Arguably, there is as much difference (e.g. in economic policies, popular participation, atrocity levels etc) between states termed "communist" as there is between states termed "capitalist"[98][99]-- in spite of the lack of distinctions (as well as propagandistic labeling) that has been applied (particularly to the former), due to elite ideological influence in wage systems.[100] In fact, even opponents of wage slavery who condemn abuses by states termed "communist," have credited certain communist parties with providing forums of public participation that helped ameliorate conditions of wage slavery, among other things.[101][102] However, the isolation of some states termed communist has prevented them from acquiring the foreign technology required for an economic growth that can sometimes allow workers to struggle more effectively for a less oppressive form of wage slavery. North Korea is a case in point. In contrast, South Korea, applying a mixture of trade with state controls and protectionism[103] --originally through a harsh dictatorship-- developed into an industrial powerhouse with a workforce that is better equipped to combat wage slavery.[104][105][106] At the same time, some analysts have pointed out that a less oppressive form of wage slavery would have been achieved by communist, socialist, and other radical or reformist movements in places like Vietnam and Guatemala, were not for the attacks by states termed "capitalist" like the US and France--which feared the demonstration effect of successful and independent socioeconomic development in the third world, from which they derive cheap labor and resources. This was a development that, according to Noam Chomsky, was monolithically labeled "communist" and "totalitarian" as a pretext to act against it and maintain the exploitation that is seen in "free market" zones in places like Bangladesh, Burma, Indonesia, Guatemala, Haiti etc.[107] Such policies seem compatible with the observation of Korean economist Ha-Joon Chang, that the developed countries want to prevent economic independence in the third world by forcing them to institute "free market" policies, which "kick away the ladder"[108] because the rich countries developed with extensive state intervention and protection of what US Founding Father Alexander Hamilton called "infant industry".[109]
Alleged benefits of state economies over private ones include non-profit production, increased equity among citizens, the ability to maintain employment (thus consumption) in times of recession (which increases demand and helps the economy get out of recession); the development of "natural" monopolies such as electricity, water, gas, railways, landline telephones etc, and the improvement upon capitalist monopolies and competitive markets in pricing and production of socially optimal quantities due to the decline in the profit motive, which, in capitalist monopolies causes them to "produce only up to the quantity where [their] profit is maximized... [which] under normal circumstances [is] lower than the socially optimal one" while in a competitive market it may cause overproduction, phenomena such as the 80/20 rule and other inefficiencies due to the absence of communication among competitors and lack of "freedom to set the price, as a rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price further will result in a loss."[110]
Anarchists, who have also been called "libertarian socialists" or "libertarian communists", believe that as long as any elite is in power, oppressive forms of authority such as wage slavery will continue. They describe how in all self-designated "communist" states the working class follows orders and does not do away with wage labor— at the point of production workers just switch bosses (from capitalists to state bureaucrats).[111] The state bureaucracy controls the means of production — not the workers. This, they argue, is why Vladimir Lenin's view of socialism was that it "is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people,"[112] who must trust the benevolence of their leaders.
Anarchists believe that true socialism (worker's democratic control of the means of production) will come only with the elimination of both capitalism and the state, via the creation of a decentralized system of free associations with consumer and worker's councils, regional federations, national assemblies and part-time rotative delegates with no power above others i.e. with no professional politicians, as was achieved to some extent, during the Spanish anarchist revolution.
Spanish anarcho-syndicalists successfully organized autonomous communities during the Spanish Revolution (1936 – 1939).As the Infoshop FAQ points out:
"Anarchists consider one of the defining aspects of the state is its hierarchical nature. In other words, the delegation of power into the hands of a few. As such, it violates the core idea of socialism, namely social equality. Those who make up the governing bodies in a state have more power than those who have elected them. Hence these comments by Malatesta and Hamon: 'It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power."[113][114]
The rejection of the state is also advocated by some libertarian Marxists, such as Anton Pannekoek, who observed talking about revolution that "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie", but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production."[111] Libertarian socialists thus believe that rejecting such goals on the grounds that they were featured regularly in the rhetoric of leaders like Lenin and Stalin, is as illogical as rejecting freedom and peace on the grounds they were stated goals of Hitler and many other dictators. As Noam Chomsky says: "No rational person pays the slightest attention to declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, no matter who they are. And the reason is they're completely predictable, including the worst monsters, Stalin, Hitler the rest. Always full of benign intent. Yes that's their task. Therefore, since they're predictable, we disregard them, they carry no information. What we do is, look at the facts. That's true if they're Bush or Blair or Stalin or anyone else. That's the beginning of rationality."[115] Just as critics of capitalism don't believe that improvements in the standard of living under capitalist wage slavery justify it, critics of state Communism don't think communist wage slavery is justified by the fact that the poorest workers in Communist Russia in the late 80s (during the 'fall of communism') were better off than the poorest workers in 1916 (right before the Bolshevik take over), or 1918 (right after).[116]
Chomsky has found striking similarities in the elite managerial ideology of wage slavery in communist and capitalist states:
...Lenin was to decree that the leadership must assume "dictatorial powers" over the workers, who must accept "unquestioning submission to a single will" and "in the interests of socialism," must "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process." As Lenin and Trotsky proceeded with the militarization of labour, the transformation of the society into a labour army submitted to their single will, Lenin explained that subordination of the worker to "individual authority" is "the system which more than any other assures the best utilization of human resources" – or as Robert McNamara expressed the same idea, "vital decision-making...must remain at the top...the real threat to democracy comes not from over management, but from under management"; "if it is not reason that rules man, then man falls short of his potential," and management is nothing other than the rule of reason, which keeps us free.
Alleged benefits of state economies over private ones include non-profit production, increased equity among citizens, the ability to maintain employment (thus consumption) in times of recession (which increases demand and helps the economy get out of recession); the development of "natural" monopolies such as electricity, water, gas, railways, landline telephones etc, and the improvement upon capitalist monopolies and competitive markets in pricing and production of socially optimal quantities due to the decline in the profit motive, which, in capitalist monopolies causes them to "produce only up to the quantity where [their] profit is maximized... [which] under normal circumstances [is] lower than the socially optimal one" while in a competitive market it may cause overproduction, phenomena such as the 80/20 rule and other inefficiencies due to the absence of communication among competitors and lack of "freedom to set the price, as a rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price further will result in a loss."[110]
Anarchists, who have also been called "libertarian socialists" or "libertarian communists", believe that as long as any elite is in power, oppressive forms of authority such as wage slavery will continue. They describe how in all self-designated "communist" states the working class follows orders and does not do away with wage labor— at the point of production workers just switch bosses (from capitalists to state bureaucrats).[111] The state bureaucracy controls the means of production — not the workers. This, they argue, is why Vladimir Lenin's view of socialism was that it "is nothing but state capitalist monopoly made to benefit the whole people,"[112] who must trust the benevolence of their leaders.
Anarchists believe that true socialism (worker's democratic control of the means of production) will come only with the elimination of both capitalism and the state, via the creation of a decentralized system of free associations with consumer and worker's councils, regional federations, national assemblies and part-time rotative delegates with no power above others i.e. with no professional politicians, as was achieved to some extent, during the Spanish anarchist revolution.
Spanish anarcho-syndicalists successfully organized autonomous communities during the Spanish Revolution (1936 – 1939).As the Infoshop FAQ points out:
"Anarchists consider one of the defining aspects of the state is its hierarchical nature. In other words, the delegation of power into the hands of a few. As such, it violates the core idea of socialism, namely social equality. Those who make up the governing bodies in a state have more power than those who have elected them. Hence these comments by Malatesta and Hamon: 'It could be argued with much more reason that we are the most logical and most complete socialists, since we demand for every person not just his [or her] entire measure of the wealth of society but also his [or her] portion of social power."[113][114]
The rejection of the state is also advocated by some libertarian Marxists, such as Anton Pannekoek, who observed talking about revolution that "this goal is not reached and cannot be reached by a new directing and governing class substituting itself for the bourgeoisie", but can only be "realized by the workers themselves being master over production."[111] Libertarian socialists thus believe that rejecting such goals on the grounds that they were featured regularly in the rhetoric of leaders like Lenin and Stalin, is as illogical as rejecting freedom and peace on the grounds they were stated goals of Hitler and many other dictators. As Noam Chomsky says: "No rational person pays the slightest attention to declarations of benign intent on the part of leaders, no matter who they are. And the reason is they're completely predictable, including the worst monsters, Stalin, Hitler the rest. Always full of benign intent. Yes that's their task. Therefore, since they're predictable, we disregard them, they carry no information. What we do is, look at the facts. That's true if they're Bush or Blair or Stalin or anyone else. That's the beginning of rationality."[115] Just as critics of capitalism don't believe that improvements in the standard of living under capitalist wage slavery justify it, critics of state Communism don't think communist wage slavery is justified by the fact that the poorest workers in Communist Russia in the late 80s (during the 'fall of communism') were better off than the poorest workers in 1916 (right before the Bolshevik take over), or 1918 (right after).[116]
Chomsky has found striking similarities in the elite managerial ideology of wage slavery in communist and capitalist states:
...Lenin was to decree that the leadership must assume "dictatorial powers" over the workers, who must accept "unquestioning submission to a single will" and "in the interests of socialism," must "unquestioningly obey the single will of the leaders of the labour process." As Lenin and Trotsky proceeded with the militarization of labour, the transformation of the society into a labour army submitted to their single will, Lenin explained that subordination of the worker to "individual authority" is "the system which more than any other assures the best utilization of human resources" – or as Robert McNamara expressed the same idea, "vital decision-making...must remain at the top...the real threat to democracy comes not from over management, but from under management"; "if it is not reason that rules man, then man falls short of his potential," and management is nothing other than the rule of reason, which keeps us free.
没有评论:
发表评论