“The Contradictions of Real Socialism – the Conductor
and the Conducted” by Michael A. Lebowitz, 2012
The title of this book reads like it is some Ayn Rand
screed, and the unfortunate phrase chosen by Lebowitz, ‘real socialism,’ confuses
the issue he is raising. ‘Ostensible
socialism'; ‘really-existing attempts at socialism’ or ‘workers states,’ would
be far more accurate for what he means.
After all, Marx in the “Critique of the Gotha Program” made it clear
that socialism was a classless society, which would mean it had no state. However,
the important thing is not the terms Lebowitz uses, but the ideas behind them. He makes his own terms up for some
categories, in an attempt to define the nature of what happened in the USSR , China
This date is picked because, other than the analysis of Yevgeni
Preobrazhensky in the 1920s, and of course, quotes from Marx, history for
Lebowitz starts in that year. The prior
period is somewhat of a foggy haze to him, filled with some 'crazy uncle' or
something. Though not acknowledging the
struggle of the Left Opposition, in a somewhat dishonest way Lebowitz pays
ideological homage to it. The Marxist concept
of ‘permanent revolution’ is upheld and the idea of ‘socialism in one country’
undermined, in spite of his dissimulations. Workers democracy is
endorsed by Lebowitz and the bureaucracy pilloried, though as the "vanguard." Trotsky and the Left Opposition were indeed the first Marxists to analyze the effects of the bureaucracy in power, not Michael Lebowitz.
Lebowitz feels that every Marxist must study what happened in the former ‘socialist’ countries, applying Marxism
itself. He uses many original sources to
factually analyze the former workers states, and to uncover what led or will
lead to counter-revolution. The
Hungarian Janos Kornai is one of his key sources for facts, but not conclusions. His overall analysis shows that the
‘plan’ was never carried out anywhere, with, of course, national variations. The reason for this was that social and
economic relations were always contested between capitalism on one side,
the ideology and organization of the vanguard party on another side, and on a
third side, the working class. Society never became an organic whole. Preobrazhensky
understood this contestation was happening in the 1920s in the USSR
Within the workers states, the capitalist tendencies were
initially embodied in the enterprise managers, who ultimately wanted control
and then ownership of the factories they ran.
The ‘vanguard’ party, which tried to organize a planned economy, was
also dominated by sectoral factions –
the leading ones being in heavy industry, the military and resource extraction. As a result, a scarcity economy was created
for the working class based on how the enterprise managers and the ‘vanguard’
planners interacted. The enterprise
managers, who were paid incentives to ‘make the plan,’ hoarded labor and
materials, lied about production capabilities and quality, participated in the underground economy and used ‘storming’
methods to fulfill the plan, creating poor-quality goods or a lack of goods. As a result, the plan did not work – partly
because the planners did not know the real facts. And the planners began to do some of the same
things, though in broader sectors. This conflicted
economy was characterized by shortages of everyday things – housing, food,
quality clothing, car parts and many other consumer goods. This scarcity
economy was one of the factors undermining the workers state and the allegiance
of the working class.
This clash
between the planners and the enterprise managers was a key disequilibrium in these countries attempting to reach socialism. It reaches it apotheosis in the neo-liberalism of Gorbachev's USSR
Lebowitz, like many others, points out that the working class was ignored in
their own state. As long as the social
wage was supplied – stable prices, the supply of basics like housing and health care, job security based on full employment, a
slow pace of labor, the ability to steal enterprise goods, and the ability to
move to other factories – workers were content with the bargain of having no
direct power in the factory, the trade unions, the political bodies or in any
workers councils. This was the source of
stability, this bargain. As time
went on, stagnation began to creep into the economy due to the failure of the
plan and the lack of involvement by the workers. Lebowitz points out that experiments in
‘workers self-management’ in Yugoslavia
So the real villain of counter-revolution ultimately was not
the enterprise managers, but the ‘vanguard’ itself, as they were responsible for holding back the working class. They enforced their power
through ‘regulation’ – not just of the enterprise managers for a time, but of
the working class itself. Hence the
subtitle of this book, ‘The Conductor and the Conducted.”
After a time, the planners and the enterprise managers reached
accommodations, as each acted upon the other. Factory managers supplied central 'planners' with scarce goods.
They became a hardened strata which became ever more distant from the working-class, and moved ever slowly back towards capitalism. There is a bit of the innocent Maoist analysis
here in Lebowitz, but Mao was also a ‘vanguardist’ of the highest order, so I
suspect Lebowitz has left Mao behind. The 'Vanguard' pressed their organizational structure upon every aspect of
society, attempting to bring it to socialism by depriving the class that
actually creates socialism from actual power. And herein lies the irony.
Lebowitz traces how the 'moral economy of the working class' had the possibility of leading the society towards real socialism. As an example, the Russian term "blat" - essentially trading goods and services, some stolen, some not - created networks of solidarity among workers, in essence a 'gift economy' - yet an economy that was only in the 'egg,' only limited to small circles He maintains that normal working-class egalitarianism and the idea of fairness among workers holds the seeds of a new society.
Lebowitz traces how the 'moral economy of the working class' had the possibility of leading the society towards real socialism. As an example, the Russian term "blat" - essentially trading goods and services, some stolen, some not - created networks of solidarity among workers, in essence a 'gift economy' - yet an economy that was only in the 'egg,' only limited to small circles He maintains that normal working-class egalitarianism and the idea of fairness among workers holds the seeds of a new society.
Some of Lebowitz’s lines about how the 'Vanguard' can almost literally ‘own’ the means of production in certain sectors is a picture
of what is now happening in China, as counter-revolution winds society backwards
on the gears of the vanguard’s money.
And the Chinese working-class is ignored, in this so-called 'socialist state' by this so-called 'Communist Party.'
After all this, Lebowitz has no comments on the nature of
the vanguard party prior to the revolution, or what should be the role of a vanguard party, if any, in the struggle for socialism. He dodges this question too. I’ll make a suggestion that I’ve made in the
past. That is that the ‘vanguard party’ as
a ‘democratic-centralist’ body – if it is even possible for a millions-strong
proletariat to end up following only one organization! – should see itself as a
combat organization primarily, and begin to ‘wither away’ once the capitalist
state is overthrown. That will guarantee
that ultimately the workers councils hold real power, not a group of
self-chosen bureaucrats.
And I bought it at May Day Books!
Come to the May Day Book Sale & Party this Saturday
Afternoon. All books 20% off and
purchases of over $35 will get you a free book from our used/discounted
section.
Red Frog
December 10, 2012
No comments:
Post a Comment