fundamental principles of communist production and distribution

[888]

Here: http://reality.gn.apc.org/econ/gik1.htm

Has anyone read it? It looks very heavy, but I need to read something that goes into the detail of a genuinely non-state communist system of production and distribution would work. I started off by reading the section on anarchism ("free communism" - section 3.2 - which seemed to make a great deal of sense) but am worried the rest will be incomprehensible marxist jargon.

The only other books I know of that look at this problem to any degree are Pannekoek's Workers Councils (have it, still haven't read it, heard he doesn't actually advocated abolishing exchange or wages) Diego Abad de Santillan's after the revolution (same applies or worse) and Kropotkin's Conquest of Bread and Fields, Factories and Worshops (read first, second looks a bit too specific on details of 1900s production). All of these are general overviews though, nothing in depth.

FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES OF COMMUNIST PRODUCTION AND DISTRIBUTION is the classic exposition of the economics of communism - and, indeed, apart from the first outline sketches given by Marx in his CRITIQUE OF THE GOTHA PROGRAMME, upon which the book is based, the only one ever to have been produced. The first working draft was the work of the well-known German proletarian revolutionary and veteran member of the KAPD, JAN APPEL, (see Subversion) alias MAX HEMPEL. This draft was subsequently revised and completed in Dutch by a collective composed of members of the GROUP OF INTERNATIONAL COMMUNISTS of Holland (GIK) and published in German by the ALLGEMEINE ARBEITERUNION DEUTSCHLANDS (GENERAL WORKERS' UNION OF GERMANY) in 1930. It does for communist society what Marx's CAPITAL did for capitalism and is perhaps the most advanced intellectual achievement of the German Revolution.

 

[butchersapron]

It's def worth the read - was a brave attempt but was still trapped in productivist and work-centred concepts (which was probably as a rsult of the conditions in which it was writtem and the tradition whoch the authors were both part of and in the process of rejecting. I'd advise reafding the first appendix before the main text though. I wouldn't worry too much about marxist jargon - it's pretty straightforwadly written and doesn't assume more than a basic knowledge of marxism. AK have some paper copies left, which makes it a lot easier to read (it's about 600 pages) - put out by the old Movement for Workers Councils.

edit: i think the link above is actually to the later summary rather than the full book.

 

[888]

600 pages? I couldn't find any reference to it being just a summary. I found a summary on the libcom version of the article though - http://libcom.org/library/fundamental-principles-communist-production-gik-summary
Is that what you mean?

Scanning through it quickly, quantifying everything in terms of hours of average labour seems a bit dubious... not that I have a better idea.

 

[butchersapron]

That's how big my copy is - though 200 or so pages are various appendices and biographical notes (worth getting for these alone if you ask me). Your link may be the main body of the text alone, but it just strikes me as a little short. And yes, you've hit on probably the book's central problem.

For a book in a similiar vein but not quite so detailed or definitive about how things should be organised post-revolution check out Peter Rachelff's Marxism and Council Communism: The Foundation of Revolutionary Theory for Modern Society (!)

 

[888]

OK, I'll try and find that, thanks.

 

[citydreams]

Scanning through it quickly, quantifying everything in terms of hours of average labour seems a bit dubious... not that I have a better idea.

From a(n undergraduate) mathematical point of view, where is the doubt in utilising a (moving) average of labour to derive a unit of consumption?
Consumption <= Production, thus shouldn't there should always be a remainder in favour of the methodology?

 

[butchersapron]

OK, I'll try and find that, thanks.

Took me 10 years to get a copy...

 

[888]

From a(n undergraduate) mathematical point of view, where is the doubt in utilising a (moving) average of labour to derive a unit of consumption?
Consumption <= Production, thus shouldn't there should always be a remainder in favour of the methodology?

I don't know anything about economics so I'm totally confused at the moment. In a capitalist economy it is necessary to use prices to gauge supply and demand. See the "socialist calculation debate" which the free-marketeers supposedly won (however they made the assumption that a state-run command economy is socialist which I think is wrong). I don't think the same laws of supply and demand need to apply in a communist "economy" since in capitalism they are fundamentally based on scarcity and I believe it is possible to neutralise scarcity. The more I look into economics (from a chemist's point of view) the more it looks like a pseudo-science - they make absurd assumptions about rates and equilibrium, though I can't say more until I've read more. Been having a pretty interesting debate on myspace.com with some US anarchists about it.

Sorry about the rambling, the question is I suppose, "is a unit of pricing necessary to gauge supply and demand in a communist economy and if so is one based on average labour time valid?"

 

[davgraham]

I don't know anything about economics so I'm totally confused at the moment. In a capitalist economy it is necessary to use prices to gauge supply and demand. See the "socialist calculation debate" which the free-marketeers supposedly won (however they made the assumption that a state-run command economy is socialist which I think is wrong). I don't think the same laws of supply and demand need to apply in a communist "economy" since in capitalism they are fundamentally based on scarcity and I believe it is possible to neutralise scarcity. The more I look into economics (from a chemist's point of view) the more it looks like a pseudo-science - they make absurd assumptions about rates and equilibrium, though I can't say more until I've read more. Been having a pretty interesting debate on myspace.com with some US anarchists about it.

Sorry about the rambling, the question is I suppose, "is a unit of pricing necessary to gauge supply and demand in a communist economy and if so is one based on average labour time valid?"

Arguing from the experience of Russia, the GIK's answer was - no - price is not a category adequate to the task of guaging social supply or demand in a communist economy

the introduction to the 'Fundamental Principles . . .' on the libcom site makes that very clear.

Gra

 

[butchersapron]

A new translation/edition has now been published with new intros etc by Hermann Lueer (Or, more accurately, the first english translation of the full dutch 2nd edition). Info and how to get is here and related stuff in the new issue of this or here.

----------

Some recent books on the period of transition

We draw your attention to some recently published books by an author and publisher, who is new to the milieu interested in the Communist Left: Hermann Lueer and publisher Red & Black Books in Hamburg. When giving introductions to Marxism throughout Germany, Lueer was regularly asked about the alternative to capitalism. In search of an answer, Lueer discovered Grundprinzipien kommunistischer Produktion und Verteilung by Gruppe Internationaler Kommunisten (G.I.K.) of 1930.

In his homage to the work of the G.I.K. under the same title, Lueer gives a current introduction to the actual core of the work of the G.I.K.: how can the 'association of free and equal people' (Marx in Capital), or in his 1871 writings about the 'Commune'-organization, or how in 1917 the 'council organization' can gain and, above all, retain power over the means of production? After all, in Russia the workers soon lost power over the enterprises.

The answer lies in the fact that reformism in social democracy ignored Marx' and Engels' view, particularly in Marx' Critique of the Gotha Programme, of an economy with working hours as a measure of production and, initially, also consumption. Instead, reformism accepted Hilferding's view, which suggested that in socialism economy should be organized as a General Cartel, the organizational form of highly developed capitalism, i.e., controlled by economic specialists. Lenin took over this view and realized it in Russia, with which the dictatorship over the proletariat was a fact.

Lueer's tribute to the work of the G.I.K. is now available in three languages: German, English and Dutch.

Lueer's tribute does not address various criticisms since the republishing in 1970 of the first edition in German in 1930. Especially that of Paul Mattick in his introduction to this reprint, followed by Gilles Dauvé and finally Raoul Victor. Victor's text of 2016 'in response to Kees' under the title The Economy in the Transition to a 'Communist' Society (*), served the German-speaking group Freundinnen und Freunde der klassenlosen Gesellschaft as a starting point for their discussions of 21-3-2018: Umrisse der Weltcommune. On the group's website, Kosmoprolet, a discussion was published, including Lueer's contribution Kritik von Hermann Lueer an den Thesen zur Weltcommune (20-1-2019). It is typical of the quality of this discussion contribution that Kosmoprolet was forced to ask Victor for a position, which appeared as Arbeitszeitrechnung und ökonomische Rationalität in einer postkapitalistischen Gesellschaft (4-11-2019). It is curious to see that the reply by Lueer, Antwort an Raoul Victor, was not posted on the Kosmoprolet website until now, nor has been it included in the book KLASSE, KRISE, WELTCOMMUNE. Beiträge zur Selbstabschaffung des Proletariats with all other contributions. It seems therefor that Victor does not have an answer, and certainly not the Freunde as an organization, while it is clear from other contributions to the discussion that some do share the views of the G.I.K.