[PEN-L:7939] Louis Proyect and Socialism
Dear Comrades, Bill Koehnlein's film review post (by Mitchel Cohen in Z Magazine) about Che Guevara and Louis Proyect's response started good discussion on socialism in Cuba and elsewhere. Jim Devine's mild response to Louis attracted other bystanders into the discussion. Unfortunately, the discussion was quickly degenerated because of ill-temperaments. Before I ask a question about socialism from above/below, I would like to make a comment about the tone of our discussions and intolerance shown to those with whom we disagree. This raises a question in my mind. We are generally homogenous group of left leaning intellectuals. Often we take the role of being vanguard. We each have in our mind a kind of socialist society that we dream and in some way we orchestrate our praxis toward that goal. The puzzling question is: if we can't get along comradely with each other as a small homogenous group of like minded people, how we can get along and live in a socialist society that we want to create, a society that is very heterogeneous? A society that we want to build has all kind of people, all kind of races, religions, colors, languages, etc. How are we going to tolerate those who are utterly different from us? Some of our neighbors would be shepherds, auto-mechanics, farmers, preachers, teachers, truck drivers, insurance salesperson, skin heads, etc. All those people are going to have different values, knowledge, tolerance level, habits, etc. How are we all going to work together to build a future society that we idealize? Now, let me turn to the socialism discussion. I find comments about Che and his Cuban revolution as well as revolutions in other parts of the world are illuminating in general, but disengaged from reality. As if we are living in a different planet that is accidentally called "utopia." Can we bring our feet to touch the ground here? All third world revolutions are called socialist revolution from above. I would like to know a definition of socialist revolution from below. How is it made? Who makes it? Are there blue-prints of it available somewhere? How is it supposed to happen? Are we going to hold referendum for it? Are we going to ask peasants to vote for the revolution? Are we going to go to every factory to hold election? Are we looking for 51% approval in order to call it socialist revolution from below? A 75% or 100%? What are we looking for? Are we looking for every peasant, farmer, farm worker, factory worker, teacher, civil servant to quit their work and grab arms against landowners and capitalists? With whom Che Guevara was fighting in Bolivian jungles? Who were fighting along with Mao in China, with Ho in Vietnam? Who were those people fighting with Fidel and Che? In the 1930s, more than 95% of the Chinese population was in rural areas and most of those were peasants. Do you think Mao or Fidel and Che were fighting with factory workers? With intellectuals? There is no such thing as spontaneous uprising or revolution. Social changes were always brought about step by step and gradually, and not spontaneously. And these social changes were always started by a group of individuals most of whom were working class people, not intellectuals. There were not (and are not) enough intellectuals to carry out actual fighting. It does not mean that there were no intellectuals among the fighting people. There were, and most of those involved with strategy of fighting. I would love to see answers to these questions. These are the questions worth discussing. Sometimes we have tendency to engage in discussing stultifying questions which marginalize most of the people in the list. In Struggle for peace and justice for all. Fikret. PS. In late October/early November, I introduced Nader candidacy for president, not necessarily expecting the establishment of spontaneous socialism by Nader or anybody else. I used the name of Ralph Nader as a generic candidate. Nader was not going to establish socialism as we understand, but his election would have established conditions conducive for socialist struggles. Nader candidacy was summarily dismissed by some of us as irrelevant for socialism, rather than discussing why his election would or would not promote or lead to socialism. *+* +Fikret Ceyhun voice: (701)777-3348 work + +Dept. of Economics (701)772-5135 home + +Univ. of North Dakota fax:(701)777-5099 + +University Station, Box 8369 + +Grand Forks, ND 58202/USA e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] + *+*
[PEN-L:7937] source of surplus for socialism
I guess I must be brilliant [:-)] or at least say interesting
things if I get quoted on pen-l so often, three times in rapid
succession from personal and private conversations. (This may be
better than being quoted from something I said publically on
pen-l, but the quoter doesn't remember the quotee's identity or
exactly what he or she said.)
First, Louie quotes me (appropriately doing so anonymously)
asking him to lay off Peter Burns. Next Curtis Moore quotes me
explicitly.
Curtis quotes my off-hand remark, which luckily isn't
embarrassing: (whether I'll mention the oil money depends on
whether people ask).
then he says:The oil ruins this model, doesn't it [because it
indicates that Norway is doing well only by luck]. But as
"pwogwessives" we should have a reply at our finger tips, should
we not? Sorry to say, when after my initial excitement, I came to
realize how severely the oil tarnished the Norway model, I was
initially at loss for an immediate/intuitive reply. After further
thought, here is my reply to the question: What can replace the
"oil" in the Norway model?
I don't know about "pwogs," but in addition to the list that
Curtis presents and the possibility that centralized democratic
planning could be more efficient that our current system of
unequal-incomes-driven market-run anarchy and decentralized
aggressively profit-seeking corporate autocracies, I would add
the following from the _socialist_ tradition:
it's possible that the establishment of socialist relations of
production could unleash the creative powers of the currently
dominated peoples, allowing greater production, while reducing
the degree of artificial needs.
Third, Michael (the boss of pen-l) Perelman seems to be quoting
me when he and I were sojourning in Cuba:
When I toured Cuba under the watchful eye of Father Devine ("I
don't want to hear the clinking of those coins, just the calm
sound of those dollar bills) I was saddened by many of the
wasteful Cuban practices in farming.
I don't think I said that. If I did, it was an off-hand remark,
probably in jest. In fact, I'm not clear what it means.
I also don't know enough about Cuban agriculture to comment. My
impression from reading about almost all USSR-type economies is
that they treated agriculture shabbily. I've never thought that
agriculture was a very good sector for planning anyway. Land
reform and cooperatives seem more appropriate. (Scratch me and I
have some Bukharinite ideas.)
in pen-l solidarity,
Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Econ. Dept., Loyola Marymount Univ.
7900 Loyola Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90045-8410 USA
310/338-2948 (daytime, during workweek); FAX: 310/338-1950
"Segui il tuo corso, e lascia dir le genti." (Go your own way
and let people talk.) -- K. Marx, paraphrasing Dante A.
[PEN-L:7936] The Destructive Character Of The Stock Market
A feature of the modern economy is that it is incapable of meeting the needs of the people. One of the myths which is being actively promoted these days amongst the entire people is that the booming stock market will provide them with future prosperity through the vehicle of RRSPs and Mutual Funds. In the period immediately following the collapse of pseudo-socialism in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union, a great deal of propaganda was generated about the importance of establishing modern stock exchanges in those countries. It was claimed that a stock exchange is the most efficient method of regulating the flow of capital to where it is most needed and that a stock exchange is absolutely essential for the well-being of a modern economy. The experience since 1989 in those countries has shown the destructive character of capitalism. But one doesn't have to look as far as Eastern Europe to see evidence of this destructive aspect of capitalism, and especially of the stock markets. While stock exchanges may have begun as a mechanism to regulate the flow of capital, they quickly became one of the most important mechanisms for the siphoning off of surplus-value by the monopolies. They are one of the mechanisms by which the monopolies strive to maintain maximum profits. During the past 15 years, except for the crash of 1987 and later in 1989, the major stock indexes in North America have posted phenomenal gains. Overall, they have increased by over 600% since 1980. Current stock prices bear no resemblance whatsoever to the actual value of the companies. Recently, the Chairman of the US Federal Reserve Bank, Alan Greenspan, stated that stocks were overvalued and that increasing stock prices were based on "irrational exuberance." Various economists estimate that stock prices are now four to five times higher than the assets of the companies they represent. When one adds in the fact that the average debt of private capitalists is 1.09 times their assets, it becomes clear that, on average, record high prices are being paid for the privilege of owning a piece of a debt. Investors in Lloyd's of London learned the hard way what that can mean when they were sent bills for hundreds of thousands of dollars to help pay down the company's debts. It is clear that a major crash is in the making. During periods of "irrational exuberance" such as the stock market is currently experiencing, one of the most striking features of the stock market is that, not only does it concentrate greater and greater percentages of the wealth of the society in fewer and fewer hands, but it also becomes openly cannibalistic. Speculating in stocks and bonds has become one of the most profitable activities and, as a result, is increasingly sucking capital out of the real economy. There have been several reports recently of major companies buying back billions of dollars of their own stocks. It is claimed that this represents the "confidence" that these capitalists have in the future of their own companies. However, it really represents the fact that the stock market has become more profitable for these companies than the production of goods and services. Thus, they are pulling money out of production and putting it into the stock market instead. Extended reproduction is not even a remote possibility under such circumstances. On the one hand, the stock market needs a constant and increasing source of new money to continue its "irrational" rise and to continue to provide capitalists with higher profits than can be had from production. On the other hand, this new money is coming at the expense of future production and future surplus-value, without which the markets cannot continue to rise. In a sense, the stock markets are "killing the goose that laid the golden egg." They are consuming their own future and guaranteeing a massive collapse. This is precisely what happened in 1929. The stock markets, far from being essential to the well-being of a modern economy, are in reality one of the most destructive, parasitic and moribund features of capitalism. The higher the stock markets soar the more damage is done to the basic economy, as more and more capital is removed from the production cycle, as well as from such sectors of the economy as health and education. When the markets finally crash, as they inevitably will, the full extent of their destructive power will be unleashed on the economy and the people will be made to pay the price. Shawgi Tell University at Buffalo Graduate School of Education [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[PEN-L:7938] Re: Re[2]: Re: Che and Cuba
Michael Perelman writes: Does Cuba stumble badly now? There seem to be two interesting trends. 1. Marketization is creating a class structure, just as you would expect under market socialism without autarky. 2. Here Bill should be as thrilled as I am: Cuba is developing truly green technologies, such as organic farming and the greater use of bicycles. COMMENT: On point 1. Is this good? What are the nature of the class divisions? From speaking to people who have returned from Cuba recently I have heard general remarks to the effect that most people are quite poor but that those who work in the tourist industry or for foreign enterprises do much better on the whole than those in other areas. What is the emerging class structure? On point 2. Why should one be thrilled that people are using bicycles when they do this only because they cannot afford autos and public transit is inadquate? No doubt the depression in the Canadian Prairies would be quite thrilling to you both. During this period the poorest farmers had no cash to repair or run their autos. They hitched up their derelict autos to horses and drove them about the countryside. Real green and imaginative solution to their transportation needs. They were called Bennett Buggies after the reactionary prime minister of the time. This afternoon I was treated to our own green bicycle lunacy on our lovely unplowed white streets .. A heroic green cyclist was negotiating car ruts in an unplowed street as cars lined up behind him. The temperature is minus 26 C. Probaby a university professor no doubt. He was all properly arrayed in crash helmet and knobby tires. The material below is based upon two sources: Canadian Dimension JUne July 1995 Peter Rosset and Shea Cunningham THE GREENING OF CUBA pp.25.27 and ECONOMISt Sept 9th to 15rh Invest In Cuba pp.45-46. Whatever advances are being made in agriculture (treated later) overall the economy is in deep trouble. Some sources (ECONOMIST) claim that output has declined by 50 per cent since 1989. 1994 growth however was .7 per cent (ECONOMIST). According to Rosset and CUnningham: i) the collapse of the socialist bloc led to an 85 per cent drop in exports, imports, and foreign aid. ii) In the eighties less than 20 consumer items were rationed; now, everything is rationed iii) food intake by the population may have dropped by a much as 30 per cent since 1989 moving Cuba from the top five Latin American countries for average caloric and protein intake to the bottom five--still better than Haiti or BOlivia. Not only is CUba doing badly in economic terms it restructuring so as to attract foreign capital and produce results that can only lead to further erosion of socialist gains and egalitarian distribution.In Sept 1995 Cuba passed a law that allows foreign companies to own 100 percent of their enterprises rather than just a 50 per cent partnership characteristic of earlier reforms -to adopt the terminology of the Economist. They will also be able to take out long term leases on land. The right to repatriate profits is guaranteed. "The law also allows the government to create duty-free zones, and foreigners will be able to set up assembly plants, on the Mexican maquiladora model to manufacture for export." (p. 45 Economist) What the Economist callse the "young reformist faction in the ruling party" obviously has a great deal of clout, and they are taking Cuba the same route as other former socialist states. Communist ruling classes have seen the future, and it is riches under market capitalism. The Alternative Model in Agriculture: This does seem to be a positive development in many respects. Cuba has decided to engage in large scale organic farming. Most Cuban agriculture has been based upon large-scale, capital-intensive monoculture. However, 90 percent of the fertilizers and pesticides required for this form of agriculture is imported. With the collapse of the socialist bloc these inputs as well as fuel for machinery became less available and more expensive. At the same time food imports also fell. Cuba had to increase outputs with fewer costly inputs. This situation caused the agricultural planning authorities to decree that all new agriculture be based upon the Alternative Model rather than the Classic Model (intensive, mono-culture) Alternative agriculture has existed as a movement in Cuba since 1982 and the movement boasted a strong research infrastructure. The Alternative Model is designed to promote ecologically sustainable production. Dependence on heavy farm machinery and chemical inputs (fertilizer, pesticides) is to be replaced by animal traction, crop and pasture rotation, soil conservation, organic soil inputs, biological pest control and bio-fertilizers and bio-pesticides. This model will be more labor intensive and is designed to suck surplus labor back into the countryside from the city. Since the
