Utopia 2000 wishes to express its unconditional but critical support for the program of the World Socialism Movement. The aim of creating a wageless, voluntary, and democratic society we hold in solidarity with the W.S.M. The vision of a world united in cooperation we hold valuable.Utopia 2000, however, has decided that putting all of its efforts into 'all or nothing' global tactics would be a great disservice to those willing to make socialism a reality now. Furthermore, we question the feasibility of creating, at once, socialist equality amongst countries with as much diversity in historically-developed social needs as, say, India and Sweden.
: Hmm---like TPTB [?] won't try and wipe something like that out if it becomes too dangerous, and how is it to maintain itself?
The examples of Twin Oaks and Los Horcones demonstrate the plausibility of 'microsocialism.'(1)
: Sounds a bit like lifestylism to me....divisive and won't work, certainly won't bring about world wide socialism...
Utopia 2000 has never claimed to be working towards world socialism---quite the contrary! The communitarian socialist movement is dedicated to the idea that non-intrusive, non-bureaucratic government is only feasible in communities small enough to exercise 'face-to-face control.'(2) If the W.S.M. can mediate the needs of the entire world without the centralized leadership a planned global economy would require---then we will be the first to join!
Again, the abundance issue is salient: does India's level of historically-developed social needs go up to meet Sweden's (is it possible?) or does Sweden's level of historically-developed social needs go down to meet those of India (would Sweden tolerate it?)? W.S.M. needs to find responses to such questions concerning preexisting inequities across the globe in its quest for global socialism. Utopia 2000 does not have the audacity to suggest that it can mediate issues as complex as global economic diversity.
: The vast majority will do nicely, enough people to sustain socialism, and to ignore the threats of the state and side-line reactionary minorities...
That is a very politic stance. The question remains: 51%, 75%, 90% or complete consensus? The W.S.M.---as its web site specifies---'does not offer a blueprint for administering a socialist society.'(3) Consider Rawls' 'original position': if you were to enter a society but didnıt know whether you were to be in the majority or the minority, what sort of society would it be? One that worked toward satisfying the claims of everyone, most, or simply a numerical majority? (What if you fell into the minority position?) The W.S.M. expects a person---indeed, the whole world---to enter a new society without answering the question first! Utopia 2000 puts its (collective) cards on the table. It can afford to: it's a voluntary association. Our program: 90% majority.(4)
Furthermore: can global socialism be voluntary?
: [Re: Division of labor and wage differentials] Its unlikely that Marx advocated anything of the sort, except as a temporary measure towards abolishing money (the final goal). Marx wanted to see the end of the wages system---although he backed money time vouchers, he saw them as a stop gap, and one that socialists feel would be unnecessary now that capitalism is so fully developed...
You did not look at the citations. Again, Marx on division of labor and wages:
'Th[e] division of labor is a necessary condition for the production of commodities, but it does not follow, conversely, that the production of commodities is a necessary condition for the division of labor.'(5)
'Those small and extremely ancient Indian communities, some of which have continued down to this day, are based on possession in common of the land, on the blending of agriculture and handicrafts, and on an unalterable division of labor, which serves, whenever a new community is started, as a plan and scheme ready cut and dried...The law that regulates the division of labor in the community acts with the irresistible authority of a law of Nature, at the same time that each individual artificer, the smith, the carpenter, and so on, conducts in his workshop all the operations of his handicraft in the traditional way, but independently, and without recognizing any authority over him. The simplicity of the organization for production in these self-sufficing communities that constantly reproduce themselves in the same form, and when accidentally destroyed, spring up again on the spot and with the same name---this simplicity supplies the key to the secret of the unchangeableness of Asiatic societies, an unchangeableness in such striking contrast with the constant dissolution and refounding of Asiatic States, and the never-ceasing changes of dynasty. The structure of the economic elements of society remains untouched by the storm clouds of the political sky.'(6)
'[A]s the costs of producing laboring powers of different quality differ, so must differ the values of the laboring powers employed in different trades. The cry for an equality of wages rests, therefore, upon a mistake, is an insane wish never to be fulfilled. It is an offspring of that false and superficial radicalism that accepts premises and tries to evade conclusions.' (7)
'In the case of socialized production the money-capital is eliminated. Society distributes labor-power and means of production to the different branches of production. The producers may, for all it matters, receive paper vouchers entitling them to withdraw from the social supplies of consumer goods a quantity corresponding to their labor time.' (8)
Of course, Marx did advocate for the abolition of the wage system---after the 'first phase of communism,' which would reward work only according to what it produced. There is a major problem with this arrangement---other than the fact that it is a temporizing caveat---and it concerns division of labor.
What one produces from one's work is only partially dependent upon the effort one puts into the job. The technological advancement of the equipment that is used in making items also would determine how many items got made. Using Marxist terms, the ratio of constant capital (raw materials and machinery) to variable capital (labor added) determines productivity---and your wage. In Marxist theory, your effort alone would not determine how hard you worked or how well you worked, or how much you get paid---investment in Department I (means of production) would determine these things (to a substantial extent). Some people who work very hard might make less than people who have it easier simply because of better machinery. Because of this, wages would be arbitrary. Consider quote #8. Again, global diversity is salient.
W.S.M. hedge on wages: 'People are different and have different needs.'(9) All state socialist tendencies have said the same countless times! This stance is predicated on Marxıs axiom that '[r]ight[s] can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby.'(10) (Here the difficulties in aligning historically-developed social needs into global standards can be truly appreciated!) Utopia 2000 finds such caveats---especially when unspecified---to be dubious, if not dangerous. Obviously, a sick person has needs that a well person does not. However, this can be applied to certain professions as well: a rocket scientist has certain needs that a janitor does not have---perhaps shorter hours, a better working environment... A firm position, please!
W.S.M. states that 'People will gain respect for doing jobs that others might find unpleasant, or the unpleasant jobs might be shared around.' (11) This is actually two positions. The first is the old Communist Party approach: 'everyoneıs job is important.' The problem with that is that it justified maintaining a hypertrophied division of labor---janitors had little claim to higher education because, after all, their job was just as 'important' as rocket scientists'...The second part of W.S.M's statement---'the unpleasant jobs might be shared around'---is much, much more egalitarian. Utopia 2000 endorses this position 100%. One question, though: why the qualifying 'might'? Is this a loophole for some possible exemption? Again: a firm position, please!
: Marx (German Ideology) actually foresaw an end to division of labor under communism...
Yes, The German Ideology (1846), written with Engels, does contain references to abolishing the social division of labor. However, these ideas were not expressed in Marx's later works (although Engels' returned to some of these in chapter VII of Anti-Duhring). I hope that the references I provided show the extent to which Marx repudiated his earlier, more 'utopian' notions regarding the division of labor (and standardized wages). Of course, the Soviet bureaucracy---perpetuating a division of labor as hypertrophied as capitalism---provided many, many more Marxian passages in their attempts to defend centralization (and privilege).
: ...and the model you outline above relies upon a model of continuation of the wages system...
Division of labor is not settled with the abolition of the wage system! This observation is a very important component of Utopia 2000. A janitor might receive as much as a rocket scientist in a so-called egalitarian system; this does not mean that the system is egalitarian, only that 'wages' (or the individualıs claim upon necessities and surplus, however you wish to call it) are egalitarian. Utopia 2000 maintains that skilled work is its own reward whereas unskilled work is...well, work. Equalizing the remuneration of the individual does not necessarily equalize the contingencies of receiving them.
: Marx did not advocate state socialism, that was Lenin's little twist...
Utopia 2000 applauds all socialists in repudiating Lenin and co. Utopia 2000 endorses all suspicions regarding the putative necessity of the state. However, Lenin did not originate the ideology of centralism, he only acted upon it. Marx was clear on the role---and necessity---of the state:
'The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the state, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class...[T]he following will be pretty generally applicable...
* * *
5. Centralization of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with state capital and an exclusive monopoly.
6. Centralization of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the state.
7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the state...'(12)
'Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.' (13)
'Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transformation period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.'(14)
Again, the questions: (a) how can the needs of an economically diverse global population be mediated without the centralized leadership that a planned economy would require?, and (b) can a global socialism be voluntary?
Utopia 2000 acknowledges the brilliant critique of capitalism that Marx has given to socialism. However, Utopia 2000 readily admits that many people are deterred by a philosophy that is supported by such absolute caveats as 'the dictatorship of the proletariat.' Marxists today often disavow Marxism as it was realized in the Soviet Union, China, Eastern Bloc countries, North Korea, Cuba, and South Vietnam. Frequently will a Marxist say: 'Stalin, Mao, Castro, they didn't understand Marxism, they failed to implement it the way it was intended.' This raises an interesting point. Was the failure of Marxism to be implemented in the way Marx (presumably) intended due to literary problems, problems of unclear writing, or was it due to theoretical deficiencies, problems of logic? Why did so many 'Marxists' misunderstand Marx?---all Marxist organizations will be forever haunted by this question from skeptical working class individuals!
Time to move socialism forward!
Notes and sources:
1. See www.twinoaks.org and www.loshorcones.org.
2. See Skinnerıs 'Human Behavior and Democracy,' Reflections on Behaviorism and Society (Prentice-Hall, 1978), pp. 3-15; also Barry Schwartz, The Battle for Human Nature (W.W.Norton, 1984), pp. 206-207, for examples of optimal cooperation in small communities using the prisonerıs dilemma.
3. See www.worldsocialism.org/faq.
4. Reasons cited in 'Democracy,' asterisk 5, www.utopia2000.org/just.
5. Marx, Capital, vol. I (International, 1967), p. 42.
6. Ibid., pp. 357-58.
7. Marx, 'Wages, Price, and Profit,' Marx & Engels' Selected Works (International, 1968), p. 210.
8. Marx, Capital, vol. II (International, 1967), p. 358.
9. See www.worldsocialism.org./faq.
10. Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Programme,' Marx & Engels' Selected Works, p. 324.
11. See www.worldsocialism.org./faq.
12. Marx & Engels, The Communist Manifesto (International, 1948), p. 30.
13. Ibid., p. 31.
14. Marx, 'Critique of the Gotha Programme,' Marx & Engels' Selected Works, p. 331.
Correction to earlier post ('socialism must move forward'): Molyneux does mention division of labor in Arguments for Revolutionary Socialism. He states that division of labor will be eradicated by (a) 'workers' control [of the means of production], [b] reduced compulsory labor time, and [c] automation' (pp. 98-99, Bookmarks, 1991). Knowing claim (c) to be ecologically and economically unsustainable, and considering (b) non-committal, Utopia 2000 expresses enthusiasm for claim (a), which we wish Molyneux stated in more detail.
