Hal Draper's "Rayukan Socialism Biyu" makala ce mai ban sha'awa, har ma shekaru da yawa bayan asalinsa. Yana da aibi, duk da haka, da cewa ba ya cika alkawari.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Marxism’s virtues include that it attunes us to important economics, explains ownership relations and profit-seeking, reveals many horrible effects of markets, and highlights class dynamics. But what about its problems that may contribute to so many Marxists finding themselves categorized by D
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
On the one hand, in orthodox variants, and in almost all its texts, the Labor Theory of Value misunderstands the determination of wages, prices, and profits in capitalist economies and turns
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
activists’ thoughts away from seeing how the dynamics of the workplace and market are largely functions of bargaining power and social control, categories that the labor theory of value largely ignores. Likewise, orthodox Marxist crisis theory, in all its variants, distorts understanding of capitalist economies and anti-capitalist prospects by often seeing intrinsic collapse where no such prospect exists and by often orienting activists away from the importance of their own organizing as a far more promising basis for change. But these ills too, one can imagine Marxists transcending, as indeed many have. So let’s assume these all away, as well.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
raper as being in the “from above” camp?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
On the one hand, in orthodox variants, and in almost all its texts, the Labor Theory of Value misunderstands the determination of wages, prices, and profits in capitalist economies and turns
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
activists’ thoughts away from seeing how the dynamics of the workplace and market are largely functions of bargaining power and social control, categories that the labor theory of value largely ignores. Likewise, orthodox Marxist crisis theory, in all its variants, distorts understanding of capitalist economies and anti-capitalist prospects by often seeing intrinsic collapse where no such prospect exists and by often orienting activists away from the importance of their own organizing as a far more promising basis for change. But these ills too, one can imagine Marxists transcending, as indeed many have. So let’s assume these all away, as well.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Marxism’s virtues include that it attunes us to important economics, explains ownership relations and profit-seeking, reveals many horrible effects of markets, and highlights class dynamics. But what about its problems that may contribute to so many Marxists finding themselves categorized by D
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
On the one hand, in orthodox variants, and in almost all its texts, the Labor Theory of Value misunderstands the determination of wages, prices, and profits in capitalist economies and turns
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
activists’ thoughts away from seeing how the dynamics of the workplace and market are largely functions of bargaining power and social control, categories that the labor theory of value largely ignores. Likewise, orthodox Marxist crisis theory, in all its variants, distorts understanding of capitalist economies and anti-capitalist prospects by often seeing intrinsic collapse where no such prospect exists and by often orienting activists away from the importance of their own organizing as a far more promising basis for change. But these ills too, one can imagine Marxists transcending, as indeed many have. So let’s assume these all away, as well.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
raper as being in the “from above” camp?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
On the one hand, in orthodox variants, and in almost all its texts, the Labor Theory of Value misunderstands the determination of wages, prices, and profits in capitalist economies and turns
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
activists’ thoughts away from seeing how the dynamics of the workplace and market are largely functions of bargaining power and social control, categories that the labor theory of value largely ignores. Likewise, orthodox Marxist crisis theory, in all its variants, distorts understanding of capitalist economies and anti-capitalist prospects by often seeing intrinsic collapse where no such prospect exists and by often orienting activists away from the importance of their own organizing as a far more promising basis for change. But these ills too, one can imagine Marxists transcending, as indeed many have. So let’s assume these all away, as well.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism rightly reveals that class differences can arise from differences in ownership relations.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Capitalists own means of production. Workers own only their labor power which they sell for a wage. The capitalist pursues profit by trying to extract as much work as possible at the least expenditure possible. The worker tries to expand wages, improve conditions, and work as short and little as possible. Class struggle.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
In other words, the heart of the problem that makes me reject Marxism and feel that it ought to have declining relevance among serious leftists seeking a new economy is that due to its underlying concepts and however innocently for a great many Marxist activists, Marxism’s economic goals amount to advocating a coordinator mode of production that elevates administrators, intellectual workers, planners, etc., to ruling status. This is why so many Marxists are advocates, in Draper’s terms, of a strategy that operate “from above.” Marxism seeks to elevate a class that is while under capitalism above workers, though below owners, to ruling status in a new economy. Marxism uses the label socialism, which is meant to imply people controlling their own economic lives, to0 label this goal, of course. But Marxism does not in fact structurally implement these ideals when it gains power to affect societal outcomes, nor does it
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
offer a vision that does so even as an ideal. The situation is analogous, Marx himself would surely point out, to how bourgeois movements use the label democratic to rally support from diverse sectors for their political forms, but do not structurally implement truly democratic ideals.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Draper ya lura cewa gurguzu alama ce mai ban mamaki wacce ta ƙunshi halaye uku. Na farko, tsarin gurguzu yana nufin masu ba da shawara ga gwamnatocin siyasa na kama-karya da tsare-tsare na tsakiya (ko kasuwanni) don rabo, da ƙungiyoyin wuraren aiki na kamfanoni - kamar yadda yake a Tarayyar Soviet, Sin, da sauransu. Na biyu, gurguzu kuma yana nufin kawancen dimokiradiyya na zamantakewa don inganta babban ɗan jari hujja. tsarin ta hanyar sa hannun gwamnati. Kuma na uku, zamantakewa yana nufin masu ba da shawara na kawar da azuzuwan don duk ma'aikata (da masu amfani) su sami damar shiga da kuma yanke shawara game da rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, maimakon mutane da yawa suna ƙarƙashin wasu kaɗan.
Draper draws his central divide over the word’s meaning as either advocating a process of change that derives from above or a process of change that derives from below. I think Draper’s typology is well motivated and in many respects quite insightful. But I also think it is insufficient. It says that the key issue is one’s strategy, but not the analysis that precedes one’s strategy or the goal that is sought via one’s strategy. But if we don’t think also about underlying concepts and overarching goals, how do we judge a strategy to even know whether it is “from above” or “from below,” beyond the utterly obvious indicators?
Draper is saying that he wants a true socialism and that any effort to attain it has to have structural commitments that melt into a new system that is participatory and self-managing. If the effort to attain change instead intrinsically subverts stated desires and melts into a new condition including a dominating ruling economic class and an authoritarian state, then our having espoused libertarian goals or having utilized insightful concepts will matter little. The proof will be in the pudding, and if the means are “from above” the pudding will be authoritarian, Draper warns.
Kuma kimantawa ita ce, wannan gaskiya ne, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. A gaskiya ma, fiye da kasancewa gaskiya kawai, gaskiya ce. Tabbas ya kasance idan hanyoyinmu sun kai ga mulkin kama-karya - a fannin tattalin arziki ko siyasa, ko kuma a wasu fagage - to kokarinmu zai haifar da sakamako mai iko. Idan ka sanya shi haka, ba shi da wahala sosai, a bayyane yake. Don haka, an faɗi haka, ya bayyana a sarari cewa ainihin babban aiki shine fahimtar wadanne hanyoyi ne, a zahiri, ke haifar da sakamako masu ƙarfi kuma waɗanne hanyoyi, akasin haka, za su haifar da masu 'yanci?
Don nuna mahimmancin wannan zurfafa neman, menene idan muka yi tunanin hanyoyinmu sun dace da burinmu na 'yanci da "daga ƙasa," kuma muna biye da su, amma mun ci gaba da samun sakamako mai iko? Mun yi tsammanin ayyukanmu sun yi daidai da manufar 'yantar da mu. Duk da haka, ya bayyana cewa a ƙarshe ba su kasance ba. Hukuncinmu bai yi kyau ba kamar yadda muke tunani.
Ko abin da idan muka yi a gaskiya da quite libertarian nufin, kamar yadda mafi kyau za mu iya gani da kuma bari mu ce za mu iya gani da Draper ko ma mafi kyau, amma duk da haka, kamar yadda muka samu ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu da kamfanoni, kasuwa, da jihar, da dai sauransu, kawai zabin da za mu iya dauka don tsara tattalin arziki da siyasa sun kawar da mu daga hanyar da muka yi niyya da kuma zuwa sabbin mukamai? Muna da hanyoyi masu kyau waɗanda ba su juyar da muradinmu ba, amma mun yanke shawara don mugun nufi ko ta yaya.
Batu na farko shi ne cewa bai isa a ce dole mu yi yaki daga kasa ba maimakon fada daga sama - ko kuma, mafi daidai, dole ne mu yi yaki da hanyoyi da tsari wanda ke haifar da sakamako mai 'yanci na gaske maimakon tare da hanyoyi da kungiyoyi waɗanda haifar da sabon salon mulkin siyasa da na aji. A'a, domin wannan koyarwar da ta dace ta sami ƙimar gaske, dole ne mu faɗi ma'anar koyarwar.
Kuma bai isa ba cewa muna da kyakkyawar fahimtar abin da koyarwar take nufi, kuma mun yi imani da shi, da kuma aiwatar da shi, idan har ya zama cewa yayin da muke samun ci gaba a cikin gwagwarmayar mu ba mu da masaniyar irin nau'in da za a yi. Gina daidai da sha'awoyinmu, don haka muna rashin jin daɗi komawa cikin tsoffin hanyoyin da suka saba wa sha'awarmu.
Draper ya ce "zuciyar gurguzanci daga kasa ita ce ra'ayinta cewa gurguzu za a iya samuwa ne kawai ta hanyar 'yantar da jama'a masu fafutuka a cikin motsi, suna neman 'yanci da hannayensu, sun tattara 'daga ƙasa' a cikin gwagwarmayar daukar nauyin alhakin. makomarsu, a matsayin 'yan wasan kwaikwayo ... a kan mataki na tarihi. "
To, yana da kyau, tabbas, amma tabbas a farkon matakai na aiki wasu mutane kaɗan za su kasance masu tada hankali sosai kuma su sani, yayin da ɗimbin yawan wasu za su yi ƙasa da haka, har ma fiye da haka ba za su kasance masu sane da siyasa ba ko kaɗan. . Dole ne 'yan kaɗan su yi aiki, dole ne su ɗauki yunƙuri, amma duk da haka kada su yi nasara a kan waɗanda suka shiga cikin lamarin daga baya. Ta yaya hakan zai faru? Don kawai a ce dole ne a nemi canji daga ƙasa ba daga sama ba babban kuka ne daga kwatanta ainihin tsarin da ya dace da koyarwar.
What’s more, as the initial organizing of small numbers of people inspires many others to become aroused, and then more and more people thereafter, and as these growing numbers of active dissenters begin manifesting their preferences to win changes that better their lives, and as they eventually gain sufficient weight to take over workplaces and communities, even establishing local organs of direct power, all done ”from below,” will this inevitably equate to a new world, with truly participatory control? It may, of course. It is necessary, of course. But what if markets are preserved and slowly but surely erode the euphoria of struggle against owners, then also causing reinstatement of hierarchies other than those based on property? Or what if the old form of workplace organization and divisions of labor are maintained, no other option being conceived, and that has a similar effect? In other words, does it follow that if a movement succeeds in structuring itself without undo hierarchies of power and income difference, then a new society built by that movement will have similar properties? That the movement needs to be “from below” is a necessary condition for a good new economy, yes, but it isn’t sufficient.
Draper is very concerned with the stated aspirations of various actors and movements and looks at the history of them in very interesting and revealing ways. There is no time to explore every nugget of reference he uncovers. When the quotes deny the rhetoric, it is particularly revealing. But when the quotes ratify rhetoric, while I don’t want to say that it is irrelevant, I would say that it is far less relevant than many people think. It doesn’t matter any more or less, I guess, that Marx says he wants the self-directed emancipation of workers than that Bill Clinton says he wants a maximum of liberty, justice, and equity. What does matter, instead of their laudatory and inspiring self-descriptions, is whether the frameworks of thought they offer and the choices of actions they settle on, match or deny – whether by error or by overt intention – their professed aims. Most actors, by and large, say that they want nice things. If we quote Marx saying he wants nice ends to prove that after all Marxism is about attaining nice ends, why not also quote Lenin, Trotsky, or even Stalin describing the nice things they desire, to prove that Leninism, Trotskyism, or even Stalinism are about attaining nice ends?
Draper doesn’t do the latter because he feels there is a schism between what these actors say they want, which is trumpeted in nice quotes that we could surely find, and what their concepts imply and what these individuals and their movements actually did in real history. The important evidence, Draper knows, is not the self descriptions, but the concepts and the aims proposed for others to relate to, as well as the structures advocated for people to work in. So if Draper wanted to look at Marx, or infinitely more importantly, at Marxism – or at Anarchism, or at Leninism, or what have you — he should have looked at such matters as their basic concepts and institutional allegiances, and not at a few catchy phrases, however inspiring.
Marx handed on to Lenin and his partners an intellectual framework of concepts for thinking about capitalism. It was certainly very powerful in a great many respects. No one who is sensible denies that. But did the set of concepts handed on under the label Marxism have problems that bear on discerning what is “movement from above” as compared to what is “movement from below” – once we give our commitment to the latter?
A sa daban, tushen zama “daga sama” ne kawai a cikin manufofin Lenin, Trotsky, da Stalin, don haka kafirta “Marxists” suka dora a kan Marxism a kan mahangar ciki na Marxism, kamar yadda Draper ya nuna, ko kuma akwai sifofi a cikin zuciyar ra'ayoyin Marxism waɗanda ba wai kawai ba su sokewa da kawar da sha'awar tsarawa daga sama ba, amma suna motsa su?
Likewise, are there flaws in the vision and analysis that has been called socialism that lead to adopting structures at odds with libertarian aspirations even by movements that do work from below? The Polish Solidarity movement, for example, was very much bottom up oriented, very committed to workers self management, yet wound up with elite rule by a few, and the recent Argentine movements, again very much struggles from below, lack clear aims for the economy and may for that reason fall back on failed models in lieu of options, as a result.
Don haka, ga sauran maƙalar nan, zan so in yi abubuwa guda biyu waɗanda nake ganin sun dace da manufar Draper, duk da cewa sun wuce abin da ya ce.
Na farko shi ne a kafa hujjar cewa binciken ajin Marxist yana da kurakurai kuma wannan shi ne tushen dalilin da ya sa duk tattalin arzikin da suka yi amfani da lakabin gurguzu don kansu ba su kawar da azuzuwan ba. Ina zargin rashin gazawa game da fagen siyasa kuma yana da aƙalla wasu tushe kuma suna fuskantar kaɗan idan akwai cikas a cikin ra'ayoyin Markisanci, amma ina so in haskaka fannin tattalin arziki, saboda nawa kaina kwarin gwiwa game da hakan.
Kuma na biyu, Ina so in ba da taƙaitaccen hoto na abin da Draper zai so a kira "ainihin zamantakewar zamantakewa," amma abin da nake so in kira tattalin arziki na shiga. Ina ba da shi a matsayin burin da ya cancanci ƙoƙari don kuma wanda zai iya kare ƙungiyoyinmu daga sake sanya dangantakar tattalin arziki mai ma'ana, ban da buƙatar su zama "daga ƙasa," kamar yadda Draper ya bukaci.
Na farko, mene ne al'amura na tunani?
Dabi'un Marxism sun haɗa da cewa yana daidaita mu ga muhimman tattalin arziki, yana bayyana dangantakar mallakar mallaka da neman riba, yana bayyana munanan illolin kasuwanni, kuma yana ba da haske game da yanayin aji. Amma menene game da matsalolinsa waɗanda zasu iya taimakawa ga yawancin Marxists suna samun kansu ta hanyar Draper kamar yadda suke cikin sansanin "daga sama"?
Akwai wasu matsalolin da suke da tsanani, amma ba su dace da dichotomy na Draper ba. Yarukan Marxist tunatarwa ce ta dabara don yin tunani cikakke da tarihi wanda sau da yawa, duk da haka, yana zubar da ƙirƙira da kewayon fahimta. Lokacin da “mutanen da suke wanzuwa na gaske” suka yi amfani da dabarun jari-hujja na tarihi gabaɗaya ba su da ƙima da rashin fahimtar dangantakar zamantakewar jinsi, siyasa, al'adu, asalin muhalli da shigo da su. Marxism kamar yadda masu yin aiki na gaske ke amfani da su, wato, yana ƙoƙarin yin karin gishiri a tsakiya na tattalin arziki, kuma yana ba da isasshen kulawa ga jinsi, launin fata, siyasa, da muhalli. Don shawo kan wannan rauni yana buƙatar canji sau biyu na yadda yawancin Markisanci suke gini da amfani da ra'ayinsu na duniya. Suna buƙatar shigar da:
That Marxism mainly conceptualizes economics, and that conceptualizations of the other mentioned realms offer equally central insights and moreover that influences from other domains can centrally contour economic relations, just as vice versa. That is, Marxists would need to jettison their base/superstructure conceptualization and instead highlight that gender, race, and political dynamics can impact economics just as powerfully as vice versa. Marxism would need to recognize both directions of causality, not exclusively or even primarily only causality from economics to the rest of society, and would have to refine many of its concepts accordingly. This type critique has in the past propelled feminists to create socialist feminism (to try to merge insights from gender-focused and class-focused analysis) and has led also to variants of anarcho-marxism, Marxist nationalism, and so on regarding other conceptual combinations…right up to frameworks that centrally address economics, polity, culture, and kinship all on a par.
Amma abin da ke sama ba shine matsalar Marxism da nake son bayyanawa a cikin wannan bahasin ba, ko kuma wacce nake ganin ita ce tsakiya ga 'yan Markisanci kasancewar, galibi, a bangaren "daga sama" na rubutun Draper. Lallai, a ce yawancin Markisanci sun rigaya ko ba da jimawa ba za su cimma wadatar abubuwan da ke sama da rarrabuwar kawunansu, kamar yadda wasu suka yi. Shin zan gamsu da irin wannan sabuntar Marxism?
Zan yi farin ciki game da shi, eh, amma a'a, ba zan gamsu da shi ba saboda ina tsammanin Marxism yana da matsala ta biyu, mafi muni da rashin iyawa. Wato, Marxism yana samun kuskuren tattalin arziki.
A gefe guda kuma, a cikin bambance-bambancen al'ada, kuma a kusan dukkanin nassoshi, Theory of Value Labour ta yi kuskuren fahimtar yadda ake tantance albashi, farashi, da ribar da ake samu a cikin tattalin arzikin jari-hujja kuma ta juya tunanin masu fafutuka daga ganin yadda yanayin aiki da kasuwa ke gudana. galibi ayyuka ne na ikon yin ciniki da kula da zamantakewar jama'a, nau'ikan da ka'idar aiki ta ƙima ta yi watsi da su. Hakazalika, ka'idar rikicin Marxist na orthodox, a cikin dukkan bambance-bambancenta, suna gurbata fahimtar tattalin arziƙin jari-hujja da buƙatun masu adawa da jari-hujja ta hanyar ganin rugujewar rugujewar rayuwa a inda babu irin wannan buri kuma ta hanyar karkatar da masu fafutuka daga mahimmancin tsarin nasu a matsayin abin alfahari mai nisa. tushen canji. Amma waɗannan cututtuka kuma, mutum zai iya tunanin Marxists sun wuce, kamar yadda da yawa suka yi. Don haka bari mu ɗauka waɗannan duka, kuma.
Mafi mahimmanci fiye da waɗannan gazawar, abin da nake so in mayar da hankali a kai shi ne cewa a kusan kowane bambance-bambance na Marxism, ka'idar ajin Marxist a zahiri ta musanta wanzuwar abin da na kira mai gudanarwa (ƙwararrun-managere ko fasaha) ajin kuma ya yi watsi da adawarsa da masu aiki. aji da jari. Wannan gazawa ta musamman ta daɗe tana hana nazarin aji na tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet, Gabashin Turai, da ƙasashen duniya na uku waɗanda ba masu jari-hujja ba, da na jari hujja kanta. Kasawa, ina tsammanin, shine ke jagorantar tunanin Markisanci da aikatawa, kyakkyawar niyya a gefe, sau da yawa ya zama "daga sama" - a daidai ma'anar kasancewa daga matsayin mai gudanarwa.
Marxism ya bayyana daidai cewa bambance-bambancen aji na iya tasowa daga bambance-bambancen alaƙar mallaka. Masu jari-hujja sun mallaki hanyoyin samarwa. Ma'aikata sun mallaki ikon aikinsu ne kawai wanda suke siyarwa akan albashi. Mai jari-hujja yana bin riba ta hanyar ƙoƙarin fitar da aiki mai yawa gwargwadon iyawa a kalla kashe kuɗi mai yiwuwa. Ma'aikaci yana ƙoƙarin faɗaɗa albashi, inganta yanayi, da yin aiki gajere da kaɗan gwargwadon yiwuwa. Gwagwarmayar aji.
To, menene matsalar? Wannan hoton Marxist tabbas yana zowa gaskiya sosai, gwargwadon abin da ya gabata. Matsalar ita ce, me yasa dangantakar dukiya kawai za ta haifar da bambanci? Me ya sa sauran zamantakewar zamantakewar aiki da rayuwar tattalin arziki ba za su iya raba 'yan wasan kwaikwayo zuwa ƙungiyoyi masu adawa da mahimmanci tare da yanayi daban-daban, dalilai, da hanyoyi?
Amsar ita ce za su iya. Wasu ma'aikatan da aka yi wa ma'aikata suna ɗaukar yanayin ƙarfafawa da ayyuka kuma suna da faɗi sosai game da yanayin aikinsu da na sauran ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa. Sauran ma'aikatan da ake biyan albashi suna jure wa yanayi da ayyuka marasa ƙarfi ne kawai kuma ba su da wata magana game da nasu ko yanayin wani. Tsoffin suna ƙoƙari su ci gaba da kasancewa da ikon mallakar yanayin ƙarfafawa da samun kuɗin shiga yayin da suke mulki a kan na ƙarshe. Gwagwarmayar aji.
A cikin tsarin jari-hujja, a cikin wannan ra'ayi ba mu da 'yan jari-hujja da ma'aikata kawai, amma, a tsakanin, akwai mai gudanarwa na ƙwararrun 'yan wasan kwaikwayo waɗanda ke kare fa'idodin su a kan ma'aikatan da ke ƙasa kuma waɗanda ke gwagwarmaya don faɗaɗa ikon yin ciniki a kan masu mallakar sama. Amma ma fiye da haka, wannan ajin mai gudanarwa na iya zama a zahiri ajin mulki na sabon tattalin arziki wanda aka cire ƴan jari hujja amma har yanzu yana da ma'aikata da ke ƙarƙashinsu. Wato, Marxism yana ɓoye wanzuwar aji wanda ba wai kawai ya yi jayayya da ƴan jari hujja da ma'aikata a cikin jari hujja ba, amma wanda zai iya zama mai mulkin sabon tattalin arziki, wanda ake kira da kyau, ina tsammanin, daidaitawa.
A ƙarshe, ainihin abin la'anar shine cewa wannan sabon tattalin arzikin da na kira coordinatorism, sananne ne. Yana da mallakar jama'a ko jiha na kadarorin da ake samarwa da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Yana ba da wutar lantarki da/ko fitarwa. Yana amfani da tsarin tsakiya da/ko kasuwanni don rarrabawa. Galibi ana kiransa ta masu fafutukar neman gurguzu na kasuwa ko tsarin gurguzu na tsakiya. An yi bikin ne a matsayin makasudin gwagwarmaya a cikin kowane rubutun Markisanci wanda ke ba da hangen nesa na tattalin arziki. An karbe ta daga kowace jam'iyyar Markisanci wacce ta sake fasalin alakar tattalin arzikin al'umma. Ya zama ruwan dare, wato, duk da haka da kyar aka gane shi kwata-kwata.
Game da hangen nesa na al'ummomin kyawawa, ya zama, don haka, cewa Marxism yana da rashin amfani musamman ta wasu hanyoyi. Da farko akwai haramtacciyar Marxism ta gaba ɗaya game da hasashe na “utopian”. Na biyu, Marxism yana tunanin cewa idan dangantakar tattalin arziki ta kasance abin sha'awa, sauran dangantakar zamantakewa za su shiga cikin wuri. Na uku, "Daga kowane bisa ga iyawa ga kowane bisa ga bukata" ne utopian da curtails da ake bukata canja wurin bayanai kuma a kowane hali bai taba zama fiye da rhetoric ga karfafa Marxists da madadin su "daga kowane bisa ga aiki da kuma ga kowane bisa ga gudunmawar zuwa ga. Samfurin zamantakewa” ba maxim ne na ɗabi'a ba saboda zai ba da lada ga aiki, gami da baiwar kwayoyin halitta da kayan aiki da yanayi daban-daban. Kuma na huɗu, kuma mafi muni, kuma mafi dacewa a nan, a aikace Marxism yana ba da shawarar alaƙar matsayi na samarwa tare da tsara umarni ko kasuwanni a matsayin hanyar rarrabawa.
A wasu kalmomi, zuciyar matsalar da ta sa na ƙi Marxism kuma na ji cewa ya kamata a sami raguwar mahimmanci a tsakanin masu neman sabon tattalin arziki shine saboda abubuwan da ke tattare da shi kuma duk da haka rashin laifi ga masu fafutukar Markisanci da yawa, manufofin tattalin arziki na Marxism. adadin don bayar da shawarar tsarin samarwa mai gudanarwa wanda ke ɗaukaka masu gudanarwa, ma'aikatan ilimi, masu tsarawa, da sauransu, zuwa matsayi na mulki. Wannan shine dalilin da ya sa yawancin Marxists ke ba da shawarwari, a cikin sharuddan Draper, na dabarun da ke aiki "daga sama." Marxism yana neman ɗaukaka aji wanda yake ƙarƙashin jari-hujja sama da ma'aikata, ko da yake ƙasa da masu shi, zuwa matsayin mulki a cikin sabon tattalin arziki. Marxism yana amfani da lakabin gurguzu, wanda ake nufi don nuna mutane masu sarrafa rayuwarsu ta tattalin arziki, don 0 lakafta wannan burin, ba shakka. Amma Marxism a zahiri ba ya aiwatar da waɗannan akidu cikin tsari lokacin da ya sami iko don shafar sakamakon al'umma, kuma baya bayar da hangen nesa da ke yin hakan ko da a matsayin manufa. Lamarin dai ya yi kama da, tabbas Marx da kansa zai yi nuni da yadda ƙungiyoyin bourgeois ke amfani da alamar dimokraɗiyya don neman goyon baya daga sassa daban-daban don tsarin siyasarsu, amma ba sa aiwatar da manufofin dimokraɗiyya na gaske.
A ƙarshe, abin da ke biyo baya shi ne cewa Leninism wani nau'i ne na dabi'a na Markisanci lokacin da mutane suka yi aiki a cikin al'ummomin jari-hujja, da kuma Marxism Leninism, wanda ba ya zama "ka'idar da dabara ga masu aiki," a maimakon haka, saboda mayar da hankali, ra'ayoyinsa. dabi'u, alƙawari na tsari da dabara, da manufofin hukumomi, ka'idar da dabarun ajin mai gudanarwa. Yana ɗaukar ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyi masu gudanarwa da dabaru da tsarin yanke shawara, kuma yana neman rinjayen ajin tattalin arziki mai gudanarwa. Daga sama Draper yana nuni zuwa ba wasu ɓarna ba ne, nuni ne na muradin aji mai gudanarwa.
Gabaɗaya ba shi da tasiri sosai don yin adawa da tsarin tunani na dogon lokaci ta hanyar ɗaukar matsayi mai mahimmanci. Dole ne a ba da wani abu mai kyau. Wannan shine inda Draper ya fadi, ga alama a gare ni. Don haka, ya kamata in ce a maimakon gazawar tattalin arziki na Marxism don mafi dacewa ga burinmu ina tsammanin ya kamata mu yi amfani da tsarin ra'ayi mafi mahimmanci wanda ke jaddada fa'idar zamantakewar zamantakewar samarwa, duk abubuwan da suka shafi kayan aiki, ɗan adam, da zamantakewa Abubuwan da ake samu na ayyukan tattalin arziki, zamantakewa da na tunani da kuma ma'auni na nau'ikan nau'ikan aji, kuma musamman tasirin ƙungiyoyin ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata da kasuwa da kuma tsarin rarrabawa a tsakiya a kan matsayi na aji a tsarin jari-hujja da kuma a cikin haɗin kai.
Bayan mun yi duk wannan, ban da ba shakka riƙe dawwamammiyar fahimta na Marxism da kuma wannan al'amari duk kafin frameworks, Ina tsammanin za mu yi watsi da wanzuwar da kuma baya kasuwa da kuma tsakiyar tsara tsarin na ingantacciyar tattalin arziki da gravitate maimakon zuwa ga sabon Tsarin - daga kasa. Ni kaina, na kira sabon burin tattalin arziki Ina goyon bayan tattalin arziki mai shiga ciki ciki har da gudanarwar majalisa, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa (da kuma ladan buƙata ga waɗanda ba za su iya yin aiki ba), daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da tsara shirin shiga. Wannan shine ɓangaren hangen nesa na abin da nake so in haɗawa da fahimtar Draper.
If this model (worked out in full in many works and discussed in detail at www.parecon.org) is worthy and desirable, and if it should replace what has been called socialism (but has actually been coordinatorism) as the goal of movements seeking economic justice and equity, then I think rejecting Marxism and Leninism as ideologies to guide us should be done not simply due to finding fault with various aspects of each, but due to having a preferred alternative to utilize in their place.
Gudanar da kai na majalisa shine abin da Bolshevik suka lalata, ko žasa, a cikin Tarayyar Soviet. Ladan ƙoƙarce-ƙoƙarce da sadaukarwa yana ƙididdige iko ko fitarwa mai lada, tsarin tsarin “yan gurguzu” na yau da kullun. Madaidaitan guraben ayyuka suna maye gurbin ƙungiyar wuraren aiki don kawar da tushen wurin aiki don tsarin mulkin mai gudanarwa, wanda ke cikin duk ainihin tattalin arzikin Marxist da duk mahimman bayanan manufofinsu. Tsare-tsare na shiga ya maye gurbin kasuwanni da ko tsare-tsare na tsakiya, kuma suna nan a cikin kusan dukkanin shirye-shiryen da ayyukan Markisanci, kuma yana yin haka don cire tushen ƙayyadaddun tsarin tsarin gudanarwa. Tare waɗannan fasalulluka suna haɓaka haɗin kai, daidaito, bambance-bambance, da sarrafa kai maimakon takurawa da tattake kowannensu. A wata ma'ana yana da kyau a yi iƙirarin cewa 'yan Marxists sun ruɗe duk wannan lokacin, suna ba da shawarar ƙungiyoyin kuskure waɗanda ba, a zahiri, sun samo asali ne daga mahangar tsarin tunaninsu, kamar yadda Draper ke son yin jayayya, amma zai yi. zama a bit disingenuous, ina tsammani. Coordinatorism yana da tushe a cikin ra'ayoyi da alƙawari na Marxist daban-daban musamman Leninist, wanda shine dalilin da ya sa waɗannan na ƙarshe ke buƙatar wuce gona da iri.
Bayan Draper wajen neman jagora a cikin aikin Marx, na lura cewa Marx ya koya mana mu kalli akidu ko tsarin ra'ayi, kuma mu tambaye su, wa suke hidima? Menene suka dace da? Me suka hada, kuma me suka kebanta, kuma shigarsu da kebensu zai sa su dace ko kuma basu dace da mu ba? Marx bai kasance wawan kowa ba kuma waɗannan umarni ne masu fahimi. Dangane da Marxism, duk da haka, sun bayyana cewa tsarin yana barin muhimman dangantakar tattalin arziki kusan duka don amfanin ajin mai gudanarwa a cikin ajandarsa don shawo kan tsarin jari-hujja da shigar da kanta cikin matsayi na mulki. Bai kamata mu riƙa yin tinker tare da in ba haka ba kuma mu inganta Marxism, kamar yadda bai kamata mu daidaita da kuma inganta tattalin arzikin bourgeois kawai ba. Waɗannan ginshiƙai ne da aka lanƙwasa don biyan buƙatun da muke adawa da su. Suna da fahimtar da za mu iya aro, musamman Marxism, ba shakka. Amma game da fakitin ra'ayi gabaɗaya - bin shawarar Marx, dole ne mu wuce wancan.
Yanzu menene game da wannan hangen nesa na tattalin arziki, wanda zai iya haɓakawa da ci gaba, kuma ya fito daga kuma ya sanar da wani motsi na gaske "daga ƙasa" kamar Draper hasashe da sha'awar? Za mu iya fitar da wannan, aƙalla kaɗan?
Tattalin arzikin jari-hujja ya ta'allaka ne a kan mallakar sirri na hanyoyin samarwa, rabon kasuwa, da ƙungiyoyin ma'aikata. Lada na dukiya ne, mulki, da iyakacin iyaka gudummawar da ake samarwa don haifar da babban bambance-bambance a cikin dukiya da samun kudin shiga. Rabe-raben azuzuwa ya taso ne saboda dukiya kuma saboda bambancin damar samun ƙarfi tare da aikin biyayya. Akwai babban bambance-bambance a cikin tasirin yanke shawara da ingancin yanayi. Masu saye da masu siyar da juna da kuma sauran jama'a suna girbi abin da gasar son rai ta shuka. Abubuwan da ke adawa da zamantakewa na saka hannun jari da sakamakon ci gaban mutumtaka. Yin yanke shawara ya yi watsi da ko yin amfani da lalatawar muhalli. Rage sakamakon bambancin muhalli.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
Don ƙetare tsarin jari-hujja, a ce muna ba da ra'ayoyi daban-daban na hagu na yau da kullun - waɗanda nake tsammanin Draper da kansa zai ba da shawarar lalle ne: daidaito, haɗin kai, bambance-bambance, sarrafa kai, da daidaiton muhalli. Wadanne cibiyoyi ne za su iya ciyar da waɗannan dabi'u a cikin tattalin arzikin cikin gida, da kuma cika ayyukan tattalin arziki cikin sha'awa?
Don farawa, za mu iya zaɓar bayar da shawarwari game da dangantakar jama'a / jama'a a maimakon haɗin gwiwar mallakar jari-hujja. A cikin sabon tsarin, duk ƴan ƙasa sun mallaki kowane wurin aiki daidai gwargwado. Wannan mallakar ba ta isar da wani hakki na musamman ko kudin shiga ba. Bill Gates bai mallaki kaso mai tsoka na hanyoyin da ake samar da software ba. Dukanmu mun mallake shi-ko a daidaita, idan kun fi so, babu wanda ya mallake ta. Ko ta yaya, ikon mallakar ya zama abin dogaro game da rabon kuɗin shiga, dukiya, ko mulki. Ta haka ne illolin mallaka na sirri kamar tarin riba da ke ba da dukiya mai yawa, su ɓace.
Bayan haka, za a iya tsara ma'aikata da masu amfani da su cikin majalisar dimokuradiyya tare da al'ada don yanke shawara kasancewar hanyoyin rarraba bayanai ga masu yanke shawara da isa ga abubuwan da aka zaɓa da kuma tattara su cikin yanke shawara ya kamata su isar da kowane ɗan wasa game da kowane yanke shawara, gwargwadon yiwuwar. tasiri a kan yanke shawara daidai da matakin da zai shafe su.
Majalisun za su kasance wurin zama na ikon yanke shawara kuma za su kasance a matakai da yawa, gami da ƙungiyoyin aiki kamar ƙungiyoyin aiki da ƙungiyoyi da daidaikun mutane, da manyan ƙungiyoyi kamar wuraren aiki da masana'antu gabaɗaya. Mutanen da ke cikin majalisa za su zama masu yanke shawara kan tattalin arziki. Ƙuri'u na iya zama tsarin rinjaye, kashi uku, kashi biyu bisa uku, yarjejeniya, da dai sauransu. Za a yi su a matakai daban-daban, tare da ɗimbin mahalarta ko fiye, dangane da takamaiman abubuwan da ke cikin yanke shawara. Wani lokaci ƙungiya ko mutum zai yanke shawara da kansa. Wani lokaci gaba ɗaya wurin aiki ko ma masana'antu zai zama ƙungiyar yanke shawara. Za a yi amfani da hanyoyin kada kuri'a da kirga daban-daban kamar yadda ake bukata don yanke shawara daban-daban. Babu wani zaɓi daidai guda na priori. Akwai, duk da haka, ƙa'idar da ta dace don ƙoƙarin aiwatarwa da kyau da hankali: shigar da yanke shawara ya kamata ya kasance daidai da yadda yanke shawara ya shafi mutum.
Na gaba, muna canza tsarin canjin aiki wanda ke yin menene ayyuka a cikin waɗanne haɗuwa. Kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo yana yin aiki, ba shakka. Kowane aiki ya ƙunshi ayyuka iri-iri, ba shakka. Abin da ke canzawa daga ƙungiyoyin kamfanoni na yanzu zuwa rabon da aka fi so a nan gaba shi ne cewa nau'ikan ayyuka da kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo ke yi yana daidaitawa don ƙarfafawa da ingancin rayuwa.
Duk mutumin da ke shiga ƙirƙirar sabbin samfura ma'aikaci ne. Haɗin ayyuka da nauyin da kuke da shi a wurin aiki yana ba ku ƙarfin ƙarfi da ingancin rayuwa kamar yadda haɗin da nake da shi ya ba ni, haka kuma ga ma'aikaci da ma'auni daidaitaccen aikinsu.
Ba mu da wasu mutane da suka mamaye ayyuka da yanayi na ƙarfafawa, cikawa, da shigar da ayyuka da yanayi. Ba mu da wasu mutane da ke lulluɓe da ɓata, biyayya, da abubuwa masu haɗari da za mu yi. Don dalilai na daidaito da kuma musamman don ƙirƙirar yanayin shiga mulkin demokraɗiyya da gudanar da kai, lokacin da kowannenmu ya shiga wurin aikinmu da masana'antu (da mabukaci) yanke shawara, kowannenmu an shirya shi daidai da aikinmu tare da kwarin gwiwa, ƙwarewa, da ƙwarewa. ilimin yin haka.
Halin da ake ciki yanzu shine wasu mutanen da suke samar da babban amincewa, ƙwarewar zamantakewa, ƙwarewar yanke hukunci, da kuma rashin ƙwarewa, da kuma rashin shawarar da ya dace game da aikinsu na yau da kullun. Ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki yana kawar da wannan rarrabuwar yanayi. Suna kammala aikin cire tushen tushen rarrabuwar kawuna wanda aka fara ta hanyar kawar da ikon mallakar jari na sirri. Suna kawar da ba kawai matsayin mai shi / ɗan jari-hujja da ikonsa da dukiyarsa ba, har ma da matsayin mai tsara tunani/ yanke shawara wanda ya wanzu fiye da sauran. Suna rarraba ra'ayi da ƙarfafawa da kuma yin aiki da rashin ƙarfi fiye da adalci kuma daidai da dimokuradiyya na gaskiya da rashin daraja.
Na gaba ya zo lada. Muna aiki. Wannan yana ba mu damar samun rabon samfurin aikin. Amma wannan sabon hangen nesa ya ce ya kamata mu sami adadin ayyukanmu daidai da irin ƙwazon da muka yi, da tsawon lokacin da muka yi, da irin sadaukarwa da muka yi. Bai kamata mu sami ƙarin ta hanyar samun ƙwazo ba saboda samun ingantattun kayan aiki, ƙarin ƙwarewa, ko hazaka mafi girma, da ƙasa da ikon samun ƙarin iko ko mallakar ƙarin dukiya.
Ya kamata mu sami damar samun ƙarin amfani kawai ta hanyar ciyar da ƙarin ƙoƙarinmu ko kuma jimre ƙarin sadaukarwa. Wannan ya dace da ɗabi'a kuma yana ba da ƙarfafawa masu dacewa saboda lada kawai abin da za mu iya shafa, ba abin da ba za mu iya ba. Tare da ma'auni na ma'auni na aiki, tsawon sa'o'i takwas na aiki na yau da kullum Sally da Sam suna samun kudin shiga iri ɗaya. Wannan haka yake idan suna da aiki iri ɗaya, ko wani aiki kwata-kwata. Ko menene aikinsu na musamman, ko wane irin wuraren aiki ne da kuma yadda ake hada-hadar ayyukansu, haka nan komai hazakarsu, idan sun yi aiki a madaidaicin hadadden aiki, jimlar aikinsu zai kasance iri daya ne. ingancin rayuwarsa da tasirinsa na ƙarfafawa don haka kawai bambancin da ya dace musamman ga lada ga ayyukansu zai kasance tsayin daka da ƙarfin aikin da aka yi, kuma tare da waɗannan daidai rabon abin da aka samu zai zama daidai. Idan tsawon lokacin aiki ko ƙarfin aiki ya bambanta kaɗan, haka rabon kayan aikin da aka samu. Wanene ke sulhunta yanke shawara game da ma'anar rukunin ayyukan aiki kuma game da wadanne ƙima da ƙarfin mutane ke aiki? Ma'aikata na yin, ba shakka, a cikin majalisunsu kuma tare da yanke shawarar da ta dace ta ce yin amfani da bayanan da aka cusa ta hanyoyin da suka dace da yin amfani da madaidaitan wuraren aiki da kuma biyan kuɗi kawai.
Akwai babban mataki daya saura, har ma da bayar da faffadar hangen nesa na tattalin arziki kawai. Yaya ake haɗa ayyukan ma'aikata da masu amfani? Ta yaya shawarwarin da aka yanke a wuraren aiki, da kuma ta gundumomin masu amfani da su, da kuma na daidaikun masu amfani, duk sun dace? Me ke sa jimillar jimillar da wuraren aiki ke samarwa ta yi daidai da jimillar da unguwanni da sauran kungiyoyi ke cinyewa da kuma keɓaɓɓun mutane? Don wannan al'amari, menene ke ƙayyade ƙimar ƙimar zamantakewar samfura da zaɓuɓɓuka daban-daban? Me zai tantance ma'aikata nawa ne a wace masana'anta za su samar da nawa? Menene ya ƙayyade ko ya kamata a yi wasu samfur ko a'a, kuma nawa? Menene ke ƙayyade abin da saka hannun jari a cikin sabbin hanyoyin da za a yi amfani da su da kuma waɗanne ne wasu suka jinkirta ko ƙi? Wadannan duk al'amuran rabo ne.
Zaɓuɓɓukan da ake da su don ma'amala da rabo sune tsare-tsare na tsakiya (kamar yadda aka yi amfani da su a tsohuwar Tarayyar Soviet) da kasuwanni (kamar yadda ake amfani da su a duk tattalin arzikin jari-hujja tare da ƙananan ko mafi girma). A cikin tsarin tsakiya tsarin birocracy yana tattara bayanai, yana tsara umarni, aika waɗannan umarni ga ma'aikata da masu siye, samun ɗan ra'ayi, sake sabunta umarnin kaɗan, sake aika su, kuma ya dawo da biyayya. A cikin kasuwa kowane ɗan wasan kwaikwayo a keɓe daga damuwa ga lafiyar ɗan wasan yana yin gasa ta hanyar saye da siyar da aiki (ko ikon yinsa) da siye da siyar da kayayyaki da albarkatu akan farashin da aka ƙayyade ta hanyar yin takara. Kowane mutum yana neman riba fiye da sauran jam'iyyun a musayar su.
Matsalar ita ce, kowane ɗayan waɗannan hanyoyin haɗin gwiwa guda biyu na haɗin gwiwar masu wasan kwaikwayo da raka'a suna sanya wa sauran matsin tattalin arziki da ke karkatar da ƙima da tsarin da muke so. Kasuwanni, ko da ba tare da yin amfani da kadarori masu zaman kansu ba, suna karkatar da ƙima don fifita masu zaman kansu fiye da fa'idodin jama'a da kuma sanya mutane cikin hanyoyin da ba su dace da zaman jama'a ba ta yadda hakan ke raguwa har ma da lalata haɗin kai. Suna ba da sakamako da farko fitarwa da iko ba kawai ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa ba. Suna rarraba ƴan wasan tattalin arziƙi zuwa wani aji wanda ke cike da ƙwazo da aiki na biyayya da kuma wani wanda ke jin daɗin yanayin ƙarfafawa da ƙayyadaddun sakamakon tattalin arziki, wanda kuma ke samun mafi yawan kuɗin shiga. Suna keɓe masu siye da masu siyarwa a matsayin masu yanke shawara waɗanda ba su da wani zaɓi illa yin gasa da yin watsi da fa'idan tasirin zaɓin nasu, gami da tasiri akan ilimin halittu.
Tsare-tsare na tsakiya, akasin haka, mai iko ne. Yana hana sarrafa kai kuma yana samar da rarrabuwa iri ɗaya da matsayi kamar yadda kasuwannin da aka fara ginawa a kan bambance-bambance tsakanin masu tsarawa da waɗanda ke aiwatar da tsare-tsarensu, sannan kuma a faɗaɗa waje don haɗa ma'aikata masu ba da ƙarfi da ba da ƙarfi gabaɗaya. Duk waɗannan tsarin rarrabawa suna jujjuya su maimakon haɓaka ƙimar da muke ɗauka. Menene madadin kasuwanni da tsare-tsare na tsakiya?
A ce a maimakon sama-sau aiwatar da zaɓi na tsakiya da aka tsara da kuma wurin musayar kasuwa mai gasa ta masu siye da masu siyarwa, mun zaɓi haɗin gwiwa, zaɓin sanar da ƴan wasan kwaikwayo na ƙungiyoyi da na zamantakewa kowanne yana faɗin daidai gwargwadon yadda zaɓin ya shafi su da kowane ɗayan. iya samun sahihan bayanan da ake buƙata da ƙima kuma kowanne yana da horo da ƙarfin gwiwa don haɓakawa da sadar da abubuwan da suke so. Hakan zai yi dai-dai da tsarin tafiyar da kai na majalisa, tare da lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, tare da madaidaitan ɗakunan ayyuka, tare da ingantaccen kimanta tasirin gama kai da muhalli, da rashin aji. Don waɗannan dalilai, masu fafutuka na iya ba da shawarar tsara tsarin shiga, tsarin da ma'aikata da ma'aikatun mabukaci ke ba da shawarar ayyukan aikinsu da abubuwan da mabukaci suke so dangane da ingantaccen ilimi game da abubuwan gida da na duniya da ƙima na gaskiya na cikakken fa'idodin zamantakewa da ƙimar zaɓin su zai sanya garner.
Tsarin yana amfani da sadarwar haɗin gwiwa ta baya da gaba na abubuwan da ake son sanar da juna ta hanyar sadarwa iri-iri da tsare-tsaren ka'idoji da ababen hawa da suka haɗa da farashi mai nuni, allon gudanarwa, zagayen masauki zuwa sabbin bayanai, da sauransu - duk suna ba da damar ƴan wasan kwaikwayo don bayyana sha'awarsu don daidaitawa da kuma daidaita su ta hanyar ba da amsa game da sha'awar wasu, isa ga zaɓi masu dacewa daidai da ladan ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, daidaitattun ɗakunan ayyuka, da kuma tasirin tafiyar da kai.
Shin abin da ke sama cikakken hoto ne na madadin tattalin arziki ga tsarin jari-hujja? Tabbas ba haka bane, gajeru ne. Amma da fatan abin tsokana ne da ban sha'awa.
· Democratic workplace and consumer councils for equitable participation
· Diverse decision-making procedures seeking proportionate say for those affected by decisions
· Balanced job complexes creating just distribution of empowering and dis-empowering circumstances
· Remuneration for effort and sacrifice in accord with admirable moral and efficient incentive logic
· Participatory planning in tune with economics serving human well being and development
Together these constitute the core institutional scaffolding of participatory economics, a systemic alternative to capitalism and also to what has been called centrally planned or market socialism. Are there fuller formulations of this particular economic vision? Most certainly there are. If interested, consult www.parecon.org for articles, interviews, whole books, and further references.
To, menene duk wannan ke faɗi game da dichotomy na Draper? Ina tsammanin Draper daidai ne game da bambance-bambancen hanyoyin "daga ƙasa" da "daga sama," amma ina tsammanin yin shi da koyarwa da kuma bayyanawa, yana buƙatar bayyana cewa batun yana ɗaya daga cikin dabarun da hangen nesa, kuma yana dogara ne akan ra'ayoyi. , haka nan. Ƙari, tabbataccen takardar sayan magani ba wai kawai ya kamata mu fi son "daga ƙasa" ba amma ya kamata mu fahimci cewa fifita "daga ƙasa" yana nufin muna son haɓaka ƙungiyoyi waɗanda zasu iya "narke cikin" sabuwar al'umma da ba ta da daraja, kuma wannan yana da ma'aikaci da majalissar mabukaci, sarrafa kansa, madaidaitan rukunin ayyuka, lada don ƙoƙari da sadaukarwa, da tsare-tsare na haɗin kai - da kuma tsarin kwatankwacin 'yantar da ƴancin kai ga sauran fagage na rayuwar zamantakewa.
ZNetwork ana samun kuɗi ta hanyar karimcin masu karatun sa.
Bada Tallafi