»It is no accident that these "Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution", which look at communism precisely from the point of view of the wage worker, were born from the heart of the proletariat. As ordinary proletarians who normally do the dirty work, we have asked ourselves how the interests of our class are safeguarded. Therefore, we have not been satisfied with the formula that the social revolution will create new legal relations, but we ourselves will determine the content of these new relations. It goes without saying that the socialism of the intellectuals will contradict these views.«
i think a major flaw of the marxist communization current is to overestimate the role of council communism in the german revolution and to flat out ignore the role movements like expressionism and dadaism played into contributing to an anthropological revolution in course. as a result revolution is conceived of in purely economic terms, meanwhile dadaism is left to be recuperated by culture vultures like kenny g. missed opportunity for a serious engagement with art and revolution. all the dadaists wrote about the german revolution
There is compulsion inasmuch as distribution happens through the workplace and people are forced to work if they want to survive. This is assumed in the GIK document, as it is in Marx's Gothakritik. In other words, the certificate is both a method to portion social proceeds *and* a method to compel work. My work is about showing that inasmuch as the system is compelled to compel, as it were, then it will fail, and will create destabilizing counter-revolutionary. But it's possible that a certificate might be decoupled from compulsion--if for example one could meets one's needs and access resources independent of work, then it would no longer function as a mechanism of compulsion. And I think if you chunk out the major necessaries of an economy--housing, food, medicine--and make those distributed on-demand, you're basically already there. But that's not what the GIK document is imagining, largely because it's starting from the vision of a society of workers who would largely continue working in the places they were already working.
I hadn't seen the Tankus piece. It's very rich, and he's an intelligent person, but I'd say no i don't think the problems with compulsion go away once one makes it democratically decided upon, and the kinds of destabilizing dynamics I mention above would certainly be in play. As far as I can tell, he's not saying basic goods would be available on-demand, only that they would be provided to some people (who couldn't work). That's quite different, and certainly doesn't mean you've gotten away with compulsion.
Yeah I'm unsure, he does say food shouldn't be distributed via markets, but also implies cooperatives might have labor requirements—it was unclear to me whether these labor "fees" were paying only for non-necessities, or necessities as well. I agree that not having to work in order to eat makes all the difference, not just democratic planning. But interesting to think with.
Anyways, thanks for the responses! Looking forward to more on the topic.
Ah, I see—I just misread you, I thought that you were implying that the GIK document *did* guarantee food and necessities, but if not, then yes, it clearly does not solve the problem of compulsion. And agree that the use of certificates is less problematic if necessities are not tied to them.
»It is no accident that these "Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution", which look at communism precisely from the point of view of the wage worker, were born from the heart of the proletariat. As ordinary proletarians who normally do the dirty work, we have asked ourselves how the interests of our class are safeguarded. Therefore, we have not been satisfied with the formula that the social revolution will create new legal relations, but we ourselves will determine the content of these new relations. It goes without saying that the socialism of the intellectuals will contradict these views.«
Group of International Communists
i think a major flaw of the marxist communization current is to overestimate the role of council communism in the german revolution and to flat out ignore the role movements like expressionism and dadaism played into contributing to an anthropological revolution in course. as a result revolution is conceived of in purely economic terms, meanwhile dadaism is left to be recuperated by culture vultures like kenny g. missed opportunity for a serious engagement with art and revolution. all the dadaists wrote about the german revolution
There is compulsion inasmuch as distribution happens through the workplace and people are forced to work if they want to survive. This is assumed in the GIK document, as it is in Marx's Gothakritik. In other words, the certificate is both a method to portion social proceeds *and* a method to compel work. My work is about showing that inasmuch as the system is compelled to compel, as it were, then it will fail, and will create destabilizing counter-revolutionary. But it's possible that a certificate might be decoupled from compulsion--if for example one could meets one's needs and access resources independent of work, then it would no longer function as a mechanism of compulsion. And I think if you chunk out the major necessaries of an economy--housing, food, medicine--and make those distributed on-demand, you're basically already there. But that's not what the GIK document is imagining, largely because it's starting from the vision of a society of workers who would largely continue working in the places they were already working.
I hadn't seen the Tankus piece. It's very rich, and he's an intelligent person, but I'd say no i don't think the problems with compulsion go away once one makes it democratically decided upon, and the kinds of destabilizing dynamics I mention above would certainly be in play. As far as I can tell, he's not saying basic goods would be available on-demand, only that they would be provided to some people (who couldn't work). That's quite different, and certainly doesn't mean you've gotten away with compulsion.
Yeah I'm unsure, he does say food shouldn't be distributed via markets, but also implies cooperatives might have labor requirements—it was unclear to me whether these labor "fees" were paying only for non-necessities, or necessities as well. I agree that not having to work in order to eat makes all the difference, not just democratic planning. But interesting to think with.
Anyways, thanks for the responses! Looking forward to more on the topic.
Ah, I see—I just misread you, I thought that you were implying that the GIK document *did* guarantee food and necessities, but if not, then yes, it clearly does not solve the problem of compulsion. And agree that the use of certificates is less problematic if necessities are not tied to them.