to regress back into markets.
[*] Though by no means was the rationing system subverted *completely*; it still functioned to a degree, enough to be an important factor in survival for many poorer British families who would otherwise have been left to starve to death in a pure market system.]
Reply this comment
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Markets are a function of scarcity
By Davidson, Carl at May 29, 2009 12:00 PM
'What if' can lead to anything you want to, provided you tweak your wholistic model.
But you are not likely to ever be in a position to run society like the 'what ifs' in a spreadsheet.
But here's a rule of thumb I like and I'd keep in mind: there is no such thing as a completely planned economy or a completely free market. That's a piece of wisdom my approach includes in its starting points.
My approach calls for participatory budgeting, but its not what you mean. I what to see mass participation in defining and giving shape to local energy systems, mass transit, health care and schools. Also planning to reduce military production for something more useful and humane. The last thing I'm concerned about planning in this way are everyday consumer items and services.
Markets of this sort are going to be around for a long time. Regulate them for health, safety, ecology and fair weights and measures. But otherwise, let them function, while we focus our attention on the major problems of market failure.
Reply this comment