: 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.Thank you, and thank you for taking teh time to read our page...onwards...
: 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.
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!
right, firstly, it is not up to use to say what people would wish to achieve economically, though I would suspect that teh aim would be to build up economies, with teh labour power released fro the waste and constrictions fo capitalism, so that everyones needs can be satisfied. Its not a question of levelling up or dow, its more a matter of everyone working to satisfy needs. We do not deny that tehre will be world wide bodies needed, they exist now, agricultural advisory bodies, etc, to help facilitate, replacement of the government of people with the administration of things. that is what democracy is for. Socialism can only exist world wide.
: 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.
Nor do we, we say that teh people themselves will have to sort out their own production, to meet their own needs, based on a system of free access to important and vital resources. the imprtant thing is that needs are self defined...
: 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 didn¹t 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)
No, once the vast majority (finicking about exact numbers is pointless) have decided to establish socialism, everyone will have free access, only those that wish to retain property and exploitation will find themselves denied.
: Furthermore: can global socialism be voluntary?
Yes.
: '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)
Note:commodities, not goods...
: '[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)
I couldn't agree more, but we do not want equality of wage, or any sort of administration of access to societies goods, people work as much as they want, and take as much as they need, self defined need.
: '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)
As I said before, money time vouchers was seen as an intermediary stage...and we reject their use, as pointless, because we think societies production goes beyond their nees. Lets remember at Marx's time capitalism was still nascent, so tehre would be a need to develop its productive powers, that is not so now...
: 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.
Again, we now disgree with Marx on this point...
: 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.
As I say, tehre would be no wages, peopel would take what they want. it is important to historicise mark's writings- he was talking about a developing capitalism,w e are talking about a stagnating one. We see no need for an intermediary labour time voucher system, from each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs...
: W.S.M. hedge on wages: 'People are different and have different needs.'(9) All state socialist tendencies have said the same countless
Self defined...
times! This stance is predicated on Marx¹s 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!
People need different things, as you say, and will get to define what they need (one woman has a disabled childn, and so is more justified in taking more than someone without one). the needs must be self defined (i'll repeat it a thousand times0 people take what they need and give what they can, so perhaps someone who works hard may not get more than someone who cannot, but that person who cannot needs more, perhaps...there is to be no set distribution, free access to teh goods of society...
: 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: 'everyone¹s 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
Yes, but tehre is no compulsion for them to do it, they will only work as much as they want. thats a big difference ove teh Leninist states...
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!
Its not up to us to decide how folks run things in socialism, we are not offering a blue print, only possibilities...
: 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 individual¹s 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.
I agre entirely, but see above, peopel will only be Janitors if they want to be...no wage equal or otehrwise involved...
: 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:
[Quote from teh manifesto]
Again, teh manifesto was written with teh devloping european capitalists states in mind (Marx later repudiated that proramme) most of it we feel is unnecessary. At the time Marx thought it necessary for teh proletariate to push for the improvement of capitalism...
: 'Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another.' (13)
yes. And teh socialist revolution will abolish class...
: '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)
Marx was vague over how long that need be, we a sure it can be pretty quick, and think there is now no longer a need for an intermediary stage. lenin seized on this to prove his theory, but it is a distortion...plus, remember dictatorship of teh proles is a class dictatorship (no, you don't own that factory anymore) not a modern conception of a one party dictatorship. teh DoP is a dictatorship by emocracy...
: 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?
a)Of course tehre will be central bodies, but they can be advisory, and would not have co-ersive power.
b)I think it can, it can't happen any other way...
: 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!
yes, indeed, I think it is a question of Lenin's expeidiencies being carried on as teh true path of Marxism, which neglect the olde traditions of teh original Marxian groups...
: Time to move socialism forward!
We can but hope...
Thanks for taking teh tiem to read this monster... ;)
