document id:
parent link
archive link
publisher id:
date written:
Here are excerpts from "cRed-82" of "Anti-Joseph and the S.O.M.E. Hypothesis"
Deletions from the original are indicated by missing paragraphs and "[...]"

Excerpts from: "Wanted--A Strap-on Spine"

Will workers face
economic insecurity
under communist competition?

 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
  39     Will workers face economic insecurity
               under communist competition? 
 215     Single vs. multiple points of control 
 220     Is communism capitalism? 
 236     Are web sites just for the rich? 
 290     Your own evasion of issues of principle 
 320         Kids in a Treehouse 

Will workers face economic insecurity
under communist competition?
Re your quote:
"If the masses in one economic unit feel that their livelihood, their well-being, depends on their winning cutthroat competition against workers in another economic unit -- well, then, that's where their consciousness will be at, and you won't be building socialism."
I do specifically and at great length try to deal with the assumption you appear to be making. You appear to be assuming that "competition" under what I describe as communism will have all (or most) of the same features as "competition" under capitalism. This makes about as much sense to me as assuming that "economic activity" under feudalism will have all of the same features as "economic activity" under capitalism. For example, workers under capitalist competition find that their material interests and economic survival are pitted against the material interests and survival of others. Does this really mean that the same will exist under communist competition?
I have tried in my polemic to specifically deal with such incorrect assumptions. I have repeatedly referred to an economy without formal exchange (without money, commodities or wages) -- based on the principle of "to each according to his needs".
The individual worker's sources of food, shelter, clothing, education, transportation, means of communication, articles of consumption, etc, are in no way derived from his work as an individual but are his birthright and are guaranteed to him in the same amount no matter what his work or even whether he works at all. The worker does not work in order to have the means of life. He works "for free", so to speak. He works "for others", so that everyone can have the means of life. The worker works because work itself (not any commodities or any allocation of the universal money-commodity) is the prime want in life -- because work is interesting, exciting, fun, pleasurable and a source of immense joy and satisfaction.
Hence work IS NOT done IN EXCHANGE for either:
   commodities, or wages or ration cards.
Work IS done IN EXCHANGE for:
   the satisfaction and pleasure of doing it.
(Generally, in a formal sense, the above situation would probably be described by economists as work without exchange at all -- because "exchange", for economists, generally refers to the exchange of either commodities or labor and not for "abstract, non-measurable" qualities like interest, pleasure and the satisfaction of contributing to the collective. But I have found that when I speak of an economy without exchange that some people are baffled by this. In the less formal sense, we can see that an exchange is taking place. I work "in exchange" for the pleasure of doing so and the pleasure of participating in the life of the collective. I contribute my product to the collective "in exchange" for its wise consumption.)
Because work is done "for free" (ie: without specific cost or concrete obligation to the production unit where the work is done) -- there would be no shortage of opportunities for work. Rather -- workers would select from those opportunities for work where (a) the work was most interesting, or (b) they believed their abilities would most productively be used in the interests of society. And without going into it all here, I believe that the long range trend would be for (a) and (b) above to merge with each other.
A worker in an economic unit that lost out in competition with some other unit -- might in fact find that his particular "job" was liquidated. But the worker's economic security as an individual would not be threatened or affected by this at all. It is only under comparatively primitive exchange economies (in the formal sense as described above) that the worker as an individual finds his individual means of life tied to his individual job. The worker in a communist economy might "lose his job" because his economic unit was less efficient than another unit -- but he might also "lose his job" if he helped to figure out how to automate it or to do the same work with less people -- and in either event -- it is a small loss to him (because he will be able to take his experience, skills and, in many cases, the work relations he has established with particular people who might move with him, into new and other interesting projects) and is generally greatly outweighed by his knowledge that "the system is working". He will feel "the best unit won" and that this was to the benefit of everyone, himself included.
On a smaller and much less significant scale, something of this kind of dynamic can be seen under capitalism, where it is essentially the "job" of some workers to understand their job well enough to automate it and make it obsolete. For such people, their "job" is "to work themselves out of a job". Of course there are obvious limitations to how this works under capitalism. But the point is that these limitations could be removed (and could only be removed) in an economy without (in the formal sense) exchange.
Single vs. multiple points of control
"One more question, and this a simple one: Aren't the independent, competing economic enterprises in your version of communism "single points of control"? And aren't these just what we call corporations?"
When is a single point of control no longer a single point of control? I think the rather obvious answer here is: when there are a great many of them. A society with multiple points of control offers redundant capacity. If one component fails, another can easily be found to take its place. And the masses can choose between competing centers based on their assessment of what serves their needs and the needs of society as a whole.
If one producer of goods or services fails to meet real needs -- the system automatically routes around the failure. If factory A produces shoes that no one wants, people get their shoes from factory B.
Is communism capitalism?
Are the communist wealth production units I describe the same as corporations under capitalism? I guess they must be. The only difference is in the "relations of production" and the "relations of distribution". Other than than these two minor factors, they are identical. These relations only involve minor questions like the principles on which human activity is organized. Under capitalism we have the rule of the market and the laws of wages, prices and profits. Under communism we have the rule of the material interests and consciousness of the masses. Under capitalism production is for exchange. Under communism production is for use. But other than this there are no significant differences.
Are web sites just for the rich?
"Aren't most web sites just corporate fronts? You may lull yourself to sleep with the idea, "We have the formal right to organize a web site, or forum, or information service, just like anyone else." And that's true. But it's also true that it's the capitalist bankrollers who end up establishing the web sites, forums, information services, etc. that win the war (today) of vying for people's attention. And this isn't because they have truth and justice on their side."
Yea, I guess web sites are just for the rich. Revolutionaries shouldn't be caught dead thinking about such things. Just imagine ... a communications medium where the main barrier to our ability to attract the attention of workers -- would be the quality of our analysis and our ability to slice through and expose the deception and manipulation of bourgeois politics. That, we can safely predict, will never happen.
Your own evasion
of issues of principle
"But we're supposed to drop what we're doing in order to aid Ben in his war on Marxism. We're supposed to submit to Ben's ideas about how we should spend our precious hours. ... he's a ideological opponent of Marxism ... I think the best policy to follow in these circumstances is to let Ben "go figure". In my view (which I'm sure you share) our ideological opposition to Ben's politics is nothing less than a class opposition and we should act accordingly. ... Ben is fundamentally wrong, ... he arrogantly pursues the politics of another class, and ... defeating these politics involves much more than worthless personal debates with the individual Ben."
(Frank's letter to Pete about Ben - Nov 11 - emphasis added)
Translated into ordinary English, Frank is telling you to shut up and not talk to me. This is why he says that the crusade against the heretic is a "class opposition and we should act accordingly". Or put in other words -- let Joseph do the public speaking on these matters. Let Joseph sort out how best to deal with the wily infidel who makes us look like a bunch of know-nothing yokels.
Joseph very much regrets that he sent his flunky, Mark, to attack me on the basis of the phrase "cooperative anarchy". Joseph desperately wanted a "win" against me and this seemed like an easy victory. Kind of like a certain city on the Volga appeared to Hitler, who sent his Sixth Army to pluck this ripe piece of fruit.
Kids in a Treehouse
Another analogy, less melodramatic, but probably closer to the truth of Joseph's situation -- is that Joseph and his band of followers are kids in a treehouse. "Only Anti-Rrrrevisionists Allowed" is painted on the side, complete with the backwards "R" and "S". Ben plays the role of the father (picture the father of the cartoon character Calvin). "Come on kids, time to come down, dinner is on the table", I yell up into the tree. "Go away you scurvy anarchist liquidator!" they all yell in chorus. "We can't hear you anyhow because our hands are covering our ears and we are all shouting" they yell back at the adult daring to intrude upon their fantasy world. Well I guess dinner goes in the fridge and the "boys" will get a talking to later -- but for now they have a need to relive some missing portion of their childhood.