Part Two, Nasser Paydar
Equal distribution based on meeting all the needs of human life and intellectual advancement, along with the complete guarantee of their general well-being in all areas of social life, is one of the most fundamental components of the socialist transformation of the economy and one of the most prominent characteristics of the socialist organization of labour. Socialism, in its real and working sense, is the only social system in history that eliminates the material foundations of the existence of classes and class distinctions or any kind of privilege resulting from the capitalist division of labour. It implements the equal distribution of all social facilities among individual citizens and in proportion to their material, spiritual, and civil needs. Socialism is the common, united, collective life of human beings who are equal in everything. Equality in the work of legislation and all matters related to the administration of society, equality in the production of material blessings and welfare facilities, equality in the use of all products of production, services and social welfare, equality in all matters related to individual and civil life. A continuous and completely integrated chain of all forms of equality, the existence of each of which is a necessary condition for obtaining the rest and the realization of each is complementary to the existence of the others. In the meantime, the equal distribution of vital, welfare and service needs among all citizens is one of the most basic and determining links in this chain. What everyone has freely and voluntarily voted to produce under equal conditions, and what everyone has produced or provided through a social division of labour based on free choice, equal voting for all, and cooperation and mutual assistance, is now divided equally and in proportion to the needs of each citizen among all members of society. Regarding the socialist distribution of products and social facilities by the councils, some basic laws can be emphasized. We will discuss these later in this discussion. But before that, we must dwell a little on the socialist content of equality or the concept of equal distribution in socialism.
Distribution in socialism is a completely specific economic and social burden. Equality here is absolutely not a quantitative category understandable by the conventional standards of class society. There is no commodity that can be divided equally and uniformly among everyone by calculating its value. No salary or wages are paid to any individual which would be equally distributed by eliminating the distinctions between them. No individual has any personal income based on private property which could be modified and distributed equally. There is no talk of equal income for individuals, because there is no specific individual income. Consider a group of individuals in which each has undertaken, completely voluntarily, to perform a certain task according to his ability and in accordance with the average collective work agreed upon by all. No one owns anything. The provision of housing for each person is a collective matter for all people. What everyone produces is consumed by all without any shortage or deficiency. Education, health, medicine and advanced treatment are provided to all in sufficient quantity. Equal right to make suggestions, make decisions and plan is guaranteed. The division of duties and responsibilities is based on free agreement and a spirit of collective cooperation. In such a group, everyone sits at the same table and whatever is provided at the table is the product of everyone’s work and for everyone’s consumption. The basis is to provide the best food, clothing, housing, education, medicine and treatment, and welfare and recreation for the public. Any deficiency in these facilities and amenities is a deficiency for everyone and any improvement in them will necessarily be an improvement for everyone.
The human group we are discussing is certainly only relevant as an example. Issues related to the socialist order of a society or the entire world cannot be explained by reference to this example and through analogy. But the concept of socialist equality must in any case be considered in connection with such an order and interaction. No criterion and standard derived from class relations and commodity production can be meaningful and appropriate in this context. Socialist distribution in its most basic form includes the following basic components.
1. Meeting the individual and social needs of humans, everyone should enjoy all the blessings and facilities necessary to live a life free from need and without any hardship.
2. The well-being and freedom from need for everything depends on the freedom from need and the well-being of each citizen. The social product of labour is distributed completely equally and on the basis of meeting the welfare, subsistence and social needs of the members of society equally and equally.
3. Voluntary work within the community is used in various spheres of work and production, with reference to the production and creation of all the material and spiritual needs of citizens.
4. Maximum public use of facilities in all spheres of life, for example, public transport instead of private ones, public restaurants in residential complexes instead of individual kitchens in homes, sports and swimming halls and communal laundries instead of individual ones, etc.
5. Planning of entire distribution networks by workplace and living councils and communes for cities and the National Congress of Councils at the national level.
Abolishing markets, money, and exchange
Market, exchange and money are phenomena consistent with commodity production and homogeneous and identical phenomena of capitalist production. It is in the course of exchange that the surplus value created by the variable part of capital in the production process is realized and becomes the property of the capitalists. The basis of exchange is the law of value, that is, that commodities are traded on the basis of the socially necessary labour inherent in them. Exchange in the capitalist mode of production is a continuous link in the circuit of capital, and it is within this link that the exchange value of a commodity or capital acquires an independent existence alongside the commodity itself and capital. The commodity is transformed into money, or commodity capital is transformed into money capital. It is here that money, as a kind of material intermediary in which all exchange values converge, becomes a universal standard for the exchange of labour time objectified in commodities. By playing this role in the circulation of capital, money assumes the most general form of determining capital, gathers all the indicators and characteristics of capital’s independence from society and from the producers of capital, and assumes the role of a sovereign and godlike force. In all these cases, exchange is the manifestation and introduction of a kind of division of labour in the commodity and capitalist economy. It is as if the fact that within the general flow of circulation or cycle of industrial capital, a part of the social capital of each society or a part of the total world capital, in the form of commercial capital, leaves the apparent and direct form of industrial or productive capital and is determined in the personality of the merchant, seller or large and small commercial enterprises.
Exchange, market and money are inseparable components of capitalist relations. Their existence is evidence of the existence of the relationship between capital and capitalist relations. They are a sign of the functioning and expression of the law of value in the field of economy and social life. The real concept of market and exchange and their various forms of existence can only be well understood by sufficiently reflecting on the nature of the commodity economy in general and capitalist economics in particular. As long as the relation of buying and selling of labour power prevails in a society, the economic transaction prevailing there is necessarily a certain moment of the movement of capital. The fact that this exchange takes place between what individuals, organizations, or institutions plays no role in determining or changing the dominant character of production in society, that is, the capitalist mode of production. The mere existence of wage labour in society is clear evidence of the existence and persistence of all the consequences of the capital relation, including exchange as one of these fundamental consequences.
Regarding the internal connection between the mode of production and exchange, Marx notes: “However, our conclusion is not that production, distribution, exchange and consumption are nothing more than one thing, but that all these constitute parts of a whole or distinct aspects of a single category.” (Grundrisse) Considering all these points, the elimination of exchange, the market and money is a necessary condition for the socialist transformation of the economy and the elimination of wage labour. Some Western “Marxists”, especially in the years after the collapse of the Soviet camp, have tried to reconcile socialism with the market in some way. They usually put forward issues such as: The market and capital are not the same thing!! Socialism is not an alternative to the market!! Capitalism can disappear, but the market continues to exist!! They have evaluated the market phenomenon as a completely separate and independent category from capitalist production. In this regard, they have considered the existence of the market in the economy that they interpret as socialism, as a natural and necessary thing! They go beyond this limit and basically consider socialism without market and exchange as a kind of dictatorial economic and political centralism that is opposed to constructivism!! And then they introduce the former Soviet Union as the embodiment of this socialism!! The analyses and insights of these thinkers more than anything else bring to mind this famous Persian proverb that once a merchant asked his friend: “Were Khassan and Khosin all three daughters of Muawiyah?” The man replied: “No Khassan, Hassan. No Khosin, Hussein. No all three, both. No daughters, sons. No Mukhawiyah, Muawiyah, and finally, they were not the daughters of Muawiyah, but the sons of Ali!!
The same example applies to the perception and reasoning of the aforementioned thinkers about socialism and capitalism. First, capitalism was not and is not meant to be defined by the market. What determines the subject matter of this mode of production is the relationship of buying and selling labour power. Second: The market and exchange, while not determining the basis of capitalist production, are an inseparable part of it. Third: The former Soviet Union was a fully capitalist society, not a socialist one. Fourth: In the Soviet Union, the relationship of buying and selling labour power prevailed and there was an exchange of products between different sectors of the economy. Money also played its usual and conventional role as the standard and means of this exchange, whether in the relationship between labour and capital or in the transactions between different sectors of social capital. Fifth: If the market and exchange prevail in society, then naturally this market and exchange are aimed at exchanging goods with each other, including the exchange of labour power with capital, and in this case, there is no talk of socialism. Sixth: The dictatorial centralism of economic and political origin in the Soviet camp was a centralized dictatorship of state capitalism and had no connection with socialism. Seventh and finally, socialism is defined not by centralized planning, but by the elimination of wage labour, classes, the capitalist division of labour, the elimination of the state above society, and the establishment of a labour organization corresponding to the direct, equal, free, pervasive, and council participation of individual citizens in the planning and implementation of production, service, welfare, civil, and social activities.
In a socialist economic system, there will be no trace of exchange, money, or buying and selling at any level except in external dealings with capitalist societies that may exist. We said earlier in the section on distribution that in socialism no one or no institution exchanges anything with any other person or institution, and no monetary standard or index is present in the social life of people. There we gave the example of everyone sitting at a table. Here we repeat the same example because of its relevance. Not only does no human being exchange his labour power for anything and on the basis of any index, but he also does not trade the product of his labour with the product of the labour of any other person or organization. It is absolutely not the case that the output of the workers of automobile factory A is calculated with a certain economic indicator such as money or anything else and then they are allowed to receive the same amount of goods from, for example, the product of clothing factory B or wheat and corn of agriculture and industry C or store D!! The socialist council organization, just as it plans social work and production, also takes on the task of distributing the necessities of life and welfare.
Here, people do not exchange bread, rice, and their freezers for televisions, meat, and peas, nor do they naturally have any need for any economic criteria or indicators in their relationships with each other. Everyone sits at exactly the same table and consumes what they have all produced or provided with their own work, equally and based on their needs. More importantly, everyone thinks, ponders, and approves what is and is not produced in their work and council life routines, and determines the distribution of work and the resulting product in the same way based on direct and equal council involvement. The general lines of the councils’ work to eliminate any exchange, market, or monetary transaction can be depicted as follows:
1.Kindergartens, preschools, and all necessary centres for the supervision and care of children are made available to everyone throughout society without any conditions or requirements and without the need for any payment or accounting. These centres will be established and managed by the councils everywhere, from the largest cities to the most remote areas, based on a single standard and with equal facilities and conditions. No child anywhere in the country is without a kindergarten, and no mother or father will have any economic negotiations regarding their child’s use of these centres. For example, at what age will a child start kindergarten? What will be the level of welfare, entertainment, and educational facilities in kindergartens? Or any other issue of this kind, will be determined by the councils in proportion to the level of production, welfare facilities, and volunteer work available.
2. Education at all levels, from primary school to the last years of university, will be made available to citizens in a completely equal and homogeneous manner, without any economic exchange. The quantity and quality of education, the content of education, the amount of educational facilities, the building and space of schools, the ratio of students to teachers in each school, and many other similar matters will all be matters of the current affairs of the Basic Council and communal councils, and ultimately of the general congress of councils. As far as the rules and principles of the socialist work organization are concerned, the development of these facilities to the maximum possible capacity on the one hand, and their completely equal distribution among all members of society on the other, are the determining factors. Here, only the limitations and bottlenecks of production, the existing capacity of services and general welfare, and the socialist regulation of the relationship between the current and long-term plans of society can affect the amount and nature of facilities in each field.
3- Hospitals, treatment centres, pharmacies, and medical control and surveillance institutions, with all their facilities, equipment, and capacity, will be made available to all citizens without any economic considerations.
4. Care centres for the disabled, the elderly, and the disabled throughout the community are used with all facilities without any economic gain or loss by those who need such services.
5. Facilities for radio, television, newspapers, the Internet, book printing and publishing, entertainment and sports, laundries, restaurants, gyms, swimming pools, cinemas, theatres, meeting and lecture halls, libraries, clubs, and all other services, travel tours near and far, etc. are available to everyone in sufficient quantities and to the extent of the production and work capacity of the community, and their use does not require any economic transaction in any way or under any circumstances.
6. Means of transportation such as buses, trains, subways, and trams are for the use of all citizens, regardless of any type of monetary transaction or the need to present a card. Regardless of public transportation, residents of every residential complex in every part of the community are allocated cars to be used when necessary. In all these cases, what can cause a shortage of these facilities is simply the existing productive capacity of the entire community. Something that must be constantly developed until the needs of citizens are fully met.
7. Housing is built in compliance with all welfare standards and on the basis of complete equality for all citizens of the community. There will be no bargaining in this regard either. The repair and renovation of residential units or public places is part of the work program of the councils. The residence of citizens is neither based on any private property nor requires any personal economic exchange. Water, electricity, telephone and all social facilities related to the place of residence of a person or public centres are used by the residents in exactly this context.
8. Finally, in each neighbourhood or each residential area, centres will be established for the distribution of public food, household goods and living necessities. These centres, which are naturally managed by the councils, will provide the citizens with the food, clothing and consumer goods needed based on the overall planning of the councils and based on the level of need of each citizen. Here too, there is no trace of money or financial exchange.
In the analysis of economic or social relations within the socialist council organization of labour, there is perhaps no need to explain these details. But the struggle of left circles with the concrete presentation and explanation of socialism as a definite economic and social order, the widespread bourgeois distortions of socialism, and the efforts of various reformist tendencies inside and outside the labour movement to make it impossible to establish socialism abolishing wage labour, necessitate the need to present the above points.
What determines the basis of the discussion in this regard is the explanation of the estrangement and naked contradiction between socialism and the market, or socialism and any kind of exchange of labour power or the product of labour. The socialist council organization of labour programs the voluntary labour of citizens. This voluntary labour is not sold or bought, and no equivalent is paid for its consumption by citizens. There is no such thing as wages or salaries in socialism. The citizen of a socialist society receives a living and social share corresponding to the satisfaction of all his needs from the society’s resources. From food, clothing, buses, housing and household goods to schools, hospitals, doctors, travel tours, physical education and public entertainment, everything is distributed without any exchange.
The abolition of the purchase and sale of labour power in society, that is, the most characteristic component of socialism, has an internal and close relationship with the abolition of exchange and market relations. If labour power is not to be bought and sold, this power must lose any kind of commodity character, there must be no talk of wages and monetary indices. In other words, there must be no commodity calculation between the work a citizen does and what he receives from society. The logic of work for each citizen is this: I work voluntarily and based on my own judgment and desire, because I am a member of the socialist labour organization, based on all the planning and decisions that I have directly and with equal status participated in or made, I voluntarily do this amount of work, and finally, as a member of the socialist family, I receive from society everything I need. Here there is no exchange in the process of labour, production, and consumption.
A reference to the relations between socialist society and capitalist societies, as long as these societies exist, is also necessary. It is clear that the working class cannot isolate itself from the capitalist world by defeating the bourgeoisie in a country and by simply transforming the economy in that country into a socialist one. Economic interaction with capitalist societies is inevitable. In the realm of this economic interaction, the socialist labour council organization is inevitably confronted with the presence and influence of the “law of value.” The important question is what fate awaits the working class in the process of carrying out these interactions and what influence does it accept from the capitalist market and the exchange of goods with this market? This exchange will certainly have a serious impact on the internal relations of the socialist labour organization. The degree of this influence can be greater or less depending on factors such as the type and volume of imports and exports or the ratio between the productive capacity of labour in socialist society and the capitalist societies of the trading parties. If a socialist country imports more and exports less, if this society is at a lower level of industrial and technical development, if labour productivity in it is lower than in capitalist societies, then a significant part of the work done by citizens will certainly be converted into additional labour for international capital. Otherwise, that is, if it is at a higher level of technology and industrial development or if the productivity of labour in it is higher than in capitalist societies, it will, on the contrary, absorb a part of the surplus value resulting from the surplus labour of the proletariat of those societies. In any case, the whole of this exchange is under the control of the law of value and the law of the formation of the general rate of profit of capital, and the giving and taking of the socialist society will be subject to the operation of these laws. In this regard, the following points are worth considering.
1. The more socialism triumphs in a wider part of the world and the socialist organization of labour is established in more societies, the less will the proletariat of socialist societies be affected by the law of value and the laws of movement and the general rate of profit of world capital.
2. The more industrialized and developed the countries in which socialism is established are, and the more self-sufficient they are in the production of their own necessities of life and well-being, the less naturally they will be affected by the economies of the capitalist world, and conversely their influence on the capitalist market will be deeper and wider.
3. In all these cases, the exchange between the socialist society and the capitalist countries will have no effect on the nature of socialist relations within the socialist society itself. Whether the citizens of this society as a whole and as a coherent whole are or are not subjected to the pressure of international capital, whether a part of their work is converted into surplus labour for world capital or, conversely, a part of the surplus labour of the working class of other societies is absorbed into their labour organization, whether the scope of this influence and influence is greater or lesser, none of this shakes or impairs the socialist basis of the relations existing between the citizens of a socialist country. In all these cases, socialist society is exactly like a family that lacks within itself the relationship of buying and selling labour power or the exchange and dealing of commodities, but the whole family is in interaction and exchange with the capitalist market. Whatever the form of exchange in this society with the capitalist market, as long as there is no relationship of buying and selling labour power in this society, as long as everyone voluntarily participates in production, work, and collective activity, as long as all members of society have an equal, direct, free, informed, and consultative role in planning the production and consumption of social labour, as long as the exchange of goods within society is irrelevant and everyone uses what they produce equally to meet their own needs, as long as this is the case, we are faced with a socialist economic and civil order.