Food crisis, hunger riots: Only the proletarian class struggle can put an end to famine

Submitted by InternationalReview on August 25, 2008 - 19:44.
tags :
StumbleThis

In International Review n° 132 we looked at the development of workers' struggles which have been breaking out simultaneously all over the world in response to the worsening economic crisis and the growing attacks on proletarian living standards. The latest convulsions of the world economy, the scourge of inflation and the food crisis, can only further aggravate the poverty of the most poverty-stricken social layers in the peripheries of capitalism. This situation, which reveals the impasse reached by the capitalist system, has provoked hunger riots in numerous countries, at the same time as workers' struggles for wage increases, above all in response to the spiralling cost of basic foodstuffs. With the deepening crisis, hunger riots and workers' struggles can only become more and more general and simultaneous. These revolts against poverty are products of the same thing: the crisis of capitalist society, its inability to offer humanity any future and even to ensure the immediate survival of a significant part of it. However, they do not both contain the same potential. Only the struggle of the proletariat on its own class terrain can put an end to poverty and generalised famine by overthrowing capitalism and creating a new society without poverty, hunger and war.

The food crisis shows the bankruptcy of capitalism

The common denominator of the hunger riots which since the beginning of the year have exploded virtually all over the world is the surge in the price of foodstuffs or their desperate scarcity, which have struck the poor and working populations of numerous countries. To give a few particularly clear figures, the price of maize has quadrupled since summer 2007, the price of grain has doubled since the beginning of 2008, and in general food prices have increased by 60% in two years in the poorer countries. It is a sign of the times that the devastating effects of the 30-50% increase in food prices at a world level have violently affected not only the populations of the poor countries but also those of the "rich" ones. Thus, for example, in the USA, the world's leading economic power, 28 million Americans could no longer survive without the food distribution programmes run by municipal and federal authorities.

At this very moment, 100,000 people are dying of hunger every day across the world; a child under 10 is dying every five seconds; 842 million people are suffering from chronic malnutrition and are being reduced to the status of invalids. And right now, two out of the six billion human beings of the planet (i.e. one third of humanity) are in a daily fight for survival because of the rise in the cost of basic foodstuffs.

The experts of the bourgeoisie  - the IMF, the FAO, the UN, the G8 etc - have announced that such a state of affairs is only temporary, when in fact it is not only becoming chronic but is due to get worse, with the dizzying increase in the price of basic necessities and their growing scarcity across the planet. At a time when the productive capacities of the planet would make it possible to feed 12 billion human beings, millions and millions are dying of hunger because of the laws of capitalism, the system that dominates the world: a system of production aimed not at satisfying human need but at generating profit; a system totally incapable of responding to the needs of humanity. Furthermore, all the explanations of the current food crisis we are being given converge in the same direction, pointing to the method of production that obeys blind and irrational laws:

1. The surge in oil prices which is increasing the cost of transporting food etc. This phenomenon is indeed an aberration typical of the system, not a factor external to it.

2. The significant growth in the demand for food, the result of a certain increase in the buying power and of the new eating habits of the middle classes in the "emerging" countries like India and China. If there is an ounce of truth in this explanation, it is a significant mark of the real nature of an "economic progress" that increases the consuming power of some only to condemn millions of others to die of hunger because of the resulting penury on the world market

3. Frenzied speculation on agricultural products. This is also a pure product of the system and its economic weight is all the more important given that the real economy is prospering less and less. Some examples: cereal stocks are the lowest they have been for thirty years, and speculation mania is more and more focused on foodstuffs in the hope of finding some good investments at a time when there's nothing to be gained in the property market. At the Chicago Stock exchange, "the volume of contracts being exchanged over soya, grain, maize, beef, pork and even living cattle" (Le Figaro, 15/4/08) went up by 20% in the course of the first three months of this year.

4. The growing market in biofuels, spurred on by the rising cost of oil and which is also the object of frenzied speculation. This new source of profit is at the root of the explosion of this kind of cultivation at the expense of food crops. Numerous countries that produce basic necessities have turned whole swathes of their agricultural economy over to biofuel production, on the pretext of fighting against the greenhouse effect. This has drastically decreased the production of basic necessities and dramatically increased their cost. This is the case with Congo Brazzaville which is extensively developing sugar cane for biofuels when its population is sinking into hunger. In Brazil, where 30% of the population live below the poverty line and have great difficulty feeding themselves, agricultural policy is increasingly geared towards biofuel production.

5. Trade war and protectionism, which are also characteristic of capitalism, when imposed on the agricultural sector, mean that the most productive forms of agriculture in the industrialised countries, often thanks to government subsidies, are exporting an important part of their produce to the countries of the "Third World",[1] thus ruining the peasantry of these regions, and rendering them incapable of meeting the food needs of the local population. In Africa, for example, many local farmers have been ruined by European exports of chicken and beef. Mexico can no longer produce enough basic necessities to feed its population, so that it now has to import 10 billion dollars worth of foodstuffs.    

6. The irresponsible use of the planet's resources, driven by the hunt for immediate profit, is leading to their exhaustion. The over-utilisation of fertilisers damages the balance of the soil, so that the International Rice Research Institute foresees a threat to rice production in Asia in the medium term. Unrestrained fishing in the oceans is leading to a dearth of many species of edible fish. 

7. As for the consequences of the warming of the planet, in particular floods and droughts, they are rightly pointed to as reasons for the fall in production in certain cultivable areas. But this too in the last instance is the result of the effects that capitalist industrialisation has had on the environment, at the expense of the immediate and the long term needs of humanity. Thus, the recent heat waves in Australia have led to severe damage and a significant drop in agricultural production. And the worst is in front of us since according to calculations a one degree Celsius rise in temperature will result in a 10% fall in the production of rice, grain and maize. Initial researches indicate that an increase in temperature will threaten the survival of many animal and plant species and will reduce the nutritional value of many plants.

Famine is not the only consequence of the aberrant way capitalism exploits the earth's resources. Thus, the production of biofuels leads to the exhaustion of cultivable land. Furthermore, this "juicy" market leads to crazy and anti-natural behaviour: in the Rocky Mountains, in the USA, where growers have already devoted 30% of their maize crop to the manufacture of ethanol, the gigantic investment in the production of "energy" maize in soils unsuitable for it leads to an incredible waste of fertiliser and water for very poor results. Jean Ziegler explains: "To produce a full 50 litre tank of ethanol, you have to burn 232 kilos of maize"; and to produce a kilo of maize, you need 1000 litres of water! According to recent studies, not only is the "pollution" balance sheet for biofuels negative (recent research shows that it produces more air pollution than normal fuel), but their global ecological and economic consequences are disastrous for the whole of humanity. What's more, in many regions of the world, the soil is increasingly polluted or even totally poisoned. This is the case for 10% of Chinese soil; this is a country where every year 120,000 peasants die from cancers linked to the pollution of the soil.

All the explanations given us about the food crisis contain a small element of truth. But none of them itself constitutes an explanation. When it comes to the limits of its system, above all when this expresses itself in the form of an open crisis, the bourgeoisie has no choice but to lie to the exploited, who are the first to suffer its consequences, in order to hide the necessarily transitory nature of capitalism, as with all previous systems of exploitation. To a certain extent it is also forced to lie to itself as a social class, to avoid having to face the fact that its reign has been condemned by history. What is so striking today is the contrast between the bourgeoisie's assurances and its inability to make any credible response to the food crisis.

The different explanations and solutions proposed - apart from their cynical and hypocritical character - all correspond to the immediate interests of this or that fraction of the ruling class to the detriment of others. Some examples: at the last summit of the G8 the main leaders of the world invited the representatives of the poor countries to react to the hunger revolts by proposing an immediate cut in customs' duties on agricultural imports. In other words, the first thought of the spokesmen of the great capitalist democracies is to take advantage of the crisis by increasing their own export opportunities! The European industrial lobby made a fuss over the agricultural protectionism of the European Union being responsible, among other things, for ruining subsistence agriculture in the "Third World". And why? Feeling threatened by competition from Asian industry, it wants to reduce agricultural subsidies in the EU as being above its means. As for the agricultural lobby, it sees the hunger revolts as proof of the need to increase the same subsidies. The EU seized on the occasion to condemn the orientation of agricultural production towards "renewable energy"...in Brazil, one of its main rivals in this sector.        

Capitalism has, like no other previous system, developed the productive forces to the point where it would be possible to establish a society where all human needs would be met. However, the enormous forces it has set in motion, as long as they are imprisoned by the laws of capital, not only cannot be used for the benefit of the great majority, but actually turn against it: "In the most advanced industrial countries we have subdued the forces of nature and pressed them into the service of mankind; we have thereby infinitely multiplied production, so that a child now produces more than a hundred adults previously did. And what is the result? Increasing overwork and increasing misery of the masses...Only conscious organisation of social production, in which production and distribution are carried on in a planed way, can lift mankind above the rest of the animal world as regards the social aspect, in the same way that production in general has done this for mankind in the specifically biological aspect".[2] Since capitalism entered its phase of decline, not only does the wealth it produces not contribute to the liberation of the human species from the reign of necessity, but it threatens its very existence. Thus, a new danger now threatens humanity: generalised famine, which only recently was being dismissed as a nightmare of the past. In fact, as illustrated by the warming of the planet, since all productive activity - including the production of food - is subjected to the blind laws of capital, it is the very basis of life on earth that is being put into question, above all through the squandering of its resources,

The difference between hunger riots and the riots in the suburbs

It is the most impoverished masses of the "Third World" who are being hit by abject scarcity. The looting of shops is a perfectly legitimate reaction faced with an unbearable situation where the survival of yourself and your family is at stake. In this sense, the hunger riots, even when they provoke destruction and violence, should not be put at the same level as the urban riots (like that in Brixton in Britain in 1981 and those in the French suburbs in 2005) or race riots (like those in Los Angeles in 1992).[3]

Although they also trouble "public order" and result in material damage, the latter, in the final analysis, only serve the interests of the bourgeoisie, which is perfectly capable of turning them not only against the rioters themselves but also against the whole of the working class. In particular, these manifestations of desperate violence  (in which elements of the lumpen-proletariat are often involved) always provide the ruling class with the opportunity to strengthen its apparatus of repression through increasing police patrols of the poorest areas where working class families live.

These types of riot are a pure product of the decomposition of the capitalist system. They are an expression of the despair and feelings of "no future" that it engenders and this is expressed in their totally absurd character. This was the case for example with the riots which blazed across the French suburbs in 2005 when the young people didn't unleash their actions in the rich neighbourhoods inhabited by their exploiters but in their own neighbourhoods which became even more difficult to live in as a result. The fact that it was their own families or neighbours who were the main victims of their depredations reveals the blind, desperate and suicidal character of these riots. It was the cars of workers living in the neighbourhoods that were burned, or the schools and colleges attended by their brothers and sisters or the children of their neighbours which were destroyed. And precisely because of the absurdity of these riots the bourgeoisie was able to make use of them and turn them against the working class. Their massive exposure in the media enabled the ruling class to make as many workers as possible see the young rioters not as victims of capitalism in crisis, but as "thugs". Apart from the fact that these riots made it possible to step up a witch hunt of immigrant youth, they undermined any possibility of solidarity among the working class towards these young people excluded from production, deprived of any perspective for the future and subjected to the permanent pressure of police harassment. 

For their part, the hunger riots are first and foremost an expression of the bankruptcy of the capitalist economy and of the irrationality of its system of production. This is now taking the form of a food crisis which is hitting not only the most disenfranchised layers in the "poor" countries, but more and more wage workers, including those in the so-called "developed" countries. It's not by chance that the majority of workers' struggles developing today all over the planet put forward wage rises as their key demand. Galloping inflation, the spiral in the price of basic necessities, the fall in real wages and of retirement pensions eaten away by inflation, the precariousness of employment and the waves of redundancies - these are all manifestations of the crisis and contain all the ingredients for ensuring that the question of hunger, of the struggle for survival, is more and more being posed within the working class. Already several inquiries have shown that the supermarkets and high streets where workers do their shopping are less and less able to sell their products and are being forced to reduce their orders.

And it is precisely because the question of the food crisis is already hitting the workers of the "poor" countries (and will more and more affect those in the central countries) that the bourgeoisie will have the greatest difficulty in exploiting the hunger riots against the proletarian class struggle. Generalised want and famine - here is the future that capitalism has in store for the whole of humanity and this future is being highlighted by the hunger riots which have broken out recently in a number of countries.      

Obviously, these riots are also reactions of despair by the most impoverished masses of the "poor" countries, and in themselves they do not contain any perspective for the overthrow of capitalism. But unlike the urban and racial riots, hunger riots are a concentrated form of all the absolute misery which capitalism is imposing on ever larger portions of humanity. They show the fate that awaits the whole working class if this mode of production is not overthrown. In this sense, they contribute to the process through which the proletariat becomes aware of the irredeemable bankruptcy of the capitalist economy. Finally, they show the cynicism and ferocity with which the ruling class responds to explosions of anger by those who loot shops to avoid dying of hunger: repression, tear gas, truncheons and machine guns.

What's more, unlike the riots in the suburbs, these riots are not a factor of division in the working class. On the contrary, despite the violence and destruction that may be involved in them, hunger riots tend to give rise to spontaneous feelings of solidarity on the part of the workers, given that they are among the first to be affected by the food crisis and are finding it harder and harder to feed their families. In this sense, the hunger riots are much more difficult for the bourgeoisie to exploit by setting workers against each other or creating divisions within the poorer neighbourhoods.

Faced with hunger riots, only the workers' struggle can offer a perspective

Even so, although in the "poor" countries we are seeing a simultaneous development of hunger riots and workers' struggles against capitalist misery, these are two parallel movements of a very different nature.

Even if workers may be led to participate in hunger riots by pillaging shops, this is not the terrain of the class struggle. It is a terrain in which the proletariat is inevitably drowned amidst other "popular" strata, the poorest and most marginalised. In this kind of movement, the proletariat can only lose its class autonomy and abandon its own methods of struggle: strikes, demonstrations, general assemblies.

Moreover, hunger riots are only a flash in the pan, a revolt that has no tomorrow and which can in no way solve the problem of famine. They are no more than an immediate and desperate reaction to the most absolute misery. Once the shops have been emptied by looting, there's nothing left, whereas the wage rises that result from workers' struggles can be maintained for longer (even if they will eventually be overtaken). It is obvious that in the face of the famine now hitting the populations of the countries at the periphery of capitalism, the working class cannot remain indifferent; all the more so because in these countries the workers themselves are being hit by the food crisis and are finding it increasingly difficult to feed their families on their miserable wages.

The present manifestations of the bankruptcy of capitalism, in particular the surge in prices and the food crisis, will more and more tend to level downwards the living conditions of the proletariat and the most impoverished masses. Because of this, workers' struggles in the "poor" countries can only multiply at the same time as the hunger riots. But while hunger riots don't offer any perspective, workers' struggles are the starting point for the workers to develop their strength and their own perspective. The only way for the proletariat to resist the increasingly violent attacks of capital is to preserve its class autonomy and develop its own struggles and solidarity. In general assemblies and massive demonstrations it needs to put forward demands that are common to all and integrate solidarity with the famished masses. In these demands, workers must not only demand wage rises and cuts in the price of basic foodstuffs: their platform of demands should also include free distribution of the vital minimum for the most deprived, the unemployed and those who have no way of earning a living.

It's only by developing its own methods of struggle and strengthening its class solidarity with the oppressed and famished masses that the proletariat can rally behind it the non-exploiting strata of society.

Capitalism has no perspective to offer humanity except increasingly barbaric wars, increasingly tragic catastrophes, and growing poverty for the great majority of the world population. The only possibility for society to get out of the barbarism of the present world is the overthrow of the capitalist system. And the only force capable of doing this is the world working class. It is because, up till now, the working class has not found the strength to affirm this perspective through the massive development and extension of its struggles, that growing masses of the population in the "Third World" have been forced to engage in desperate hunger riots. The only real solution to the "food crisis" is the development of proletarian struggles towards the world communist revolution, which will make it possible to provide a perspective and a meaning to hunger revolts. The proletariat can only lead the other non-exploiting strata behind it if it affirms itself as a revolutionary class. It is by developing and unifying its struggles that the working class will be able to show that it is the only force capable of changing the world and bringing a radical solution to the scourge of famine, but also to the problem of war and all the expressions of despair produced by the rotting of society on its feet.

Capitalism has brought together the conditions for abundance but, as long as this system is not overthrown, it can only lead to an absurd situation where the overproduction of commodities goes along with scarcity of the most elementary goods.

The fact that capitalism is no longer capable of feeding whole swathes of humanity is a clarion call to the proletariat to assume its historical responsibilities. It is only through the world communist revolution that it will be able to lay the bases of a society of abundance where famine will be forever eradicated from the planet.

ICC, 5th July 2008

 



[1]. The term "Third World" was invented by the French economist and demographer Alfred Sauvy in 1952, in the midst of the Cold War, originally to describe countries which were not tied directly either to the western bloc or the Russian bloc; but this meaning has been virtually abandoned, especially since the fall of the Berlin Wall. But it was equally used to describe countries that had the lowest levels of economic development, in other words the poorest countries on the planet, particularly in Africa, Asia and Latin America. And it's obviously in this sense, which is more current than ever, that we still use it.

 

[2]. Engels, Introduction to Dialectics of Nature, Marx Engels Collected Works, Vol. 25, p351. Lawrence and Wishart.

 

[3]. On the race riots in Los Angeles, see our article "Faced with chaos and massacres, only the working class has an answer" in International Review n° 70. On the riots in the French suburbs in the autumn of 2005, see "Social riots; Argentina 2001, France 2005...Riots or revolution?" in International Review n°124 and "Theses on the students' movement in Spring 2006 in France" in International Review n° 125.

 

ending food shortages by ending capitalism

Yes, we can end food shortages by ending capitalism. Just take a look at Cuba to see the results of this philosophy. Once the messiah, the chosen one BO assumes control he will certainly travel to Cuba and learn the secrets of
communism and save us from the prosperity of capitalism. I can't wait until the USA is a carbon copy of the great civilization they have in communist Cuba! VIVA CASTRO!

What makes you think Cuba

What makes you think Cuba has anything to do with communism? Last time I checked it had all the characteristics of capitalism: national frontiers, wage labour, commodity production, exploitation, a bloated state, etc.

However much Castro strayed from Marxism

the whole idea of running an economy like a set of social services (i.e. based on political calculations rather than capitalism's economic calculations) stems from Marx's call for the nationalization of the economy. Indeed central planning failed because prices were not set up to make a profit--the main way in which firms know how to make a product that is worth more than it costs. Instead central planning adds up more and more costs for less and less benefits, collapsing the system. In the end, the worst way to run an economy is not economic calculations (i.e. profit) but political calculations (i.e. how to implement the bureaucratic agendas of the politicians at the top of the Party hierarchy).

Marx's call for

Marx's call for nationalisation in the Communist Manifesto wasn't a programme for communism, but rather a period of transition between the two. In communism proper, there would be no state and no political parties.
.
It's interesting to note that this "call" appears only in the Manifesto and practically nowhere else in the corpus of Marx's writings. In fact, Marx waged a long theoretical and political battle against the "state socialism" of Lassalle. As just one example, his critique of the Gotha programme contains a blistering critique of state control over education.
.
The most important point to make here is that Marxist thinking on the state does not start and end with Marx in any case.
.
As for your points about the efficiency of "central planning", they are entirely predicated on the conception of profit. It's quite obvious that if profit is your aim then communist central planning will be useless, because such central planning is aimed at satisfying human need with available resources, not profit. Your critique is thus similar to criticising a food blender for not being appropriate for building a car.
.
Lastly, the "central planning" of the Stalinist regimes was no different to the "central planning" that is used to manage any discrete economic unit (e.g. a factory) and is based on authoritarianism, exploitation, etc. This type of central planning is integral to capitalism, unless you think factories run by chance! The planning undertaken by the working class will be collective, democratic and based around satisfying the needs of all and not the profits of the boss or the state.

No the central planning in

No the central planning in the Soviet Union was different. Farmers in the Soviet Union would feed their animals bread because unprocessed grain cost more. Now objects all have a cost in resources, time, labor, etc. The real cost of bread is more than the cost of unprocessed grain because it is equal to the unprocessed grain PLUS the added resources, time, labor, etc. to process it into bread. In the Soviet Union, the planners ignored this because the economy was supposed to serve the needs of the system rather than profit. On the other hand, a capitalist bakery would charge more for bread than unprocessed grain because it relies on profit to compensate for the costs of processing the grain into bread. Profits then are now completely arbitrary but are set largely by economic needs such as paying for the COSTS OF PRODUCTION (in resources, etc.) as well as other concerns. Remember that the price of an object in money is in capitalist society representative of the value vis-a-vis other objects, money making different sorts of objects into equivalent forms of wealth (as represented by money).

But you know what? The greatest tragedy of capitalist society is that people worship God instead of worshipping their whims as in socialist society. It's such a tragedy...

Actually, the system in the

Actually, the system in the Stalinist soviet union was based on profit. Despite all the distortions from the extreme hypertrophy of the state, capital still accumulated (under the guise of "socialist accumulation") and the nomenklatura still received revenue in the form of managerial wages and benefits.
.
If I've understood your post correctly, you clearly don't follow the Marxist view of profit. Marx identified two components to the outlay of a capitalist: Constant capital (machinery, raw materials) and variable capital (wages/labour costs). Both are exchanged at their value (that is, the cost of reproducing them). But labour is capable of producing more value required to reproduce it - crudely speaking a worker can produce more than is required to keep him alive. The capitalist thus pays a "fair" price for the worker's labour power but the labourer is exploited because he doesn't received a "fair" share of the product of his labour.
.
A truly communist society will abolish all manifestations of profit. "Costs" will still exist in terms of the allocation of resources, but production and distribution will be be organised on the basis of need by the population as a whole.

DG: Actually, the system in

DG: Actually, the system in the Stalinist soviet union was based on profit. Despite all the distortions from the extreme hypertrophy of the state, capital still accumulated (under the guise of "socialist accumulation") and the nomenklatura still received revenue in the form of managerial wages and benefits.

Hidden Author: Sure the Stalinists could extract a surplus from an agrarian society--so did the Pharaohs. But while the Pharaohs could manage the resulting temples, the Stalinists could not manage the industry which they chose to create from *their* surplus. Simply because they had to consider the costs of millions of items. In the end, they just arbitrarily assigned prices until economic decay brought the whole farce down!
.
DG: If I've understood your post correctly, you clearly don't follow the Marxist view of profit. Marx identified two components to the outlay of a capitalist: Constant capital (machinery, raw materials) and variable capital (wages/labour costs). Both are exchanged at their value (that is, the cost of reproducing them). But labour is capable of producing more value required to reproduce it - crudely speaking a worker can produce more than is required to keep him alive. The capitalist thus pays a "fair" price for the worker's labour power but the labourer is exploited because he doesn't received a "fair" share of the product of his labour.
.
A truly communist society will abolish all manifestations of profit. "Costs" will still exist in terms of the allocation of resources, but production and distribution will be be organised on the basis of need by the population as a whole.

Hidden Author: In capitalism, factory owners know what an item because goods in general are assigned prices based on what the producer knows about their value. If the owner raises the product of the manufactured item, it may be because he or she takes into account the costs of the inputs.

Now I suppose that a workers' council could do much the same thing; however you guys consider self-ownership to be a form of exploitation as well. But decisions are centralized in the leadership of a Lenin-style worker-state, planning becomes impossible; the planners after all ignore the price, i.e. the signal by the owner, be it a corporation or a worker co-op, concerning the costs of production. And that is what brought the Soviet Union. Or do you think that wasteful actions like feeding bread to livestock did NOT harm the economy?

Hidden Author, you're

Hidden Author, you're confusing price-control regimes (which are not limited to Stalinist states incidentally) with communism. There won't be any need for price controls in communism because there won't be prices. This is because there won't be any form of exchange. Instead, resources will be allocated directly from the social store on the basis of need, and in the case of limited resources on the basis of collectively agreed priorities.
.
Your critiques of Russian price control systems are simply irrelevant to a discussion about communism. Of course, the inefficiency of this regime certainly was a factor in bringing down the Stalinist regimes because it meant they were unable to respond to the growing systemic crisis since the 70s. No-one would deny this and the ICC (and others) identified this as a factor decades ago.
.
If your argument is that the USSR was rubbish, great, we can agree. If you think that it had anything to do with communism, then you're just wrong - it wasn't, for the reasons I've already identified. It was simply a form of hypertrophied state capitalism.

I should also add that the

I should also add that the perception of the USSR economic model being inherently inferior to Western capitalism, is a perception based mainly on the decay of the USSR during the economic crises of the 80s. In fact, during the 30s, the USSR consistently outperformed all the Western economies which were caught in the grip of the Great Depression. It industrialised with unprecedented rapidity and transformed from a weak agrarian power into the second largest industrial power in the world. At its peak in 1970, it was approximately worth 60% of US GDP at that time.
.
The downfall of the USSR began in the 70s at more or less the same time that economic crisis returned to the West. It exhibited exactly the same symptoms that have plagued the Western economies ever since: declining growth in both output and productivity. Unlike the West, it was unable, because of ideological reasons, to amputate its heavy industries and build up a facade of speculative financial activity which has brought considerable breathing space for Western capitalism (until now). Essentially, the USSR was faced with an economic crisis without the flexibility to abandon what was effectively an extreme form of Keynesianism.

Nice try, commie!

DG: Hidden Author, you're confusing price-control regimes (which are not limited to Stalinist states incidentally) with communism. There won't be any need for price controls in communism because there won't be prices. This is because there won't be any form of exchange. Instead, resources will be allocated directly from the social store on the basis of need, and in the case of limited resources on the basis of collectively agreed priorities.
.
Your critiques of Russian price control systems are simply irrelevant to a discussion about communism. Of course, the inefficiency of this regime certainly was a factor in bringing down the Stalinist regimes because it meant they were unable to respond to the growing systemic crisis since the 70s. No-one would deny this and the ICC (and others) identified this as a factor decades ago.
.
If your argument is that the USSR was rubbish, great, we can agree. If you think that it had anything to do with communism, then you're just wrong - it wasn't, for the reasons I've already identified. It was simply a form of hypertrophied state capitalism.

Hidden Author: OK suppose that serving the people's will requires the production of X million tons of steel to produce the desired steel products. But then the steel process requires a good deal of water. This then requires a reduction in other goods produced by water. How much do you reduce in agriculture, industry, etc. And the farmers growing crops with a reduced quota of water and the factories producing goods with a reduced quota would argue that their goods should have the priority. Not to matter the other metals such as brass, copper, etc. And then whichever goods are reduced due to a reduced quota should affect by their scarcity other goods maybe even valued goods. Each good's use-value is in fact relative to the use-value of millions of other goods. In fact, central planning was made even more complicated by the fact that the authorities in the Politburo wanted all feasible goods produced--thus the right quantity of various goods (dependent on the same resources as described above) had to be determined! So even with exchange-value out of the picture, the question of ranking the use-value of various goods that require other goods and create still other goods will give a central planner headaches!

The fact of the matter is that exchange-value and use-value are related: what a consumer will exchange for a good is affected by the use a consumer can gain from the good. And a good's price is the measurement of the good's exchange-value in the common currency (which can vary from dollars to beads). So really the Bolsheviks used prices to approximate use-values--guessing as in War Communism or as in Mao Zedong's Cultural Revolution doesn't work, instead there must be a price (at least in a large-scale economy). And since there were no capitalists to negotiate the price amongst themselves, the Bolsheviks tended to set prices according to prices in the outside world--even Khrushchev said something to the effect of "When the world becomes Communist, Switzerland should remain capitalist in order to set the prices of goods."

DG: I should also add that the perception of the USSR economic model being inherently inferior to Western capitalism, is a perception based mainly on the decay of the USSR during the economic crises of the 80s. In fact, during the 30s, the USSR consistently outperformed all the Western economies which were caught in the grip of the Great Depression. It industrialised with unprecedented rapidity and transformed from a weak agrarian power into the second largest industrial power in the world. At its peak in 1970, it was approximately worth 60% of US GDP at that time.
.
The downfall of the USSR began in the 70s at more or less the same time that economic crisis returned to the West. It exhibited exactly the same symptoms that have plagued the Western economies ever since: declining growth in both output and productivity. Unlike the West, it was unable, because of ideological reasons, to amputate its heavy industries and build up a facade of speculative financial activity which has brought considerable breathing space for Western capitalism (until now). Essentially, the USSR was faced with an economic crisis without the flexibility to abandon what was effectively an extreme form of Keynesianism.

Hidden Author: Just because starving millions of Ukrainian peasants in favor of tank production involved a shift from agriculture to industry, it doesn't mean that the economy improved. Surely Marxists should realize that the measure of an economy is how it produces goods for the people; unfortunately Marxists seem to have an industry fetish. Industry is but a means to an end.

Now it is true that the Reform Communism of Nikita Khrushchev and Leonid Bruzhnev did in fact generate economic growth as the immense productive power of heavy industry was applied to agriculture and light industry to at last provide (a limited amount of) consumer goods for the masses. But the point is to not compare apples to oranges: The United States of the 30s was better off than the Soviet Union of the 30s; the same was true in the 50s and 70s.

In fact the partitioning of nations by the Cold War proved the impotence of Communism to improve people's lives. There was a binary between West and East Germany, North and South Korea/Vietnam, the People's Republic of China and the Republic of China (on Taiwan). In these cases, the Communist sections had the shoddy goods, the poverty and the emigrants while the capitalist sections had the better-quality goods, the lion's share of the prosperity (especially as time went on) and the immigrants (from the Communist section).

In fact, the Communist nations had to do something that even Third World capitalist nations tended not to do: the Communist Party had to build a wall to keep their workers, especially their skilled labor, from leaving! Why do Communists need to keep workers from leaving? Isn't this desire to trap the proletariat a prime motive for the Communist insistence that a world revolution is necessary?

Hidden Author, I have to

Hidden Author, I have to admire your truly heroic achievement in repeatedly missing the point. I am not defending the economy of the USSR. The economy of the USSR was not communist. Nor was China, Taiwan, or any of the other places you mention. But given you have a gift for knocking down straw man arguments, I grow weary of trying to explain this point yet again.
.
Your points about the complexity of central planning are interesting, but really beside the point. Do you really think communists are unaware of the complexities of a modern manufacturing economy? However, nowhere have you demonstrated that it is impossible for planning to work. You fail to take account of the fact that planning does work, even to some degree within capitalism. Any worker will tell you that his workplace operates on the basis of a vast and complex plan, with resources allocated by a number of different decision making organs at a number of levels.
.
All you have demonstrated is that the state capitalist price control system of Russia failed to work and since we agree on that anyway, I'm bemused at why you continue this line of attack. Your points about the condition of workers within Russia are well-taken but nowhere did I claim the Russian economy was equal to the West - I simply said it outperformed it consistently for decades on the basis of growth which is factually true. The horrendous conditions of workers within Russia was the inevitably product of the otherwise backward nature of the country, as it is with the case of China and India today for all their remarkable development in recent years.
.
Going back to the failure of central planning, you hit upon the reason (perhaps without realising it) when you say "authorities in the Politburo wanted all feasible goods produced" and that the USSR preferred to produce tanks rather than feed people. Just as in Nazi Germany, the Stalinists were at the helm of an imperialist state in competition with all the other imperialist states. They were largely in a position of economic inferiority compared with their enemies and so were pushed to maintain military parity. The collapse of the price-control regimes in Russia was as much the product of trying to squeeze out massive levels of military production from an economy that simply couldn't handle it as from any inherent weakness to the concept of planning an economy. (And I repeat again, comparing the central planning of the USSR to that of communism is, as you say, comparing apples with oranges).
.
As far as living conditions are concerned, however, you are quite wrong when you say the measure of an economy is the goods it produces for people. At least as far as a capitalist economy is concerned, the measure of success is in terms of profits and accumulation. After all, capitalism is predicated on the fact that workers are over-producers, producing more than they can consume. For capitalism to function, workers must remain poor. This continual tendency to pauperisation is counter-acted to some extent by the cheapening of goods necessary to keep him alive, as Marx identified in Capital, but the consumption of the worker can never rise beyond certain limits without the whole system being thrown into question. It's no accident that the first thing capitalists do in times of crisis is reduce wages, push through productivity increases, and the like in an effort to intensify exploitation and raise the rate of profit.
.
So the fact that workers in the USSR paid a heavy price for the rapid accumulation taking place in the USSR's economy is hardly a surprise, but simply the normal functioning of the system. The fact that workers in the US had a higher standard of living in many respects doesn't change the fact that they, too, were exploited. US capitalists were somewhat richer than the USSR nomenklatura, too, but the fundamental class relationships in both countries were the same.

But how would a planner know

But how would a planner know which goods take priority? The issues are:

1) Centralization of planning

The problem isn't planning but rather centralized planning.

Capitalism solves this in large part by decentralization.

But then the fact that decision making is decentralized means that while one investor funds food production, another will fund machine production, yet another clothing production and so on. But with *central* planning the information overwhelms the planners because they must process data that is processed by millions of planners in a truly capitalist economy.

How could a central leadership process the data? Even a central revolutionary leadership of a few hundred is far smaller than the millions of capitalists currently involved in the decision-making process.

2) Coordination

In a capitalist economy, resources are directed by banks. Banks know who to fund because worthy projects tend to pay loans.

Since most workplaces could claim to have worthy projects--especially since Left Communists oppose critiques of consumerism by workers--how could the leadership separate the wheat from the chaff?

Remember most workplaces *do* have worthy projects--it's just that some are worthier than others. Obviously the basics--food, clothing, shelter, water--take priority. In fact, Stalin's success, such as it was, was due to the constant needs characteristic of the human being. It was the program of Reform Communism as practiced by Khrushchev and Brezhnev that posed the real challenge--how could a few planners have the data to properly priorize the various goods assembled.

You Left Communists can criticize the Soviet Union all you want. But the question of how to centrally plan an economy remains. In capitalist nations, what central planning exists is done by banks that measure the worthiness of products by profit margins. How would Communist central planners measure a product's worthiness relative to the millions of other projects?

3) Bureaucracy

Which brings up the next point. You Left Communists oppose the anarchist utopian vision of a stateless society emerging immediately after the revolution. Yet the bureaucracy Left Communists oppose in Stalinism seems to be the natural result of a) having a state in the first place and b) enhancing the state's powers by granting it control of the economy (which happens to have most of the manpower anyway).

4) Conclusion

In conclusion, the issue is not planning but *central planning*!

Central planning and communism

Instead of central planning which is incompatible with a communist economy anyway why not a self regulating system of stock control . See http://www.cvoice.org/cv3cox.htm

Okay, I begin to see where

Okay, I begin to see where you're coming from. If you're thinking of some group at the top trying to allocate where everything goes all at once, then such a task would be herculean! But the council system is built from the ground up, from mass assemblies formed in workplaces and communities. The councils delegate individuals to co-ordinate across the geographical sectors.
.
Just like the council system as a whole, there would be both centralised and decentralised aspects to the economy. Some aspects of the economy are undoubtedly going to better operated at a local level, while others will need a more global vision. So there will be a synthesis between the two.
.
You also underestimate the capacity of computerisation to enhance a planning process on a global level.
.
The problem with capitalism is not that there aren't millions of planners, but that those millions compete and work towards contradictory aims. If there was an overall plan, there would never be a crisis of overproduction! Crises are the inevitable result of the prisoners dilemma that every individual of the capitalist class constantly finds themselves in. Each is forced, in pursuing his own interest, to forego the collective interest of capitalists and capitalism. Paradoxically, as part of this process of competition, each capitalist constantly tries to eliminate his rivals. To ensure profits, you have the establishment of cartels, trusts and conglomerates which co-ordinate production across a wide range of industry and geographical sectors. We already see the tendencies to centralisation implicit within capitalism's own development but imprisoned within the contradictions of the commodity form.
.
Communism can and will synthesise these disparate aspects. There will still be millions of planners, but working in concert rather than in competition.
.
Obviously, this "idealised" state of affairs will take a long time to reach full fruition. And, as you rightly say, there will be a period of transition with a state, etc. (although generally LCs reject the idea of the state having any economic control whatsoever).
.
Just as a matter of interest, what's your political background?

Okay, I begin to see where

Okay, I begin to see where you're coming from. If you're thinking of some group at the top trying to allocate where everything goes all at once, then such a task would be herculean! But the council system is built from the ground up, from mass assemblies formed in workplaces and communities. The councils delegate individuals to co-ordinate across the geographical sectors.
.
Just like the council system as a whole, there would be both centralised and decentralised aspects to the economy. Some aspects of the economy are undoubtedly going to better operated at a local level, while others will need a more global vision. So there will be a synthesis between the two.
.
You also underestimate the capacity of computerisation to enhance a planning process on a global level.
.
The problem with capitalism is not that there aren't millions of planners, but that those millions compete and work towards contradictory aims. If there was an overall plan, there would never be a crisis of overproduction! Crises are the inevitable result of the prisoners dilemma that every individual of the capitalist class constantly finds themselves in. Each is forced, in pursuing his own interest, to forego the collective interest of capitalists and capitalism. Paradoxically, as part of this process of competition, each capitalist constantly tries to eliminate his rivals. To ensure profits, you have the establishment of cartels, trusts and conglomerates which co-ordinate production across a wide range of industry and geographical sectors. We already see the tendencies to centralisation implicit within capitalism's own development but imprisoned within the contradictions of the commodity form.
.
Communism can and will synthesise these disparate aspects. There will still be millions of planners, but working in concert rather than in competition.
.
Obviously, this "idealised" state of affairs will take a long time to reach full fruition. And, as you rightly say, there will be a period of transition with a state, etc. (although generally LCs reject the idea of the state having any economic control whatsoever).

.
So the required goods are produced and placed in confiscated malls, shops, etc. for distribution. Then what? Each person will want varying types of many items. How do you restrict each person's acquistions so that everyone gets their share?

The result why Communist nations have currencies is not because they "betrayed Communism" but because currency can be and is used to measure the value of goods just like inches and feet measure length and ounces and pounds measure weight. When in the course of production, a worker receives $1,000, that $1,000 represents the value of goods he or she can take from society as a reward for his or her efforts. The neat thing about this process is that instead of seizing goods and services at gunpoint like some romanticized revolutionary, the worker with his or her $1,000 can acquire goods and services with the consent of the providers because that money in turn acts as a reward for their efforts!
.
Just as a matter of interest, what's your political background?
.
Well, my great-grandfather came to America as a teenage farmworker prior to 1910. He would sleep in the barns of his employers. My grandfather, on the other hand, obtained a modest diary and my father has a law enforcement post equal to a Captain in the military (I'm say no more about my father's career--he doesn't want me to blab for obvious security reasons). Probably for that reason, he is a Republican with leanings toward free-market libertarianism.
.
He believes that the vote should be restricted to landowners because landowners are accountible by virtue of their stake in society. While I disagree, I do think property should be widespread through small businesses and co-ops to the extent possible without threatening societal collapse.

A very quick response to

A very quick response to Hidden Author. Currency measures exchange value, it does not measure use value, because use-value is not and can never be equivalent. Given that communism functions on the basis of the distribution of use-values and not exchange, money will have no function.
.
As far as restriction of consumption is concerned, the main problem with capitalism is overproduction - capitalism is the first social system in history which expresses its crises by producing too much rather than too little. Most goods are abundantly available within capitalism, even today - the problem is that no-one can afford to buy them.
.
As for making sure "everyone gets their fair share", Marx talks about this concept in some detail in the Critique of the Gotha Programme, especially in Part 1. Well worth a read.
.
Thank you for answering my question about your political background.

Marx says, "Blah, blah, blah"

Why doesn't somebody translate his dense prose into twenty-first century English? I know Marxists worship him as the Messiah but it would still help with distributing his sacred word.
.
Now then, his solutions in Part 1 are arbitrary. A certificate verifying the labor power which someone has contributed? Who measures that? From each according to his ability to each according to his needs? Who decides what a person's needs are and on what basis? Does a person "need" a television or computer for example?

Hidden Author, we're just

Hidden Author, we're just going around in circles now. If a labour-voucher scheme was adopted by the working class, contributions would be measured by delegates mandated by the mass assemblies, factory committees and councils for that purpose. In a world of restricted consumption, the limits of individual consumption would also be decided by those organs.
.
"From each according to his ability to each according to his needs?" describes a higher state of communism where there would no longer be labour vouchers because there would longer the same restrictions on consumption. In addition, by this stage, the transformation of work from toil to pleasure would mean there would no longer be the same antipathy to work. Work itself would become a reward as opposed to the psychosis of modern capitalism where ubiquitous consumption (in so far as the working class can afford it) is required to make work bearable.

Post new comment

The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
  • Allowed HTML tags: <b><i><em><strong><cite><ul><ol><li><dl><dt><dd>
  • Lines and paragraphs break automatically.

More information about formatting options

CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Image CAPTCHA
Copy the characters (respecting upper/lower case) from the image.