SOCIALISM

Socialism as state practice in Eastern Europe and USSR was widely prevalent and talked
about around the globe. Caught in the aftermath of WWII and cold war and much credit
to the role played by other international economies and politics, Socialism went on a
downward spiral post 1985 period. Katherine Verdery tactfully analyses the reason for
the downfall of party rule faster than anyone had anticipated and suggest how it
intersected fatefully with certain features of its world-system context. She has thrown
light on how the model might illuminate the system’s collapse. Studying the socialist
model has brought in close contact the many intellectuals, Western political scientists
and Eastern dissidents. This industry has witnessed a massive boost as the secret-files
were made public and translated in many languages for scrutiny and research.
There was variance in how socialism was practiced in societies of Eastern Europe and
USSR in terms of intensity, span and effectiveness of central control, popular support
and resistance. She writes that it is more crucial to focus on the resemblances than the
variety and that these variants should have been seen and treated as an analytical
model under one umbrella just like we look at Japanese, west German, American
capitalism as one brand.
West has always equated communism with totalitarianism, where the state is perceived
as an autocratic, all-powerful obnoxiously imposing its harsh will on its subjects. In
reality, socialist states were simply weak. They did enjoy mass support, brought to
power legitimately, but were constantly fighting resistance within, aimed at political
subterfuge from all levels. This was probably what contributed most to it’s collapse.
Socialism was based on the system of “centralized planning” in which the state neither
adequately planned nor controlled. Managers of firms saw that the targets increased
annually but the materials did not arrive at time or in right amounts. When in excess, the
materials would be hoarded or used as commodities in a barter exchange. Owing to this
unequal distribution and consumption, the economy sunk and was known as economies
of shortages. The chief problem of Western economic actors was to get profits by selling
things, the chief problem for socialist economic actors was to procure things. Capitalist
firms compete with each other in the market domain for profit, on the other hand,
socialist firms competed to maximize their bargaining power with suppliers higher up. In
fact, along with materials, labour was also hoarded in socialist firms which led to scarcity
of the same. This affected power relations and in practice the managers were thusly
placed below the workers. Structurally speaking, workers under socialism had a
somewhat more powerful position relative to management than do workers in
capitalism. Party members would unnecessarily interfere with the production process,
would contribute nothing, instead simply claimed credit. The workplace rituals, instead
of securing worker’s consent, sharpened their consciousness and resistance.
Basic difference between socialist and capitalist system was that in the former, emphasis
was on politicizing and turning workers against the party rule whereas in the latter, they
successfully dispersed, depoliticize, and deflected any discontentment and resistance
against the party rule. Socialism created a split between “us” and “them” workers and
Party Leaders, founded on a lively consciousness that “they” are exploiting “us”.
Katherine draws a similarity between the apparatus of surveillance and the semblance it
bears to production. Russian intelligence agency, KGB, have an intensive network of
informers who are instrumental in providing elaborate files and national secrets. She
draws a parallel of the “production’ system to the system for producing goods. It is said
that socialism banked on this for its sustenance. This lead to an air of suspicion and
distrust about everyone. In some countries, however, it suppressed unwanted
opposition.
Paternalistic redistribution was another mechanism put in place by the State, which ran
on the idea that party would collect all social products and make it available to whatever
people needed- cheap food, medical care, affordable housing, education. It acted like a
father who gives handouts to children as he sees fit. This paternal propensity to hoard
resources and distribute it to the general public as one deems fit was a peculiar
characteristic of the socialist regime. The party could acquire an even stronghold on the
lives of the people should it own the sources from where resources come from. Thus, if
capitalism’ inner logic rests on accumulating surplus value, inner logic of socialism was
to amass means of production. The economy deteriorated primarily because market was
uncompetitive, things produced were not to be sold competitively but instead kept with
the center to exercise their redistributive powers.
The socialist social contract guaranteed people food and clothing but did not promise
quality, ready availability and choice. Consumption was sacrificed so as to keep control
over the product. So, in an endeavor of obtaining resources themselves, general public
at times took to illegal means. This came to be known as the “second economy” and
even included the ‘private plot’ of collective farm peasants. The lad was legal and people
had the freedom to grow crops for self-sustenance or for sale in the market, but they
stole from the collective farm items such as fertilizer, herbicides, fodder etc. the second
economy provisioned a large part of the consumer needs, was parasitic upon the state
economy and inseparable from it. Consumption slowly assumed a political character
from a socio-economic one. The definition of “needs” became a matter for resistance
and dispute. Also, the policies of the state made consumption a problem. They
portrayed it as a “right”, with which the standard of living would improve. John
Borneman showed aa distinction between how capitalism renders desire concrete and
specific and offers specific goods to satisfy it. In contrast, socialism aroused desire
without focalizing it and kept it alive by deprivation. This practice was marked by
significant protests by the people using tactics of consumption, acquiring objects was
used as a symbol to fight against the unpopular regime.
Katherine talks about the dangers looming over the state’s accumulative tendencies
which if unchecked, could obstruct the work of those who had to redistribute the
resources. If productive activity were so stifled by “overadministration” that nothing got
produced, this would jeopardize the redistributive bureaucracy’s power and prestige.
Markets poses trouble because they move good horizontally and presuppose that
individual interest and “invisible hand” (not the party) secure the common good.
The reason attributed to the fall of the East European and Soviet Socialism was an act of
the Hungarian government. Certain international events brought socialism in bed with
capitalism which had dire consequences. Reforms implemented were not very successful
as the very idea of socialism didn’t fit well with profitability. However, balance of power
tilted towards the bloc who fought for the structural reforms. They entire scenario had
come to a fork: they could either save the Soviet Union and its empire or collective
property and party monopoly.
There was constant unauthorized growth of bureaucrats who created their own profit-
based companies from within the state economic bureaucracy. There was a factional
split between the groups that managed socialism’s interface with the outside world
(foreign policy, trade) and those who managed it internally (KGB party workers).
Socialism as a model lacked systemic impetus for innovation, it was stuck to the ground
to its hoarding practices. As a result of which it couldn’t sustain itself in competition
against the flexible capitalism.
The small groups whose structural situation facilitated their fuller participation in the
global economy had reasons to promote reforms. The control that socialist states
exerted over capital flows into their countries made them special targets for
international financial interests, eager to increase their opportunities by undermining
socialist states.
Katherine talks about the conception of ‘time’ as made by us and how revolutionaries
have especially manipulated it to suit their own agenda. She writes that capitalism in the
form of profit maximization exists only as a function of time which stood opposite to the
central figures of socialism. People in the socialist states started figuring out how they
were failing magnanimously to adapt with foreign notions of development and it cost
them hard earned money, depleted foreign reserves. They could sense the distinct
cultural, ideological gap between them and the west. Socialism basically failed in order
to catch up with the inertia of capitalism which roared loudly. It was a collision of two
differently constituted temporal orders, together with notions of person and activity
proper to them.
Katherine feels that had the socialist economies not opened themselves to capital
import and debt servicing, perhaps the fall would had been less jarring and less severe.
Since the leaders accepted western temporal hegemony, socialism’s messianic time
proved apocalyptic. After the fall of Lenin, new political forms emerged in countries like
Poland, Yugoslavia, Hungary. However, it led to a vacuum as it marked the end of a
global super power, the end of “East”. This re-shaped the power relations as other state
ideologies emerged and gained center piece in global politics.