24th August 2014, 20:21
I've for a while considered Stalinism quite similar to Proudhonism, the notion that when you change the conditions of market exchange and commodity production, either legally (as per Stalinism) or through remuneration via labour money (as per Proudhonism) somehow abolishes capitalism is common to both. But Maoism especially with its work point system is suspect.
Proudhonism seeks to establish socialism with commodity production but with labour money representing time.
Maoism does a very similar thing. It brings the means of production under state ownership, but control is not in the hands of the workers but in the hands of committees of Party bureaucrats and later army officers and red guards as well (often in conflict with each other and themselves). So workers continue to be divorced from the conditions of labour; there is no social control over the means of production, nor social ownership. The social character of labour was not immediate and not associated, and therefore the basis for the disappearance for the commodity form organically and automatically was non-existent. Instead, the workers receive 'work points' that are exchangeable for commodities. The implementation of work-points was entirely optional and did not follow organically from labour becoming immediate social labour, as it would have under social ownership. So in this regard, Maoism is very similar to Proudhonist logic. This may also be interesting in light of the anarchist influences on the Chinese Communist Party leadership, especially Mao and Li Dazhao (although it was more Kropotkin's influence than Proudhon). But I've never seen the comparison been made, so maybe I'm overlooking something that sets these two apart, making the comparison null.
So please some information, maybe you have seen the comparison before, or maybe you know why this comparison is flawed.
|The bank would thus be the general buyer and seller. Instead of notes it could also issue cheques, and instead of that it could also keep simple bank accounts. Depending on the sum of commodity values which X had deposited with the bank, X would have that sum in the form of other commodities to his credit. A second attribute of the bank would be necessary: it would need the power to establish the exchange value of all commodities, i.e. the labour time materialized in them, in an authentic manner. But its functions could not end there. It would have to determine the labour time in which commodities could be produced, with the average means of production available in a given industry, i.e. the time in which they would have to be produced. But that also would not be sufficient. It would not only have to determine the time in which a certain quantity of products had to be produced, and place the producers in conditions which made their labour equally productive (i.e. it would have to balance and to arrange the distribution of the means of labour), but it would also have to determine the amounts of labour time to be employed in the different branches of production. The latter would be necessary because, in order to realize exchange value and make the bank’s currency really convertible, social production in general would have to be stabilized and arranged so that the needs of the partners in exchange were always satisfied. Nor is this all. The biggest exchange process is not that between commodities, but that between commodities and labour. (More on this presently.) The workers would not be selling their labour to the bank, but they would receive the exchange value for the entire product of their labour, etc. Precisely seen, then, the bank would be not only the general buyer and seller, but also the general producer. In fact either it would be a despotic ruler of production and trustee of distribution, or it would indeed be nothing more than a board which keeps the books and accounts for a society producing in common.|
as big as the one pictured, maybe larger.
"Proudhonism" seeks to establish socialism by abolishing the capitalist notion of private property and replacing it with a system of economic relations based on the notion of possession.
"Bakuninism", that is, the standard revolutionary social anarchism, is in fact just 'Proudhonism' simplified and made more resolute (being revolutionary instead of dual-power reformist).
1. As I explained here: http://www.revleft.com/vb/collectivi...26#post2783226
Why is this important? Because "Proudhonism" is socialism, whereas Marxism is state-capitalism.