The social economy alternative
MY THANKS to Per Olsson for his review of my book, Anti
capitalism – the social economy alternative, in Socialism Today No.67. None of
my views have been misrepresented – they have just been ignored!
There is of course much common ground between us – not
least that all major industry and finance must come under common ownership and
the rule of capital ended. But the profound differences between us as to how
socialism should operate are not really examined.
Anti Capitalism argues, in some detail, why central planning
leads to hierarchies, unproductive behaviour and bureaucratic arrogance even
in circumstances of democratic workers management. Why? Because central
planning is just that, central. It’s distant and there is little chance of
real local management however much checking and criticism there is.
I go on to argue that the system of ‘allocation’ that
Per favours, where we are given free goods and services rather than pay for
them, is unworkable as long as we still have a money economy. All it means is
that the ‘free’ goods and services are paid for out of higher taxes and the
choice of what you spend your money on is reduced.
Equally the book develops arguments that a planned core of
the economy, alongside a socialised market, will rid us of the gross
inequalities and crisis ridden nature of capitalism, while maximising local
control and creativity. The socialised market is different to the free
market. It is driven by need and not profit maximisation.
In answer to all this, Per merely reminds us that the
essence of socialism is ‘based upon a conscious and democratic planning of
production made possible by the means of production’ and that ‘quality
demands a democracy of producers and consumers, freedom of criticism and
initiative’. Which means what in terms of industrial organisation? It doesn’t
begin to take up the arguments.
Depressingly, Per ends with the last refuge of the central
planner. ‘But the point is, if multi-national companies can draw up a plan in
their own interests, why should a society based on a socialist democracy not be
able to work out a plan that serves the needs of working people?’ The point
is, multinationals ‘succeed’ by placing elements of undemocratic ultra-centralisation
alongside tough international competition that will punish any failure. The
comparison with a democratically planned economy isn’t useful.
To summarise the conclusions of my book in seven lines! For
the infrastructure of the economy (water, transport, communication systems,
finance etc), the advantages of central planning outweigh the disadvantages. For
the rest, larger industry and services should be run by a combination of
workers, users and ‘the state’ in whatever form seems appropriate. No group
would be in a majority, so the planners would have to argue their case. In other
words planning would be ‘indicative’. It would show what was needed, not
what each enterprise had to produce and whom they had to deliver it to. Using
the market mechanism, decision-making power would continually be pushed down to
the base.
Social ownership, combined with an internet-based end to
commercial secrecy, would open up an era of co-operation, greater equality and
increased productivity. A world based on human solidarity rather than money, is
better achieved by this route than the imposition of general central planning.
A thought I want to leave with readers is this. ‘Market vs
Plan’ arguments can seem academic affairs. However, when our ideas come to be
put under the media spotlight, clinging to a mistaken belief in the virtues of
central planning will put tremendous barriers between the party and its
potential supporters. There is an almost universal understanding that management
control, including the power to make trading decisions, should be as devolved as
far as possible.
The discussion must continue.
Chris Hill
Leeds
Democratic planning
BOOKS SUCH as that reviewed by Per Olsson in the last number
of Socialism Today in reality concede to the arguments of those who say that the
market economy is now the only alternative. I do however think that there were
some inexact formulations used in Per’s review that serve to create some
confusion over what we understand by a planned economy, in particular the use of
the phrase ‘central planning’.
In the early 1920s there was a discussion in the Soviet
Union in which Trotsky argued that a state plan should be established. The role
of this body would be to coordinate the state and socially owned sectors of the
economy to ensure a regular and balanced industrial growth.
Under the Stalinists however the state plan became a huge
monolithic structure. Rather than coordinate between sectors, the centralized
bureaucracy introduced huge disbalances by ignoring the need for consumer goods
and by allocating huge resources to military production. Factory directors were
instructed in minute detail what they should produce. It was this bureaucratic
parasitism that stifled and eventually strangled the planned economy, leading to
the eventual restoration of capitalism. Although the bureaucracy creamed off a
layer of the surplus produced in the economy to guarantee its own luxury life
style, it did much more damage through its economic incompetence.
Often when workers in the Soviet Union began to seek
alternatives to this bureaucratically distorted planning, they supported ideas
such as ‘self management’. Those bureaucrats who wanted the restoration of
capitalism also pushed this idea as they believed it would lead to the collapse
of planning. I agree with Per when he says that in Yugoslavia the introduction
of so-called ‘self management’ caused ethnic conflict and capitalist
restoration. But rejecting these ideas, and proposals to ‘socialize the market’,
does not mean that we believe everything should be centralized.
In a modern economy, socialist planning on the basis of
state ownership of industry and natural resources needs a full and open
discussion of priorities and their allocation to develop society in the
interests of all workers. At a national and international level, this discussion
would decide the general direction and priorities. Some sort of planning
organization similar to that proposed by Trotsky in the early 1920s, which would
coordinate investment and resources, would be required. Day-to-day
decision-making and the practical implementation of the plan within the limits
of the nationally agreed plan would then be devolved to the localities as far as
possible. Organizations would be managed by democratically elected and
accountable committees with representatives of the workforce and wider working
class involved. Technical and bookkeeping experience would be provided by
experts, held accountable to the committees that employed them.
If the Soviet workers had been organized in their own
political party with a programme based on those ideas, capitalism would not have
been restored, instead new life would have been breathed into the planned
economy. Paradoxically, one of the institutions that would probably have been
abolished on the way would have been the so called ‘state plan’, the
centralized bureaucratic monolith based in its granite columned headquarters in
Moscow. It would have been replaced by genuine organs of workers democracy at
every level of society, which would have managed the planning of the economy in
the interests of working people.
In the advanced capitalist countries, socialist planning
will need to start not with the centralization of all decision-making but with
the taking over of ownership, control and management of the heights of the
economy. The establishment of genuine organs of workers’ democracy at every
level will then allow the correct balance to be found between strategic
decisions taken at national level and the interests of workers and society at
the local level. It is because of this I think we should avoid talking about
central planning and instead argue, as Trotsky did, for democratic planning.
Rob Jones
Moscow
|