Dear Andy,
We are in harmony with most of the theses you put forward in your article ("Planned Economy and Workers Control"). I heartily agree that "we have to recognise that there is currently no Marxist theory of proletarian economic management." For me too "what collapsed recently in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union was not socialism or planned economy or Marxism, but bureaucratic centralism, command economy and Stalinism." I prefer the term "command economy".
What Marx and Engels had said "is extremely abstract and indicates only the broadest outlines and principles", and "the thoughts of revolutionaries after him, did not go further than criticisms and proposals in relation to various problems, and were all confined to the problems" of the current situation. Therefore, the most urgent task of any communist revolutionary movement is to construct such a theory. Because, for a communist revolutionary who claims to create the future as s/he wants, by her will, cannot do only with historical and analytical thinking and predicting the possible ways of evolution. She tries to understand conditions by way of history and analysing what is given and predict possible alternatives, but she performs her actions or actualises herself, in accordance with her thoughts about future. She does not see herself as a toy or catalyser of her fate, but tries to establish the future. She is voluntarist as well as scientist. It is this dialectic, that makes a communist revolutionary distinctive. If there is no possibility of understanding the present world, and realising our own will, then there does not need to be revolutionaries. We have learned from history that suppressed classes demanded to satisfy their material and intellectual needs, and to enlarge their freedom. Nevertheless, they could not even propose new relations of production, a new society.
You wrote:
"Obviously the Marxist theory of economy under dictatorship of the proletariat cannot be developed except in connection with the relevant practice of building a healthy workers state and it would be false to propose that we develop such a theory."
I want to remind the aphorism of "without revolutionary theory there is no revolutionary action." This is the younger Lenin who was trying to construct a theory of party. "Life is green" is also the words of Lenin quoted from Goethe. This is older Lenin, who was declaring the April theses. These two Lenins should not be separated. It is true that such a theory can only be developed within the struggle itself whether during the transition period or before. However, at every phase we need such a theory as complex and embracing the life that will be developed. I think, it would be extremely difficult, even impossible to theorise among the huge urgent practical requirements after the revolution. The success of revolution depends ultimately on the level of development of such theory.
I'm agree with the content of your words below:
However, it would be equally false to suppose that we cannot go further than the abstract propositions of for instance, Engels' Socialism Utopian & Scientific written in 1877, or Lenin's State and Revolution written in 1917. The experience of 70 years of bureaucratised workers states, and the experience and theoretical gains of capitalist economics, and the struggle of the organised working class in the capitalist countries over the past 70 years offers us considerable scope for the development of such a theory."
But for me even "the Marxist view of economic planning and control, under socialism or during the transitionary period under the dictatorship of the proletariat" itself should be reconsidered.
Marx writes:
"Between capitalist and communist society lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat." (Critique, par IV)
But he does not forget to ask;
"What transformation will the state undergo in communist society? In other words, what social functions will remain in existence there, that are analogous to present state functions? This question can only be answered scientifically, and one does not get a flea-hop nearer to the problem by a thousandfold combination of the word people with the word state." (Critique, par IV)
This is similar to the question you asked of survival importance: "What is the essence of the concept of planned economy as it exists in Marxist theory?" Your answer, which is similar to Marx's, is insufficient. You wrote,
The essence of the idea of planned economy is contained in the collective struggle of the working class to exercise its control over the capitalists.
Where is this capitalist class during the transition period, how do they expropriate?
Engels writes:
"With the introduction of the socialist order of society the state will dissolve of itself and disappear. As, therefore, the sate is only a transitional institution which is used in the struggle, in the revolution, to hold down one's adversaries, and as soon as it becomes possible to speak of freedom the state as such ceases to exist. We would therefore propose to replace state everywhere by Gemeinwesen, a good old German word which can very well convey the meaning of the French word "commune." (Engels, Letter to A. Bebel. March 1875)
I think, we should first define what the state is and then we should express our ideas on worker state. For me, "commune" is much more suitable for the transition period, remembering "Paris Commune." As I understood, you, Marx and Engels see the workers' state like an army that is only organised force. State is more than force, and more than organisation of whole society by the leadership of ruling class or classes, but it is the embodiment of expropriation. The essence of the state is not simply monopoly of force, but monopoly of force for the appropriation of surplus labour. On the other hand, state is the result of relations of production, therefore we should first discuss it. Lenin writes in your quotation:
"Accounting and control - that is mainly what is needed for the "smooth working", for the proper functioning, of the first phase of communist society. All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state, which consists of the armed workers. All citizens have become employees and workers of a single country-wide "syndicate". All that is required is that they should work equally, do their proper share of work, and get equal pay."
We need to scientifically theorise this simple idea, is it impossible? What does "All citizens are transformed into hired employees of the state" mean? Machines are used by men, thus any counter-revolution is possible only if the bourgeois class has the ability of command the people. If all workers are armed, then does there still need to be a separate army? What does it mean "to work equally" and "get equal pay"? All of these have some answers but with few disputed paragraphs. While Marx's, Engels', Lenin's and your ideas are not in any way compatible with what Stalin has done, since the concept of state, and especially "workers' state" is not well defined, it is possible blame most of the Marxists for opening the way to Stalinist applications all over the world. I think, It was fault simply condemning Bakunin's warnings without criticising him extensively as he deserves.
You wrote: "We need to discuss how the market can be overcome by workers control if the workers hold state power." The problem in this argument is that you assume state power as an independent entity that must be seized. I think, that power is not in any manner of state, but only a form of transitory government. If it fortifies itself as expropriator then it would be a state; on the contrary, if it evolves to self-organisation of the whole society without expropriation then it would be socialist relations. It is dangerous to name this transitory period as state. What happened, was a real state and, of course, not a workers' state. NEP was nothing more than the unity of state and market, therefore a kind of capitalism. The term of "workers' state" is as defective as "workers' capitalism".
For me, the opponents of proletariat dictatorship as a form of state were right. Secondly, the opponents of market relations are right. You are right that "transcendence of market relations will take a comparatively long drawn out historical period." Nevertheless, it is necessary to argue with what it must be replaced, otherwise, this would be implicit consent of value relations.
Your article is full of valuable evaluations and theses that unfortunately I do not encounter in revolutionary Marxist literature. I'm once more delighted being friend of you.
Mustafa Cemal
cemal-at-mag.net.tr