Note: It is interesting that
cooperatives may also play an important role in creating a 21st Century
Capitalism.
This paper conceptualizes
socialist construction as a process of incremental reclaiming from capital of
those resources that can best be held in common so that members of a community
can achieve their fuller human development*.
Under democratic rules the
community regulates the commons so as to ensure its accessibility and
sustainability. The formation of cooperatives is an instance of the socialization
of the workplace. By bringing workers together into self governing
collectives, cooperatives also contribute to the socialization of workers to
a socialist moral order. In Cuba a socialized state is fostering the
socialization of civil society through the promotion of cooperatives.
At the same time, the Cuban state is
allowing private businesses as a way to enliven the economy and quickly absorb
surplus workers. President Obama seeks to assist these entrepreneurs as a
nascent capitalist class. Socialist construction requires that the state
develop an adequate regulatory regime to contain this part of the non-state
sector while also fostering the cooperative sector.
Reinventing Socialism for the
21st Century
The dominant view of socialism in the
20th century was that a revolutionary state would socialize the means of
production, expropriating the capitalist expropriators, and, acting as the
representative of the working class, would run the economy in a rational,
planned way for the benefit of society as a whole. Only state property was considered fully
socialist. Socialism was state-centric.
While this model had some spectacular
successes in developing the forces of production in some societies where
capitalism had failed to do so, in the long run it proved to not be
sustainable. In addition, it did not lead toward what socialists had aimed for
– a society governed by the associated producers. While it paternalistically
provided many social benefits, it empowered a bureaucratic state rather than working
people.
That is why in the 21st century there
are efforts to reinvent socialism. These look at socialism not so much as a
system, but a process, a process of socializing, of progressive collective
empowerment of people over their lives. It is a more participatory, more
democratic, more de-centered process. Thus we should not speak of constructing
socialism, a manner of speaking that suggests it is a system, a thing. Rather,
let’s speak of socialist construction, the process of socializing the institutions
of society, a directed transition toward a society directed by the associated
producers. This is a process in which institutions are built in different
spheres and at various levels in society through which communities can
democratically manage their common resources so as to promote human
development. These communities may be at the level of the workplace, the
neighborhood, the region, or the national community. What does it mean to
socialize an institution? To use a musical metaphor, it is to tune it to the
common good. Or, using a compass as a metaphor, it is to point it toward the
common good. [1]
I find it instructive to think of the
socializing process as a kind of reclaiming of commons from capital [2], a
reversal of the process by which capitalism grew through the dispossession of
commons, enclosing them, privatizing them and commodifying them. It did this
not only in what Marx called primitive accumulation, but continues to do so
throughout its history up to the present, as David Harvey has argued. [3] Socialist construction can then be conceived
of as a reversal of that capitalizing process, as a reclaiming of commons, a
socializing of those resources that are useful to human development.
As we know, commons are shared
resources held by a community, governed democratically and available for use by
members of the community. These shared resources are not only land and public
spaces, but also the air we breathe and the water we drink, public health
facilities, the internet, accumulated human knowledge and culture, and a host
of other resources available to all and that can enrich our lives. Capital
seeks to privatize these commons so as to profit from them. Socializing them
reclaims them as our common wealth available to all and for the benefit of all.
Since a commons is held in common by
a community, it is managed by that community so as to assure access and
sustainability. Whether the rules by which it is governed are customary or are
enacted laws and regulations, they issue from a participatory process to which
the commoners consent and in that way is democratic. How is the democratic governance of a commons
possible? By democracy we understand the possibility of joint decision making
for collective action for a common good. Democracy depends on a collective
agency and that requires a collective identity. [4] That is, the commoners must
identify themselves as a community sharing the common resource and thus feel a
commitment to its proper governance, i.e. for the common good. This is the
foundation of a democratic governance of the commons.
These are precisely the conditions
that obtain in a worker cooperative. There is an awareness of a shared interest
in the success of the collective project because of the interdependence
experienced daily in the workplace. “All for one and one for all” is a lived
reality. The institutional structure of the cooperative engenders a social
consciousness – a socialist consciousness. Cooperatives are little schools of
socialism. [5]
We’re All Commoners Now
This governance can take place on
different levels, depending on the scope of a given commons. The commoners in a
workplace are the workers who make up the cooperative. The commoners in a
neighborhood are the residents who share a space in the city. The commoners in
an urban transportation system are the bus riders, auto drivers, bicycle riders
and pedestrians. And as we are becoming increasingly aware of global climate
change, the commoners of our planet are all of humanity, both present and
future generations.
In each case of these nested commons [6], it is those who share a common resource and whose lives are affected by it
who have the right to participate in its governance. In the first instance,
this participatory democracy operates at a local level, at the level closest as
possible to the everyday lives of people. Higher levels of decision making are
to support the lower levels and, where necessary, coordinate them. This is the principle
of subsidiarity that guides the relations between commoners at
different levels.
I emphasize the participatory
democratic character of commons because it is through such participation that
the commoners are themselves socialized. That is, they develop the social
values, attitudes and practices that sustain a full human life together in
which all can develop fully. As Marx put it, they realize their species being.
In the renovation going on in Cuba
today, we see the devolving of state power downward to lower levels of
government and to cooperatives. This is an application of the principle of
subsidiarity that empowers civil society. The constituted power of the state is
facilitating the constituent power of civil society. [7] While ownership of
common resources remains with the state as representative of the national
community, management of those resources is devolving to those in actual
possession of given resources. Ownership and management are distinct functions.
Thus we are seeing a reclaiming of
commons (from the state) and an empowering of commoners. There is an
incremental socializing of the institutions of society, facilitated through the
state under the leadership of the Party as custodians of a directed transition
from capitalism towards a society governed by the associated producers. The
Revolution constituted the power of this leadership and now it is empowering
its constituents.
Socialization is the transition to commonism.
Maintaining Commons for
Common Benefit
Commons are a domain outside the
market. They represent a collective “ownership” that is distinct from private property.
There are often those who seek to privatize commons or privatize the benefits
afforded by the commons for their own benefit. This may come even from within
the commoners. That is especially likely where there is a market and
emphatically so where that is a capitalist market driven by the logic of
endless accumulation.
The problem can be seen in Habana
Vieja. The Historian’s Office has done an exemplary job of restoring both
public and private buildings and spaces. The renovated Plaza Vieja is a vibrant
public space surrounded by private residences and public commercial buildings.
The increased use value that public investment has made possible is now
becoming exchange value due to the opening of a real estate market. Private
residences are being sold to investors for profitable commercial development.
While the commons of the plaza is not itself being privatized, the attendant
benefits are in a kind of de facto public-private partnership. And so far, the
public is unable to capture some of that value.
This is an issue that Cuba will have
to face as its renovation moves forward. The emerging non-state sector of the
economy includes not only cooperatives, but also private businesses employing
wage labor. Private businesses are decidedly non-socialist. A petty bourgeoisie
is seen as compatible with socialism – compatible as long as it is regulated
and taxed so it doesn’t become a big bourgeoisie. Great inequalities of income
and accumulation of wealth are to be avoided – a cautionary note made in the Guidelines.
But it is clear a petty bourgeoisie is not socialist; it does not nurture a
socialist consciousness, but the narrow mentality of the petty shopkeeper. It
does not nurture socialist social relations, but individualism. As Raul Castro
pointed out in his Report to the 7th Party Congress “petty bourgeois ideology
[is] characterized by individualism, selfishness, the pursuit of profit,
banality, and the intensifying of consumerism.” A petty bourgeoisie may be
compatible with socialism when kept within limits. But it is not socialist.
Socialism has to be rooted at the
base of society among ordinary people. Its values, its practices and its social
relations have to be built into daily life where people live and work. This is
the virtue of cooperatives. Cooperatives thus can help make socialism
irreversible by rooting it in the daily worklife of people. Cooperatives
contribute to socialist hegemony. [8]
If a social order is to be
sustainable over the long run, it needs to be rooted in the moral order, in the
character of the people. Their values, their sensibilities, their
taken-for-granted understandings, their very subjectivity needs to be consonant
with its institutions. The socialist transition is a process that needs a
people with a socialist character if it is to continue. The social relations of
cooperatives help build such a character among the people.
To state the current juncture in
Cuba’s socialist construction in bold terms, there is a race for the soul of
Cuba between the cooperative movement and expanding private businesses. A major
thrust of President Obama’s opening to Cuba is support for private businesses.
Witness the entrepreneurial conference he held in Havana during his visit in
March. His strategy to transform Cuban society more to the liking of U.S.
capitalism is to nurture this nascent capitalist class within Cuban civil
society.
Clearly, this is a new challenge for
the Cuban Revolution. How can the petty bourgeoisie be limited while still
taking advantage of its dynamism? Here are some measures presently available: