2 articles from latest issue of Voice
How a socialist planned economy could work
The collapse of the planned economies in Eastern Europe ten years ago
resulted in a tidal wave of pro-capitalist market propaganda against
so-called socialist economies. Politicians and economists alike argued that
planning was dead and that the 'free market' of capitalism was triumphant.
All of these individuals had a vested interest in upholding the capitalist
system which accumulates private property and profits for an elite in
society while the mass of the population struggle to survive.
Capitalism is a system that works on privilege and coercion but its
defenders argue that it is the only economic system that works.
This has caused many workers also to be sceptical about whether socialism
could work. The Stalinist soviet economies were a caricature of socialism,
which initially achieved economic growth but lacked the workers'
participation and democracy that would have allowed a genuine socialist
democracy to thrive. Instead the bureaucratic elites that controlled those
societies drove the economies to collapse. Now sections of workers,
increasingly disenchanted with capitalism, are looking for an alternative
socialist way of organising the economy.
So where will the resources for a socialist planned economy come from?
Socialism takes away private ownership of the means of production. Common
ownership and control of industry means more wealth is created and
resources allocated according to social priorities. This works by:
a) The elimination of unemployment. We now have again what Marx called a
'permanent army of unemployed' in the advanced capitalist countries. Even
at the height of an unpturn industry never works at full capacity. A
planned economy will be able to guarantee work for everyone, with
retraining provided to make sure the new jobs are meeting the needs of
people, democratically determined.
b) Luxury expenditure for the rich will be ended. The capitalist experts
are always keen to point out that ending the wealth of the rich will not
solve the problems of society, because however obsenely well off they are,
there are not enough of them to make a big difference. Nevertheless, the
rich do consume 5% of national income which amounts to approximately US$80
billion a year.
c)Ending arms spending. On a world scale the waste of resources on arms is
vast, reaching nearly US$2 trillion each year at the end of the cold war -
approximately US$2,000 a year for every family on the planet. This money
would be a big first step in lifting the majority of the world's popultion
out of grinding poverty.
Although redeploying millions of highly skilled arms workers will be a
formidable task, under capitalism such a transformation will never take
place. This is because the reason for arms expenditure will not disappear,
ie the hostility between rival capitalist countries, and because the market
system could not plan the transfer of resources needed due to it anarchic
nature.
d) Eliminating the waste of capitalism. The world is dominated by a handful
of multinational corporations who duplicate expenditure in research and
development, spend unnecessary vast sums on advertisingaand design
productswith planned obsolesence. For example, rival drug companies spend
billions on developing varities of pain killers with marginally different
effectiveness.
e) Freeing the creative power of the working class. Workers in the market
system have no incentive in putting in their energies to helpout the
bosses. But in a socialist society it will be possible to release the
creative instincts of employees beacuse no fundamental conflict of
interests will exist. It is often said by management theorists that the
real experts in any firm when a problem needs to be solved are the workers
themselves. Although a factor which is difficult to guantify, in the long
run this will be a very significant advntage of socialism.
What is a socialist
planning?
It is allocating resources of labour and materials for the production of
goods and services for the benefit of society as a whole, rather than to
make profits for the capitalists. It will operate at three levels,
nationally (and internationally) at industry or sectoral level and at the
individual enterprise.
a) The overall performance of the economy will be decided at the national
(and international) level. There will be targets for productivity growth,
investment, consumption etc, which will be determined democratically by
institutions created after the overthrow of capitalism. Here the decisions
about the priorities that society wants to have, for example between health
expenditure or housing will be made.
b)Industry or sectoral level. It will be necessary to determine consumer
demand for the goods or services of that particular industry and to
organise the efficient exchange of materials and semi'finished products
with other sectors, eg from suppliers.
The determination of demand will be done by obtaining information from
powerful, democratically representative consumer bodies and by using the
very sophisticated tools for market research developed under capitalism.
To organise the movement of goods between industries, avoiding bottlenecks,
it will be possible to use the techniques, such as operational research,
developed by the big capitalist monopolies to plan the complex movement of
goods between their operations around the world.
c)Planning at the enterprise level. The methods mentioned above will also
be used to determine consumer needs and preferences. It is also likely that
as far as enterprises making consumer products are concerned (as opposed to
capital goods - machinary etc used in the production process) a type of
market system will be retained in the early stages of the transition from
capitalism. This could operate through small business or worker co-ops, but
only within the framework of a nationalised economy. If the market sector
was too large it would threaten to impose its inherent inequalities onto
society.
What do the critics say about it?
Since Marx's day, and particularly since the Russian Revolution, academics
have written libraries full of books about why socialism won't work.
One of the main criticisms is that planning the efficient allocation of
resources is impossible because of the vast complexity of modern industrial
society, where millions of economic transactions take place every day.
However, most of these economic interactions are between enterprices, they
do not involve consumers, and it is quite clear that present-day
multinational firms conduct planning of a similar complexity all the time.
The activity of the multi-nationals answers a further criticism that the
operation of supply and demand to determine price is the only efficient way
to proceed in the exchange of goods. In their international operations
companies like General Motors simply allocate resources between country and
factories without reference to the market.
As far as planning for the consumer needs are concerned the key point is
that active democratic institutions should exist that can compel the
planning bodies to respond to their demands. In addition to this,
techniques such as market research and using the internet will ease the
tasks faced by future socialist planners.
It is important, though, not to exaggerate the role that will be played by
the internet or look for a technical fix; the existance of democratic
institutions will be paramount.
The role of democratically elected and powerful consumer bodies will also
make sure that shoddy goods are not produced and the quality is maintained.
Here as well the advances in modern production management techniques can be
applied, since the future socialist society will inherit; unlike the Soviet
Union; a quality culture associated with the highest levels of technique
development by capitalism.
The quote from Marx at the start of this aticle implies that there will be
a super-abundance of goods and services under socialism which will not
require rationing by price as under capitalism.
The concept of super-abundance, however, raises one of the most serious
difficulties of the socialist project, namely environmental destruction
caused by consuming energy and resources at the rate of the advanced
capitalist countries.
Socialism will not work unless the standard of living of the world's poor
majority is raised to that of the industrialised countries causing energy
consumption to rise very sharply. This will not result in environmental
disaster however.
In the first place, there is an enormous waste of energy in the
industrialised countries, particularily in the US. Without affecting living
standards, energy consumption could be reduced by up to 50% if appropriate
investment is made.
Secondly, using fossil fuel is the key problem. Expansion will have to be
based on other sources of energy. The technology for this exists now in the
form of wave, wind and solar energy, but it will need huge investments to
implement the change.
Under a socialist planned economy, a large impetus will be given to the
development of science and technology leading to new non-polluting energy
sources being developed.
The arguments for a new way of organising society will find a growing and
receptive audience in the coming years.
Generation X-ploited
Low pay campaign heated up during April as members of the Socialist Party
joined with young workers in demonstrations calling of for better pay and
conditions.
by Matt Wilson
Low Pay demonstrations in Melbourne last month gave young workers a space
to voice their discontent with the conditions of youth employment. Two
stalls were organised outside McDonalds stores to highlight the hypocrisy
of the fast food giant which, on one hand, claims to offer young people a
great opportunity for work, whilst on the other hand paying extremely low
wages and actively opposes union organisation of its workforce.
Both stalls quickly turned into snap rallies as young workers from all
walks of employment joined in. The overwhelming message conveyed by those
who attended was that youth wages made young people feel like second class
citizens, that living on youth wages is a day-to-day struggle and that
young people are sick death of being exploited.
These experiences appear to be common for youth, even official Government
statistics cannot hide the incredible disparity between young workers and
their elder counterparts. The gap in wage rates has increased steadily over
the last ten years with an average drop in youth wages of $50. Young people
are now earning around 30% less than adults for the same work.
The figures get worse the younger the workers. On average, Fifteen to
Nineteen year olds can expect a despicable $10 per week. Overall, 56% of
all youth earn less than $200 per week including Government "benefits".
Some people would claim that these wages are fine for young people, since
most of them are studying and enjoy the luxury of being supported by their
parents. Again the figures appear to contradict such myths. The number of
youth struggling to support themselves is on the increase, currently 1.5
million young people are living independently, in many cases providingfor
their partners and children.
To make matters worse, the cost of living is higher for youth than for any
other age group. Young people are paying on average $110 per week for
accommodation alone. The cost of living is crippling young workers who are
attempting to study.
The university drop-out rate is increasing for low income earners.
Universities need not worry about cutting places for subsidised students,
low youth wages are solving the problem for them. Working students are
being pushed into disgraceful industries just to get though their courses.
It is estimated that 25% of prostitutes in Melbourne are university
students.
The only way to raise youth wages is for young people to stand up to their
bosses with the backing of their unions and fight.
However this is made difficult by the casualised nature of youth
employment. Strong, well-organised unions are usually based on a workforce
where workers are in stable employment, working with the same work-mates
and a single union for many years.
Young people have no time to form these connections; stable employment is
rare within the service and hospitality industries where most youth find
work. Consequently unionisation of 15 to 24 year olds is lower than for any
other working age group.
The low pay campaign activities have started to raise awareness over the
critical situation of youth employment. However there is much to be done.
The most encouraging sign is that the young people who walked into
McDonalds to have their say are currently working in different jobs all
over Melbourne. Their show of solidarity for McDonalds workers comes from
an
understanding that young people must stand united in a fight for better
wages and conditions.
In order to breakdown the isolation of young workers, the Socialist Party
has established the Young Workers Association.
The group, which is run entirely by young people, will provide legal
support and information for young workers, a 24-hour contact line, access
and information about the relevant unions that young people should be
joining. The Young Workers Association is designed to act as a permanent
reference point for young workers no matter where they find themselves
employed. Most importantly, when all attempts to negotiate with bosses
fail, we will be able to provide the mass support of young workers from
many industries to guarantee that those workers involved in a dispute are
successful. For too long employers have reaped millions out of the
exploitation of young workers. Its time to demand our share of the take.
--
Leftlink - Australia's Broad Left Mailing List
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.alexia.net.au/~www/mhutton/index.html
Sponsored by Melbourne's New International Bookshop
Subscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=subscribe%20leftlink
Unsubscribe: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]?Body=unsubscribe%20leftlink
