>From m.lepore@genie.geis.com Sun Jul 18 11:16:54 1993 Subject: ORGANIZED THOUGHTS #6 ______________________________________________________________________ In this issue: More communication with the World Socialists ______________________________________________________________________ issue number 6 july 16, 1993 // /// // //// // /// /// // //// ////// /// ////// //// // // // /// // // // // // // // / // // // ///// // // // // // ///// // // // // ////// // // // //\\ // \\\ ///// // // // // // \\\// / \\ // // //// \\//// \\ // /// // // // //// \\///// \\/// /// // \\\\\\ \\ ////\\\\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\ \\\\\\ \\\\\ \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\\\ \\ \\ \\ \\ \\\ \\\ \\ \\\\ \\\ \\ \\ \\\ \\ \\\ \\\\\ \\\\ address all correspondence to mlepore@mcimail.com CONTENTS ________ #6.01 Some representative quotations from THE WESTERN SOCIALIST #6.02 Two perspectives on attaining a stateless society #6.03 The Declaration of Principles of the Companion Parties of Socialism #6.04 Excerpt from _Questions of the Day_ (SPGB) #6.05 H. Morrison, correspondence in reply to O.T. issue #5 #6.06 M. Lepore, reply to H. Morrison #6.07 H. Morrison, reply to M. Lepore ______________________________________________________________________ This document may be freely The back issues of this publication are archived distributed in at anonymous FTP site uglymouse.css.itd.umich.edu electronic or in the directory /pub/Politics/Organized.Thoughts printed form ______________________________________________________________________ "Now and then the workers are victorious, but only for a time. The real fruit of their battles lies, not in the immediate result, but in the ever-expanding union of the workers. This union is helped on by the improved means of communication that are created by modern industry and that place the workers of different localities in contact with one another." * * * Marx and Engels The Communist Manifesto ______________________________________________________________________ | #6.00 Welcome to issue #6 | #6.01 A few quotations from Mike Lepore | THE WESTERN SOCIALIST _____________________________|________________________________________ | To place the following | ON FREE ACCESS TO ALL THAT material in context, you | IS PRODUCED should also read ORGANIZED | THOUGHTS #5, if you | "In a socialist society, there haven't already done so. | could be no reason for measuring | the value of one's contribution to The WESTERN SOCIALIST, no | society, nor any other sort of longer in print, was a | economic value. Values can only publication of the | exist in a commodity society where Socialist Party of Canada | exchange and consequently the and the World Socialist | measurement is needed. In a Party (U.S.). I have | socialist society each man, woman, copied a few of the | and child would have the right of representative statements | access to what is produced, and made in that journal | nothing short of this could be across the years. | conceivable where common ownership | of the means of producing and I would also like to place | distributing wealth exists." two points of view | No. 4 - 1960 side-by-side so that they |________________________________________ may be easily compared. | In one column, the World | ON "SOCIALISTS" WHO DEMAND Socialists, and in the | PIECEMEAL REFORMS other column, the | De Leonists. The debate | "They agitate for 'democracy' in the is about what shall be | U.S. armed forces; for the removal done with "government". | of the U.S. military from Both movements advocate a | Guantanimo Bay, from Vietnam, and world in which the | just about everywhere else; for the coercive power over people | "right" of Negro workers to be is eliminated, or, as | exploited by Negro businessmen; and Engels put it, "the | a host of other items. They are so government of persons is | busy, in fact, fighting and replaced by the | crusading against the effects of administration of things." | capitalism that they would not have However, the disagreement | the time - if they did have the concerns how to go about | inclination - to advocate a doing this. To the World | world-wide system of production for Socialist, class rule must | use, a socialist society." be abolished, and then | No. 4 - 1966 social administration will |________________________________________ cease to be oppressive. | To the De Leonist, | ON THE NEED FOR WORKING CLASS however, and also to some | EDUCATION syndicalists and | anarcho-syndicalists, the | "Most members of the working class political form must be | want capitalism. This is not specifically replaced by a | because they like the wars, structure with economic | wage-freezes, soul-destroying jobs, representation. | and shabby houses which capitalism | necessarily thrusts upon them. They Steve Szalai, the General | want capitalism because they have Secretary of the SP of | cockeyed notions about the way it Canada, has requested that | works, which lead them to suppose I include the DECLARATION | that their problems can be solved OF PRINCIPLES, to which | within capitalism, or, all the Companion Parties | alternatively, could not be solved of Socialism adhere. This | under any other system." document was first written | No. 5 - 1968 by the SP of Great Britain |________________________________________ (SPGB) in 1904. | | ON THE BALLOT After reading the | Declaration, it may remain | "The World Socialist Party unclear to the reader how | advocates the ballot as a means the World Socialists | of achieving power because, once differ form other movement | ruling-class ideas are defeated, which claim to be | no other method on a mass scale socialist. Therefore, it | should be necessary; and if should be helpful to | those ideas are not defeated, no include a brief section | violent method can be from an SPGB pamphlet, | successful." listing some of their | No. 1 - 1971 original thoughts, "going |________________________________________ beyond some of the | theories of socialist | ON THE END OF NATIONAL BOUNDARIES pioneers like Marx and | Engels." | "Socialism cannot operate in one | country, nor will ownership of Correspondence was | land and industries be vested in received from Harry | any separate sections of the Morrison, who has served | population. Socialism means a on the National | world without nations. Administrative Committee | Ownership of the earth and all of the WSP (U.S.). He has | that is on it will be by all also served on the | mankind." Editorial Committee of the | No. 5 - 1973 party's press, frequently |________________________________________ writing under the pen name | Harmo. Lately he has | ON POVERTY decided to write books | about well-known users and | "Here is a section of the misusers of the word | working class that, generally, "socialism", and is the | through no fault of its own, author of _The Socialism | other than selecting the wrong of Bernard Shaw_, | parents, wind up on the bottom published by McFarland & | rung of the ladder. What is the Co., Box 611, Jefferson, | ladder doing there in the first NC 28640 USA, tel. (919) | place?" 246-4460. | No. 6 - 1973 | ______________________________________________________________________ #6.02 Two perspectives on attaining a stateless society ______________________________________________________________________ | The World Socialist view of | The De Leonist view of the end of the political state | the end of the political state | _________________________________|___________________________________ | "Socialists are not state | "We shall vote from where we 'smashers!' Socialists advocate | work, rather than from where we transforming the state from a | live. We shall vote in our government or rule over | plants and factories, in our _people_ by a master class into | schools and hospitals, in our an administration of _things_ | mines and on our farms. We in the interest of all | shall vote for and elect our mankind." | shop foremen and management | committees. We shall vote for -- The World Socialist Party | and elect our representatives (U.S.), from the leaflet _Our | to our local industrial union Declaration of Principles_, | councils. We shall vote for distributed circa 1971 | and elect our representatives | to a national industrial union * * * * * * * | congress, whose duties it will | be to plan how much is "Potentially instruments | producible, how much is needed, already exist for exercising | and how best to produce it." democratic control. Subject to | reservations where democratic | The Socialist Labor Party, from procedures are restricted or | the leaflet "The Promise of manipulated, there is | Socialism", 1960 intrinsically nothing wrong | with institutions where | * * * * * * * delegates assemble to parley | (parliaments, congresses, or | "Civilized society will know no even so-called soviets). What | such ridiculous thing as is wrong with them today is | geographic constituencies. It that such parliaments are | will only know industrial controlled by the capitalist | constituencies." class. Remove class society | and the assemblies will | "The industrial organization function in the interest of the | forecasts the future whole people. | constituencies of the | parliaments of the socialist The Socialist Party of Great | republic." Britain, from the pamphlet | _Object and Declaration of | De Leon, _The Burning Question Principles_, 1975, p. 15 | of Trades Unionism_, 1904 | ______________________________________________________________________ #6.03 The Declaration of Principles of the Companion Parties of Socialism ______________________________________________________________________ Object ______ The establishment of a system of society based upon the common ownership and democratic control of the means and instruments for producing and distributing wealth by and in the interest of society as a whole. Declaration of Principles _________________________ The Companion Parties of Socialism hold 1. That society as at present constituted is based upon the ownership of the means of living (i.e., land, factories, railways, etc.) by the capitalist or master class, and the consequent enslavement of the working class, by whose labour alone wealth is produced. 2. That in society, therefore, there is an antagonism of interests, manifesting itself as a class struggle between those who possess but do not produce and those who produce but do not possess. 3. That this antagonism can be abolished only by the emancipation of the working class from the domination of the master class, by the conversion into the common property of society of the means of production and distribution, and their democratic control by the whole people. 4. That as in the order of social evolution the working class is the last class to achieve its freedom, the emancipation of the working class will involve the emancipation of all mankind, without distinction of race or sex. 5. That this emancipation must be the work of the working class itself. 6. That as the machinery of government, including the armed forces of the nation, exists only to conserve the monopoly by the capitalist class of the wealth taken from the workers, the working class must organize consciously and politically for the conquest of the powers of government, in order that this machinery, including these forces, may be converted from an instrument of oppression into an agent of emancipation and the overthrow of plutocratic privilege. 7. That as political parties are but the expression of class interests, and as the interest of the working class is diametrically opposed to the interest of all sections of the master class, the party seeking working class emancipation must be hostile to every other party. 8. The Companion Parties of Socialism, therefore, enter the field of political action determined to wage war against all other political parties, whether alleged labour or avowedly capitalist, and calls upon the members of the working class of this country to support these principles to the end that a termination may be brought to the system which deprives them of the fruits of their labour, and that poverty may give place to comfort, privilege to equality, and slavery to freedom. World Socialist Party (U.S.) World Socialist Party (Ireland) P.O. Box 405 41 Donegall Street Boston, MA 02272 Belfast World Socialist Party of Australia Socialist Party of New Zealand P.O. Box 1440M P.O. Box 1929 Melbourne, Victoria 3001 Auckland, NI Bund Demokratischer Sozialisten Socialist Party of Great Britain Gussriegelstrasse 50 52 Clapham High Street A-110 Vienna, Austria London SW4 7UN Varldsssocialistiska Gruppen Socialist Party of Canada c/o Dag Nilsson, P.O. Box 4280 Bergsbrunna villavag 3B Victoria, BC V8X 3X8 S-752 56 Uppsala, Sweden ______________________________________________________________________ #6.04 Excerpt from _Questions of the Day_ (SPGB) ______________________________________________________________________ From the pamphlet _Questions of the Day_, the Socialist Party of Great Britain_, 1978, pp. 105-106 The Socialist Party has also made its own contributions to socialist theory, in the light of further developments, going beyond some of the theories of socialist pioneers like Marx and Engels. We set out below a number of these contributions: 1. Solving the Reform or Revolution dilemma, by declaring that a socialist party should not advocate reforms of capitalism, and by recognising that political democracy can be used for revolutionary ends. 2. Realisation of the world-wide (rather than international) character of Socialism. Socialism can only be a united world community without frontiers, and not the federation of countries suggested by the word "inter-national." 3. Recognition that there is no need for a "transition period" between capitalism and Socialism. The enormous increases in social productivity since the days of Marx and Engels have made superfluous a period, such as they envisaged, in which the productive forces would be developed under a State control, and in which consumption would have to be rationed. Socialism can be established as soon as a majority of workers want it, with free access. 4. Rejection of any further progressive role for nationalism after capitalism became the dominant world system towards the end of the last century. Industrialisation under national State capitalism is neither necessary nor economically progressive. 5. For the same reason, rejection of the idea of "progressive wars". Socialists oppose all wars, refusing to take sides. 6. Exposures of leadership as a capitalist political principle, a feature of the revolutions that brought them to power, and utterly alien to the socialist revolution. The socialist revolution necessarily involves the active and conscious participation of the great majority of workers, thus excluding the role of leadership. 7. Advocating and practising that a socialist party should be organised as an open democratic party, with no leaders and no secret meetings, thus foreshadowing the society it seeks to establish. 8. Recognition that capitalism will not collapse of its own accord, but will continue from crisis to crisis until the working class consciously organise to abolish it. ______________________________________________________________________ #6.05 H. Morrison, correspondence in response to issue #5 ______________________________________________________________________ I have never dug deeply into the writings of Daniel De Leon. As a young man, some 60 years or so ago, I read only enough and by him to realize that his theories were not my cup of tea. But my reasons for rejecting Industrial Unionism should become a bit more clear in my statement below. My statement for publication is not intended as an _official_ position of the WSP, but simply as my own interpretation of what that position is. I have heard protests, even from comrades, that "you can't have complete socialism over-night!" My response has always been that once a significant majority indicated with emphasis that they want a socialist system, why would they wait "over-night" to install it? By that time, the needed "apparatus" (international organization) would be ready and waiting, and the capitalist class would know that it no longer enjoys the support of the population -- that their time had come to disappear -- along with the working _class_, and _class_ society itself. I will expatiate on what is wrong with De Leonism -- as I see it. In the first place, we World Socialists have enough "gall" in continuing to insist on the need for a majority of socialist-conscious working class people, in the industrially developed world, to understand and approve of the rudiments of a socialist world-society before such a revolution can be successful. We agree with Marx and Engels as put by them way back in 1848 (in the Manifesto) that it is the working _class_ that will eventually become revolutionary-minded. Now that, in itself, is quite a proposition; but to actually lay out a "blueprint" of how such a mass of human beings are going to act in organizing for such a society -- perhaps _another_ century or two from now, takes a hell of a lot of gall! How in hell do you know what the world of capitalism will look like even fifty years from now? If Marx and Engels -- and even De Leon -- were to come alive today, they'd probably all drop dead in shock at what they see in the factories and workshops of the industrial world. And here we have De Leonists, today, knowing full well that the entire numbers of workers throughout the world of our times who are even interested in listening to or reading about a socialist discussion are infinitesimal in numbers! The only task for socialists that makes any sense is to propagate the ideas of a world without national boundaries, without buying and selling, without wage-labor and capital. How in hell can such propaganda be of any interest, or use, to the members of a Labor Union -- even a De Leonist type Industrial Union? The Number One reason for its existence is to fight for "immediate concerns," wages and conditions. Not only that -- the members of such a Union, if it is to be at all effective, will be representative in their political preferences, of the various political groupings; not to mention religious affiliations. I shall concentrate only upon the two paragraphs in your rough draft beneath your request for a response from the World Socialists to your objection. The implication in paragraph #1 is that, following a socialist revolution, a _state_ in the sense of the historical political state would continue to exist. I realize that this is in line with some of the De Leonist material that I have seen over the years; we will continue to have police and armies, for example. My question to you is this: Why would a significant majority of socialists want to continue a system with a traditional, failed, state apparatus with all of the trapping of capitalism -- army, police, not to forget secret police?! In this socialist's opinion, a 51% majority is greatly insufficient and in such an eventuality, the capitalist parties should be permitted to continue running their Government until the continuing chaos would produce that significant majority. The De Leonist concept of a successful revolution has to be one of a majority -- or near majority -- of non- and even anti-socialists in the population. How could it be otherwise when you -- an avowed De Leonist -- raise the potential threat _after_ the socialist revolution? What you apparently fail to understand is the fact that the capitalist class does not back fascist parties before they demonstrate a mass working-class support. Such certainly was the case in both Italy and Germany. And in the former USSR the "Communist" (state capitalist) dictatorships were not able to withstand the rising withdrawal of support by the working class. You see, Michael, the main reason that the capitalist class is able to continue to rule is the fact that it has wide support among the population -- and the same holds true where there is a ruling bureaucracy rather than a nominal capitalist class. Governments have to spend more money in "head-fixing" than they spend even in weaponry. And with good reason, for how useful are weapons to them when the heads that direct the wielders of them are not properly fixed? So we get back to the question of the prime work of socialists today: the propagation of socialist theory -- the socialist explanation of why capitalism cannot work in the interest of the working class -- that it is a historical development of world societies that has long since now outlived its usefulness. Finally, I see no suggestion in your message of how the population after the revolution is to have access to the requirements of life. Do you suggest the De Leonist plan of labor vouchers? If so, does that not demonstrate that you just do not grasp the fact of the matter: that capitalist industry, in its modern development, can turn out such quantities of all of mankind's needs and wants with such abundance that it has to be restrained because of its celerity in flooding markets? We live in the tail end of the 20th century -- not back in the mid- or last quarter of the 19th! Can a system of free right of access to all needs and wants be introduced immediately following a socialist revolution? Let me answer that one with a sort of parable: Let us imagine, in a dream, that an Arabian Nights genie rises out of the sea and issues a guarantee to world capitalism that every family and every individual would enjoy a healthy bank balance, enabling them to unload markets, through purchases, as fast as they become loaded; thus enabling capitalists and bureaucrats to reap their profits. How long would it take the ruling class to order the needed rate of production? That is all the time it would take for a world socialist population to convert to the needed intensity of production. After all, Michael, a large percentage, if not the majority, of capitalist production is wasteful and parasitical, and would be eliminated. And the advance of scientific techniques has long since knocked any Malthusian ideas out of believability. 'Nuff sed! Yours for world socialism, Harry Morrison ______________________________________________________________________ #6.06 M. Lepore, reply to H. Morrison ______________________________________________________________________ Harry, here are my thoughts about your recent letter: > but to actually lay out a "blueprint" I assume that blueprint being referred to is, for example, De Leon's famous statement -- "Civilized society will know no such ridiculous thing as geographic constituencies. It will only know industrial constituencies." I recall also that, in one of your articles years ago, you used the word "blueprint" when you criticized the SLP's frequently reproduced chart which depicts possible examples of a future socialist administration. (For example, the chart appeared in the SLP's newspaper, _The People_, Sept. 22, 1990.) This chart shows "Automobile Plant No. 1, Detroit" containing departments labelled "engineering", "tool & die", and "assembly". This plant, along with "Automobile Plant No. 2, Detroit", and also "Plant No. 3", are interconnected to a larger conference entitled "local automobile industry council". This Detroit council, in turn, is interconnected with the "Cleveland council" and the "Los Angeles council", to form a wider circle which bears the name "national automobile industry council". That larger organization is connected to the "All-Industry Congress", which has various sections: "Mining; Public Service; Food Supply; Manufacture; Construction; Transportation." Above the chart appears this explanation: "The chart below is not a blueprint. Rather, it is intended to illustrate graphically the principle upon which socialist industrial unionism and the future socialist industrial democracy rest, using the auto industry as an example." In fact, the headline appearing above the text is the phrase: "Not a blueprint." Another diagram on the side, entitled "Representation", says, "You will cast your ballot in your shop for: - Plant Council - Local Industry Council - National Industry Council - All-Industry Congress" Note: Since I'm not affiliated with the SLP, I'll ask the interested reader to contact their headquarters for information about their program: Socialist Labor Party, 914 Industrial Ave., Palo Alto, CA 94303 USA. Subscriptions to _The People_ (two issues per month, except monthly in January and July) are $4.00 (foreign subscriptions require payment by International Money Order or U.S. dollars). Except for the fact that I would say "global" in place of the word "national", I agree with the basic point being made in the SLP's chart. The intent is not to define the precise structure of a future society, but to give a hypothetical example to aid in the visualization process. Since most people have difficulty imagining how social ownership of industry can possibly mean something other than state ownership based on territorial constituencies, I rather like this sort of this visual aid. Of course, the exact department designations in the chart are known to be fictitious. It may be that we no longer use automobiles, or that we won't make them in Detroit, or that the central conference of all industries may not include a "manufacture" delegation, but something else which does the job. Since the diagram is not to be taken literally, I don't think such expressions should be viewed as attempts to provide a "blueprint". The basic points appear to me to be: -- that all industry sub-functions, whatever they are, must be interconnected so that production can be administered; -- that the structure must feature democratic election of all planning levels (rather than having "top-down" appointment of intermediate management); -- that nested geographical units (town, county, province) are not recommended as the primary basis of structure. If you disagree with these points, I'd be interested to know why. If you agree with these points, I wonder why there would be an objection to expressing them through speculative illustrations. If you have no opinion about these points, then it seems you are asking people to support a nebulous goal without knowing what they would be getting. > a world without national boundaries I agree with the World Socialists' viewpoint that socialism must be a worldwide system without national boundaries. I disagree with the traditional De Leonist view on this matter. There are severe problems with the SLP's use of national terms, such as "a socialist United States" (_The People_, Oct. 10, 1987) and "an international socialist order" (_The People_, Dec. 5, 1987). The SLP has proposed: "Socialist America will deal with other real socialist countries as part of a Socialist International...." (_The Weekly People_, Jan. 9, 1971). First of all, socialism means organization of society according to the people's intentional decision about what best suits our needs. There is no conscious choice involved in the use of national boundaries, because these boundaries are given from the past. Boundaries are as meaningless as random cracks in the earth's crust which have formed bodies of water, or the lines drawn in ancient times by advancing armies, or monarchs' land grants to their cousins. It is clear that such arbitrary lines should not be part of the planning of modern economic production and distribution. Secondly, "socialist countries" would have to trade materials with each other, something similar to, "We'll ship you four tons of bauxite for each ton of chromite that you ship to us." This would be followed by disagreements based on localized self-interests, e.g., "Why should we trade with you, when this other country will give us five tons of bauxite for each ton of chromite, rather than four?" The "socialist" countries would then have a material basis for conflict. The method of historical materialism shows that a material basis for conflict generally leads to actual conflict. That's not my idea of a socialist world. > even a De Leonist type Industrial Union? The Number One > reason for its existence is to fight for "immediate > concerns," wages and conditions De Leon's actual position was that "... the trades union has a supreme mission ... enabling the working class to assume and conduct production." This particular purpose was described as "the remoter utility of the union, in fact, its real revolutionary and historic mission." (_The Burning Question of Trades Unionism_) According to this view, struggles over wages and working conditions are secondary, something that should be pursued only if the union has sufficient membership in a few sites to press such demands, but not yet enough membership society-wide for a revolution to occur. > the members of such a Union, if it is to be at all > effective, will be representative in their political > preferences, of the various political groupings Just for the record -- De Leonists usually advocate "educate first; organize afterwards", on both the political and industrial fields; "... wage workers must be educated in socialism before they can be organized upon industrial lines." (Olive Johnson, report to the 1924 SLP national convention.) The socialist industrial union can, of course, admit members who agree with the basic concept of social control of industry but need further education about the complete sociological theory. In the latter case, it is the job of the union is to educate them, and to prepare them for actual self-management. A "pure and simple" trade union, i.e., a union which formally endorses capitalism (such as the AFL-CIO), must fail to perform this function. De Leon said, "...'pure and simpledom' neglects the drilling in class-consciousness, aye, prevents it.... No revolutionary class is ever ripe for success before it has itself well in hand.... It is one of the missions of the trades union to drill its class into the discipline that civilization demands." (from the editorial "A Mission of the Trades Union", _The Daily People_ March 4, 1905) > The implication in paragraph #1 is that, following a > socialist revolution, a _state_ in the sense of the > historical political state would continue to exist I'd like to clarify this point. The De Leonist position is not that the state shall continue to exist after the revolution, nor should the De Leonist accuse the World Socialist of advocating continuation of the state after the revolution. However, the De Leonist, who believes in defining a crystal clear alternative, a takeover of the industrial management role by a large workers' association, based on integrally united industry branches, is usually at a loss to imagine what the World Socialists could mean by "conscious" but not "industrial" organization. If the management method is not to be the political state, nor is it to be an amalgamation of workplace committees, then it's difficult for me, personally, to imagine what else it could be. But let's admit that there has been some misunderstanding on both sides. I think that former SLP national secretary Arnold Petersen was wrong when he said this of the World Socialist program: "The inference, of course, is clear that the political state will conduct the processes of production -- an inescapable conclusion in any case, since they reject the Socialist Industrial Union Government as such an 'agent'". (Petersen letter dated Oct. 21, 1963, reprinted in _The Western Socialist_, No. 4 - 1964, p. 15). On the other hand, I think the SPGB was wrong when it wrote: "If some unions still have 'socialism' as their object, it is only nationalisation (state capitalism) that they have in mind." (the pamphlet _Trade Unions_, 1980, p. 16) This statement is not typically true of syndicalists. Neither philosophy aims at state management of industry, and it is to be hoped that neither side would be firing this inaccurate charge at the other. > In this socialist's opinion, a 51% majority is greatly > insufficient and in such an eventuality, the capitalist > parties should be permitted to continue running their > Government Although I disagree with your strategic preference, I'm gratified to hear this important question answered directly. I haven't seen this matter of narrow majority support dealt with in the literature of your Companion Parties, nor, for that matter, in the De Leonist literature. > What you apparently fail to understand is the fact that the > capitalist class does not back fascist parties before they > demonstrate a mass working-class support The capitalist class is generally not placed in jeopardy of having all its property rights declared null and void, so I'm not so sure what lengths it would go to. > Do you suggest the De Leonist plan of labor vouchers? I understand that the World Socialist goal is "free access" to goods and services by everyone. I can easily picture this as applied to things that no one can collect in unreasonable quantities, such as food, transportation, and education. I cannot imagine how we could have unrestricted access to items capable of being accumulated, such as hobby equipment, jewelry, and automobiles. Infinite access to such things, even if automation could put out all the production, would destroy the planet's ecosystem through deforestation, industrial heat emissions, and the generation of garbage. Since finite limits to consumption must exist, either due to machine throughput rates or for environmental protection, the only question is how these limits should be set. It seems reasonable to me to have access to such collectible items in proportion to personal work hours. This approach allows the individual to choose for oneself the relative importance of leisure time and material consumption, which I consider a greater of measure of freedom than simple rationing would be. ______________________________________________________________________ #6.07 H. Morrison, reply to M. Lepore ______________________________________________________________________ In regard to your thoughts about my recent letter, let me just concentrate upon one of your objections, which will go far -- I hope -- in clearing what I consider to be your (and the De Leonist) confusion of a socialist system in operation, even in its early stages. You use as an illustration of the need for an Industrial Union, the manufacture of automobiles and, I presume, trucks of various sorts. Really! You must be aware of the fact that, under capitalism, the prime concern of the car companies is the production of _profits_, not motor vehicles; that contrived obsolescence is built into them to keep them from lasting in "health" over too long a time. Do you really believe that once the capitalist system has been abolished, once all of the useless and parasitical industries have been abandoned -- which would have to take place immediately upon declaring the era of capitalism over and done with -- that as many as one half of the vehicles being produced in these times would be needed? Why, even when it comes to the "ownership" of cars for pleasure -- for traveling purposes -- the object is to get wherever one wants to get to with the greatest possible degree of comfort and dispatch -- unless one just wants a leisurely drive. How much easier it would be -- and pleasurable -- were it possible to call by phone for a car, and even for a driver, rather than having the nuisance of one's own vehicle in one's garage or yard. What you are doing, Michael, is carrying over the methods and the needs of industry under a system, the mode of production of which is geared to the "manufacture" of profits, into a system, the mode of production of which is geared to _consumerism_ -- production for _use_. Furthermore, Michael, you must be aware of the fact that the "wants" of the population are largely "manufactured" by the Advertising Industry. And, as noted above, the motivation behind it has to be _profits_. Would everybody want a yacht, for example, of his/her own. I, personally, cannot imagine why one would not prefer a situation could be delivered for one's use at a given time. I, personally, and as I am certain, millions of others, would not be interested in yachting. And your inclusion of "jewelry" reminds me of an observation by that patron saint of capitalists -- the 18th century economist Adam Smith: "Gold and silver, as they are naturally of the greatest value among the richest, so they are naturally of the least value among the poorest nations. Among savages, the poorest of nations, they are of scarce any value." (_The Wealth of Nations_, Bk. 1, Ch. XI, PT. 111) In fact, as Marx, a century later, would note, savages had no concept of "value" -- _use value_ yes, but _value_ (socially necessary labor time) NO! And the concept of _value_ will ultimately disappear once the world has shaken production for profit. In short, Michael, you should apply your excellent reasoning on the anachronistic ideal of national boundaries in a socialist world on De Leon's carrying over of industrial organization of an (improved) capitalist-oriented nature. The very thought of the existence of a group of people designated as workers (of various types) is foreign to the concept of traditional Marxists. It is really, in my opinion, a case of "the dead hand of the past weighing like an Alp on the minds of the living." (Marx, in his _18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte_) Of course there will have to be some sort of organization in production centers, but why not leave that problem to the imaginations of those who will live at that time? ______________________________________________________________________ Relatively like-minded people, that is, advocates of a classless and stateless society, based on the control of production by workers' associations, are invited to join an e-mail discussion group associated with this publication. Please write to the address in line 18 and introduce yourself. ____________________________ Line 799; end of issue number 6 _______