Official political economy has great difficulty dealing with
any of the problems of the capitalist economy. It has become the
most obscurantist and mystified science, the most detached from
the reality it is supposed to explain. The social means of
production and production itself are held in private hands. All
these private interests have their own preoccupations and
concerns for the wellbeing of their private property and fruits
of production which they own. How can there be any scientific
planning for the economy as a whole, that is to say socialist
planning? There is certainly planning in favor of the most
powerful sections of the capitalist class but this is not
planning of the economy, it is merely taking measures to favor
one section of the capitalists over the others, or possibly
oblige the demands of the capitalist class as a whole. This
capitalist planning leaves the basic economic relations in
society intact. Capitalist planning means free rein for the
anarchy of production in the society as a whole. There is no
human scientific intervention to coordinate production and
consumption. There is no socialist planning to assure that the
means of production are systematically expanded to assure the
future wellbeing of the people. There is no humanization of the
social and natural environment. In order to fool the people, the
capitalists have created a mysterious fetish of their opposition
to socialist planning, euphemistically calling the
existing"anarchy of production" as the "free market economy"
whose "hidden hand" somehow "regulates" the economy. They even
give it magical powers, that without scientific human guidance
this "hidden hand" regulates all aspects of the economy and
creates the best possible world that humans can possibly devise.
The reality that capitalist societies are always in crisis,
facing problem after problem that rains down on the heads of the
people is of no consequence to these soothsayers. The fact that
right from its earliest beginnings capitalism has suffered
recession after recession, inter-capitalist war after
inter-capitalist war is completely discounted. There is no truth
whatsoever, empirical or theoretical, which can prove that at any
time the so called free market economy or its hidden hand have
actually regulated production and consumption or any of the other
economic contradictions. The truth of the matter is that
capitalist society exhibits a permanent army of unemployed,
growing impoverishment and is in perpetual crisis giving rise to
increasingly disastrous wars, disease and human want.
The other major problem caused by the basic internal
contradiction is that private ownership of the means of
production determines that the motive behind production is the
creation of maximum capitalist profit. This motive renders
production and people as merely incidental to this unswerving aim
of maximum capitalist profit. In the final analysis, neither
production nor people matter. If there is no capitalist profit to
be made there is no need for production. By a simple arithmetical
equation, if there is no need for production there is obviously
no need for people either. Such a system creates a perpetual
state of panic and insecurity in a growing section of the
populace which does not know what is going to happen to them from
one day to the next. The entire relationship between things and
people becomes distorted to the extent that things and their
cruelty dominate over the people and their humaneness. This
distortion is observed in representative democracy and the
current political process in which people are called upon to vote
every few years but have no say either in governance or in the
economic affairs of the society.
In addition to the main contradiction making up the
"internal basis" of the "way forward," there are also extenuating
circumstances. Policies of the governments can give rise to
extenuating circumstances for the "way forward." Under the
present system without the resolution of the main contradiction,
the policies of the government, especially the anti-social
offensive, only serve to sharpen the conflict between the social
process of production and the private appropriation of the fruits
of production. These extenuating circumstances can be internal to
the economic system as is the case with the current worldwide
anti-social offensive which is bound to trigger an even greater
economic crisis. The anti-social offensive, contrary to the
claims of big labour that eliminating the deficit by the year
2000 will allow capitalism to recover, will not solve any of the
problems but will give rise to an even greater recession. The
anti-social offensive is starving the basic economy of its
productive capabilities, taking money out of the economy and
concentrating on redistributing already produced value. The world
has become awash with casinos, luxuries, armaments and
rationalized production systems. Health, education, social
programs and basic production are all collapsing leading to the
most severe crisis imaginable. The bourgeois nation-state is
being abandoned in favor of the "global market" while national
institutions such as the railways, airlines, the health care
system, post-secondary education, the care of the nation's urban
centers and other parts of the national infrastructure
deteriorate.
Extenuating circumstances can be external to the economic
system such as the "high interest rate" policy of Ronald Reagan
in the early eighties which triggered a recession and exploded
the public debt, or the sudden raising of the price of oil in the
early seventies which ushered in retaliation by other sectors of
the capitalists who forced governments to print money well beyond
total domestic production causing the worst inflation crisis
since the twenties.
Extenuating circumstances can only play their role when
there is an internal basis existing for their operation. For
example, socialist planning is possible only if there is a
socialist society, which demands a social process of production
and social ownership of the means of production and the fruits of
production. Throughout the twentieth century certain people have
claimed that there can be socialist planning and a socialist
society with a social process of production but private ownership
of the means of production. These claims have always remained
mere claims with no connection with reality whatsoever. The
conflicting private interests of the capitalists prohibit
socialist planning. It is theoretically and practically
impossible.
Private ownership of the social process of production is
conducive to the anti-social offensive in the sense that the
motive of production in such a society is the making of maximum
capitalist profit. Everything is done to reverse the basic trend
of the lowering of the rate of profit. The extenuating
circumstances of the anti-social offensive are not seen from the
angle of the damage that they are causing to the basic economy
and the people. The various measures taken are seen only as means
to save profits from deteriorating. Any government or social
force that wishes to bring about change will first have to
resolve the basic contradiction of the system by socializing the
ownership of the means of production and the expropriation of the
fruits of production, bringing them into harmony with the already
socialized process of production.
When "big labor" opposes the "corporate agenda" it is
merely for effect, for political expediency, to appear as if they
have something profound and meaningful to say. Just to shout
against the corporate agenda means nothing. It is like shouting
against the rain or snow; it is windbaggery of the first order.
When they are called upon to elaborate on what they mean by
opposition to the corporate agenda they fall into traditional
social democracy, class conciliation and the refusal to
acknowledge the basic contradiction of capitalism. They may
propose that there be a fair distribution of the wealth, or a
fair distribution of the burden of the economic crisis. Depending
on the level of the mass movement they may venture slogans to tax
the banks or to get the "corporate welfare bums." Their
explanation of the anti-corporate agenda remains vague and
imprecise. To tax the banks means increasing the amount of
capital in the hands of the capitalist class as a whole which it
will gather into the state treasury and distribute according to
the relative strength of the capitalist groups. In the same
fashion equal distribution of the burden of the crisis will not
change the equation, because this is an unequal society divided
into antagonistic classes. If the poor are made to pay only one
percent of their income and the billionaires are required to pay
an equal percentage but much greater amount, they both retain
their class positions of pauper and billionaire. It will not
amount to an equal sharing of social production. In a society
where no proposal is forthcoming to change its foundation, one
cannot think about any change in terms of the direction of such a
society.
By contrast, concrete proposals to oppose private
appropriation of social production are expressed in the demands
for a moratorium on servicing the debt, and the nationalization
of all financial institutions. These two measures alone would
begin a change in the internal basis of the system. They would
begin the change but would not be the change itself. As well, to
demand that there should be more investments in education,
health, and social programs, to increase investments on a
continuous basis would also put pressure on the foundation of the
old society. These measures, the moratorium on servicing the
debt, the nationalization of the financial institutions and an
increase in investments in education, health and social programs
would be the beginning of a change in the internal basis of the
system.
The demands of big labor do not face the reality of the
objective internal basis of the system. Its proposals are
actually designed to strengthen the system. From time to time it
launches the accusation that some people are misusing their
positions or their policies are misplaced. If only their policies
were not misplaced, they protest, the system would work. There
has been no country in the world which has either followed the
proposals of big labor or after pursuing their proposals brought
about any change in the basic tendencies of capitalism. Even if
we examine the entire history of the capitalist system, that is
from the beginning of the nineteenth century to the present,
anti-corporate policies have been popularized, some people have
become excited and shout slogans in favor of this or that, and
certain individuals have even organized lobbies to implore the
governments to change the situation in this or that fashion to
favor the people. All this is designed to create the illusion
that the capitalist system can be managed properly. Once managed
properly, big labor proclaims, the system will be able to shake
itself free from its tendency of the rich becoming richer and the
poor poorer. The permanent standing army of the unemployed will
begin to shrink and eventually disappear, in other words, the
capitalist system will no longer remain the capitalist system but
will become its opposite, it will become a socialist system but
without touching the basic contradiction of social production
versus private ownership. If they truly desired that the
capitalist system should lose its exploitive character then they
would have to demand social ownership of the means of production,
that ownership and control of the fruits of production be at par
with the social process of production. But that is considered
sectarian and too radical. Somehow capitalism is to change its
fundamental character without a fundamental resolution of its
internal contradictions. They dream of capitalism without its ill
effects, which is after all the shouting and slogans have died
away, merely but an idle dream that has the devastating effect of
diverting people from squarely facing the harsh reality.
When Nikita Khrushchev became the General Secretary of the
Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the leader of the USSR in
the mid-1950s, he advocated that the economic problems of
socialism can be overcome through the "efficient use of the
productive forces" and proper "management." Why is it that
Khrushchev failed as well as all those who followed in his
footsteps? They all advocated strengthening socialism by
developing and properly managing the productive forces. Why is it
that the introduction of these measures gave rise to
pseudo-socialism and finally the capitalist system, a total
reversal of the socialist foundation of the society, which is a
far cry from strengthening the socialist system?
The efficient use of the productive forces and improvement in
scientific management is the battle-cry of every capitalist enterprise.
However, the efficient use of the productive forces can only be
accomplished through improvement in management in a society where classes
have been thoroughly eliminated. As long as there is class society, as
long as there is private ownership of the means of production there cannot be
efficient use of the productive forces. They remain the purview
of the exploiting class, to be used to fulfil their aim. The aim
of the capitalist system has nothing to do with the efficient use
of society's productive forces for the wellbeing of the people.
The entire assets of the country are put at the disposal of the
monopoly capitalists in their demand for maximum capitalist
profit.
Even though socialist society is a society without
exploitation of persons by persons, still there is class struggle
between those who want to strengthen socialism and those who want
capitalist restoration. Class struggle still is the basis of
change, development and motion in such a society. The overthrown
classes and the new bourgeoisie that emerges out of the Party and
the state apparatuses strive their hardest to make a comeback. It
is in the interests of those elements to suggest that class
struggle is not the motor of development of socialism, that there
is no need to further improve and revolutionize the relations of
production and that there is no longer any need to further
socialize the means of production. In the Soviet Union right from
the mid-1950s, far from waging the class struggle, they started
creating the illusion that Soviet society had already become a
developed socialist society where even dialectics did not
operate, where even the philosophy of dialectical and historical
materialism was no longer applicable. The Communist Party was no
longer the party of the proletariat dedicated to its emancipation
but became the Party of the "whole people." No longer was the
Soviet Union dedicated to the victory of the emancipation of the
working class in the Soviet homeland as well as internationally,
but rather was engaged in "peaceful competition with imperialism"
to see who could produce the most thorough efficient management
and the best technique. No longer was there discussion promoted
to find the "way forward" but all energy was directed towards
denouncing those who had already passed away and could not defend
themselves. Anyone who raised any questions about the direction
of the Soviet Union was branded as anti-Soviet and directed to
get in step with socialist dogma. The entire experience of the
collapse of the Soviet Union is testimony to the fact that the
denial of class struggle and the embracing of the slogans of the
"efficient use of the productive forces" with "improved
management," and the "Party of the whole people" were designed to
restore capitalism and destroy socialism.
Mikhail Gorbachev after he became general secretary in 1985
came out in 1986 with his "perestroika" and "glasnost" under the
guise of strengthening socialism. In the late 1980s,
restructuring and openness were not extenuating circumstances
that could have strengthened socialism in the Soviet Union. The
extenuating circumstances would have been to overthrow the
existing capitalist class, to overthrow its political power and
to restore the social ownership of the means of production, that
is to intensify class struggle. On the contrary, according to
Gorbachev "perestroika" and "glasnost", that is, restructuring
and openness, would somehow strengthen socialism. The system
Gorbachev inherited and for which he worked was already
pseudo-socialist--socialist in words, but capitalist in actual
fact. State property had already changed its content from
socialist to capitalist. For this private property to fully
assert itself there was a need for the political structures to be
changed, for the old Soviet forms to be destroyed. All the old
symbols of socialism had to be removed, all the old forms had to
be eliminated so that this private property could fully express
itself. If the aim of Gorbachev was to strengthen socialism he
would have had to unleash the class struggle against the new
Soviet bourgeoisie, which was the basis for the development of
the USSR then and today in the former Soviet republics. There is
no country in the world where the slogan of efficiency and
management, the rational use of resources can be the catchwords
of progress except in those countries which are fighting for the
survival of their revolution and independence from imperialism.
In spite of all the most modern techniques of rationalization,
scientific management and efficiency, no country in
the world has been able to resolve the basic contradiction
between the social process of production and the private
ownership of the means of production without social revolution.
This contradiction persists in wreaking havoc in society.
CPC(M-L)
Shawgi Tell
Graduate School of Education
University at Buffalo
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
