Democratic Planning and Cooperation
As stated, in relation to previous chapters, the same basic contradiction, inherent in Bogdanor's narrative, becomes repeated in Paul's. On the one hand, he asks us to believe that a postcapitalist nirvana is already at hand, based upon abundance and zero marginal costs, created by the high levels of productivity resulting from info-capitalism, on the other hand, he wants us to accept the notion of serious scarcity!
“The external shocks discussed in Chapter 9 will probably hit us in sequence: short-term localized energy shortages in the next decade; ageing and migration challenges over the next thirty years; and the catastrophic outcomes of climate change after that.” (p 266-7)
Paul, it seems, cannot escape that same catastrophism that has plagued the Left for the last century, as it cannot resist its gut instinct to be “anti-capitalist” first, and “pro-socialist” a poor second.
But, just in the two years since Paul published his book, those catastrophist prognostications about a long depression, secular stagnation, and so on, have been proved seriously wrong, as for the last ten years I have been continuously saying they would. In addition, far from the likelihood of localised energy shortages, we are seeing the potential for persistent energy surpluses. The US has become the world's largest oil and gas producer once more, as a result of fracking. On the back of it, the US also reduced its carbon emissions, because the use of cheap gas for energy production replaced the use of dirtier fossil fuels like coal.
However, fracking is only a stop-gap. The US has also rapidly developed solar generation and other renewables. China is investing even more heavily in that direction, and as electric vehicles quickly replace petrol-engined vehicles, in the next five-ten years, the switch away from fossil fuels will be even more dramatic.
But, Paul is right to say, therefore.
“The task is to develop technologies that respond to these problems through sustainable growth; we do not have to go backwards in developmental time to save the planet.” (p 267)
One reason that any transitional period will continue to require market relations, as a supplement to increased use of planning and regulation, is illustrated by Paul's comment,
“But we will still face a challenge similar to the one the early soviet republics faced with workers: specific social groups may have short-term priorities that clash with the wider priorities of the economy and the ecosystem. That's what networks are for: to argue things out and model the alternative possibilities. We will need new forms of democracy to arbitrate between valid competing claims. But it won't be easy.” (p 267)
Its a point I made several years ago. Just because a centralised plan is formulated on he basis of democratic participation does not mean that any groups who have a minority position, or who feel discriminated against, by it, will accept it. Just think of Brexit, but spread over a thousand different disputes arising weak after week. The Bolsheviks dealt with that by imposing centralised authority. The end result was not a positive one. If workers in industry A feel that the plan disadvantages them, that the price they are to be paid for the product of their labour is inadequate, etc. what then if they decide to go on strike, and withdraw their labour? Are they to be starved back to work, the troops sent in, and military discipline imposed?
Look at the situation today, under capitalism. If a train company increases its fares, commuters may complain, some may even switch to some other form of transport, but, in the main, they will accept the higher fares. No one will question their right to be able to raise their prices, because that is the way capitalism and the market works. The government might mouth sympathy for commuters, but it will certainly not demand that commuters have a right of veto over any such price rises that might threaten their ability to get to their jobs and so on. But, a completely different attitude is taken when the price of labour-power is being discussed. Let the workers of that train company demand a higher price for their labour-power, and the train company, backed by the government, and Tory media, will scream that commuters are being held to ransom, and that workers have no right to dictate what price they wish to charge for the sale of their labour-power.
Now, when workers own the means of production themselves, individually or collectively, this dichotomy disappears. I remember 30 years ago, when I worked for myself, going to computerise the payroll system of a local engineering company. They had had some other company come along previously, but they had made a mess of it. Within a few days, I had installed a new system for them, and then went back a few times to make sure it was running smoothly. On one occasion, one of the managers, working in the office, said to me, “How can you justify charging this amount of money for a day's work?” “Well,” I replied, “I can always uninstall it, and you can call the previous company back.” They didn't.
The point being that as the seller of a commodity other than labour-power, even a labour-service, the buyer simply looks upon it as a simple market transaction. Either they buy what you're selling, at the price you set, or they don't. Of course, as seller, if you find that no one is buying, that means you either have to reduce your price, find a way of reducing your costs, or selling some other commodity.
The problems that arise from attempting to impose plan prices, even as determined by a democratic planning process are removed as a result of continuing to use market prices, during any such transitional period, because buyers are free to buy more or less at the particular price, and the seller is thereby led to adjust their production, and/or their prices accordingly. That does not at all prevent buyers and sellers of interrelated organisations within a growing cooperative organisation from discussing their future plans and requirements. On the contrary, it creates conditions under which that is facilitated.
No comments:
Post a Comment