Selucky, R. -Marxism and Self-management

8/12/2019 Selucky, R. -Marxism and Self-management

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/selucky-r-marxism-and-self-management 1/17

This article was downloaded by: [University of Arizona]On: 02 May 2013, At: 12:25Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,London W1T 3JH, UK

Critique: Journal of

Socialist TheoryPublication details, including instructions

for authors and subscription information:

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcso20

Marxism and

self ‐managementRadoslav Selucky

a

a Economist on the faculty, Carleton

University, Ottawa, Canada

Published online: 08 Nov 2007.

To cite this article: Radoslav Selucky (1974): Marxism and self ‐management,

Critique: Journal of Socialist Theory, 3:1, 49-63

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03017607408413131

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private studypurposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution,reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in

any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied ormake any representation that the contents will be complete oraccurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae,

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions




http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03017607408413131




and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions,claims, proceedings, demand, or costs or damages whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f

A r i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M

a y 2 0 1 3



49.

Marxism and Self-Management

Radoslav Selucky

Contemporary Marxists are strongly divided into two groups: the first triesto prove that the only legitimate Marxian concept for the socialist economymust consist of the self-government of the producers, while the second identi-fies the only tr u ly Marxian concept of socialism w ith a command planningsystem. Both groups are aware that it is very difficult to find any consistentchain o f au thentic evidences indica ting M arx's willingness to subscribe to e ith e rsystem. Marx and Engels were vague enough as far as the organ ization o f th efuture socialist economy was concerned. Both strongly believed that any pre-diction of this kind must necessarily consist of some Utopian elements and theydid their best to avoid such an unscientific approach to the prob lem . Both M arxand Engels commented occasionally on the basic principles of a future socialistsociety, though their comments were not only very marginal but often verygeneral too. The supporters of self-managing socialism usually quote the famousparagraph from Marx's The Civil War in France ( The communal regime onceestablished in Paris and the secondary centres, the old centralized governmentwou ld in the provinces, to o , have to give way to th e self-government of the pro-

ducers. ) , while the ir adversaries quote the no less famous paragraph w ri tte nby Marx ( The national centralization of the means of production will becomethe natural base for a society which will consist of an association of free and

1. K. Marx, The Civil War in France , in Marx-Engels, Selected Works, vo l. 1 , Inter-national Publishers, 1968, p.323.

Professor Selucky is on economist on the fa cu lty at Carleton Unive rsity, Ottawa, Canada.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a y 2 0 1 3



5 0 .

equal producers acting consciously according to a general and rationa l plan. ) ,or fr om Engel's statement tha t th e prole tariat seizes po litica l power and turn smeans of pro du ction in the firs t instance in to state pr ope rty . .3 These twoquotations are taken to support the thesis that centralized economic manage-

ment is fully compatible with the association of free producers, and that thefo rm of th e ownership o f socialized means of produ ction must be defined interms of state property.

It would be possible to go on enumerating less clear and less importantquo tations supp orting the fir st o r the second Marxist concept. It seems to me,however, tha t such a me thod wou ld be qu ite useless and qu ite unsc ientific —or, if you w i l l , quite anti-Marxist. Q uo tation is no t argument. What is mo re,Marx himself believed that what counts is me thodo logy. This is con firme d byEngels, who w rites: B u t all concepts of M arx (Auffassungsweise) are notdoctrines but methods. They do not provide complete doctrines but startingpoints fo r furth er research and methods fo r th at research. .

The purpose of this paper is to examine the Marxist approach to thefuture socialist economy, with particular regard to its methodology, and itsconcepts of the market and of the State. I take it for granted that the mainpo litica l goal of bo th Marx and Engels was the liberation of man from economic

ex plo itation , and fro m different forms of a lienation and material dependence.

5

1. The Marxist Concept of the Market

Every Marxist would probably agree with the suggestion that the market

has at least three basic shortcom ings. As it operates spontaneously and organizes

the proportions of production ex post facto it periodically causes disharmony

between supply and demand, creates an economic imbalance and gives rise toeconomic crises. The second shortcoming of the market mechanism is that it

both leads to and increases social inequality. The third failure of the market

2 . K. Ma rx , So chineniia ,vol. 13 , p.2 41 -4 2, Moscow.

3. F. Engels, Social ism : Uto pian and Scie ntif ic , in Marx-Engels, Selected WorksInternational Publishers, 1968, p.429.

4 . F . Engels, Letter to W . Som bart , March 1 1 , 18 95 , quoted from B. Horvat , An Essayon Yugoslav Society IASP, 1969 , p . 90 .

5. Relations hips of personal dependence (wh ich were at first quite spontaneous) arethe first forms of society in which human productivity develops, though only to a slightextent and at isolated points. Personal independence founded on material dependence isthe second great form: in it there developed for the first time a system of general socialinterchange, resulting in universal relations, varied requirements and universal capacities.Free individuality, which is founded on the universal development of individuals and thedo m inatio n of th eir com m una l and social pro du ctiv ity, w hic h has become their social pow er,is the th ird stage. T h e second stage creates the cond itions fo r th e th ir d .

D o w n l o a d e

d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A r

i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a

y 2 0 1 3



5 1 .

mechanism is that it encourages on ly such economic ac tivit y as yields p ro fitsand is advantageous for the producers. It is unable to stimulate production ofgoods and services which, though needed by the community, are not subject to

the c riterio n of p ro fit or ma terial advantage. This is pa rticularly tru e of socialand public services, including the infra structu re, the development o f wh ich m ust

be supported by modern society (and particularly by any socialist society)even at a loss.

There are at least six other characteristics of the market which have been

generally accepted by Marxist theory:

1 . The market is a product of the social division of labour and of auto-

nomous producers.

2. It organizes economic processes and regulates the exchange of labouramong men.

3. It is a mediating link an d, at the same tim e, a feedback between pro du ction

and consumption.

4 . It creates objective criteria and control mechanisms for comparing the

social costs of production.5. It is the medium of communication and cooperation among the carriers

of economic activity.

6. It operates spontaneously, has no internal aim and regulates production

and exchange only ex post facto.

The market is not a product of capitalism; it came into being and developsconcurrently with the origins and development of the social division of labour.In pre-capitalist p rod uc tion form s, the m arket existed only in so far as it foun dthe tw o prerequisites of its existence: the social division of labour and autono mo usproducers. It could therefore not be applied within the relationships ofpatriarchalism, slavery, or feudalism; if it existed and developed in pre-capitalistsocieties at all, it did so only parallel with these relationships, not within them.Only in capitalist society did the market become the universal regulator ofthe economy, and market relations extend over the entire society, which cameto be composed — again for the first tim e in human his tory — of autonom ous

and personally free me n. Thus capitalism is the on ly know n social and economicsystem in which market relations are universally valid and are the basis ofall social relations.

The Marxist critiq ue of com m od ity, market, and money relations has threesources: m ora l, philosophic and economic. Money as a universal co m m od ityand gold as its material substance, are at the same time a universal form of theexistence of c ap ital, wh ich is the perpetrator of ex plo itation and the causeof human misery; the fetish of gold, even more obviously than the fetishism

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A r

i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a y 2 0 1 3



52.

of commodities, is an expression of the dominance of things and conditionsover people. The m oral condem nation of money as a universal co m m od ity, as ameasure o f values, as the medium of hoa rding , as an instrum ent o f accum ulationand element of exchange, was expressed by Marx in words as fie ry as those usedby theu top ian socialists, and L enin , one of the interpreters of Marxian teachings,prophesied a similar fate for gold as Thomas Moore did in his Utopia: it shallbe used, after the victory of the world proletarian revolution, as buildingmaterial for public lavatories.

Nevertheless, the moral condemnation of commodity, market and moneyrelations is irrelevant from the theoretical point of view, and it should benoted th at it does not represent the substance of the Marxist critiq ue of m arke t

society. The philosophic and economic condemnation is of much greater imp ort-ance. The basis of the philosophic condem nation is Marx's theory of the alienationof labour. A liena tion stems from three sources: the very existence of co mm od ityand market relations; the existence of division of labour in detail, i.e. withinthe factor y; and the existence of capital relations of ex plo ita tion .7 The alienationof labour caused by the universality of commodity and market relations lies inthe fact that the producer ceases to be concerned with the use-value which hehas created, with the concrete existence of his product, with its meaning,

significance and usefulness, and is concerned merely with its exchange value,primarily from the quantitative point of view. Thus the aim of his labour, andits content, is alienated from the producer; human labour is reduced to a mereabstract quality forms the exchange value.

In a .m arke t society, the on ly links between people are things (goods);through the exchange of goods people obtain the means of their existence.The fate of the producer depends on whether or not a thing (com modity) can beexchanged. A thing, which is quite simple as long as it remains a mere thing,

turns into a mystery and a fetish as soon as it becomes a commodity.8

Themystery is not its use-value, bu t its exchange value as the on ly form of its

6. Cf . : K. M arx , Capital I , London, pp .112-113; K . Marx. Economic and PhilosophicManuscripts of 1844 New Yo rk , 19 64 , pp .16 5-169 ; V . I . Len in , Collected Works vol . 33 ,p .113 .

7. Som e official interpreters of Ma rx later made the first and the thir d source ofalienation identical, thus denying that al ienation of labour could exist in a socialist society.

T h e second source of a l ienation is being generally overlooked by th e overwh elming m ajor ityof official Marxists in both socialist and capitalist countries.

8. F o r instance, the form of wo od is al tered when we make a table of i t . No ne theless, the tab le is still w o o d , an ord inary palpab le th ing . B ut as soon as it presents itself as acom mo d.ity it is transfo rme d into a thing wh ich is transcenden tal as we ll as palpab le. Itstands with its feet solidly planted on the floor; but at the same time, over against al l othercommodities, i t stands on its head; and in that wooden head it forms crotchets far strongerthan table-turning ever wa s, K. M arx, Capital I , London, p .44 .

D o w n l o a d e d

b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a y 2 0 1 3



53.

substance, i.e. value. Why is it that the same thing yields an equivalent in oneinstance and fails to do so in another? Why are some things (commodities)sometimes exchangeable and sometimes not? Why does man's fate depend on

the ir fate in th e process of exchange? Why is his work sometimes recognized associal labour and sometimes hot? Why does it not depend on the producerhimself and on the specifics of his work? What does it actually depend on? Itdepends on the conditions which prevail over people, on things which changeinto commodities — to w hich man no longer feels as intim ate ly and imm ediatelybound as he used to, and which appear to him as alien, unknown, mysteriousand all-powerful forces.

This alienation grows even deeper as the division o f labour works its way into

the workshop, into,manufacture, and the factory, and transforms the worker(the immediate producer) into a detail worker who no longer creates the whole(final) produc t bu t on ly a part of it , and carries out several tasks or even onepartial task in which he specializes and acquires a degree of vi rtu os ity . Ifhuman labour had a meaning earlier (man was the maker of the use-value, of thefinal product), the meaning is now lost. The immediate producer is notinterested in w hat he is pro ducing; what he is interested in is the fac t tha tlabour has become the source of his livelihood and thus a prerequisite of his

existence. Man is not interested in his pro fess ion; he is merely interested inhis job. It is alienated labour since it has ceased to be an inner need o f humanself-expression and self-fulfilment; it stands apart from the man since he carriesit out not because of a need to create but under the pressure of necessity inorder to make a living. So the alienation of man from his labour goes hand inhand w ith the externalization of man and his labou r; it dehumanizes tha t labourwhich is the basic feature distingu ishing man fro m the rest of animals.

There is, however, the third dimension to the alienation of man from

his labour. As far as wage-labour is concerned, the worker creates valuesnot for himself but for the capitalist who has purchased his working power andwho appropriates the result of his work in the framework of the capitalistrelationship o f e xp loita tion . The prod uct of exp loited labour — the surplusvalue — is alienated f rom the wo rker because it does no t belong to him(it belongs to the cap italist and changes into p ro fi t) ; but even the working tim eis alienated fro m the worke r, and thus also his labour, because during hisworking hours, under the supervision of the capitalist and for the capitalist's

be ne fit, he creates n ot on ly the equivalent of his wages as the basis o f hisexistence but also the surplus value for the capitalist. The capitalist relationsloom as a superstructure over the commodity and market relations (in theMarxian con cep tion, the worke r sells not his labour but his work ing power whosespecific use-value is that it is capable of producing in any given day a greatervalue than that which it has by itself). Without the market relationship inwhich the worker sells his working power to the capitalist, no capital relation-ships could exist or reproduce either; thus, the specific capitalist form of

wage labour and exploitation could not exist without market relations. This




54 .

is why Marx is able to say tha t the work ing time is a part of the worker'salienation from the entire capitalist system, that the worker becomes himselfonly when he is back home, after work, in his spare time, i.e. outside of hislabour which is both alienated and stolen from him. Only when the capitalrelationship is abolished w ill the cap italist fo rm of alienation vanish; on lywhen the ma rket relationsh ip is abolished and com modities again become productswithout mystery, wil l the market form of al ienation disappear; and only whenthings cease to rule over men will the market form of the externalization ofman disappear.

Marx's economic condemnation of the market relations is based on thefact that the market determines the proportions of production factors, both

spontaneously and ex post facto, that is, not o nly blind ly bu t, above a ll, unecon-omically. The market determination of proportions ex post facto means wastingsocial labour; in the conditions of capitalism, it is accompanied by crises (Marxsees their theoretical possibility already in the most elementary act of exchange,com m odity-m oney -com m odityH . lns h o rt . i t is a most irrational way o f regulatingthe economic processes.

This critique of commodity and market relations appears and reappearsthrou gho ut the entire body of wo rk of Marx and Engels. The conclusion tha t

Engels draws from it is tha t no society can remain in command over its ownprod uction ind efin itely , or contro l the social consequences of its pro ductionprocess, unless it abolishes exchange among individuals.

If, then, com m odity produc tion and the market organization of a nationa l,economy work as obstacles to a rationally functioning society, humanisticallyorganized and developing without crises, there would seem to be no way outbut abolishing the market and replacing it by a direct distrib utio n of productionfactors, and introducing, instead of an ex post facto regulator of proportions,

an external regulator of the economy - a plan operating ex ante. However, inorder to abolish the market, it would be necessary to abolish also its materialand social prerequisites: the social division of labour and the autonomy ofproducers.

As far as the social division of labour is concerned, the s itua tion is quitehopeless. The social division of labour naturally changes in the course of humanhistory concurren tly w ith the development of applied technology and scienceand w ith the changing human needs; bu t its substance - specialization o fproducers — remains. It co uld actua lly be stipulated that th e developmentof soc iety deepens the professional division of labour: new professions keepemerging with the emergence of new branches; new specializations becomenecessary with the growing volume of human knowledge of the external world;

9. K. Marx, Capital, I, p.92.

1 0. Marx-Engels, Selected W orks, I I , p.277, Czech ed ition.

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a

y 2 0 1 3



55 .

relations among producers grow more and more complicated, their m utua l com-

m un ication and cooperation becoming more and more complex and unmanageableAll this tends to strengthen rather than weaken the need of a self-regulating

mechanism, capable of reducing the varied activities of men and their varied

economic interests stemming the refro m , to a com mon denom inator, at least aslong as the economic sphere remains an area of objectified action and until it

changes into a sphere of creative activity, satisfying the human need of self-

realization.

If, therefore, the social division of labour as the foun da tion of com m od itypro du ction and m arket relations cannot be changed by a conscious inte rve ntion,

it becomes necessary to change the position of producers in the system of

the national economy. If their professional differentiation and their functionalspecialization cannot be abolished, it becomes necessary to abolish their

autonomous position as independent elements of the economic processes.The only way o f abolishing the auton om y of producers is the nationa lization of

the means of production and liquidation of private property in the process ofa socialist revolution.

Thus a solution does exist; but what to do about the social divisionof labour which has not disappeared? What is there to replace the market

relations and ties among the producers? How to create a new system ofcommunication and a new feedback between production and consumption?

Here, too, a way out seems to offer itself which appears to be, from

the quantitative point of view, very persuasive. The division of labour existsnot only within society but also within every unit of production, start ing with

manufacture. If the links among the prod uc tion units are those of the m arke t, the

links among the producers within an economic unit are deprived of their marketcon tent which is replaced by a direct c on trol of th e prod uc tion process according

to a unified plan which respects the technological basis of both the labour andpro du ction process. The organization o f work in a shop is direct, no t mediated:

the hierarchy progresses from the top downward. Marx compared the capitalistowner of a pro du ction un it to a comm anding general, technicians and engineers

to officers, foremen and supervisors to noncoms, and workers to soldiers. The

comparison of the worksho p w ith an army is no t accidental. Not o nly because atthe time when Marx lived the industrial organization within plants was really

based on hard discipline of a m il itary type throug h wh ich the former independent

peasants or private craftsmen were to be taught the necessary industrial order,the coordination of work and the orderly dovetailing of one production process

with another, but also because, given the specialization of work û.id thecom partm en talization of th e wo rk process in detail operations, the end effect

depends on a coordinated effort and on a united interest of all the participantsof the pro du ction process. On ly the end prod uc t, as the resultant of the a ctivity

of various individuals and various machines, gives a meaning t o the com mon w o rk ;

only the final use-value of the jointly produced commodity can be realized




56.

on the market as an exchange value. The shop, the factory or the plantalways represent a production community in which there has to be both thedirecting work and the directed work; it requires both those who lead,organize, and provide the common effort with form, features and aims,

and those who o nly f u lf i l the orders or carry out lim ited functions. W ithou tsuch organization, without mutual dependence of one member of the collectiveon another and one detail work operation on another, the desired goalcannot be reached. Thus the l inks between people within a production unitare different from those within society, operating not through the mediumof the market and exchange but managed directly; only the production unit asa w hole can face othe r pro du ction units as one independent producer facesanother. While the o nly au tho rity for pro duction units is the m arket, through

which the exchange is carried out and thus the result of their economicactivity is realized, the authority within a production unit is i ts owner orhis employee who directs and organizes the production unit by his power andin his interest, acting in a manner wh ich translates the ac tiv ity of theproduction un it into material advantage for h imself. In order to make hisemployees interested in th is aim of his, he may app ly various methods ofeconomic enforcement. If a prod uc tion un it is to assert itself successfullyon the market, the necessary prerequisite is that the interest of productionbecome the interest o f all its employees, tha t the pro du ction un it as a wh oleappear vis-a-vis othe r pro du ction un its as a representative o f a particu larinterest vis-a-vis other particular interests.

If, then, the division of labour within a production unit is supportedby the authority of the organizer, by direct management of the work process,by an exact plan, and by a conscious coordination of employees withthe exclusion of an intermediary market mechanism, why should it not bepossible to apply these features of enterprise management in the whole of

society? Both Marx and Lenin give a positive reply to this ques tion: Yes,such management is possible in the framework of the entire society, providedtha t the autonomy of pro duction units is abolished, that the means ofproduction are taken over by the state, and that social economy is organizedin a manner similar to the organization of an enterprise or trust. Marx says,

T he a priori system on which the division of labour, w ith in the wo rkshop,is regularly carried out, becomes in the division of labour within the society,an a posteriori, nature-imposed necessity, controlling the lawless caprice

of the producers, and perceptible in the barometrical fluctuations of themarket-prices. Division of labour within the workshop implies the undisputedau tho rity of the capitalist over men, tha t are but parts of a mechanismthat belongs to him. The division of labour within the society brings intocontact independent commodity-producers, who acknowledge no other auth-or ity but that of com pe tition , of the coercion exerted by the pressure of the irmu tual interests; jus t as in the animal king dom , the bellum omnium contraomnes more or less preserves the con ditio ns of existence of every species. Thesame bourgeois mind which praises division of labour in the worksho p, life-longannexation of the labourer to a partial operation , and his complete subjectionto ca pita l, as being an organization of labour tha t increases its productiveness

D o w n l o a d e


i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a

y 2 0 1 3



57.

tha t same bourgeois mind denounces w ith equal vigou r every conscious attem ptto socially control and regulate the process of production, as an inroad uponsuch sacred things as the rights of property, freedom and unrestricted playfor the bent of the individual capitalist. I t is very characteristic that theenthusiastic apologists of the factory system have nothing more damning to

urge against a general organization of the labour of society, than that itwould turn all society into one immense factory. 11

An d Lenin adds to it : T he whole of society w ill have become a single

office and a single fac tory , w ith equality of labour and p a y . 1 2

From the theoretical po int of view, this concept has at least tw oobvious shortcomings. The first is that it identifies the division of labourwithin society with the division of labour within a production unit, or enter-

prise, and if it sees any differen ce at all between these tw o types of thedivision of labour then it is merely a difference of qu an tity and locationand not one of qu ality . T his is no t on ly a theoretical error but a methodologicalone, confusing social micro-structures with the social macro-structure. Thesecond shortcoming is that the concept overlooks the entirely different

quality of interests induced by the division of labour in detail, i.e., withinan enterprise; division of labour in particular, i.e., w ith in a branch ; anddivision of labour in general, i.e., within the whole of society.

These then are, in a very brie f ou tlin e , the three sources of theMarxist critiq ue of the market and o f the ma rket mechanism, as we ll as anoutline of an attempt at overcoming the market form of regulating the economicprocesses by a direct, planned social management. It must be noted, however,that elsewhere in their writings Marx, Engels and Lenin spoke much morecau tiously of overcom ing the negative features of the market mechanism, and ofpvercom ing the market mechanism itse lf. In particular, they made a dis-tinction between state ownership and the actual socialization of production.

The young Marx saw nationalization or cooperative ownership of the means ofproduction as bringing about no particular change in the nature of humanlabour. He pointed out that state ownership is a mere legal, formal act;only a step in the direction of a real emancipation of men which should befollowed by important changes in the internal structure of the economy, in thedevelopment of the material base of society, and particularly in the socialdivision of labour. According to the young Marx, the new society beginson ly when men have abolished labour as drudgery and the mere means of making

a living, and transformed it into creative activity. This of course requireschanging the social division of labour in such a manner that men no longerhave to perform tedious, mechanical and purely fun ctio na l tasks and can

1 1 . K. Marx, Capital, V o l. 1 , Progress Publishers, Moscow 1 965 , p.356.

1 2. V . I. Lenin, Selected Works, vo l. 2, Moscow, 1 967. An d he goes on to say: Allcitizens become employees and workers of a single cou ntryw ide state 'syndica te'. Op. cit.,p.344-45.

D o w n l o a d e d




58.

transform labour from a mere wage-earning ac tivity into a creative one inwhich the capabilities of each individual will be util ized. Even Lenin realizedat times that a change in the nature of labour does not depend on the

nationalization of the means of production alone but above all on the

development of the pro du ction forces and on a change in the ir struc ture ; thatthe ab olition of autonomous producers is a ma tter of a high degree ofsocialization of pro du ction rather than of a forcib le act of power po litics

or legal measures.

However, Lenin was also convinced that the socialization of labour,production and management in large capitalist corporations confirmed his idea

of th e weakening and withering away of m arket relationships in the mono po ly-oligopoly stage of capitalism. In his Imperialism he says tha t altho ugh

co m m od ity pro du ction stil l 'reigns' and continues to be regarded as the basisof economic life, it has in reality been undermined ...'

What is the cause of Lenin's error? Above all the fact tha t he saw co m m od ityproduction and m arket relations as being con ditioned no t on ly b y thesocial division of labour but also by the existence of private autonomousproducers whose auto nomy is the result, in his view, of their being scattered,not knowing about each other, and producing for an unknown market.

In this sense, large corporations are neither entirely private nor entirelyautonomous; they are, by virtue of their position in a co un try's na tionaleconomy, social producers, even though their ownership is either privateor in the form of a stock com pan y. 1 5 In this analysis, Len in ce rtainly proceeded

13. . . . . even the greatest possible 'de term ina tion ' in the w or ld is no t enough to passfrom nationalization and confiscation to socialization. V . I. Len in, Selected Works vol. 2 ,Moscow 1967, p.692.

14. In Len in's term inology, such corporations are called mono polies; fro m the po int ofview o f their actual po sition on the m arket, however, they are m ostly oligopolies. I t shouldbe no ted, therefore, that Lenin makes no distinc tion between a m onop oly and an oligopo ly.When, in his Imperialism as the H ighest Stage of Capitalism, he speaks of the contrad ictio nof mono poly and free c om pe titio n, the assertion is valid on ly where it concerns an absolutemonopoly solidly established with a long-term prospect; one cannot, however, speak of anabsolute contra diction between oligopoly and free com petition .V. A. Lenin, Selected Works, vo l. 2, p.684.

1 5. Typ ical of this po int of view is the follo w ing passage in Len in's Imperialism: Whena big enterprise assumes gigantic proportions, and on the basis of an exact computation of

mass data organizes according to plan the supply of primary raw materials to the extent oftwo-th irds or three-fourths o f a ll tha t is necessary for tens of m illions o f p eop le; whe n theraw materials are transported in a systematic and organized manner to the most suitableplaces of production, sometimes situated hundreds of thousands of miles from one another;when a single centre directs all the consecutive stages of processing the material right up tothe manufacture of numerous varieties of finished articles; wh en these produc ts are dis tribute daccording to a single plan among tens and hundred of millions of consumers . . . . then itbecomes evident that we have a socialization of production and not mere 'interlocking'(i.e., of private and social interests, R.S.).V. I. Lenin, Selected Works, Vol. 1 , p.776.

D o w n l o a d e


i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a y 2 0 1 3



59 .

in a more Marxist manner than some of his contemporaries and disciples sincehe was deducing the socialization of production from actual changes in thematerial-technical basis of pro du ction .an d not m erely fro m the form of

ownership. On the other hand, however, he failed to distinguish between twoentirely different phenomena: the market mechanism of 19th century cap-

italism as a transitory form of capitalist co m m odity pro du ction , and cap-italist comm od ity and market produc tion as such. He saw the trans form ationof this form as a withering away of co m m odity prod uction and of the market,

although it was a mere m od ifica tion of com m od ity and market relationships. Theerror is not important in itself; but it did acquire tremendous significanceas an argument for the construction of the non-commodity and non-market

model of socialism in the Soviet Union in the 1920s.

Accord ing to all known marginal remarks of bo th Marx and Engels, anyfuture socialist society should be based on a non-market economic system. Itis quite explicitly stated in the Critique of the Gotha Programme: W ith in thecooperative society based on com mon ownership o f the means of prod uc tion , theproducers do no t exchange the ir p rod uc ts; just as li tt le does the labouremployed on the products appear here as the value of these produc ts, as amaterial quality possessed by them, since now, in contrast to capitalist society,indiv idual labour no longer exists in an ind irect fashion bu t d irectly as acom ponent part of the tota l labou r. I am no t going to discuss the correctnessor va lidity of this concept. I wou ld lik e merely t o suggest tha t rejectionof a market is, by d ef in itio n , incom patible w ith th e concept of a self-managingsocialist economic system. If the market is abolished, the autonomy of economicunits disappears. If the market is abolished, the horizontal type of relationship(i.e. exchange) among economic- un its also disappears. If th e market isabolished, the information coming from the consumers (demand) is eitherfu lly cu t or at least quite irrelevant for producers. Th en, the central plan

is the only source supplying producers with relevant information for decisionmaking. If this is the case, the structure of the economic system mustbe based on the prevailing vertical typ e of relationship (i.e. sub ordina tion andsuperiority), with decision-making centralized in the planning board, without

16. Viewed qualita tively, the market of the era of Ricardo and Marx was a market of

small commodity production rather than one really typical of an industrialized capitalistcountry. The difference between a market of small-commodity production and a market ofcapitalist industrialization is primarily quantitative; the difference between the market ofcapitalist industrialization of mid-19th century and the market of advanced capitalistcountries of the 20th century is primarily qualitative. Nevertheless, the substance of theeconomy — the universality of co mm odity prod uction and the functioning of the m arket asa self-regulating mechanism — remains, even though it is overshadowed by the state's inter-vention in the economy, planning, market, wage and price regulation, in short, consciousinfluencing of the economic processes.

1 7. K. Marx, The Critique of the Gotha Programme, in Marx & Engels, Selected Works,International Publishers, 1 968, p.323.

D o w n l o a d e d




60 .

any outside control of central decisions. A self-managing system, even ifformally introduced, is a foreign body within any non-market, vert ical andcentralised economic structure. Even if self-managing organs are formallygranted authority to make decisions, the only source of their information is

the central plan since the market has been eliminated. Any consistently non-market economy must by de fin ition be (1 ) centralized, (2) run by the commandplan, (3) controlled by a handful of planners rather than by workers themselvesand (4) based on manipulation of producers by the planning board. Anyworkable model of self-management or worker's participation requires decentra-

lization of micro-economic decisions, an indicative rather than com mand centralplan, information coming both from the plan and consumers, control of macrodecision-making from the bottom and real autonomy of enterprises and self-

managing bodies. It is, the refo re, qu ite clear tha t any concept o f a self-managingsocialist economy w ou ld require a revision of th e M arxist rejection o f the m arket

socialist economy. Apart from what Marx and Engels have said about the self-government o f producers or about centralized planning, the ir anti-market con -cept for the future socialist economy implicitly puts any variant of self-manage-men t out of thé question. In order to interpret the Marxist concept of the socialisteconomy as a self-managing one, it would be necessary to start with the basic

revision of the M arxist attitude to the role of the m arket in a socialist society. On

the other hand , in order to interpret the M arxist concept o f the socialist economyin the same way as Lenin and Stalin does not require any substantial revisiono f the Marxist concept of the market. Th is is wh at leads us to the conc lusionthat if- Marx's concept o f th e m arket was meant seriously, it by no means

favours any self-managing economic socialist system.

2. The Marxist Concept of the Liberation of Man

Whoever quotes the famous sentence fro m Engels th a t, The pro letaria tseizes po litical power and turns the means of prod uction into state p ro p e rt y , 1 8

should also quote the follo w ing idea: The first act by virtue of wh ich thestate really constitutes itself the representative of the who le society — thetak ing possession o f th e means of prod uc tion in the name o f society — this is,

at the same time, its last independent act as a state. State interference insocial relations becomes, in one domain after another, superfluous, and thendies out of itself; the government of persons is replaced by the administrationof things, and by the conduct of processes of production. The state is not'abolished'. It dies o u t 1 9 Elsewhere Engels is even more spec ific: Soc iety,

whic h w il l re-organize p rodu ction on the basis of a free and equal association

18 . Ibid. p.429 Engels, Soc ialism: Utopian and Scientific .

19. Ibid. p.430 Engels, Socialism: U topian and Scientific .

D o w n l o a d e d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A r

i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a y 2 0 1 3



61 .

of the producers, w ill pu t the wh ole machinery of state where it w ill th en belong:

in to a museum of an tiquities, by the side of the spinning wheel and the bronze

a x e .2 0

The state, simply speaking, is a historical phenomenon, a product of classantagonism; it is both a political organization of society and at the same

tim e a machinery fo r the oppression of explo ited classes. Once the proleta riat

seizes political power and expropriates the expropriators, there is no further

need for the existence of the state: since class society has been overcome,

there is no need for any oppression, there is no reason why the state should

stay above the society as an external force alienated fro m the people.

If this is so, one legitimate question arises: what organization will replacethe state? W hat w ou ld replace the state in its capac ity as the owner of themeans of prod uc tion, as means of commun ication and as the organ o f economicplanning and management? If there is no room for the existence of the statein a socialist society, which other body will replace the state in all its politicaland economic functions?

There is no explicit answer to all these questions either in Marx or Engels.It was a ma tter o f the to o distant f ut ur e, and was therefore never dealt wit h

in their writings. But im plic itly it seems to be quite clear, tha t the onlytype of social organization which could replace the state, both in its economicand political functions, is a self-government of producers. In the economicsphere it is, by definition, a self-managing system, based on the directparticipation and control of free associated producers, without any interferencefrom the outside.

It seems to be the logical conclusion, that according to classical Marxisttheory, the development of the socialist economy must go through different

stages. The first stage, as indicated both in The Communist Manifesto andAnti-D'ûhring, is the period o f the dictatorship of the proletariat lastingduring the transition period between capitalism and socialism. Once the socialrestructuring of the society is completed, there is no need for the furtherexistence of the state. Th e state-owned econom y must be replaced by the sociallyowned econom y; the state ownership of the means of p roduc tion is transformedinto the public )or comm on) ownership of th e means of p rod uc tion . A ll func tionsof management (e.g. planning, allocation of resources, distribution of wealth,

etc.) should be taken over by direct producers.

Althou gh not ex plicit ly stated, this concept is im plic it ly present in theMarxist thesis that the proletariat is to be liberated not only from capitalistexploitation, but also from its lot of performing merely directed functions.Provided that the national economy is centralized, centrally run and planned

2 0 . F. Engels Anti Dühring.

D o w n l o a d e


i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a y 2 0 1 3



62 .

from one centre, the working class cannot emerge as the ruling class: accordingto the existing industrial division of labour it can but carry out the orders of theplan. The on ly poss ibility for the work ing class to become a ruling classis its real participation in both political and economic decision-making. It

is theoretically conceivable that its participation in political decision-makingcan be'guaranteed also by the traditional representative democracy. But thisis possible only on one condition: that the existence of the state (and of indirect,representative democracy) is extended ad infin/turn. As far as economic decision-making is concerned, the only possibility of the proletariat taking part dependson the in tro du ct ion of a self-managing system. Only self;management providesworking people with access to control over economic processes without anytransformation of the traditional industrial division of labour.

If the first provision of Marxist political the ory (i.e. tha t the proletariatshould be elevated to the pos ition of the ru ling class) has ever been intendedseriously, then the only way to realize it is to introduce economic self-management and political self-government. If we add to that provision thetheo ry of the withe ring away of the state after the socialist revo lution , thedying out of state organs and state machinery makes this way a necessity. Thefirst stage of 'state socialism' should be followed by the second one, thatof a self-managing socialist economy and self-governing socialist political system.

-This leads us to the conclusion, that according to what Marx or Engels

write about the future socialist economy, (i.e., the liberation of the proletariatfrom exploitation, alienation and manipulation; the elevation of the proletariat

into the ruling class; and the withering away of the state,) a self-managingsocialist economy and a self-governing socialist society is the only legitimateMarxist concept of socialism. In order to interpret the Marxist concept of a

socialist economy in a differen t way , it wou ld be necessary to start w ith a basic

revision of Marxism as a socialist revolutionary and po litical doctrine .

Conclusions:

The concept of self-management can no t either be accepted or rejectedwithout a substantial revision of the original Marxist theory. In order toaccept th e concep t of self-management, i t is necessary to revise th e Marxist

concept of the market. In order to reject the concept of self-management,it is necessary to revise the Marxist concept of the historical role of theprole tariat; the Marxist concept of socialist rev olu tion ; and fin all y, the M arxistconcept of the State.

If we compare the significance of the Marxist concept of the marketwith the combined significance of the concepts of the historical role of the

proletariat, the socialist revolution and the State, we can easily find the wayou t o f this dilemma. The Marxist concept of the m arket is far less impor tant

D o w n l o a d e d




63.

for the whole d octrine than is the Marxist concept of revolution. Moreover,Marx himself was no economist in the strict sense of th is word: he was

merely a crit ic of polit ical economy, the first sociologist (and social scientist)analyzing the capitalist econom y of the 19th century in order to just i fy

(both historically, polit ically, economically, and ethically) socialist re vo lution .If we accept his doctr ine as a whole, rather than marginal or polemical remarksand footnotes, it seems to us that any interpretation favouring self-managingsocialism is more legitimate than any interpretation favouring the non-marketcentralized state socialism of the Soviet type. In order to overcome this key

contradict ion within Marxist theory, a revision of the original Ma rxist doctrineis unavoidable. Ad m ittin g this, we suggest that revising the Marxist concept of

the market is less harmful to the whole doc trine than revising all the rest.

ozialistische Zeitungbringt monatlich auf etwa 24 Seifen Akfionsmodelie, Beiträge zur

sozialistischen Theorie und Strategie, Berichte aus der Linken inter-

national, „links ist illusionslos, undogmatisch — eine Zeitung für

Theorie der Praxis und für Praxis der Theorie.

Einzelpreis DM 1.20.Bezugspreis, jährlich, DM15.— + DM 2.40 Versandkosten

Probeexemplare anfordern bzw. Abonnem enisbesfellung bei

Ver lag 2000 GmbH, 605 Offenbach 4 Postfach 591.

D o w n l o a d e

d b y [ U n i v e r s i t y o f A r i z o n a ] a t 1 2 : 2 5 0 2 M a

y 2 0 1 3

Selucky, R. -Marxism and Self-management

Documents