News from Nowhere (1993)

From the October 1993 issue of the Socialist Standard

Penguin Classics have just brought out a new edition of William Morris’s Socialist novel as News from Nowhere and Other Writings (£6.99). The other writings include two of Morris's socialist articles "Useful Work versus Useless Toil" and "The Hopes of Civilisation" both of which make it absolutely clear (for those who might doubt it) that Morris was a class-struggle Socialist who saw capitalism as based on the exploitation of the working class and Socialism as a classless stateless, moneyless society that would be the outcome of the struggle of the working class to free itself from wage-slavery

Letter: Conditions for socialism (2025)

Letter to the Editors from the October 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

Conditions for socialism

Dear Editors,

I am sympathetic to the politics of the Socialist Party of Great Britain and share its aim of a socialist society established by a conscious and democratic working class majority. What follows is written in that spirit, as a contribution to the discussion on how we prepare for such a transformation.

Capitalism cannot transform itself into socialism. That conviction lies at the heart of socialist thinking and aligns with the principle of establishing a system where the means of production are owned and democratically controlled by the community as a whole. Socialism must be the conscious act of a working class armed with knowledge, organisation, and power.

It is often argued that when the working class is ready for socialism it will vote for it. That rests on two essential truths. First, socialism can only be achieved by a large conscious majority acting democratically and intentionally. Second, the existing machinery of parliamentary democracy, limited though it may be, contains within it the possibility for a peaceful and organised transition, provided the working class understands how that machinery works.

Capitalism thrives on keeping the population politically subdued and misinformed. A poorly informed electorate is an easily ruled one. That is why the working class must be educated, not only in the theory of socialism, but also in how decisions are made, how budgets are set, how law functions, and how representatives can be held accountable. Knowing the rules is the first step to changing the game altogether.

Real democracy begins in our communities, workplaces, housing estates, and union halls, places where working people already share their lives and struggles. Those local assemblies could form the foundation of socialist organisation. On that base, regional workers’ councils could coordinate action on health, housing, transport, and workplace democracy. Delegates to such councils would remain at the service of their community, recallable, rotating, and bound by the decisions they carry.

Above these regional councils, a national workers’ convention could bring together delegates answerable to their base, constrained by short terms, public transparency, and salaries no higher than a worker’s wage. Such a structure could make use of the ballot box while grounding representation in a democracy strengthened from below.

This approach does not reject parliamentary activity. Parliamentary work could serve to spread clarity, to win small improvements, and to reinforce struggles beyond the ballot box. Democracy, limited though it may be, can be an instrument of socialist transformation, but only when matched with organised, politically educated working class action.

If capitalism falls, socialism must stand ready. A revolution of words without preparation, or the destruction of the old system without having built the tools to replace it, will only lead to chaos. Education, organisation, clarity of purpose, and collective democratic structures matter as much as any vote.

Capitalist institutions will call this vision naive or impractical. That reveals their fear. They would rather manage anxiety than meet a working class that knows its power, acts together, and understands both the potential and the limits of parliament.

Socialism requires no saviours. It requires citizens who understand how power works, believe in collective solutions, and organise from the ground up. This is not a utopian fantasy. This is the practical road to a democratic and equitable society.

Pablo Wilcox

Reply:

We agree. Obviously, socialism cannot be introduced by a simple parliamentary vote. It requires, as you put it, ‘a large conscious majority acting democratically and intentionally’ and, also, organised outside parliament in the sort of ways you outline. We would add that, to win control of political power, it will also require a mass socialist party, organised in the same sort of democratic way and without leaders, to contest elections and send mandated delegates to the parliament and regional and local councils. The socialist majority needs to win control of political power to take it out of the hands of those who control it on behalf of the capitalist class and to use it to end their ownership of the resources on which society depends. This has to be done before current problems can be solved in an effective and lasting way.

Three different situations need to be distinguished: (1) what exists today when only a relatively tiny minority want socialism; (2) what will exist when a substantial minority and eventually a large majority want socialism; (3) what will exist when socialism has been established.

On (1), we draw the conclusion that the urgent priority is to help the emergence of more and more socialists by spreading the view that capitalism can never be reformed to work in the interest of the majority and that bringing the means of wealth production into common ownership under democratic control is the only way out. Today, then, socialist activity as such is essentially educational and consciousness-raising.

On (2), we can’t predict and don’t want to lay down how a socialist minority in the course of becoming the majority will or should act. That will be for it to decide, but we can expect that it will try to extract what concessions it can, by organising in the ways you suggest as well as in a mass socialist party. Hopefully, the mass socialist party will pursue the same policy that we do and not make the mistake of deciding to itself seek support on the basis of being able to extract such concessions rather than exclusively for abolishing capitalism. That can be left to trade unions and other popular organisations. No doubt, on the eve of the winning of political control, plans will have been drawn up to be implemented once such control has been won. But, again, we can’t usefully predict or lay down now what they should be. That will be for those around at the time to decide in the light of then existing conditions.

On (3), socialism will have a democratic decision-making structure but again, we don’t want to be too prescriptive, and it may be, for example, that delegates could be sent to local councils and even a central decision-making body on the basis of where people live rather than just on where they work. 

Editors.

Waking up (2025)

Book Review from the August 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

One of the common jibes directed at the Socialist Party is that, though we have been in existence well over 100 years, we have made little or no progress in garnering support for the system we advocate to replace capitalism. We’re talking here about a stateless, moneyless, marketless society of common ownership, voluntary cooperation and free access to all goods and services – one that will be organised democratically on the basis of from each according to ability to each according to need. Our response to the jibe has always been that what we are at least doing is keeping the idea of that society alive and it will be there for the majority to establish once social consciousness has developed sufficiently for them to see the necessity of it.

Positive signs?

And we do see some positive moves in that direction, evidenced by the idea of a moneyless, borderless world society being advocated from a variety of quarters, often quite independent of any contact with or knowledge of the Socialist Party. In recent times, for example, we have reviewed books such as Beyond Money: A Post-Capitalist Strategy by Anitra Nelson from Australia and Description of the World of Tomorrow: A World Without Money or Barter or Exchange: a Civilisation of Free Access by Jean-Francois Aupetitgendre and Marc Chinal from France. A couple of years ago, in the United States, we had Moneyless Society: the Next Economic Evolution from Matthew Holton, founder of the ‘Moneyless Society’ Facebook site, which boasts 20,000 members. Earlier this year, Justin Fairchild, also from the US, brought out Unchained: Living Without Money, advocating a society in which ‘cooperation replaces competition, access replaces ownership, purpose replaces profit’. And now, from Harald Neslein Sandø, a Norwegian living in Spain and writing in English, we have Waking Up. A Journey Towards a New Dawn for Humanity, whose subject of exploration is unmistakeably the kind of society we have always advocated, even though he does not call it, as we do, ‘socialism’ or ‘communism’.

Exploring possibilities

Sandø ‘s book also differs from the others in that it is a work of fiction, science fiction in fact. In his introductory note, the author describes science fiction as ‘a canvas for exploring possibilities’ and his book as ‘an invitation to imagine, question and reflect’. It chooses, in fact, to tell the wholly imaginary story of an individual, Benjamin, who, having been cryogenically frozen when about to die from cancer in 2015, is brought back to life 100 years later after a new society has been established. This is a society based no longer on money but on ‘community effort’, where, as Benjamin is told by one of the first characters he meets, there is ‘shared stewardship’ of the planet and ‘no one owns it – we belong to it’, and there is ‘no money, no ownership, no competition’.

We get little explanation of how this new state of things was brought about, apart from asides such as ‘the planet was about to collapse due to climate change and pollution’, ‘the need for a completely different system became clear’, ‘the monetary system was killing the planet as it demanded a constant overconsumption of resources’, ‘it was a global, democratic decision’, and ‘this transformation has been made possible through a new mindset – a mindset of trust and respect’. We are, however, supplied with intricate details about how the society operates via Benjamin’s discovery of the new way of living people have and the unimaginably advanced forms of technology that challenge everything he once knew. He finds a sustainable world in which human beings collaborate with one another, innovation thrives, mutual support has taken the place of conflict, and there are ‘no supervisors, no bosses, no payroll, no urgency’. And he is told: ‘For the first time in the written history of mankind … we have evolved to a stage where we can look at this planet as a whole, see humanity as one family, and live without borders. This is a world where we all coexist peacefully, without war.’ He also learns that ‘through the efficient management of resources, we have achieved a relative abundance that allows everyone to live comfortably in their own way, regardless of where they are in the world’. It has also become a world of regenerative agriculture where ‘rewilded landscapes flourished’ and which ‘thrived not on domination but on unity’. One of the characters Benjamin meets tells him: ‘We take care of each other, and in doing that, we take care of ourselves. There’s no struggle, no scarcity. Just collaboration.’ The same character goes on: ‘Human nature turned out to be not only selfish and violent. You can choose and, you choose friendliness, which I’m very happy for’.

Human interest

A bit of a fairy tale, a pipe dream, some might say. But it is made less of one – and given a certain plausibility – by the author’s continual explanation of how it works in practice, how the highly advanced technology used to make it operate has been developed and keeps developing. This plausibility is enhanced – and the reader is drawn into the narrative – by the ‘human’ story it tells of how the individual who has been brought back to life adapts to the new world he finds. The book had begun by painting a picture of Benjamin’s former existence when he was a billionaire capitalist driven entirely by the need he felt to accumulate wealth. Now on waking up to find that money plays no part in anyone’s existence, he first feels out of place, ‘obsolete’, ‘not knowing where he belongs’, as he puts it, and he (and we) wonder whether he will cope mentally, how he will accept and adjust to the completely new system and mindset he finds all around him..

As a way of trying to comfort Benjamin and ease his integration into the new world, the guide assigned to him puts an ingenious twist into what he is finding by saying ‘We are all capitalists, as we are living off the shared capital of the planet and universe’. He is then pulled into the drama of a small group of ‘renegades’ who seek (unsuccessfully) to sabotage things and return the world to its old competitive ways, but he comes out the other side in clear opposition to this and in support of a ‘borderless globe’, where, in words that he himself now utters, there is ‘seamless harmony between humans and nature’, where everyone leads ‘their own versions of a good life, respecting each other and the planet’. All this lends some genuine ‘human interest’ to what might otherwise be an accumulation of dry technological detail and, in fact, manages to make the book something of a page turner, its 200-odd pages having been devoured by the current writer in a single sitting.

How do we get there?

There is clearly some comparison to be made here with other attempts at depicting life and organisation in a future non-market society of voluntary cooperation and free access. For many it will bring to mind, for example, William Morris’s late 19th century News from Nowhere, Robert Llewellyn’s News from Gardenia from 2012, and, in particular, the very recent attempt by Troy Vettese and Drew Pendergrass (Half-Earth Socialism: A Plan to Save the Future from Extinction, Climate Change and Pandemics) to provide a kind of day-to-day outline of what a future society ‘without money or a market’ might be like, something they call ‘a total alternative to capitalism’ and offering, as the authors put it, ‘everything from a plan for resource allocation to an outline of what life will feel like’. The main difference between this book and Sandø’s, however, is that, while Vettese and Pendergrass’s depiction is founded on profound knowledge of and reflection on the scientific and technological problems that a marketless society would need to deal with and overcome, Sandø’s vision, while also technological, is far more ‘imaginative’, fantasy-laden one might say. At the same time, it must be said, this is a factor that contributes to its readability.

From a socialist point of view, the main problem that arises from Sandø’s book – and indeed the others mentioned here, including William Morris’s classic – is that none of them deal effectively with the ‘how’, ie, how we get there. None of them specify the spreading of consciousness by the vast majority of workers as the prime condition – the sole condition – under which a socially conscious working class can, by democratic use of the vote, take the power necessary to abolish capitalism and set about organising a genuine socialist society of the kind looked forward to by all these sources – even if they do not all necessarily use the term ‘socialism’ to describe it.

Howard Moss

Blogger's Note:

A number of the other books mentioned in this review have themselves been reviewed in previous Socialist Standards:

• Oct 2022: Beyond Money. A Post-Capitalist Strategy by Anitra Nelson
• Oct 2022: Description of the World of Tomorrow by Jean-Francois Aupetitgendre and Marc Chinal
• Jan 2023: Moneyless Society: the Next Economic Evolution by Matthew Holton
• Mar 2023: Half-Earth Socialism by Troy Vettese and Drew Pendergras

"Money Must Go": A Review (1946)

Book Review from the July 1946 issue of the Socialist Standard

We have been asked to review a booklet, “Money Must Go” (Published by J. Phillips, 203, Lordship Lane, N.17. Price 2s. 6d.). The subject matter is dealt with in the form of conversations between “Professor” and “George.” It is a genuine attempt to simplify some of the fundamental ideas on Socialism, although the writer, instead of using the word “Socialism,” uses the vague term “World Commonwealth.” Some of the ideas are all right, but we haven’t the space to deal with them here. There are, however, weaknesses, due to the over-insistence that money is “the root of all evil.”

The writer apparently holds the view that it is easier to make Socialists by a direct attack on money than by a direct attack on Capitalism. We do not hold this view. In our experience it is most difficult for workers to see that it is possible to produce and distribute wealth without the use of money, unless they have some knowledge of the elementary facts of capitalist production. Most workers regard money simply as a means of exchange, and nothing in this book will remove that idea. Money is a means of exchange, but, as gold in its metallic form, it is also a commodity, and it will be abolished as money only when commodity production is abolished. The expression “a money-based world” is repeatedly used, and if it is intended as a simple definition of capitalism it gives a wrong impression. Money is not peculiar to capitalism, nor is it the basis of capitalism. The essential characteristics of capitalism are: (a) Private ownership of the means of production and distribution ; b) a dispossessed or propertyless working class; (c) the production of goods for sale (commodities) ; (d) large-scale industrial production. These elementary facts can be grasped by any worker and cannot be easily simplified without becoming meaningless. The term “money-based world” is meaningless.

Another difficulty is the mixture of right and wrong ideas in the book. It is slated that “the abolition of money alone would solve no problems” (page 16), but on the next page we read, ” . . . . since money would not exist …. no person could say that he owned a share …. in the people’s means of production. In fact, all the world’s means of production would, then belong to the people of the world.” In this passage it is clearly implied that it is the abolition of money that will lead to common ownership. The correct position is that when the means of wealth production and distribution are commonly owned and democratically controlled there will be no exchange of goods and the need for money disappears. On both these pages efforts are made to define Socialism, but somehow the author leaves out the term “common ownership.” Also, while he states that every form of slavery will disappear, he fails to state that the present form of slavery is wage-slavery.

There are also serious theoretical errors. The, State is called an “abstraction” (page 120). This will appear strange to those who have felt the “heavy hand” of the law. The State is the public power of coercion used by the dominant class against the subject class. Later he explains, the “civil war” raging in society as a struggle over the goods produced by the workers. He says, “This war — or perhaps more accurately — this struggle is nothing more than a conflict between two dogs for the same bone” (our emphasis). The bone is the wealth produced by the workers. This is a misreading of the class struggle. In the industrial field the class struggle is a struggle over wages, hours of labour, conditions of work, etc., but it is something more than that; it is a political struggle over the ownership of the means of wealth production.

If the purpose of the book was to present a simple statement of the Socialist case, it is by no means a success. Subjects can be so over-simplified that they lose meaning. We can be sparing with words, but we cannot be sparing with sound definitions and clearly understood terms. Clarity is essential in explaining Socialism. Confusion plays into the hands of those who defend capitalism. It is strange, therefore, that, the writer avoids using such precise terms as “capitalism,” “working class,” “Socialism,” “class struggle,” but uses vague words such as “the people ” and the “World Commonwealth.” The word Commonwealth is not synonymous with Socialism. Its use by all sorts of political tricksters should have warned the writer of its vague and confusing character.

L. J.

Blogger's Note:

An excerpt from Money Must Go was reprinted in the World Socialist No.4 Winter (1985-86).

A PDF of the book is available over at Libcom.

Communist idea (2025)

Book Review from the April 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

The Idea. Anarchist Communism Past, Present and Future. By Nick Heath. Published by Just Books Publishing, 2022. ISBN 9781739723712

Suitably enough, The Idea, a book on the history of anarchist communism, is a dense, brick-like volume of nearly 500 pages, detailing the key figures, movements, activities, and publications of Anarchist Communists (AnComs) throughout history.

Anarchist communism, as opposed to anarchist collectivism, is the only anarchist tradition that explicitly calls for the abolition of the market economy and exchange value. Despite its many challenges, it has endured to the present day.

No movement is overlooked, with particularly extensive entries on France and documentation of the significant tendencies in Russia, France, Latin America, Ukraine, and beyond. The AnCom tendencies in China, Japan, and Korea are also covered, drawing in part on the published works of one-time SPGB member and political historian John Crump.

The Idea is a meticulous study that separates the wheat from the chaff, focusing on movements and organisations with a class-struggle perspective. However, as the book itself illustrates, many historical anarchist groups were far less discerning in their alliances. The book can be recommended to anyone with a historical interest in libertarian communism. Heath’s work is admirable in its scope and depth.

Nick Heath’s political journey began with the Labour Party, then the Communist Party, before he ultimately embraced anarchist communism.

It must be noted some key lessons emerge from this volume. Individualist tendencies are a dead end—sometimes literally. A lesser known and striking example being the case of Museifukyosanto, a small AnCom party in Japan that, being structured along Leninist lines, veered into adventurism, leading to the arrest of more than 700 of their comrades. The end fate of active anarchists tends to follow one these paths: imprisonment, exile, murder (often at the hands of the state), or suicide. To paraphrase a certain British prime minister, the problem with anarchism is that eventually, you run out of other anarchists.

It would be remiss not to mention the example of Korean AnComs, who, between 1910 and 1945, actively participated in electoral politics. This made their position similar to ours in that respect. They achieved notable success, serving in the Korean Provisional Government and later securing positions in the cabinet.

Nick Heath’s book is well worth reading and is a solid example of a disciplined work in a sea of anarchist garbage that was previously published and no doubt will come later. The Idea should interest anyone seeking libertarian socialist solutions to the practical problems of organisation and decentralised power.

A.T.

Material World: Socialist ideas on the Internet (2025)

The Material World column from the February 2025 issue of the Socialist Standard

As we all know, the internet has virtues and vices. One of its virtues is that it allows ideas and information to be exchanged among people, often in different parts of the world, with an ease that would have been impossible in pre-internet days. So we, in the Socialist Party, can more readily than ever find out about other individuals or organisations who have come to similar conclusions to ours and share, or are close to sharing, our views on the system we live in and the need to replace it with a different kind of system. We are talking here about a society of free and equal access to all goods and services with no buying and selling or wages and salaries and with the technology and the abundant resources of the planet used to satisfy needs and not for profit-making ends. An example of such like-mindedness is to be found on the Facebook site called ‘A Group Where We Are All Active Against Capitalism’. It carries its own self-description:

’This group exists to support the abolition of the power of capital through the transformation of the means of production from private to social ownership. This will only be achieved by the working class emancipating ourselves world wide.

The revolutionary reconstitution will also involve the ending of wage labour and all elements of capitalism as the global proletariat (the working class within capitalism) lays the basis for a sustainable future for humanity.

That transition to a socialist/Communist/cooperative world will eliminate all the horrors associated with the Imperialist period including military conflicts and ecological destruction.

The replacement for such barbarism will be a stateless, classless, moneyless society based on free association and production and distribution according to need.

We are open to all individuals and organisations who are in broad agreement with that position. We actively seek to host contributions that are in accord with that position from any source.

For the avoidance of doubt we will not carry posts that support any existing or proposed nation state.

Neither will we carry posts supporting the historic or continuing theory and practice of state capitalist entities such as the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China or similar regimes.

Forward to an end to capitalism!’

It would be hard to find a closer likeness to our own position and aspirations. And this being the case, one might expect the posts on the site to be largely supportive of its objectives or at least asking honest questions of those. Yet this is by no means always what one finds. Rarely, in fact, do those posts contain clear mention of aspirations like the end of wage labour and ‘stateless, classless and moneyless’ social arrangements.

What is to be found on the whole are the kind of reformist calls for various improvements to what already exists that regularly come from those on the left who (mistakenly in our view) call themselves socialists or communists. So there are plenty of references to, for example, state ownership of industry, more ‘rights’ for workers, laws to favour trade unions, better health care, higher taxes for the rich, etc., etc. Calls, in other words, for more crumbs from the table, for a more benign form of capitalism. And mixed in with them we also often find support for, or defence of, states or regimes within capitalism that are somehow deemed to be ‘progressive’ (eg, Cuba, China, Vietnam). Any posts that challenge this tend to elicit the response that yes, in reality and ideally we want the same thing as you, but that’s likely to be a long way off and we need to improve things as much as possible ‘in the meantime’. So they are deaf to the obvious reality that if you put off the demand for socialism, you continue to put off socialism itself.

Maoist mythology

A prime example was to be found on that site in a recent post entitled ‘Is Maoism Marxist?’ and providing a link to an article written by Steve Leigh from a website called ‘A Marxist View of Current Events’. Leigh, who describes himself as ‘a member of Seattle Revolutionary Socialists and Firebrand, national organization of Marxists, 50 year socialist organizer’, begins by asking ‘What is our relationship to Maoism?’ and ‘What Maoist ideas, if any, have merit?’. He goes on to outline the history of Mao Zedong’s gradual rise to political prominence in China from the late 1920s onwards leading to his eventual takeover in the late 1940s and then authoritarian rule of the country till his death in 1976. Much of what the writer has to say actually makes good sense – for example that Maoism was a form of Stalinism which, via its economic policies, caused ‘widespread famines’ (the ‘Great Leap Forward’) and, in its oppression of those who were not held to be in conformity with Maoist doctrine, practised mass persecution and killings of its supposed enemies (the ‘Cultural Revolution’).

The writer also criticises Mao and Maoism for putting forward the idea that ‘socialism’ can be developed and achieved in a single country and has to be imposed on workers by a revolutionary leadership rather than workers establishing it democratically themselves. But he then goes hopelessly awry in declaring that ‘the Chinese revolution had many positive aspects to it’ (tell that to its millions of victims) and that ‘all of these things are towering historical accomplishments’. Clearly some of the mythology of China under Mao being in some sense positive and having something to do with socialism has stuck with Steve Leigh, as it has with many others on the Left.

The reality is that, rhetoric apart, China under Mao and subsequent regimes have been anti-socialist dictatorships bearing no relation whatever to the society of voluntary cooperation, democratic organisation and economic equality via free access to all goods and services which the Socialist Party stands for and consistently advocates and that the website which gives access to this article declares that it too endorses. So why, one might ask, does such a website, which says it will not carry ‘posts supporting the historic or continuing theory and practice of state capitalist entities such as the Soviet Union, the People’s Republic of China or similar regimes’ give a platform to articles like this. Of course, a free exchange of ideas from all sides is entirely desirable, but why carry without any attempt at response ideas or material that do nothing to promote – and indeed even contradict – the aspirations it claims to stand for?

Howard Moss

Letter: Simply a knocking job? (1995)

Letter to the Editors from the February 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

Simply a knocking job?

Dear Editors,

Debate is useful and I accept that it is wrong simply to accept new ideas uncritically. However, Adam Buick’s contribution on LETS is simply a knocking job. He makes a number of errors in his description of LETS — for examples the recording of transactions is typically already paid (in local currency) not just "voluntary" — but these are secondary in importance. His real concern is to brand LETS activists as “currency cranks".

Adam Buick's own vision of a non-exchange economy is described in one closing sentence. Could he write as much on this in terms of practicalities as he did in criticism of LETS? I look forward to reading it. The idea of a non-exchange economy has in the past been based on the abolition of the concept of property or on the common ownership of property. Both ideas have a history.but neither have established any convincing vision of what the pattern of social relations, the model of social institutions and the organisation of production would instead be in such a world.

However, there isn't a lot of point in dialogue if you're going to be dismissed a crank. Yes. Fritz Schumacher, among others. said that a crank is a small, metal tooth that makes revolutions but this wasn't what was meant.

Get your facts right on LETS. Accept that the mainstream will regard both of us as cranks. Explain your own ideas rather than leave them to the last sentence. Decide whether you are interested in practical, small-scale change as a seedbed for wider transformation. And then we can have a useful discussion.

Ed Mayo, 

New Economics Foundation.

Reply:

We did get our facts right.

Your “correction" — to the effect that LETS members normally have to contribute to the scheme’s running costs — strengthens not weakens our argument that such schemes are strictly limited as to the size they can attain without becoming too costly to run.

We never said that members of LETS schemes were "cranks", only that currency reformers of one kind or another had latched on to these schemes as a way of promoting their cranky ideas, in particular that of a new kind of money that can’t be accumulated and can’t yield interest.

In response to your request for more information on how a society of common ownership and production directly for use without buying and selling could work we are sending you a copy of the new edition of our Socialism As A Practical Alternative pamphlet. Hopefully, after you have read it the dialogue can begin. — Editors.

Material World: Non-market socialism is feasible (2024)

The Material World Column from the October 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

All the necessary techno-infrastructure required to enable a post-capitalist society to function effectively already exists today; we don’t need to reinvent the wheel. A self-regulating system of stock control involving ‘calculation-in-kind’, making use of disaggregated physical magnitudes (for instance, the number of cans of baked beans in stock in a store) rather than some single common unit of accounting (such as money) as the basis for calculation, is something that already operates well enough under our very noses within capitalism, alongside monetary accounting. Any supermarket today would, operationally speaking, rapidly grind to a complete halt without recourse to calculation-in-kind to manage and monitor the flow of goods in and out of the store.

At any point in time our supermarket will know more or less exactly how many tins of baked beans it has on its shelves. The computerisation of inventory management has made this task so much simpler. Our supermarket will know, also, the rate at which those tins of baked beans are being removed from the shelves. On the basis of this information it will know when, and how much fresh stock, it will need to order from the suppliers to replenish its existing stock – this simple arithmetical procedure being precisely what is meant by ‘calculation-in-kind’. It is applicable to every conceivable kind of good – from intermediate or producer goods to final or consumer goods.

Calculation-in-kind is the bedrock upon which any kind of advanced and large-scale system of production crucially depends. In capitalism, monetary accounting coexists alongside in-kind accounting but is completely tangential or irrelevant to the latter. It is only because goods – like our tins of baked beans – take the form of commodities that one can be beguiled into thinking that calculation-in-kind somehow depends on monetary calculation. It doesn’t. It firmly stands on its own two feet.

Market libertarians don’t appear to grasp this point at all. For instance, according to Jésus Huerta de Soto:

‘… the problem with proposals to carry out economic calculation in natura or in kind is simply that no calculation, neither addition nor subtraction, can be made using heterogeneous quantities. Indeed, if, in exchange for a certain machine, the governing body decides to hand over 40 pigs, 5 barrels of flour, 1 ton of butter, and 200 eggs, how can it know that it is not handing over more than it should from the standpoint of its own valuations?’ (Socialism, Economic Calculation and Entrepreneurship, 1992, Ch 4, Section 5).

This passage reveals a complete misunderstanding of the nature and significance of calculation-in-kind in a post-capitalist society. Such a society is not based on, or concerned with, economic exchange at all. Consequently, the claim that ‘no calculation, neither addition nor subtraction, can be made using heterogeneous quantities’ is completely irrelevant since such a society is not called upon to perform these kinds of arithmetic operations involving a common unit of account. This is only necessary within an exchange-based economy in which you need to ensure exchanges are objectively equivalent.

On the other hand, even an exchange-based economy, like capitalism, absolutely depends on calculation in kind. As Paul Cockshott rightly notes:

‘Indeed every economic system must calculate in kind. The whole process of capitalist economy would fail if firms like Honda could not draw up detailed bills of materials for the cars they finally produce. Only a small part of the information exchanged between companies relates to prices. The greater part relates to physical quantities and physical specifications of products’ (Reply to Brewster, Paul Cockshott’s Blog, 28 August 2017).

In his Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth Mises claimed that the application of in-kind calculation would be feasible only on a small scale. However, it is possible to identify extant or past examples of calculation-in-kind being implemented on a fairly – or even very large scale. For instance, Cockshott refers us to the fascinating case of the first Pyramid at Saqqara, built under the supervision of Imhotep, an enormous undertaking by any standard, involving nothing more than calculation-in-kind. Another example was the Inca civilisation, a large-scale and complex civilisation that effectively operated without money.

However, it was really the emergence of linear programming that has effectively delivered the coup de grâce against this particular line of argument peddled by Mises and others. It has removed what Mises considered to be the main objection to calculation in kind – that it could not be applied on a large scale basis.

Linear programming is an algorithmic technique developed by the Soviet mathematician Leonid Kantorovich in 1939 and, around about the same time, the Dutch-American economist, T. C. Koopman. As a technique it is widely and routinely used today to solve a variety of problems – such as the logistics of supply chains, production scheduling, and such technical issues as how to best to organise traffic flows within a highly complex public transportation network with a view to, say, reducing average waiting times.

To begin with, the computational possibilities of this technique were rather limited. This changed with the development of the computer. As Cockshott notes:

‘Since the pioneering work on linear programming in the 30s, computing has been transformed from something done by human ’computers’ to something done by electronic ones. The speed at which calculations can be done has increased many billion-fold. It is now possible to use software packages to solve huge systems of linear equations’ (Paul Cockshott, 2007, Mises, Kantorovich and Economic Computation, Munich Personal RePEc Archive, Paper No. 6063).

Computerised linear programming allows us to solve some very large-scale optimisation problems involving many thousands of variables. It can also help to solve small-scale optimisation problems.

In short, linear programming provides us with a method for optimising the use of resources – either by maximising a given output or by minimising material inputs or both. The problem with any single scalar measure or unit of accounting (such as market price or labour values) is that these are unable to properly handle the complexity of real world constraints on production which, by their very nature, are multi-factorial. Calculation-in-kind in the guise of linear programming provides us with the means of doing precisely this since it is directly concerned with the way in which multiple factors interact with – and constrain – each other.

While a non-market system of production could operate well enough without linear programming, there is little doubt that the availability of such a tool has now put the matter of whether such a system is feasible or not, beyond dispute.

Robin Cox

Levellers or Diggers? (1995)

From the June 1995 issue of the Socialist Standard

At the end of April a few hundred demonstrators occupied the site of the old Wisley airfield near George’s Hill, in Surrey. This was where, in 1649, the Diggers had set up a communist community with the aim of starting a movement to make the Earth “a common treasury for all” again. The demonstrators called themselves the “New Levellers”. this was appropriate because, like the original Levellers (but unlike the original Diggers), they were demanding a reform of the laws governing land ownership and use rather than the abolition of private property, as the leaflet we distributed pointed out.

Many of the Levellers of the 1640s, being inexperienced in rebelling against the injustices of the market, and yet to recognise the incompatibility between FREEDOM and PROPERTY, sought to reform and make just property relationships. For example, the Leveller leader, Lilburne, in March 1648 wrote that the Levellers had “been the truest and constantest asserters of liberty and property (which are quite opposite to communitie and levelling)”.

THE TRUE LEVELLERS were the Diggers. Their ideas can serve as an inspiration to those of us in the 1990s who detest and reject the iniquities of the commercial system. The Diggers stood not for state ownership but COMMON OWNERSHIP: “The earth with all her fruits of Corn, Cattle and such like was made to be a common Store-House of Livelihood, to all mankinde, friend and foe, without exception” (A Declaration From the Poor Oppressed People of England).

Where all wealth is commonly owned there will be no need for money. In the above-quoted Declaration the Diggers proclaimed that “we must neither buy nor sell. Money must not any longer . . . be the great god that hedges in some and hedges out others . . .” Production must be solely for use and all people able to take from the common store on the basis of FREE ACCESS. As Winstanley explained in his Law of Freedom: “As everyone works to advance the Common Stock so everyone shall have a free use of any commodity in the Storehouse for his pleasure and comfortable livelihood, without buying and selling or restraint from any”. This is a wonderful and compelling socialist vision of a society where all things in and on the Earth are the common property of all; where all people give according to their abilities and take freely according to their needs; where money and other time-wasting features of property relationship are done away with. It is a practical alternative to capitalism’s property mania.

Modern Tory defenders of property assert that owning things makes us free. This false equation between liberty and property was spread by the 17th defenders of property power, and was also accepted by several well-intentioned Levellers, just as it has been by subsequent leftists who have feared to break with the ideas of THE MONEY SYSTEM. In truth, property and money make us unfree. As Winstanley stated: “True freedom lies where a man receives his nourishment and preservation, and that is in the use of the Earth”. Those in Britain living beneath the poverty line and the millions in the world dying from starvation should see the sense of that.

Socialists must learn from the wisdom of our Digger predecessors and have the boldness to state the case for A MONEYLESS WORLD SOCIETY – a case now more materially feasible and globally urgent than ever.

Reform and Revolution: Three Early Socialists on the Way Ahead (1996)

Book Review from the Sep-Oct 1996 issue of the Discussion Bulletin

Reform and Revolution: Three Early Socialists on the Way Ahead — William Morris, John Carruthers, Fred Henderson. Edited and Introduced by Stephen Coleman The William Morris Library #12. Thoemmes Press. 11 Great George Street Bristol BS1 5RR. U.K.

One hundred years ago a familiar dispute raged within the anti-capitalism movement Should we socialists organize our class to improve their lot under capitalism, or should we limit ourselves to educating workers about the need to abolish the system in its entirety? Today it’s very clear that the reformers have won for the time being. To everyone except small grouplets of libertarian non-market socialists—DeLeonists, world socialists, and anarchists and anarcho-syndicalists—socialism and communism mean social welfare programs and varying degrees of government ownership of the means of production, all within the market system.

The three anti-reformist pamphlets collected in this volume were written between 1887 and 1915 by William Moms and two other prominent British socialists whom he had influenced. Steve Coleman, who probably convinced the William Morris Society to commission the book, has written a thirty-eight page introduction that places that debate within the context of the events and preoccupations of the spokesmen and organizations of the time. Morris wrote "The Policy of Abstention” (20 pages, 1887) after his new group, the Socialist League, split from the Social Democratic Federation over the question of reformism. Carruthers’ “Socialism and Radicalism” (15 pages, 1894). written a few years later. describes the failure of the reformist-“radical" in his lexicon-politics of the Labor Party of New Zealand, where he lived for a time, to change substantially the lives of working people in that country when it held power. "The ABC of Socialism" by Fred Henderson (18 pages, 1915). was published by the Independent Labor Party, which supported Labor Party reformism but permitted dissenting views. It was published as part of a larger work presenting standard reformist ideas.

Coleman's introduction, after examining the historical context of the debate between the revolutionary anti-reformist impossibilists and the reformist gradualist possibilists in both England and abroad—including the US where the IWW and the SLP are mentioned—concentrates on Morris’s contribution to the book. His idea of abstention (boycotting elections) stems from the view that electoral activity by socialists must inevitably involve the advocacy of reforms to relieve the immediate misery working people suffer. Since Coleman belongs to that substantial part of the existing revolutionary movement that advocates electoral activity, he spends some time trying to explain and demolish Morris's contentions—and not too successfully as I see things now after decades in the electorally oriented SLP. But this aside, socialists will find the book useful both for its historical information on reformism and as a source for the never ending debates with the well meaning reformists we meet m our day-to-day discussions of social issues.

Frank Girard

Blogger's Note:

This book was also reviewed in the June 1996 issue of the Socialist Standard.

Anarchism: No State, No Market by Howard Moss (1986)

Blogger's Note: 

The article below by Socialist Party member and regular Socialist Standard writer, Howard Moss, first appeared in the 1986 Freedom Press anthology, Freedom: A Hundred Years 1886-1986, which, as the title suggests, was a special book published by Freedom Press to mark its centenary. I remember buying the anthology in Freedom Bookshop in Aldgate in the early 1990s, and it was a surprise at the time to see Howard's name within its pages — I perhaps applied my hostility clause a bit too literally back in the day — but it's a good piece of succinct writing and, I think in its own way, its general point overlaps with Rubel and Crump's book, Non-Market Socialism in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century, which was originally published around about the same time period.

According to bookfinder.com, the cheapest secondhand copy of the anthology would set you back forty dollars today, so it's good to know that a PDF of the book is available over at LibCom. It's worth checking out, not just for Howard's article, but for its history of early British anarchism, the biographical sketches of forgotten Anarchist activists over the decades, and articles from such anarchist 'names' as Colin Ward, Alex Comfort, George Woodcock, Crass, Nicolas Walter, Donald Rooum and Vernon Richards. As an added bonus, it also features a cartoon by longstanding Socialist Standard cartoonist, Peter Rigg, in his Kronstadt Kids period.

Anarchism: No State, No Market

What do anarchists want? It’s a difficult one. Perhaps an easier one along the same lines would be ‘What do anarchists have in common?’ And for me the answer to this one was summed up by Donald Rooum in the May 1986 Freedom through the words of his cartoon creation Wildcat: ‘You get rid of governments by convincing people to withdraw support’. Yes, that’s it, getting rid of governments, and of course getting rid of the thing they govern — the state. The next question, however, has got to be ‘What kind of a stateless society do we want?’ Even if we can’t be expected to give a blueprint, we can at least be expected to give some kind of idea of how things will be organised and the kind of life that will be possible in a society that doesn’t have the state to change it.

Let me say right away that, as I see it, there are two possible choices of the kind of stateless society. And the choices are simple ones. We either have a stateless society with a market or a stateless society without a market. If you’re an anarchist who doesn’t envisage getting rid of the market, then automatically, whether you realise it or not, you’re talking about keeping buying and selling, trade, money, banks, financial institutions, and so on — in other words all the paraphernalia of capitalism, even if it’s capitalism without the state. And there are people, anarcho-capitalists they call themselves, who argue precisely for this kind of arrangement. They want an entirely free-market world, without national frontiers, with a single world currency and where private ownership extends to everything imaginable and the ethos, even more than now, is unbridled competition. Freedom dealt with them (not very well, in my opinion) in October 1984 (Vol 45 No 10) and later referred to them as a ‘squalid bunch’. I doubt whether many readers of Freedom would want to be associated with them either. But the rub is that, unless as an anarchist you advocate not just the abolition of the state but also the abolition of the market system, then logically you can’t escape being an ‘anarcho-capitalist’. Because as long as you’ve still got the market or an exchange society of any kind, then you’ve still got some form of capitalism, or at any rate some form of property society.

Now I know most anarchists would say, if it were put to them, that they don’t want the market system or the exchange economy that goes with it. But how often do they explicitly express this point of view? And how often is it explicitly expressed in anarchist literature? In my experience, very rarely. And this is a pity, because one of the greatest difficulties in putting anarchist views across is reaction from people along the lines ‘You’ve got nothing practical to replace the present system with?’ or ‘An anarchist society would be chaos’. Yet if we stressed not just the stateless but also the marketless nature of anarchism, we’d be making anarchist views that much easier for people to grasp and not react to like that, because we’d be putting across the idea that it’s the market that’s chaos in the way it arbitrarily dictates how much we shall or shall not have, what work we shall or shall not do, the kind of lives we shall or shall not live. And as a logical converse to that, we’d be offering a society in which, instead of competing among one another in a system of privately owned wealth, we could all work together to provide for our needs using the commonly owned resources of the earth. If we did this, we’d not only be putting across the idea that human needs and human worth shouldn’t be measured by money and profit but also advocating a practical alternative in which that wouldn’t happen.

I’ll raise a few hackles now by saying that, having reached this point, we’re pretty close to what some people would understand by ‘socialism’. Not the ‘socialism’ of the Labour Party, or Russia, or China, or the left-wing groups, but the socialism of ‘from each according to ability to each according to need’ and ‘the abolition of the wages system’. These of course are things Marx said (though he did not originate the sayings) and we’ve got to reject a hell of a lot of other things Marx said, but should we have to throw the baby out with the bathwater? Why should’t we accept that those ideas provide a sound basis (as I see it, the only basis) for a truly free society?

It may or may not come as a surprise now if I say that I consider myself a socialist, but when people say to me (as they often do) ‘Isn’t what you’re talking about anarchism?’, I say ‘Yes, as long as by anarchism you mean not just a society organised without a state but also one organised without a market’. That is after all the only road to freedom — isn’t it?

Howard Moss

Next Step for Humanity (2024)

Pamphlet Review from the April 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Socialism for Young Folks (and everyone else). By Jamshid R. Davis. Omnia Sunt Communia Press. 2023. 57pp.

The Socialist Standard recently reviewed a booklet about anarchism aimed specifically at young people. The review was largely favourable and ended by suggesting that the Socialist Party might itself consider producing a similar publication about socialism ‘presenting in simple terms what is actually a very simple idea – organising the earth’s resources collectively and democratically on the basis of needs not profit’. We now discover that Jamshid Davishas actually got there first with a publication (Socialism for Young Folks) that comes extremely close to our own critique of current society and our proposals for changing it.

At the very start, he defines socialism as ‘an economic system where the means of production (how goods are made) and distribution (how goods get into the hands of those who need them) are socially owned in common’, and where ‘distribution is not through markets but by free access’. Having established what socialism is, he then proceeds to explain (and denounce) what it is not. It is not nationalisation or state ownership or control, since that is simply state capitalism, where ‘government managers take the place of the regular capitalist bosses’ and ‘wage labour, markets, and money still exist and there is no free access to needed goods or services’. An adamant ‘no’, therefore, to, the dictatorships in places like China, Cuba, Vietnam and North Korea. Nor do so-called ‘national liberation struggles’ have anything to do with socialism, since they ‘never were anti-capitalist in the first place’ and ‘socialism is by its very nature a world system’.

The class nature of the capitalist society we live in and that dominates the world is then analysed succinctly and effectively (‘a class is a group of people united by their common interests within the economic order’; ‘those who own property or manage it have all the power within a society, while those who do not own property suffer, powerlessness, economic exploitation, and poverty’; ‘the working class is composed of folks who must sell their labour power to capitalists or to the state to be able to support themselves and their families’). The solution to such inequality, we are told, is the abolition of class society and ‘the construction of a classless society’. The historical perspective that then follows about the rise of capitalism as a social and economic order and in particular how it overcame feudalism is also interesting for the added dimension it gives to the situation the world’s workers find themselves in today and what they need to do to do to bring about change and create a new system of society. It points to how past systems of society have changed, even though, while they existed, they may have seemed permanent and everlasting. Attention is also paid to the variety of noxious effects of the capitalist system on all who live under it. This includes a short but penetrating analysis of the various kinds of alienation it visits on its subjects and the way it stymies creative potential, the inevitability of crises of overproduction known as recessions or slumps, and the system’s tendency to cause military conflict through the struggle for markets’ (‘the First and Second World Wars can best be seen as a struggle between the various capitalist blocs over the division of the world market’).

What we have here, therefore, is an analysis and prescriptions found relatively rarely among who label themselves socialist but who are in fact using the word to mean variations, proposed or otherwise, on how to run capitalism. Having said that, there are, nevertheless, certain aspects of this booklet’s thesis that we would find it difficult to agree with. These occur largely in the section entitled ‘The Road Yet Travelled’, where a fairly detailed recipe for bringing about socialism and then organising it is put forward. It would be established, it argues, by acts of workplace protest, local democratic self-organisation and, above all, by direct action, which is likely to involve violence, since, the author insists, the capitalist class will never willingly give up their wealth and their protectors, the state, will never allow the system to be overturned and a new one established democratically via elections. So the strategy advocated here rejects the kind of democratic political action via the ballot box that the Socialist Party sees as the most fertile route to the establishment of a democratic, moneyless, marketless society once the necessary spreading of consciousness of the need for this has been achieved. Without this particular form of direct action (ie, the ballot box), it is difficult to see how a socially conscious working class can take the power necessary to abolish capitalism and set about organising a genuine socialist society. Nor is it a given, as suggested here, that, once the overwhelming majority of class-conscious workers have indicated their desire to establish socialism, there will be armed resistance from the capitalist class and their governments. So there is a clear difference in ‘strategy’ here between the author’s view and that of the Socialist Party on the establishment of socialism, even if the desired result seems very much the same.

In addition to this, the author goes in for a fairly detailed blueprint for how the new non-market, free access society will be organised, stating firmly, in the tradition of ‘Council Communism’, that it will be based on ‘workers’ councils’. Again we would see this as no more than one hypothesis out of many other possible ones and would argue that, once a majority of workers opt for a society without money, buying and selling, and wage and salary work, they will formulate their own way of organising it. All we can say is that they will do this democratically, via voluntary cooperation and using the knowledge, resources and technologies available at the time.

Despite these differences of view, however, there can be no doubt about the value of this publication both for the ideas it puts forward and for the clarity with which they are stated. It is helpful, above all, in putting centre-stage the idea the Socialist Party itself has been propagating for 120 years – that of dispensing with capitalism and establishing a new society based on collective production for direct use. As the author himself puts it – and we could not agree more –, ‘a world community is now possible and is necessary for the further development of humanity’.

Howard Moss

Anarchism and socialism: what’s the difference? (2024)

Pamphlet Review from the January 2024 issue of the Socialist Standard

Critics of the Socialist Party have sometimes called us the ‘Anarcho-Socialist Party of Great Britain’ implying that what we call socialism is actually a form of anarchism. What they are referring to here is the idea that, like some anarchists, we want to do away with the state, we’re against the idea of vanguards leading the workers and telling them what to do, and we want a democratic, cooperative society of common ownership.

Of course there are anarchists and anarchists (just as there are socialists and socialists). Some anarchists (so-called ‘anarcho-syndicalists’), while wanting to see the end of the wages system, focus on the idea that it needs to come about by workers organising in the workplace and in trade unions to eventually take over production. Others advocate armed risings against the state to bring about common ownership. Then others (‘so called ‘mutualists’) oppose common ownership altogether on the grounds that it stifles individualism, and embrace the idea of a free-market economy seeing democracy and majority decision-making as tyranny. Yet there is undoubtedly a good deal in common between Socialist Party socialists and those anarchists who favour the same kind of classless, stateless, marketless, moneyless society that we do, a society based on ‘from each according to abilities, to each according to need’. If there are differences, these tend to be in the means of achieving this. While we see this change of society as coming through majority democratic action including via the ballot box, anarchists tend to see it being achieved in some other way, maybe a widespread popular uprising or a general strike or mass workplace occupations.

Both these similarities and differences are well illustrated in a recent publication by the anarchist group, Rebel City Collective. Their booklet, For a Future Made by Us All. Questions and Answers about Anarchism (PM Press, 2023, 92pp.), is explicitly aimed at young people in schools and colleges and arose, they say, from discussion with and questions from students about anarchism and what it means. It is written in clear and accessible language and structured as a series of ‘leading’ questions about how a stateless, moneyless society without markets could operate. Examples of these are:

• Isn’t anarchism all about chaos and disorder?
• What’s the difference between anarchism and socialism?
• How would anarchists organise locally, nationally, globally to get things done?
• Without money, what would motivate people to work?
• How would you deal with anti-social behaviour?
• Would people be able to have property?
• How would you deal with the climate and environmental crisis?
• How do we distribute resources fairly?
• Shouldn’t we gradually reform what we have rather than changing everything?
• Isn’t it ‘human nature’ to compete with others?
• How would we get the rich to give up their wealth?

Socialists will of course recognise these as some of the familiar questions we often get asked when we put to people the idea of a socialist society without buying and selling based on voluntary work. And, given that it’s precisely this kind of society that’s advocated in the booklet, it shouldn’t be surprising that we find these questions. Any differences are largely of terminology, eg, the society advocated being called ‘anarchism’ rather than ‘socialism’. In fact, the booklet itself explains this different terminology by saying that ‘originally there was no difference between them’ (ie, anarchism, socialism and communism) and that only later did authoritarian state rule become known as ‘state-run socialism’ (something we would, however, call ‘state capitalism’). That’s why, although we prefer to stick with the word ‘socialism’ and emphasise its original meaning, we do experience some difficulty with its association in many people’s minds with the Labour Party in this country, and with authoritarian tyrannies like the old Soviet Union or places like China or Cuba or Venezuela, which are in reality just different models of capitalism – and so all diametrically opposed to what we mean by socialism

Of course, this booklet also provides answers – usually illuminating ones – to the questions it poses, and it would be possible to quote at length from these. But just to give a few examples:

• Everybody will have an opportunity to discuss and be part of the decision-making process on anything that is important to them
• Borders are just lines drawn on the world map to separate countries [and] have changed many times as one leader grabs land from another generally by force [and]) often … whole communities get split up and separated into different countries
• We would hope that everyone would see themselves as part of the ‘human race’ not British, Cuban, Nigerian or any other nationality
• Money allows people to hoard resources as individual wealth
• Many things we do as humans are organised without anyone making us or any direct financial motivation
• Presently, different identities or groups are frequently played off against each other
• It does seem strange to us that anyone would want to let a god or gods, priest, master or anyone else tell them what to do or think
• Education … should be broad, lifelong, non-hierarchical, diverse, person centred and voluntary
• We could design systems for efficient democratic decision making
• Everyone should be allowed to do what they want as long as it doesn’t harm others
• The more people get used to working and organising together, the better placed we will be to create a well organised new society that will be global
• There is increasing evidence, and more people, that question if human nature was ever actually competitive or selfish.

These examples illustrate the striking and welcome similarities to our own case. But it must also be added that there are some parts of their arguments, coming largely in the booklet’s final section entitled ‘How do we get from here to there’, that we would want to question. What is suggested there is that the society they advocate would be established via acts of protest, sharing and local democratic self-organisation and, above all, by ‘direct action’ (eg, taking over workplaces, redistributing hoarded goods, possibly – and somewhat alarmingly – ‘at the point of a gun’) which, it is anticipated, will eventually spread and lead to a situation where a new cooperative society can be brought into being. But what if, at some point and in the final analysis, the rich don’t want to give up their wealth? How are they to be persuaded? Are they to be shot? This needs to be mentioned, since the ‘strategy’ advocated here seems to eschew the kind of democratic political action via the ballot box that the Socialist Party sees as the most effective route once the necessary spreading of consciousness has been achieved. Without that particular form of direct action (ie, the ballot box), it is difficult to see how a socially conscious working class can take the power necessary to abolish capitalism and set about organising a genuine socialist (or anarchist) society. So, there is a clear difference in ‘strategy’ between anarchists and socialists here, even if the desired result is very much the same.

Despite this difference of view, however, there can be no doubt about the value of this particular booklet, putting centre-stage as it does the idea of dispensing with capitalism and establishing a new society based on collective production for direct use. In spite of certain references, it goes a long way towards dispelling the popular image of anarchists as chaos-mongers and, written in simple and accessible language as it is, with a warm and friendly tone complemented by attractive and useful illustrations, it answers most of the questions it poses with clarity and competence. It will be appreciated not just by the school and college students to whom it is directed but also by the average reader wishing to be enlightened about such matters. So it is, all in all, a strongly recommended breath of fresh air and an admirable initiative. Perhaps we should consider taking a leaf from this book ourselves and produce a publication specifically aimed at the young and presenting in simple terms what is actually a very simple idea – organising the Earth’s resources collectively and democratically on the basis of needs not profit.

Howard Moss

Non-market socialism (2000)

Book Review from the July 2000 issue of the Socialist Standard

‘The Market: Ethics, Knowledge and Politics’, by John O’Neill. (Routledge)

John O’Neill takes on all the arguments put forward by defenders of the market, not just extreme free-marketers such as Von Mises and Hayek but also by mainstream economics textbook writers (free consumer choice, efficient allocation of resources, rational economic calculation, etc) and demolishes them one by one. He argues for a “non-market economic order” in which goods will be produced directly for use and not for sale on a market and calculation concerning production done exclusively in kind. He also argues in favour of the abolition of the state and its replacement by an “association of associations”, i.e. by a co-ordinated network of neighbourhood councils and producer-controlled production units.

Unfortunately, the book is not an easy read as it is put together from articles previously published in academic journals and because O’Neill frequently employs the specialist terminology of “moral philosophy”, of which he is a professor. It is, however, an important addition to the growing library of books arguing the case for an (entirely) non-market socialism.

Adam Buick

Frank Girard: In Memorial (2004)

Obituary from the April 2004 issue of the World Socialist newsletter

. . . I was deeply saddened to hear last month of the passing of Frank Girard, the long time editor of the publication. Frank stopped publishing the Discussion Bulletin in July 2003 citing his age and the increasing importance of the internet, which he felt made publications like the Discussion Bulletin less and less relevant. He planned continued involvement in the socialist movement. His death at 77 is a felt loss to his many friends and comrades.

Frank worked as a machine operator and later a high school English teacher, but more important was his membership from the 1940s on in the Socialist Labor Party, the organization of followers of American socialist leader Daniel De Leon. Frank ran for political office several times in Michigan, but argued he was "running against capitalism." Unsurprisingly, he was never elected.

In the early 1980s, as part of a seemingly endless series of schisms in the SLP, Frank was expelled from the party along with much of the Grand Rapids section (in 1991 he published a short history of the party along with another former Socialist Labor Party member Ben Perry). In 1983, Frank began to publish the Discussion Bulletin.

The Discussion Bulletin was unlike many other socialist publications in that it was simply a forum for discussion. Its contents were, aside from Frank's editorial remarks and occasional contributions, entirely from its readership. It was also a model of regularity for socialist publications, appearing every two months like clockwork for twenty years. Frank's other strength was that he was genuinely committed to discussion and debate in what he called the non-market socialist sector, in which he included De Leonists, World Socialists, council and left communists, and class struggle anarchists among others. Throughout its existence the Discussion Bulletin featured, unedited, contributions from all of the above sectors. And although he never completely broke with De Leonist politics and all its incumbent weaknesses, but which had played such an important role in his life, Frank was also prepared to learn from discussion, and admit when he was wrong. Frank was a non-sectarian in the best sense of the word . . .

The cessation of publication by the Discussion Bulletin left a hole. Frank's passing leaves a much larger one.

Neil F. /Red & Black Notes

Letters: On the Abolition of Money in Cambodia (2022)

Letters to the Editors from the March 2022 issue of the Socialist Standard

On the Abolition of Money in Cambodia

Dear Editors

In a recent issue of the Socialist Standard Paul Bennett correctly identifies that money was not abolished in Cambodia during the brief regime (1975-1979) of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. Rather, senior members of the CPK suspended currency with the intent to revisit their decision at a later point. The defeat of the Khmer Rouge at the hands of the People’s Republic of China precluded any evaluation of their policies; that said, the presumption that currency was abolished remains a stalwart of the historiography of Democratic Kampuchea (as Cambodia was renamed by the CPK). More broadly, Bennett’s commentary addresses a fundamental question: What exactly was the economic system established under the Khmer Rouge?

For many scholars, the question is moot. As a self-professed Marxist-Leninist party, the Khmer Rouge were absolutely communist; what matters is the supposed variant of ‘communism.’ However, too often, the terms ‘Marxist’, ‘socialist’, ‘Maoist,’ and even ‘Stalinist’ appear as empty signifiers when assessing the policies and practices of the Communist Party of Kampuchea. As such, much of my scholarship documents the ‘actually existing’ social and structural relations executed—often literally—under the Khmer Rouge. I’m grateful therefore that Bennett calls attention to my recent article on currency in Democratic Kampuchea. By-and-large, we are in agreement; a possible point of divergence, however, pivots on my assertion that the resultant economic order of Democratic Kampuchea resembled more so a hybrid form of state capitalism and non-market socialism. You write: ‘But there simply cannot be a mixture of state capitalism (or any form of capitalism) and socialism: the former has money, wages, profits, the latter has none of these.’ Here, it is helpful to think beyond idealized abstractions of economic systems and consider the historical and geographical material realities of Democratic Kampuchea.

Although some people find the phrase ‘mode of production’ antiquated, as a concept it effectively underscores the observation that myriad relations of production can coexist, however uneasily. In the United States, for example, capitalism of a particular sort remains dominant; that does not preclude the co-constitution of localized forms of exchange, for example, the so-called informal economy. So too in Democratic Kampuchea, where senior cadre formulated a spatially variegated economic policy that separated foreign and domestic activities in word but not in practice. To posit Democratic Kampuchea as capitalist or socialist presents a false dichotomy, for although capitalism and socialism in the abstract are indeed contradictory, such an assertion misses the ambiguities of an economy in violent transformation. And therein lies the crux of my argument. The social relations that comprise productive, distributive, and consumptive activities do not materialize fully formed. And despite rhetoric to the contrary, the revolution that culminated in military victory on April 17, 1975 did not translate into a coherent whole. Whatever was unfolding in Democratic Kampuchea was certainly not a functioning capitalist society; nor was it a socialist society. Perhaps it is best to follow Vilfredo Pareto and conclude that the political economy of Democratic Kampuchea was like a bat, for in it we can readily see both birds and mice.

James A. Tyner

Reply:

You object to our statement that there cannot be a mixture of capitalism and socialism, and point out that within capitalism there can be different relations of production, such as the informal economy. Certainly, capitalism can include workers’ co-operatives, but these still have to operate within the overall capitalist set-up, with wages, prices and the need to make a profit.

The question arises, however, whether what existed in ‘Democratic’ Kampuchea can really be described as some kind of hybrid between state capitalism and non-market socialism. This boils down to: was the domestic economy truly an example of socialism? Our answer is simply that no, it was not. As your original article notes, the vast majority of Cambodians were subjected to long working hours, high production quotas and insufficient rations, resulting in exhaustion, illness and death. As their productivity increased, the plan was not to increase the food rations they received.

Plainly this was not non-market socialism. If anything, a more apt comparison would be slavery or some kind of forced labour system, where those who perform the back-breaking toil are ‘rewarded’ with just enough to keep them alive and working away, producing the surplus that the rulers could, in Cambodia’s case, export in return for foreign exchange.

The Khmer Rouge takeover indeed ‘did not translate into a coherent whole’, given the differences between internal and external policies, but there was no connection to socialism. We cannot say what would have happened if they had remained in power for longer than four years, except that they would not have introduced the classless, stateless, moneyless society that you note Marx envisaged. Apart from the fact that such a socialist system will have to be global in scope, Cambodia lacked the essential conditions of being able to produce an effective abundance and having mass support for such a revolutionary change. – Editors

Sanctioned

I was recently sent on a ‘business course’ as part of the government ‘helping’ me back into employment. So after stomaching a week’s worth of nauseating bollocks about the virtues of capitalism, I informed the class that ‘earning’ a right to exist entailed being legally thieved off on a daily basis while making some parasitic cunt rich (not the exact words I used, but the words I wanted to use). For my trouble I was removed from the class and sanctioned. So there you have it. In this country of ‘free speech’ and ‘democracy’, it’s a sanctionable offence to speak the truth.

John Lakin, 

London