The following piece, written by the late Pieter Lawrence, is the fourth chapter of his 2006 work, 'Practical Socialism - Its Principles and Methods'.
Chapter 4
Methods of Practical Socialism
World Socialism is a practical possibility because over the past three hundred years global capitalism has developed a material basis for the new society. It has created an integrated world structure of production; transport and distribution systems; instant global communications; decision making bodies and administrative institutions. These structures operate at local, regional and world levels in a state of rapid development which increasingly pre-dispose their free use for the benefit of all people. Given the political will they could be adapted as a socialist system over a relatively short period. The methods of practical socialism apply a distinction between the useful parts of production and social organisation which would be continued, and the economic/value factors which would be redundant and therefore removed.
It has been suggested that the capitalist system marks the end of history; that we are now in a final phase of social evolution that is our ultimate destiny and from which there can be no further progress. But can this strange idea be more than wishful thinking, a desperate hope amongst those who seek to idealise the market system and prefer not to see beyond it? Far from being the end of progress the market system creates problems it cannot solve. Its competition and economic rivalries cause war and the build up of destructive forces that threaten human existence. The only sense in which capitalism may be the end of history is that it may destroy humanity. Yet even in a time when faith in ourselves is fragile and our belief in the future is weak we should also know that we are capable of bringing our rationality, humanity and good sense to bear on our social problems and by doing this, moving on. We may still hope that we can build a better world and create a decent way to live. In fact the intellectual powers required for this are minor compared with the immense complexities of modern applied science which support our modern technical culture. It appears that we are brilliant at sending space vehicles through the solar system whilst languishing in the dark ages when it comes to our social relationships.
Rather than think that history is at an end it may be more useful to note that during the long period of pre-history, a time sometimes referred to as ‘primitive communism’, with the use of only primitive tools, our distant ancestors co-operated to provide for their needs. Co-operation at that time conferred vital survival advantages on the group and without it we could never have emerged as a species. Now we have advanced technology but primitive relationships With this in mind the socialist revolution may be seen as part of a long cycle of change from co-operation at a primitive level to co-operation at a more conscious, technically developed level. Throughout history human kind has been accumulating its collective powers of labour. These are now immense and more than capable of providing every person with a good life and there is no sound reason why we should not do it.
Use Versus Value
Under the capitalist system labour operates in two forms; its useful form and its economic form. Firstly it operates as useful labour producing the things we need to live. This is not unique to capitalism; it is common to all societies. Marx put it thus; “So far as therefore labour is a creator of use value, is useful labour, it is a necessary condition, independent of all forms of society, for the existence of the human race: it is an eternal nature imposed necessity, without which there can be no material exchanges between Man and nature , and therefore no life.” (Capital, vol I, chapter 1, section 2)
But simultaneous with its useful form, labour also operates in an economic form. Labour has a price that is its wage or salary and this indicates its value. When employed as part of the wage labour/capital relationship the economic function of labour is to create values over and above its own value. This is surplus value which is the source of profit and capital accumulation. The process begins with money capital invested in labour, materials, plant, machinery and land etc., and ends with finished commodities being sold in the markets for profit. It is only the labour component of these investments that produces the increased or surplus values that are realised in the markets through sales. This results in accumulated capital which, all things being equal, then becomes available for further accumulation throughout this circular system of exchange.
The change from capitalist to socialist production does not then require the establishment of anything new. It is self evident that, although dominated by the economic/value factors of
commodity production, labour is already working in its useful form and this would continue. The change would be in the internal working relationships of the production systems. The result would be that people would simply carry on doing their useful jobs in co-operation but without the exploitative features of the wage labour/capital relationship.
With the enactment of common ownership marking the end of the market system, society will work only with useful labour. The value form of labour will be redundant and will disappear. The wages system will end. Labour will then be free to co-operate to produce goods and provide services directly for the needs of the community. All the freedoms of socialist society will flow from this basic change in the use of labour. Useful labour will find its freedom outside the economic constraints of the profit motive, commodity exchange and the accumulation of capital. The energies, skills and talents of people will at last be freely applied through voluntary co-operation in whatever ways the community may democratically decide.
The triumph of useful labour over its economic or value form will result in a far more efficient use of labour. The sole use of labour to provide for the needs of the community will mean that a vast amount of labour that is at present allocated to economic functions will become immediately redundant. This great advantage of socialist organisation will be covered at greater length in a later chapter. This freedom of labour also has an important bearing on the nature of the change from capitalism to socialism. A system based on the sole use of voluntary labour acting in co-operation can only result from the conscious, democratic actions of a majority of people who co-operate to establish the new society.
Sudden and Gradual Change
Some opponents of socialism have argued that a world wide change from one society to another over a short period is unprecedented in history and impossible to achieve at any time. It is said that social change is gradual; it cannot be sudden or cataclysmic and this rules out a world wide change from capitalism to socialism. Set against this is the fact that the productive relationships of capitalism and socialism cannot operate together or be combined over time. Experience also shows that gradualist attempts to develop socialism within capitalist through reforms or other government measures have failed because they are impossible. But we are not in fact confronted by a stark choice between sudden or gradual change. In practice the two are linked and there are examples from history of sudden, far reaching change. The question is perhaps best understood through the ways in which gradual change can build up pressures of social, economic and political tensions that are eventually resolved through sudden change. This integrates the concepts of gradual and sudden change and sees them as different parts of a continuous process of change.
A realistic view of history cannot be happy with the idea of sudden leaps in social arrangements but then neither can we out-rule rapid or sudden change and we would wrong to say that it has never happened. A modern example was the way in which the Bolsheviks abolished the landed aristocracy in Russia in l917. They did this overnight and ‘at a stroke’. It is true that some progress had been made in land reform before 1917 but for the most part feudal type agricultural relationships had existed for centuries and involved millions of people over the entire land mass of Russia. The removal of the entire class of aristocratic landowners and its corresponding mode of agricultural production was enacted by the Bolsheviks at 2.30 in the morning on 9th. November l917.
But the apparent suddenness of this change is misleading. Whilst it was certainly a dramatic political event it cannot be explained solely in terms of what happened on 9th. November l917. Although the power of the landed aristocracy had remained more or less unaltered for centuries, the pressures on it from a wide range of external sources had been intensifying. The change from feudal type relations to what, under Stalin, became state capitalist agriculture can only be fully understood in relation to the more gradual pressures leading up to it.
The sudden abolition of the landed aristocracy in Russia is partly explained by the slow pace of change during the preceding 100 years and in particular the failure to develop more efficient capitalist agriculture, compared with other European powers. This meant that with the 1st World War, because food as well as industrial production was vital, Russia could not sustain its war effort on equal terms with other more developed combatants. The failures of the Russian army, the bankruptcy of the state, the conditions of the masses in desperate poverty and famine, combined to produce social and political breakdown which gave the Bolsheviks their opportunity to seize power. Thus the failure to develop on more equal terms with other European powers throughout the 19th Century eventually brought severe pressure on the backward nature of social relationships in Russia in 1917.
Whilst not using the terms gradual and sudden change the concept of how these may in practice be an integrated process was suggested by Marx in his distinction between the “material productive forces of society” and the “existing relations of production.” For Marx, this was more than a distinction, it becomes a conflict. “At a certain stage of their development, the material productive forces of society come into conflict with the existing relations of production.” “Then begins an epoch of social revolution.” (Preface to the Critique of Political Economy)
Applying this to the development of world capitalism it is useful to make a further distinction between the form and the content of its productive relations. The form or the social basis of capitalism, that is to say its “relations of production,” is the class ownership of wealth. This means that means of production, transport and resources are privately owned or monopolised through state ownership. In the modern world we see a vast power of ownership by global corporations. These “relations of production” do not change, they are basic to defining capitalism as a system.
Also, such economic categories as capital investment, the means of production functioning as capital, commodities and wage labour are key to explaining how goods and services are produced in the market system and who gets what from the pool of goods made available. Two hundred years ago the production of goods commenced with an exchange of wages for labour time and this has not changed. It is exactly the same now.
Over the course of its history, as pre-capitalist ways of life have been swept aside, more and more people have come to be producing within the wage labour/capital relationship. Markets have expanded to their greatest capacity than at any other time. There is a greater pool of capital still being accumulated from the exploitation of workers than ever before. Structures of government have expanded. Capitalist states are stronger with more arms and greater powers of destruction than ever before. The capitalist system has spread to every corner of the planet with the result that it now exists as a gigantic world structure, with economic events in one place having repercussions throughout the world.
What has changed within this expansion has been the social/technical content of the wage labour/capital relationship. Within this we include techniques of production, developed communications, productivity, a more complex division of labour, new products and new markets, administration, institutions, democratic rights, our knowledge of the world, social attitudes, living standards, etc. In each of these fields there is rapid change but these do not alter the basic wage labour/capital relationship through which production takes place. Nor does the motive of production change, which is that goods, as commodities, are produced for sale on the markets with a view to profit. This is the same now as more than three centuries ago when capitalism first became the dominant economic system.
The dynamic technical and social changes which have been part of capitalism since the beginnings of the industrial revolution and which continue with increasing momentum have made no impact on the basic class relations of the system or its motive of production. This contrast between rapid social change that continues on a basis of static class relations is creating social and economic and political tensions that can only be resolved by the establishment of socialism.
We can acknowledge that at its beginning the capitalist system was in many important ways a progressive development of society. It is doubtful if even the most devoted admirer of privilege would want to return to feudalism and the absolute rule of monarchy. However, having once moved us on the market system has long since outlived its ability to make progress. It now operates as a barrier to progress. The more our powers of production are developed the greater becomes the gap between what we could produce and what we actually produce. With deep social problems desperate to be solved the continuous accumulation of our productive powers comes into greater conflict with what appears to be our fixed economic relationships. This conflict between our limited economic options and our greater powers of production places increasing pressure on the need for political action to change society. Given a majority of socialists the task would present no difficulties. The developed powers of production and organisation that now exist pre-dispose the ease with which a world wide socialist movement could stop the operation of capitalism and immediately commence the operation of socialist society.
In this perspective, the question of a sharp distinction between sudden and gradual change is dissolved. It is a matter of neither one nor the other. Even now, the position of governments where they find themselves boxed in by severe economic constraints, or worse, as they stagger from crisis to crisis, is against a background of immense powers of production and social organisation that cannot be brought into use. This contradiction, or tensions, between static economic relations and developed powers of production can only intensify and bring about increasing pressure for change which by the nature of the two systems must take place over a relatively short period.
Method
Practical socialism is defined as the work of proposing how existing powers of production and social organisation could be used directly for the needs of all people according to the principles of common ownership, democratic control and production solely for use. It therefore follows that one method of work is to identify the socially useful parts of production such as industry and agriculture etc., that could be applied directly to the solution of problems. These should be distinguished from parts of production that can only serve the objectives of capitalism and would therefore become redundant, for example, finance and business services, weapons and armaments production. (More on this in a later chapter)
This method involves more than the factors of production; it must also include decision making bodies, means of organisation and administration. In its approach to the question of which bodies and institutions could continue in socialism the sole criteria is whether or not they could serve a socially useful function. This method of selection must bring with it an open mind, free of any pre-conceived ideas that may come as part of the ideological baggage that can, unfortunately, travel with socialism as part of its diverse history.
For example, it is a prejudice of the anarchist school of thought that the entire machinery of government, having been part of the state, would be abolished. These are merely the sterile attitudes of individuals who have used the socialist movement as a means of dissociating from society. In fact Ministries such as the Ministry of Food, The Department of Transport, Department of the Environment, etc., together with their staffs and technical officers would have a vital part to play in the organisation of socialism. No doubt the Treasury, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue would become redundant but not because they are part of the machinery of government. These would simply have no job to do.
A further method is the work of proposing how the existing machinery of government could be democratised so as to play a part in a system of democratic administration.
Beyond continuous social and technical change which expose existing productive relations as static, destructive and historically redundant, the actual nature of the change from capitalism to socialism should be kept in clear perspective. We are not looking towards a sudden transformation of all aspects of society. In fact, substantially, we are looking towards the continuation of the most important things that society does.
The life of society depends upon people doing their useful jobs. With all their energies and skills it is working people of all kinds, from labourers to factory workers, technicians and computer operators who already run the world production system. There could be no sudden change in the work processes of people in mining, industry, manufacture, transport and distribution, farming, building and construction, energy supply, health services, education and the many other services. With the enactment of common ownership all these people would carry on with what they are doing, but in circumstances in which all the economic factors of the capitalist system will have been removed. With no wages system and no production of commodities for sale at a profit, this would be people working in voluntary co-operation for themselves and for the community at large.
Necessity
The aim of socialism is to establish the relationships of equality that will dignify and empower our communities and so enable them to solve social problems in the interests of all people. The problems are huge. The actions and organisation required to solve them mean that to begin with communities in socialism will be bound to respond to these compelling pressures of necessity. This will determine what socialism will have to do and this sets out a framework of known facts within which we may propose how socialism could be organised. As has been emphasised, this also rescues socialism from its tendency towards utopian speculation. It provides an agenda for creative work that can be developed as a serious practical alternative to existing capitalist society.
Beyond the solution of social problems, as the pressures of necessity are lifted from communities, the options on how to live will widen. Because in this prospect we cannot sensibly anticipate what choices will be made, any attempt to do so would move from the sound work of proposing how existing problems could be solved into utopian spheres of futuristic speculation.
The “future” only exists in the sense that it is being contested now through the clash of political ideas. These conflicting ideas reflect conflicting interests and whatever the future may be will be the outcome of these arguments. Opponents of socialism hold that in one form or another the capitalist system should continue into the foreseeable future. They argue that the means of production should remain under private or state ownership; that the market system should continue and that profit should come before the needs of people. But socialists argue for a different future and whether or not this happens will be the outcome of present political choice.
Needs
It would be impossible to argue a definition of needs valid for all time and for all circumstances. Such a discussion would be endlessly subjective and irrelevant to our purpose. For practical socialism the question is answered from what socialism would have to do to solve existing problems. Implicit in this is a working definition of needs. There is common agreement about what these problems are and they are defined as problems because they arise from a definite human need of one kind or another. This provides a context and a practical basis for saying what we mean by needs.
For example, who could seriously doubt that food is a vital human need? Socialism would give the utmost priority to stopping world hunger. Capitalism fails to do this. The numbers of hungry people in the world are increasing. Between the years 1974 and 2000 the number of seriously undernourished people doubled from 435 million people to over 800 million. (FAO Fact File) Communities in socialism must stop people dying from hunger and could do it immediately. Beyond this a choice of good quality food would be produced for all people. This would require increased world food production.
Socialism must also house the world’s population in comfort, providing for the basic necessities of piped clean water, drainage systems, cooking facilities and other domestic amenities. In addition socialism must establish a safe world energy supply, stop pollution and adopt techniques able to work within the natural systems of the environment in non destructive ways. There is a need to bring into balance the world distribution of means of production, transport systems and storage facilities. There is a need to extend health and education services and further develop communications of every kind. For all these great projects, socialism would begin with a structure of production, inadequate for the supply of these needs. This would require a rapid expansion of production.
These aims would have to be accomplished in stages in an order of priorities, doing what was manageable at first, monitoring the progress made and then going on. As we have said, this anticipates a stage of development in socialism when pressures of necessity will be eased with the result that communities will have wider options on how to live. In these circumstances, no doubt, various philosophies of needs will be widely debated leading perhaps to a great diversity of life styles. But given the present state of things, our desperate need is to solve our problems.
Pieter Lawrence
Link to Chapter 5
