Synthesis of German-Dutch communist and communization ideas – Amigos do Comunismo de Conselhos


Synthesis of German-Dutch communist ideas (Pannekoek, Rühle, Gorter) and communization ideas

In my opinion, the future emancipation of humanity and the proletariat passes through a synthesis of German-Dutch communist ideas (Pannekoek, Rühle, Gorter) and communization ideas. And I think there is a certain social truth in both currents.

I do not mean to say that theory is anything more important than the self-organization of the proletariat. Nevertheless, to the extent that theory is needed at all, we can discuss it.


Social revolution requires solid organization in the form of autonomous regular (or frequent) proletarian assemblies/councils in factories and territories. The denial or underestimation of this idea by some proponents of communization is a mistake. The destruction of exploitation and alienation means that decisions are made by the people with their active participation. Yes, all people will not always participate in every decision, yes, they can make mistakes, yes, the assemblies/councils can make reformist decisions, and so supporters of the new society must criticize mistakes (without substituting themselves for the power of the assemblies of producers). But nevertheless, the vast majority of workers must participate in making key decisions. If basic decisions about what, how, and for what to produce, as well as decisions about peace and war, or about the quality of development directions, are made by a small minority, this would mean that the minority controls the product produced by all, and this is exploitation.

In addition, the management of modern society is a complex process. Any modern technology requires a concentrated and organized effort. Even if you don’t like nuclear power plants, you can’t cancel energy production, solar panels and wind turbines, hydroelectric power plants and metal casting, and you can’t just turn off a city’s water supply. In order to manage complex processes, people need to get together, think about it and make complex decisions. That kind of work requires a solid organization.

There is another important point I would like to draw your attention to. As far as I could understand, proponents of communization say that if commodity production is destroyed, this will ensure the transition to a communist humanity, to a world without exploitation or state, and that’s why the form of the new organization of society is not so important and will not necessarily take the form of assemblies\councils. This assertion is unproven. Does the destruction of commodity production automatically lead to communism? Where does it follow from?

There have been systems of exploitation in human history that were not based on commodity production, not only medieval Europe, but also the ancient systems of Mycenae or the Indian castes, or the Chinese Tai-ping system based on state redistribution of material and other things. These systems were exploitative but not a capitalist. In contrast to capitalism, commodity production played a secondary role there.


However, the ideas of Pannekoek and Gorter’s supporters, (council communism), can also be criticized. Here is a typical idea of many of them:

“For this workers’ self-government, the measure of the social average working hour is an indispensable means that replaces money and capital and puts an end to wage labor by establishing a direct link between labor and consumption transparent to all.”

Why do people need any kind of certification saying they have worked n-hours? To do what?   To exchange that piece of paper for food and clothing? Seriously? That’s what the communization advocates are attacking.

The idea of preserving private consumption under communism is harmful. Private consumption itself is a product of class-exploitative societies. In the early communist community in which mankind lived for thousands of years, people not only hunted and gathered fruits and herbs together, but cooked food together, raised children together, and if someone needed help, the whole helped him. I see no reason at all to speak of private consumption.

But I also want to point out something else. The fact is that there is no such thing as “average labor time”. This concept is a mistake from the point of view of economic science. Yes, Marx once put forward the notion that there is some sort of average working time. Not everything Marx said is correct. This hypothesis was refuted by Mises. The working hours of a mechanical engineer, a turner, a nuclear power plant operator, and a cook are not identical. They are qualitatively different processes, requiring different expenditures of mental and physical energy, not to mention different expenditures of social resources. These things cannot be equated in any way, it is like comparing black and wood.

But what if we try to organize production based on some kind of indicator like the average working time, common to all types of labor? Well… production based on a delusional fiction would turn into chaos. It would produce too few things useful to society (there would be shortages) and too many useless things that would take up space in warehouses, because no one would know how many hamburgers we really need for Dining Hall 8 or how much metal and energy we need to produce for Machine Plant 9. First there will be lines a mile long for everything we need, and then later the economy will collapse.

Even under early communism there would be no universal average working time. Because even then there will be turners, power plant operators, metal casting specialists, and artist-designers who will design all these objects. In principle, one person can master several complex professions in the course of his life. My friend a very talented woman is a philosopher by her university education, at the same time she was trained as a psychoanalyst and is doing this work today, but at the same time she is an excellent cook (so much so that she could work as a cook in a restaurant), and in addition she now wants to learn some kind of worker’s profession. Maybe in the future she will be able to work several hours at two or even three places.

Maybe some professions will merge together over time and jump to more intellectual jobs.

However, this does not invalidate Mizer’s idea in any way. Even if these things are realized, nothing changes; qualitatively different jobs mean different quality of working time. And this means that even under these conditions there would be no average working time.

(Being different does not mean being good and bad. The idea that labor is qualitatively different does not mean that one is worse than the other.)

So Pannekoek and Gorter’s ideas are good for many things, but they just used an idea that has been rejected by science (I’m talking about average working hours).


Even modern capitalism in some countries offers people such a thing as a basic income. This means that everyone can get a fairly high standard of living by the standards of the modern world, enough for comfortable housing, quality clothing, medicine and good food. Even the small Israeli cooperatives, the kibbutz, do this. A communist society would have to do this too. And if it is not even capable of what individual cooperatives or capitalism in some countries can do, then communist society in general is crap not capable of giving what capitalism in several developed countries gives. But I don’t think communism is crap.

Of course, I’m talking about communist production aimed at meeting broad basic needs, not cash payments. And of course under communism, even early communism, the distance between production and consumption must be erased. For example, as suggested by some Russian socialist currents, which said that the Soviets would plan the economy by means of arrangements between producer and consumer associations.

Producer associations and consumer associations send their delegates to the local council. There they jointly plan a relatively small local production designed to meet the needs of the local population. At the same time, large enterprises created by the joint efforts of local councils produce the necessary amount of metal and provide the function of public transport etc. for all. Something similar was proposed, for example, by the left SR.

3 Comentários

  1. Não quero alargar muito o meu comentário e complicá-lo desnecessariamente, por isso limito-me ao seguinte parágrafo dos ‘Amigos do Comunismo de Conselhos’, quem mais abaixo trato simplesmente como “Amigo” por uma questão de brevidade.

    “Mas também quero ressaltar algo mais. É um fato que não existe o “tempo médio de trabalho”. Este conceito é um erro do ponto de vista da ciência econômica. Sim, Marx uma vez apresentou a noção de que existe algum tipo de tempo médio de trabalho. Nem tudo o que Marx disse é correto. Esta hipótese foi refutada por Mises. As horas de trabalho de um engenheiro mecânico, um torneiro, um operador de usina nuclear e um cozinheiro não são idênticas. São processos qualitativamente diferentes, exigindo gastos diferentes de energia intellectual e física, sem mencionar os gastos diferentes de recursos sociais. Estas coisas não podem ser equiparadas de forma alguma, é como comparar o preto com a madeira.´´

    Está bem claro que este “Amigo” não conhece a obra do GIC, “Os Princípios Fundamentais da Produção e Distribuição Comunista”. Pois aí também Ludwig Mises – junto com Max Weber – são citados como economistas burgueses que mostraram que o comunismo russo era economicamente insustentável. Estavam certos e o GIC explica por quê (Capítulo 4 C “A crítica burguesa do cartel geral”):

    “Quando […] a queda do capitalismo parecia iminente e o comunismo parecia conquistar o mundo de assalto, os economistas burgueses liderados por Max Weber e Ludwig Mises começaram as suas críticas ao comunismo. Naturalmente o alvo era em primeiro lugar e acima de tudo, o “cartel geral” de Hilferding, ou seja, o comunismo russo. As suas críticas culminaram na demonstração de que uma economia sem um método de contabilidade, sem um denominador geral para medir o valor dos produtos, é impossível.
    Weber e Mises ganharam a batalha: o comunismo [russo] foi derrotado. Agora, porém, ainda tinham de lidar com Marx e Engels, porque esses nunca participaram na loucura de uma produção sem unidade de conta, mas estabeleceram a hora de trabalho como unidade de medida.´´

    Em outras palavras, o “Amigo” não entendeu a essência da crítica de Mises. Ele acredita que Mises argumentaria que um “tempo médio de trabalho” não existe. Mas isso seria uma tolice matemática. Naturalmente, o tempo médio de trabalho existe, porque você pode facilmente calculá-lo. Para calcular o tempo médio de trabalho de um determinado produto, digamos uma mesa de um determinado modelo, você soma todas as horas trabalhadas em todas as mesas deste modelo, suas matérias primas, seu transporte e tudo o resto para depois dividir essa soma pelo número de mesas. Assim surge o tempo médio de trabalho dessas mesas. Mesmo um matemático altamente qualificado não pode negar que este tempo médio de trabalho realmente existe.

    O que Ludwig Mises afirma é algo bem diferente. Ele diz que você não deve somar todas as horas de trabalho porque elas são qualitativamente diferentes. Então por que você não deveria? Do economista burguês Mises, isto é fácil de entender. Não pode ser o caso, ele acredita, que uma hora de trabalho do diretor da fábrica de mesas valha tanto quanto uma hora de trabalho do limpador que varre as aparas de madeira do chão. Certamente seria risível (sério?) se aquele diretor na loja pudesse receber tanto por suas horas de trabalho quanto o varredor de aparas recebe por as horas dele. Não, acreditam os economistas burgueses, a economia ficaria completamente atolada, porque os limpadores poderiam ficar tão ricos quanto os diretores de fábrica.

    Isso é, segundo “Amigo”, um engano de Karl Marx, que ele assume que todas as pessoas tem igual valor independentemente da sua qualificação, ou do número de subordinados que comanda, ou qualquer outra diferença qualitativa. Chamar isso um engano de Marx, parece-me um pouco parvo porque equivale dizer que numa coisa essencial o comunismo está enganado. Mas, por outro lado, é muito simpático da parte deste “Amigo” tentar me consolar dizendo que não sou pior do que os outros, mesmo valendo menos do que as pessoas “mais qualificadas”.

    Sobre este tipo de “amigos do comunismo”, o GIC diz o seguinte: (Capítulo 7 E “A reprodução da força de trabalho”)

    “Assim, concluímos que para este tipo de comunistas em princípio o pagamento diferente dos diferentes tipos de trabalho, é considerado correto, até mesmo pagamento diferente das diferenças individuais dentro do mesmo tipo de trabalho. Por outras palavras, segundo eles, mesmo no comunismo, “a luta pela melhoria das condições de trabalho” não cessou, a distribuição do produto social tem um caráter antagônico e a luta pela distribuição do produto continua. Esta luta é uma luta de poder e será travada como tal.

    Com certeza, não se pode demonstrar melhor que estes cavalheiros não podem imaginar uma sociedade sem classe operária dominada. Para eles, as pessoas são apenas objetos. […] A classe trabalhadora deve lutar com a maior energia contra tal visão e exigir uma parte igual da riqueza social para todos.´´

    Em outras palavras: Com este tipo de “amigos”, o comunismo de conselhos já não precisa de inimigos.

    Assim como Aristóteles acreditava que sem escravidão nenhuma economia era possível, nosso pseudo-amigo acredita que nenhuma economia seria possível sem trabalho assalariado e diferenças salariais. Para melhor entender este engano, ele mesmo deve estudar Os Princípios Fundamentais em sua totalidade, mas o problema resume-se (muito concisamente) ao seguinte:

    O capitalismo é um sistema onde os indivíduos competem uns contra os outros pela subsistência, um sistema com muitos perdedores e poucos vencedores. No capitalismo, a qualificação do trabalhador é uma questão individual. Se ele ou ela tiver pais ricos, isso vai funcionar bem, mas então ele e ela vão querer ser recompensados extra por isso mais tarde em seu trabalho. O capitalismo se manterá enquanto os vencedores conseguirem fazer os perdedores acreditar que é assim que as coisas são, todos estão lutando por si mesmos e nem todos podem ganhar.

    O comunismo é um sistema que assume que há o suficiente para todos, mas que é preciso a cooperação de todos para viabilizar isso. No comunismo, a educação, assim como a saúde, é uma questão de coletividade, de sociedade. Portanto, será gratuito para todos e ninguém poderá derivar o direito de ganhar mais por hora de trabalho do que outro.

    Os Princípios Fundamentais observa, a este respeito, que esta economia certamente ainda não é ideal. Desde que o tempo de trabalho seja a medida do consumo, cada trabalhador “através de seu trabalho determina simultaneamente sua participação nos estoques de bens de consumo da sociedade”. (Veja capítulo 9 i. Distribuição “justa”?)

    “Isto é por vezes muito erradamente interpretado como uma distribuição “justa” do produto social. E isto é correto, na medida em que ninguém pode ganhar a vida sem fazer nada, como os acionistas recolhendo dividendos. Mas com isso a justiça é exaurida. À primeira vista, parece muito justo que todas as diferenças salariais são abolidas e que todas as funções na vida social, tanto do trabalho manual como do trabalho intelectual, dão igual direito aos estoques sociais. Mas numa análise mais atenta, este direito igual funciona de forma muito injusta.

    Vejamos dois trabalhadores, ambos dando o seu melhor à sociedade. Mas um é solteiro, enquanto o outro tem uma família de cinco filhos. Outro ainda é casado, enquanto ambos, marido e mulher, trabalham, de forma que eles têm um “duplo” rendimento. Por outras palavras, o igual direito aos estoques sociais se torna uma grande injustiça no consumo prático.

    Assim, a distribuição de bens com o padrão do tempo de trabalho nunca pode vir da justiça. O padrão do tempo de trabalho traz consigo as mesmas imperfeições como qualquer outro padrão. Por outras palavras: não existe um padrão justo e nunca poderá existir. Qualquer que seja o padrão escolhido, terá de ser sempre injusto. Pois, usar um padrão significa ignorar as diferenças individuais nas necessidades. Um indivíduo tem poucas necessidades, outro tem muitas. Um pode assim satisfazer ricamente todas as suas necessidades com os seus certificados ao estoque social, enquanto outro tem de negar a si próprio todo o tipo de coisas. Dão todo o seu potencial à sociedade, e contudo o primeiro consegue satisfazer suas necessidades e o segundo não.

    Esta é a imperfeição inerente a todas as unidades de medida. O estabelecimento de uma medida de consumo torna-se assim a própria expressão da disparidade do consumo.

    A exigência por direitos iguais aos estoques sociais não tem, portanto, nada a ver com justiça. É, assim, uma exigência política por excelência, que nós fazemos enquanto trabalhadores assalariados. Para nós, a supressão do trabalho assalariado é o ponto crucial da revolução proletária. Enquanto o trabalho não for a medida do consumo, há “salários”, sejam eles altos ou baixos. Em todo caso falta uma relação direta entre a riqueza dos bens produzidos e o salário. Por conseguinte, a gestão da produção, a distribuição dos bens e, portanto, também a mais-valia gerada devem ser encaminhados para “instâncias superiores”. Se o tempo de trabalho é a unidade de medida para o consumo individual, isto então implica nem mais nem menos, que o trabalho assalariado foi abolido, que não há produção de mais-valia, e que por conseguinte não se precisa de “instâncias superiores” para distribuir o “rendimento do povo”.

    A exigência de um direito igual aos estoques sociais não se baseia assim, de forma alguma, na “justiça” ou em qualquer tipo de avaliação moral. Baseia-se na convicção que só desta forma os assalariados podem manter o controle da vida comunista. É a partir da “injustiça” do direito igual que a sociedade comunista começa a se desenvolver.´´

    No comunismo completamente desenvolvido, o princípio de “tomar conforme a necessidade” será realizado. Como tal coisa – totalmente impensável no capitalismo – é economicamente possível, também é explicado em Os Princípios Fundamentais. Seria bom se os amigos e inimigos do comunismo, fizessem o melhor para entender estes fundamentos antes de tentar apontar falhas no comunismo de conselhos com todo tipo de idéias confusas.
    In order not to make my comments too long and not unnecessarily complicated, I limit myself to this paragraph of “Friends of Council Communism”, to whom I will further refer as “Friend” for practical purposes.

    “But I also want to point out something else. The fact is that there is no such thing as “average labor time”. This concept is a mistake from the point of view of economic science. Yes, Marx once put forward the notion that there is some sort of average working time. Not everything Marx said is correct. This hypothesis was refuted by Mises. The working hours of a mechanical engineer, a turner, a nuclear power plant operator, and a cook are not identical. They are qualitatively different processes, requiring different expenditures of mental and physical energy, not to mention different expenditures of social resources. These things cannot be equated in any way, it is like comparing black and wood.´´

    Well this “Friend” clearly has no knowledge of the work of the GIC, Fundamental Principles of Communist Production and Distribution. Because there too Ludwig Mises – along with Max Weber – are cited as bourgeois economists who showed that Russian communism was economically unsustainable. They were right, and the GIC explains why (Chapter 4 C “The bourgeois criticism of the “General Cartel”):

    “When it appeared that the downfall of capitalism had come within reach and communism seemed to conquer the world by storm, Max Weber and Ludwig Mises began their criticism of this communism, whereby of course first and foremost Hilferding’s “General Cartel”, that is Russian communism, had to suffer. Their criticism culminated in the demonstration that an economy is impossible without a method of accounting, without a general denominator to measure the value of the products.
    Weber and Mises had won the battle: [Russian] communism was defeated. But now they still had to deal with Marx and Engels, because they had never participated in the stupidity of a production without a unit of account, but had set the working time as a measure.´´

    In other words, “Friend” has misunderstood the essence of Mises criticism. He believes that Mises would be saying that an “average working time” does not exist. But that would be mathematical folly. Of course the average working time does exist, because you can easily calculate it. To calculate the average labor time of a certain product, say a table of a certain model, you add up all the hours worked on all the tables of this model, their raw materials, their transportation and so on, and then you divide that sum by the number of tables and voilá, that is the average labor time of those tables. Even a highly educated mathematician cannot deny that this average labor time actually exists.

    What Mises claims is something quite different. He says that you are not allowed to simply add up all hours because they are qualitatively different. Why should that be a problem? From bourgeois economist Mises, this is easy to understand. It cannot be the case, he believes, that an hour of work by the director of the table factory is worth as much as an hour of work by the cleaning lady who sweeps the wood shavings off the floor. Surely it would be laughable (seriously?) if that director at the store could get as much for his hours worked as the shavings sweeper gets for her hours. No, then the economy would completely crash, the bourgeois economists believe, because cleaners could get as rich as factory directors.

    So that, according to “Friend,” is a mistake by Karl Marx, that he assumes that all people are equally valuable whether or not they are highly educated, command many or few subordinates, or any other qualitative difference. I find the fact that “Friend” is calling this a mistake on Marx’s part, quite silly, because in doing so he is calling an essence of communism a mistake. But then again, it is very sympathetic of him to try to console me by saying that I am no worse than others even though I am of a lower value than “higher qualified people.”

    About these kinds of “friends of communism,” the GIC says: (Chapter 7 E “Reproduction of manpower”)

    “So, we note that for this kind of communists the different payment of the different kinds of work, even of the individual differences within the same kind of work is in principle considered right. But this means nothing other than that even in communism the “struggle for better working conditions” does not stop, that the distribution of the social product of production has an antagonistic character and that the struggle for the distribution of the product is continued. This struggle is and will be a struggle for power.

    Surely it cannot be demonstrated more clearly that these gentlemen cannot imagine a society in which the working class is not dominated. For them, people have simply become objects. […] The working class must fight with the greatest energy against such a view and demand the same share of social wealth for all.´´

    In other words: With this kind of “friends”, council communism no longer needs enemies.

    Just as Aristotle believed that without slavery no economy was possible, so does our pseudo-friend believe that economy without wage labor and wage differentials would not be possible. To understand this mistake he himself would have to study the Fundamental Principles in their entirety but (all too) briefly it boils down to the following:

    Capitalism is a system where individuals compete against each other for a livelihood, a system with many losers and few winners. In capitalism, the qualification of the worker is an individual matter. If he or she has rich parents, that will do just fine, but then he and she will want to be extra rewarded for this, later in their work. Capitalism will remain in place as long as the winners can make the losers believe that this is the way things are, everyone is fighting for themselves and not everyone can win.

    Communism is a system that assumes that there is enough for everyone but that cooperation is needed to make it possible for everyone. In communism, education, like health care, is a matter of collectivity, of society. So it will be free for all and no one will be able to derive the right to earn more per labor hour than someone else.

    The Fundamental Principles notes in this regard that this economy is certainly not yet ideal. As long as labor time is the measure of consumption, each worker “determines through his work at the same time his share in the social stock of consumer goods.” (See Fundamental Principles, chapter 9 i “Fair distribution?”)

    “This is sometimes misinterpreted as a “just” distribution of the social product. And no one can indeed eat with idleness, just as shareholders collect dividends. But here ends all justice in this interpretation. At first glance, it seems very fair that all wage differences should be eliminated and that all functions in social life, whether intellectual or manual, should be given equal rights to society’s wealth. On closer inspection, however, this equal right functions very unfairly.

    Take two workers, both of whom give their best to society. But one is unmarried, while the other has a family with five children. Another is married, while husband and wife both work, so they have ‘double’ income. In other words, the equal right to social wealth becomes a great injustice in practical consumption.

    The distribution of goods according to the measure of working time can, therefore, never be derived from equity. The same imperfections stick to the measure of working time as to any other measure. That is to say: there is no fair standard, and it can never exist. Whatever measure is chosen, it must always be unjust. Because using a measure means ignoring individual differences in needs. One has few needs, and the other has many. So, one can cover his needs with his assignments to the supplies, while the other has to deny himself all sorts of things. They give all their potential to society, yet one can satisfy his needs, and the other cannot.

    This is the imperfection that is inherent in every measure. The application of a measure of consumption thus becomes an expression of the inequality of consumption.

    The demand for equal rights to social wealth, therefore, has nothing to do with justice. Rather, it is a political demand par excellence that we, as wage earners, make. For us, the abolition of wage labor is the central point of the proletarian revolution. As long as labor is not the measure of consumption, as long as there is a “wage,” it may be high or low.

    In any case, there is no direct link between the wealth of the goods produced and this wage. Consequently, the management of production, the distribution of goods, and thus the surplus value created must be transferred to the “higher instances.” If working time is the measure of individual consumption, this means nothing other than that wage labor has been abolished, that there is no surplus value creation, and that therefore no “higher instances” are needed to distribute the “national income”.

    The claim to equal rights to social wealth is therefore in no way based on “justice” or any kind of moral evaluation. It is based on the conviction that this is the only way for workers to maintain control over operational life. It is on the “injustice” of equal rights that communist society begins to develop.´´

    In full-grown communism, the principle of “take what you need” will be realized. How such a thing – totally unthinkable in capitalism – is economically possible is also explained in the Fundamental Principles. It would be nice if both friends and enemies of communism, would first do their best to understand these fundamentals, before trying to point out mistakes in Council Communism with all sorts of muddled ideas.
    Om mijn commentaar niet te lang te maken en niet onnodig ingewikkeld, beperk ik mij tot deze alinea van “Vrienden van het Radencommunisme”, die ik voor het gemak verder zal aanduiden met “Vriend”.

    “Maar ik wil ook op iets anders wijzen. Het is een feit dat er niet zoiets bestaat als “gemiddelde arbeidstijd”. Dit concept is een vergissing vanuit het oogpunt van de economische wetenschap. Ja, Marx heeft ooit het idee geopperd dat er een soort gemiddelde arbeidstijd bestaat. Niet alles wat Marx zei is juist. Deze hypothese werd weerlegd door Mises. De werktijden van een werktuigbouwkundige, een draaier, een operator van een kerncentrale en een kok zijn niet identiek. Het zijn kwalitatief verschillende processen, die verschillende inspanningen vergen van intellectuele en lichamelijke energie, om nog maar te zwijgen van verschillende bijdragen van sociale middelen. Deze dingen kunnen op geen enkele manier gelijkgesteld worden, het is als het vergelijken van zwart en hout.´´

    Welnu deze “Vriend” heeft duidelijk geen kennis van het werk van de GIC, Grondbeginselen van de Communistische Productie en Distributie. Want ook daarin worden Ludwig Mises – samen met Max Weber – aangehaald als bourgeois economen die aantoonden dat het Russische communisme economisch onhoudbaar was. Zij hadden gelijk en de GIC legt uit waarom (hoofdstuk 4 C “De burgerlijke kritiek op het algemene kartel”):

    “Toen […] de ondergang van het kapitalisme nabij scheen en het communisme de wereld stormenderhand scheen te veroveren, begonnen de burgerlijke economen onder leiding van Max Weber en Ludwig Mises hun kritiek op het communisme, waarbij natuurlijk allereerst het Hilferdingse “algemene kartel”, dat is het Russische communisme, het ontgelden moest.
    Hun kritiek kwam hierop neer, dat ze op economische gronden aantoonden, dat een bedrijfsleven zonder verrekeningsmethode, zonder gemeenschappelijke noemer, waarop alle producten teruggebracht kunnen worden, onmogelijk is.
    Weber en Mises hadden de slag gewonnen: het [Russische] communisme was verslagen. Nu moesten ze echter nog met Marx en Engels afrekenen, omdat deze aan de dwaasheid van een productie zonder rekeneenheid nooit hadden meegedaan, maar het arbeidsuur als maatstaf hadden aangewezen.´´

    Met andere woorden, “Vriend” heeft de essentie van Mises kritiek niet goed begrepen. Hij meent dat Mises zou beweren dat een “gemiddelde arbeidstijd” niet bestaat. Maar dat zou wiskundige dwaasheid zijn. De gemiddelde arbeidstijd bestaat natuurlijk wel, want je kunt hem eenvoudig berekenen. Om de gemiddelde arbeidstijd van een bepaald product, bijvoorbeeld een tafel van een bepaald model, te berekenen, tel je alle uren op die aan alle tafels van dit model, hun grondstoffen, hun transport enzovoort gewerkt is en daarna deel je die som door het aantal tafels en voilá, dat is de gemiddelde arbeidstijd van die tafels. Zelfs een hoger opgeleide wiskundige kan niet ontkennen dat deze gemiddelde arbeidstijd daadwerkelijk bestaat.

    Wat Mises beweert is iets heel anders. Hij zegt dat je niet zomaar alle uren mag optellen omdat ze kwalitatief verschillen. Waarom zou dat een probleem zijn? Van bourgeois econoom Mises is dat goed te begrijpen. Het kan niet zo zijn, meent hij, dat een uur werk van de directeur van de tafelfabriek net zoveel waard is als een uur werk van de schoonmaakster die de houtkrullen van de grond veegt. Het zou toch lachwekkend zijn (echt waar?) dat die directeur in de winkel voor zijn gewerkte uren net zoveel kan krijgen als de krullenveegster voor haar uren. Nee, dan zou de economie helemaal vastlopen, zo menen de bourgeois economen, want schoonmakers zouden net zo rijk kunnen worden als fabrieksdirecteurs.

    Dat is dus volgens “Vriend” een vergissing van Karl Marx, dat hij ervan uitgaat dat alle mensen evenveel waard zijn of ze nu wel of niet hoog zijn opgeleid, het bevel voeren over veel of weinig ondergeschikten, of welk ander kwalitatief verschil dan ook. Dat “Vriend” dat een vergissing van Marx noemt, vind ik wel dom, want daarmee noemt hij een essentie van het communisme een vergissing. Maar het is dan wel weer erg sympathiek van hem dat hij mij probeert te troosten met te zeggen dat ik niet slechter ben dan anderen ook al ben ik minder waard dan “hoger gekwalificeerden”.

    Over dit soort “vrienden van het communisme” zegt de GIC: (hoofdstuk 7 E “De reproductie van de arbeidskracht”)

    “We stellen dus vast, dat voor dit soort communisten het in principe juist is, dat verschillende soort van arbeid, ja, zelfs de individuele verschillen binnen dezelfde soort van arbeid verschillend worden betaald. Dat komt hierop neer, dat bij hen ook in het communisme “de strijd voor verbetering van de arbeidsvoorwaarden” niet opgehouden heeft, dat de verdeling van het maatschappelijk product een antagonistisch karakter draagt, dat de strijd om de verdeling van het product wordt voortgezet. Deze strijd is een machtsstrijd en zal ook als zodanig worden gevoerd.
    Zeker kan niet duidelijker gedemonstreerd worden, dat deze heren zich geen samenleving kunnen denken, waarin de arbeidersklasse niet wordt beheerst. De mensen zijn voor hen gewoon tot voorwerpen geworden. […] De arbeidersklasse moet met de grootste kracht tegen een dergelijk standpunt opkomen en voor allen een gelijk deel van de maatschappelijke rijkdom opeisen.´´

    Met andere woorden: Met dit soort “vrienden” heeft het radencommunisme geen vijanden meer nodig.

    Zoals Aristoteles meende dat zonder slavernij geen economie mogelijk was, zo meent onze pseudo-vriend dat economie zonder loonarbeid en loonverschillen niet mogelijk zou zijn. Om deze vergissing te begrijpen zou hij zelf de Grondbeginselen in hun geheel moeten bestuderen maar (al te) kort samengevat gaat het om het volgende:

    Het kapitalisme is een systeem waar individuen tegen elkaar strijden om het bestaan, een systeem met veel verliezers en weinig winnaars. In het kapitalisme is de kwalificatie van de arbeider een individuele zaak. Als hij of zij rijke ouders heeft, gaat dat prima lukken, maar dan zullen hij en zij daar later in hun werk ook extra voor beloond willen worden. Het kapitalisme blijft in stand zolang de winnaars de verliezers kunnen doen geloven dat het nu eenmaal niet anders kan, iedereen vecht voor zichzelf en niet iedereen kan winnen.
    Het communisme is een systeem dat er vanuit gaat dat er genoeg is voor iedereen maar dat samenwerking nodig is om dat voor iedereen mogelijk te maken. In het communisme is onderwijs, net als gezondheidszorg een zaak van de gezamelijkheid, van de maatschappij. Het zal dus voor iedereen gratis zijn en niemand zal er het recht aan kunnen ontlenen per arbeidsuur meer te verdienen dan een ander.

    De Grondbeginselen merkt daarbij op dat deze economie zeker nog niet ideaal is. Zolang de arbeidstijd de maatstaf voor de consumptie is, bepaalt iedere arbeider “door zijn arbeid tegelijk zijn aandeel in de maatschappelijke voorraden consumptiegoederen”. (Zie De Grondbeginselen, hoofdstuk 9 i “Rechtvaardige verdeling?”)

    “Zeer ten onrechte wordt dit wel eens als een “rechtvaardige” verdeling van het maatschappelijk product opgevat. En dat is dan in zoverre juist, dat niemand met nietsdoen aan de kost kan komen, zoals de couponnetjes-knippers. Maar daarmee is de rechtvaardigheid dan ook uitgeput. Op het eerste gezicht lijkt het zeer rechtvaardig, dat alle loonverschillen worden opgeheven en alle functies in het maatschappelijk leven, zowel van hoofd- als van handarbeid, dezelfde rechten geven op de maatschappelijke voorraden. Maar bij nadere beschouwing werkt dit gelijke recht zeer onrechtvaardig.

    Neem twee arbeiders, die beiden hun beste krachten aan de maatschappij geven. Maar de een is ongetrouwd, terwijl de ander een gezin met vijf kinderen heeft. Weer een ander is gehuwd, terwijl man en vrouw beiden werken, zodat ze een “dubbel” inkomen hebben. Met andere woorden: het gelijke recht op de maatschappelijke voorraden wordt in de praktische consumptie tot groot onrecht.

    De verdeling van de goederen naar de maatstaf van de arbeidstijd kan dus nooit uit de rechtvaardigheid afgeleid worden. Aan de maatstaf van de arbeidstijd kleven dezelfde onvolkomenheden als aan iedere maatstaf. Dat wil zeggen: een rechtvaardige maatstaf bestaat niet en kan nooit bestaan. Welke maatstaf men ook kiest, ze zal altijd onrechtvaardig moeten zijn. En wel, omdat het gebruik van een maatstaf betekent het negeren van de individuele verschillen in de behoeften. De een heeft weinig behoeften, de ander veel. De een kan daardoor al zijn behoeften met zijn aanwijzingen op de voorraden rijkelijk bevredigen, de ander moet zich daarbij nog allerlei ontzeggen. Ze geven hun hele wezen aan de samenleving, en toch kan de een zijn behoeften wel bevredigen en de ander niet.

    Dit is de onvolkomenheid, die iedere maatstaf eigen is. Het aanleggen van een maatstaf bij de consumptie wordt daardoor juist de uitdrukking van de ongelijkmatigheid in de consumptie.

    De eis van gelijk recht op de maatschappelijke voorraden heeft dus niets te maken met rechtvaardigheid. Het is dan ook een politieke eis bij uitnemendheid, die we als loonarbeider stellen. Voor ons is de opheffing van de loonarbeid het centrale punt van de proletarische omwenteling. Zolang níet de arbeid de maatstaf voor de consumptie is, zolang is er een “loon”, het moge hoog of laag zijn. In ieder geval is er geen direct verband tussen de voortgebrachte goederenrijkdom en dit loon. Daarom moet de leiding van de productie, de verdeling van de goederen en daarmee tevens de voortgebrachte meerwaarde op “hogere instanties” overgaan. Is de arbeidstijd de maatstaf voor de individuele consumptie, dan wil dat niet anders zeggen, dan dat de loonarbeid is afgeschaft, dat er geen meerwaardevorming plaatsvindt en dat er dus geen “hogere instanties” nodig zijn, om “het volksinkomen” te verdelen.

    De eis van gelijk recht op de maatschappelijke voorraden steunt dus geenszins op de “rechtvaardigheid” of op enigerlei morele waardering. Het steunt op de overtuiging, dat alleen op deze wijze de loonarbeiders de zeggenschap over het bedrijfsleven kunnen houden. Op de “onrechtvaardigheid” van het gelijke recht begint de communistische maatschappij zich te ontwikkelen.´´

    In het volgroeide communisme zal het principe “nemen naar behoefte” verwezenlijkt zijn. Hoe zoiets – in het kapitalisme totaal ondenkbaar – economisch wel degelijk mogelijk is, ook dat wordt in De Grondbeginselen uitgelegd. Het zou mooi zijn wanneer vrienden én vijanden van het communisme, eerst hun best doen deze grondbeginselen te begrijpen, voordat ze met allerlei warrige ideeën proberen fouten in het Radencommunisme aan te wijzen.

  2. -Jan Freitas está certo em suas considerações.
    – O que foi defendido por “Amigos…” e por Michael Meer nas várias discussões que tive no Facebook (“Comunismo dos conselhos e autonomia de classe”) misturou a defesa de Mises e a de Gilles Dauvé, a quem critiquei em detalhes:
    o que nunca foi respondido.
    Nem “Amigos …” respondeu a isso.
    -Tivemos uma polêmica no Facebook.
    onde em 13 de julho de 2022 Michael Meer publicou o texto :
    Síntese de idéias comunistas germano-holandesas (Pannekuk, Rühle, Gorter) e idéias de comunização.

    As idéias comunistas germano-holandesas (Pannekuk, Rühle, Gorter) e as idéias de comunização: -Mises expressou a ideologia e interesses burgueses liberais e Dauvé os da pequena burguesia doutrinária da comunização.
    -O proletariado precisa da revolução mundial, que necessariamente constitui um período temporário de lutas e insurreições, que em caso de vitória abre um período de transição do capitalismo para o socialismo, uma sociedade sem classes e sem Estado, da qual o comunismo é seu período definitivo com uma situação de plena abundância material, ao contrário do socialismo, que ainda carrega a marca da sociedade capitalista da qual provém.
    Marx desenvolveu isto corretamente em seu “Critique of the Gout Programme”, onde a questão do cálculo do tempo de trabalho e as duas formas de acesso ao consumo em ambas as fases da sociedade sem classes de produtores livres e associados que geram valores de uso e serviços para a sociedade humana está bem definida e explicada.
    Assim, sem entender esta estrutura, a distorção dos vínculos trabalhistas e o uso do cálculo do tempo de trabalho socialmente desenvolvido é simplesmente à la carte, com as conseqüências perniciosas que isso implica para a luta de classes.
    Moisés negou tal possibilidade de cálculo, como os economistas burgueses liberais da Escola Austríaca ainda fazem, e o fez com os argumentos que Michael Meer tem usado repetidamente: não é alegadamente possível fazê-lo, é um erro supino de Karl Marx, não é possível incorporar mão-de-obra intelectual e altamente qualificada, muito menos fazê-lo no mesmo nível do proletariado manual… etc. Uma seqüência de álibis burgueses que têm uma função anti-revolucionária e anticlasse trabalhadora.
    Dauvé deu à crítica de Marx e do GIC seu toque particular distorcedor e mistificador. No link que forneci, deixei isso claro em detalhes.
    -O comunismo proletário e internacionalista precisa afundar suas raízes e metodologia na crítica adequada das relações capitalistas e na luta para erradicar e superar a divisão do trabalho (rural-urbano, manual-intelectual, fundamentalmente).
    Mises defende o capitalismo e sobre este ponto Michale Meer defende Mises.
    Dauvé, com seus meandros logorreicos tradicionais e seu oportunismo político sectário, distorce a necessidade que Marx reconhece, e nos oferece a doutrina de pequenos burgueses comungando claptrap.
    -No socialismo, as condições de abundância generalizada, sustentável e facilmente reproduzível ainda não foram alcançadas pelos próprios produtores organizados e conscientes, que não são mais o proletariado, nem precisam do Estado ou da política. A sociedade precisa conhecer o tempo de trabalho envolvido no que produz e distribui, assim como precisa conhecer a quantidade de energia e matérias-primas não energéticas de que necessita, sua possível reprodução e seus impactos ambientais e na saúde humana, assim até que a sociedade alcance o comunismo e com ele a abundância generalizada total, os produtores ainda não podem exercer um consumo não contingente pleno e recorrente. E para realizar tal contingência, para conhecer as limitações e possibilidades, o GIC, como Marx, acertou em suas teorizações:
    A sociedade tira do que é produzido por aqueles que trabalham uma série de porções que Marx, em sua crítica ao programa de Gohta, explica a que se destinam, e ao resto cada produtor tem acesso de acordo com os vínculos trabalhistas que credenciam o tempo de trabalho que ele forneceu à atividade material. Quando estas condições de limitação, de contingência, são superadas, tais vínculos não são mais necessários, mas ainda é necessário saber quanto tempo leva para produzir e reproduzir a vida material. Não é mais útil limitar o consumo, mas vale a pena saber e usar para saber se deve ser gasto mais ou menos tempo com tais produtos ou serviços, todos consomem de acordo com suas necessidades, a sociedade comunista sabe o que isso significa em termos de tempo de trabalho e, portanto, as decisões são tomadas.
    Tudo isso, como demonstrou o GIC, não pôde ser alcançado pelo capitalismo de estado defendido pelo bolchevismo e pela social-democracia, onde tal cálculo é impossível e as relações expressam a exploração capitalista e o domínio sobre a classe proletária.
    – A comunização e o chamado “marxismo auto-gerenciador” de Movaut, Nildo Viana e colegas, como o Bakuninismo anarquista, negam este período de transição, colocando assim o comunismo em um limbo mistificado do qual sonham os doutrinários simplistas e sectários… que logicamente fazem eco de outros que coincidem neste tipo de atitude… e sistematicamente evitam responder argumentativamente àqueles que os criticam.há inúmeros textos críticos em inter-rev nesta seção:

    bem como livros nas edições inter-revistas (dois em particular contra a ideologia comunista, e um sobre tempo de trabalho, socialismo, comunismo, Marx, Engels, o GIC, esquerdas comunistas, o desenvolvimento e as condições do capitalismo, etc.).

Faça um comentário

Seu e-mail não será publicado.