document id:
parent link
archive link
publisher id:
date written:
Here are excerpts from "cRed-80" of "Anti-Joseph and the S.O.M.E. Hypothesis"
Deletions from the original are indicated by missing paragraphs and "[...]"

Excerpts from "Why is Joseph Afraid of the Masses?"

How the masses would oppose
a return to capitalism

Force "like gravity" would be resisted
by actions of the masses

 Contents:       TIP: Clicking on any of the paragraph numbers
 ---------            along the left margin
                      will take you back and forth
                      between the body of the article
                      and the table of contents.
number           chapters sections subheads
 229     II.  Returning to Capitalism 
 235         Competition Amplifies Struggle Against Corruption 
 238         What is the kind of corruption that the masses
               would oppose ? 
 240         Force "like gravity" would be resisted by actions
               of the masses 
 250         Production units bound together by unitary needs
               of the masses 
 256     III.  Leninism and single-point control theory 
 282         "The Vote" is only a single tool in a toolbox 

II. Returning to Capitalism
How about Joseph's charge that the entire complex adaptive system that would constitute a communist economy, culture and political system would, if it ever existed, collapse back into capitalism ?
There is a point here that is of theoretical interest. Joseph describes how production units would "own" the products they create and "trade" these products with other units to "get what they need". At this point the products are in fact commodities (ie: they are produced not for consumption but instead for exchange). From this we would have a straightforward development of money, credit, finance, etc. leading rather quickly right back to capitalism.
So the point to grasp here is that Joseph would be correct in his description of this course of development -- save for a single factor -- the intervention in this process of the masses. Left "to itself" -- without the factor of the consciousness of the masses and the resultant innumerable small actions of millions of people -- such a scenario as Joseph describes is precisely the course that events would follow.
So this is all that Joseph has left out. He has "forgotten" only one tiny detail -- the consciousness and the actions of the masses. [...]
But I am getting diverted. Let's consider how the actions of the masses influence the course of events. Let's consider how innumerable "small" actions add up to a factor large enough to prevent the "inevitable" return to capitalism prophesied by Joseph.
Competition Amplifies Struggle Against Corruption
The key issue here is the role that competition will play in assisting the masses to fight the kind of corruption that Joseph describes. One of the features of such competition is that it provides a mechanism to magnify or amplify small differences. This is a critical and very important feature. A coyote chasing a hare may find that a tiny extra burst of speed at a critical moment may have a big effect on whether that hare gets away and reproduces or becomes lunch. Similarly in war, sometimes small critical events have an impact all out of proportion to their size. And sometimes similar factors play a role in politics and economics. Of course Joseph has said that there will be no politics under communism (Joseph has even falsely claimed that Engels supports him on this). Hence Joseph cannot see that the masses would take action on a political basis to prevent the kind of corruption that in the near-term undermines the economy and in the long-term would restore capitalism.
And the masses would be expected to have a fair amount of passion that motivates their actions in this regard. The struggle to overcome capitalism will require tremendous sacrifices from hundreds of millions of people. The abuses, the hardships, the misery, the extreme wastage of resources under capitalism will remain a bitter memory that will underlay the politics of a period that Joseph has claimed will have no politics.
What is the kind of corruption
that the masses would oppose ?
Any step in the direction of production for exchange rather than consumption would represent corruption of the first order. Any production unit that treats its products as "property" would lose mass support and not be able to survive in competition with other units that enjoy mass support. And this would be a fairly sensitive process. Even very small steps in the direction of treating products as property could elicit a huge reaction from the masses. This is the amplification effect that would give the communist economy such steady direction and enormous power .
Force "like gravity" would be resisted
by actions of the masses
In the early period of classless society there would still exist substantial and powerful remnants of the self-centered ideology and thinking created in previous society. Under these conditions the tendency toward corruption would assert itself as an inevitable force, like gravity, that could only be resisted through the actions of the masses . Any tendency, by a production unit, towards asserting "ownership" over what it produces -- would be exposed and smashed up by the masses -- who would regard this as similar to a parent asserting "ownership" over his adult children.
Joseph describes how giant alliances and networks may come into existence as part of the political and economic struggle within a communist economic-political system. And yes, such alliances might come about (but not monopolies -- because this is another form of corruption that the masses would not permit -- because the potential for abuse is extreme -- just like it is with the monopoly of allegedly "non-political" political power that Joseph advocates with his "von Neumann single point control theory"). But such alliances would likely be short-lived in a fast-moving and shifting economy and in any event would be battered into quick disintegration should they engage in the open tit-for-tat exchanges of products rather than to make their products available to all on the basis of "wise use".
The masses are capable of grasping the necessity of the principle of production for use . The alliances described by Joseph are different than alliances formed on the basis of political principles such as developing the economy and serving the people. Joseph may not be able to distinguish between healthy and corrupt alliances . Joseph may not be able to distinguish between giving a product to a production unit in exchange for (a) its wise consumption (ie: consumption beneficial to society) and (b) another product. But the masses will .
The masses will support (with their labor, with their consumption, with their voice) those production units and production alliances that do the most to serve the people. And vice versa -- those units which do less well at serving the needs of the masses will not inspire the hard work and play that will allow them to expand and reproduce themselves and their hallmark traditions and methods. This sounds like ruthless "social Darwinism" to Joseph but it is actually fairly simple: if the music is not good -- people will not dance to it .
Production units bound together by unitary needs of the masses
And because the needs of the masses are unitary in a fundamental sense (ie: dominated by common interests such as the need for a high-synergy, non-capitalist, non-class divided society which provides the conditions of life and happiness for all) -- the various production units are bound together . The difference (from Joseph's conception) is that the production units would be bound together somewhat loosely and with room for flexibility (as opposed to Joseph who would bind everything together very rigidly via his von Neumannist monopoly-of-power single-point-of- control). Hence the production units are independent and compete with one another but at the same time they are connected and cooperate with one another. The two aspects of the contradiction are interconnected. [...]
III. Leninism and single-point control theory
But if we examine Lenin we find that things are not so cut-and- dried as Joseph would have us believe. Lenin did develop a series of justifications for single-point-of-control theory in the early days of the Soviet Union. But if we examine Lenin's actual arguments we will find that Lenin never asserted that such a single-point-of-control was suited to a modern society .
Rather Lenin's argument was very direct: if the Bolsheviks did not institute and maintain a single-point-of-control political system -- the bourgeoisie would be able to return to power. Lenin's reasoning was very clear. Economic conditions were extremely harsh. The peasants were suffering enormously and were politically unsophisticated . If other political parties were allowed to carry out their activity -- these parties would then have made fantastic false promises to the peasants of a better life without the Bolsheviks -- and they would have been believed . And after tossing out the Bolsheviks these other political parties would have served their purpose and been slapped down by the bourgeoisie which would reassert its right to rule society. [...]
So what was Lenin's solution ? Lenin felt that the only chance for the victory of the revolution lay in maintaining single-point rule as an emergency measure for a temporary period until better economic conditions could be created. With better conditions -- the popular dissatisfaction against the Bolshevik rule would greatly ease -- and conditions would exist that would permit removal of the emergency single-point-of-control measures. At this point the process of developing a political system compatible with the needs of a modern and stable revolutionary society -- would no longer be a luxury that could not be afforded -- but a necessity required for the development of political and economic life.
Now Lenin was very vague as to how long the period of emergency rule would have to be. At one point he estimated 10 to 20 years, at another point much less [...] Lenin probably was deliberately vague because he understood that it was foolish to make predictions over matters that are inherently difficult-to- impossible to predict. Lenin's hope was that during this period of emergency rule, the energy of the Soviet masses could be harnessed to bail out the economy and restore stability and allow the kinds of political liberty (political rights such as the circulation of parties and literature) that could not be afforded in 1921.
Well we all know what happened. After Lenin's death things did not work out. Conditions did not improve. Whether this was the result of the incompetence of the Bolsheviks or was an unavoidable result of the conditions of the times I do not know (nor do I know anyone who knows). And the Bolshevik party , rather than admit defeat and retreat, took on the role of leadership for a new ruling class -- a new bourgeoisie. And Lenin's emergency measures -- introduced as the most bitter necessity for a temporary emergency period designed to permit the more rapid development of a very backward society -- became codified under Stalin as supposedly the correct way for a stable modern society to run its political, cultural and economic life . Stalin appropriated Lenin's emergency measures -- the most bitter necessity of the most bitter imaginable circumstances -- and converted them into a theoretical fortress to justify a permanent system of repression in a modern society.
"The Vote" is only a single tool in a toolbox
I believe that in future society the masses will employ a very wide range of means to effect and impact the direction of growth and development of politics, culture and the economy. The "vote", as it were, would play a role in some particular situations but would represent a single tool in a toolbox , a single weapon in an arsenal -- and we should not make a fetish over it or any single method by which the masses convert their convictions and passions into support for or against various principles, parties, or economic units that will shape the direction of future development. The "vote" by itself is no more applicable in all situations than a hammer works for all jobs. Sometimes you need a screwdriver or a wrench .
In fact the vote functions simply as a subset of the voice, as a means of registering public opinion (and sometimes as a very imperfect means). And in future communist society the masses will support or oppose economic, cultural and political policies, principles and personalities with their labor , their patterns of consumption and their influence on the currents of public opinion . In short the masses will impact the direction of social development with their every thought, word and action . And this is what takes place even under capitalism, except that under capitalism, in class-divided society, this process takes place to an infinitesimally smaller degree and is generally extremely inefficient because -- until the class struggle is resolved in the only way that it can be -- by the elimination of classes -- the energy and potential of the masses must work a thousand or a million times harder to impact social development.