What do you think?
Rate this book
The Contradictions of “Real Socialism”: The Conductor and the Conducted
What was "real socialism"--the term which originated in twentieth-century socialist societies for the purpose of distinguishing them from abstract, theoretical socialism? In this volume, Michael A. Lebowitz considers the nature, tendencies, and contradictions of those societies. Beginning with the constant presence of shortages within "real socialism," Lebowitz searches for the inner relations which generate these patterns. He finds these, in particular, in what he calls "vanguard relations of production," a relation which takes the apparent form of a social contract where workers obtain benefits not available to their counterparts in capitalism but lack the power to decide within the workplace and society.
While these societies were able to claim major achievements in areas from health care to education to popular culture, the separation of thinking and doing prevented workers from developing their capacities as fully developed human beings. The relationship within "real socialism" between the vanguard as conductor and a conducted working class, however, did not only lead to the deformation of workers and those elements necessary for the building of socialism; it also created the conditions in which enterprise managers emerged as an incipient capitalist class, which was an immediate source of the crises of "real socialism." As he argued in The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development, Lebowitz stresses the necessity to go beyond the hierarchy inherent in the relation of conductor and conducted (and beyond the "vanguard Marxism" which supports this) to create the conditions in which people can transform themselves through their conscious cooperation and practice--i.e., a society of free and associated producers.
While these societies were able to claim major achievements in areas from health care to education to popular culture, the separation of thinking and doing prevented workers from developing their capacities as fully developed human beings. The relationship within "real socialism" between the vanguard as conductor and a conducted working class, however, did not only lead to the deformation of workers and those elements necessary for the building of socialism; it also created the conditions in which enterprise managers emerged as an incipient capitalist class, which was an immediate source of the crises of "real socialism." As he argued in The Socialist Alternative: Real Human Development, Lebowitz stresses the necessity to go beyond the hierarchy inherent in the relation of conductor and conducted (and beyond the "vanguard Marxism" which supports this) to create the conditions in which people can transform themselves through their conscious cooperation and practice--i.e., a society of free and associated producers.
192 pages, Paperback
First published January 2, 2012
9 people are currently reading
249 people want to read
About the author
Michael A. Lebowitz
22 books20 followersMichael Lebowitz is professor emeritus of economics at Simon Fraser University in Vancouver, Canada, and the author of several books including The Socialist Imperative, The Contradictions of “Real Socialism,” and The Socialist Alternative. He was Director, Program in Transformative Practice and Human Development, Centro Internacional Miranda, in Caracas, Venezuela, from 2006-11.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 3, 2014
Opens by talking about "the shortage economy" supposedly prevalent in post-WW2 socialist bloc, doesn't give you any statistics or anything just assures you it's the defining feature of Real Socialism, if I want to find out more I need to pick up a few obscure, expensive books. What's the point y'know. Just such a waste of my time.
why do these sorts of books often note good things from the perspective of the worker (high wages for example - noted that the practice of "storming" where things are rushed at the end of the month gets high overtime pay for workers) but don't think anything of them
what is with every criticism of the USSR making it genuinely sound like a worker's paradise
just did not get much out of this at all. focuses only on a single specific time period (ussr 1950s -80s) then generalises this out to "vanguard Marxism" without defining the phrase even. he then ends by saying "i don't deny the necessity for leadership or a state " like ok but if you're so pissed about vanguard ideas how can you stop these things descending into what you've spent so much time attacking? he actually has a whole section where he says that it's easier to offer answers and instead writes down a bunch of good questions about socialism, Leninism and his own ideas but doesn't give even vague answers and speaks authoritatively again next chapter as if these questions are irrelevant. stuff like "how to reconcile individual worker's councils into a social whole " are hard but absolutely essential. he also only quotes a few times from any socialist except Marx - his main sources are economists whose goals were to institute capitalism in the USSR and yet he barely criticises them. he describes the highly unusual economic situation for workers of the USSR, with things like incredible job rights, high wages vs low working hours, but doesn't seem to think much of it - it's just part of a "social contract " which solidifies "vanguard" rule. like I'm 100 percent behind criticism of the USSR but this just recycles the same old points we've heard a million times with only limited new analysis and very limited ideas on how to change things, what caused this model, how to avoid it in future etc. without a more thorough analysis of intentions, party ideology and the problems experienced and fought against it's just not useful reading. also unhelpful to generalise without looking once at any socialist state outside the ussr or outside that specific time period.
the most interesting bit of what he says himself to me was the talk about relations between managers and the centre, which was genuinely interesting and valuable information and analysis. i also appreciated the talk about real economic conditions of workers, even if he doesn't go into statistical or analytical detail except to dismiss them. thinking about the mode of production as conflict between attempted command economy and capitalist logic from managers is useful
why do these sorts of books often note good things from the perspective of the worker (high wages for example - noted that the practice of "storming" where things are rushed at the end of the month gets high overtime pay for workers) but don't think anything of them
what is with every criticism of the USSR making it genuinely sound like a worker's paradise
just did not get much out of this at all. focuses only on a single specific time period (ussr 1950s -80s) then generalises this out to "vanguard Marxism" without defining the phrase even. he then ends by saying "i don't deny the necessity for leadership or a state " like ok but if you're so pissed about vanguard ideas how can you stop these things descending into what you've spent so much time attacking? he actually has a whole section where he says that it's easier to offer answers and instead writes down a bunch of good questions about socialism, Leninism and his own ideas but doesn't give even vague answers and speaks authoritatively again next chapter as if these questions are irrelevant. stuff like "how to reconcile individual worker's councils into a social whole " are hard but absolutely essential. he also only quotes a few times from any socialist except Marx - his main sources are economists whose goals were to institute capitalism in the USSR and yet he barely criticises them. he describes the highly unusual economic situation for workers of the USSR, with things like incredible job rights, high wages vs low working hours, but doesn't seem to think much of it - it's just part of a "social contract " which solidifies "vanguard" rule. like I'm 100 percent behind criticism of the USSR but this just recycles the same old points we've heard a million times with only limited new analysis and very limited ideas on how to change things, what caused this model, how to avoid it in future etc. without a more thorough analysis of intentions, party ideology and the problems experienced and fought against it's just not useful reading. also unhelpful to generalise without looking once at any socialist state outside the ussr or outside that specific time period.
the most interesting bit of what he says himself to me was the talk about relations between managers and the centre, which was genuinely interesting and valuable information and analysis. i also appreciated the talk about real economic conditions of workers, even if he doesn't go into statistical or analytical detail except to dismiss them. thinking about the mode of production as conflict between attempted command economy and capitalist logic from managers is useful
July 28, 2013
This is an excellent, clearly written book. Lebowitz explores the internal conflict within the Soviet bureaucratic ruling class, between the plant & industry managers, on the one hand, and the political apparatchiks, military brass & Gosplan elite on the other hand. How the interests of the first favored market-oriented reforms. He sees the incipient force for transition to capitalism in the interests of the plant & industry level management bureaucracy.
He explains the "deal" that existed throughout the Soviet period between the working class and the dominant bureaucratic class leadership. The discussion of workplace dynamics explores the characteristically non-capitalist features of the Soviet Union's bureaucratic mode of production. The problems created by this mode of production, combined with the internal conflicts in the bureaucratic class, are used to explain the movement towards capitalist transition. I would recommend reading this book together with another clearly written book "Revolution from Above," about the actual transition.
From a libertarian socialist perspective an interesting feature of this book is that it largely validates a libertarian socialist perspective, and I would say Lebowitz goes further here than in his other books in giving a libertarian interpretation of Marx. The main disagreement I would have is his retention of the Marxist idea of a need for a state to guide the transition period, what he euphamistically calls "socialist regulation".
He explains the "deal" that existed throughout the Soviet period between the working class and the dominant bureaucratic class leadership. The discussion of workplace dynamics explores the characteristically non-capitalist features of the Soviet Union's bureaucratic mode of production. The problems created by this mode of production, combined with the internal conflicts in the bureaucratic class, are used to explain the movement towards capitalist transition. I would recommend reading this book together with another clearly written book "Revolution from Above," about the actual transition.
From a libertarian socialist perspective an interesting feature of this book is that it largely validates a libertarian socialist perspective, and I would say Lebowitz goes further here than in his other books in giving a libertarian interpretation of Marx. The main disagreement I would have is his retention of the Marxist idea of a need for a state to guide the transition period, what he euphamistically calls "socialist regulation".
July 25, 2021
It has taken me a while to complete this book, mainly because I read other smaller texts or essays on the USSR, before coming back to it to start again.
This is a rich theoretical overview of the Soviet Union covering post WW2 stabilisation to its collapse. Lebowtiz presents a compelling and novel interpretation of the demise of Real Socialism, primarily drawing on Preobrazhensky who during the accumulation debate of the 1920s produced The New Economics, arguably the most important work of that decade. In that work Preobrazhensky presents the transition period as a struggle between two organic systems, on the one hand you had the state economy and the law of socialist accumulation, and on the other you had the market and the law of value. Lebowitz adapts this and poses a similar struggle, of 'contested reproduction,' in the mature years of the Soviet Union between what he terms 'vanguard relations' characterising party and state in its relation to the economy and society, and the logic of capital, encompassing the demands for reform among economists and managers of enterprises. Each side is sketched out in its purity, that is by way of abstraction, before analysing them as they operated in practice, with each side deforming the others, and its own, development.
The merits of the argument is it presents the Soviet Union in a dialectical manner. The well-known impurities and imperfections that emerged within socialist planning are contextualised as part of a class struggle, including its representation within Soviet society. Furthermore, the working class are incorporated within this theoretical framework in its contradictory relation to the two logics and by providing a potential alternative. Lebowitz is aware of the scale of the task of transition, approaches the history of the twentieth century in a generally productive way, and admits, refreshingly, '[t]here are no easy answers.'
There are a few issues I have with book, not least Lebowitz insistence that he is following Marx's correct method of presentation in Capital. This is an admirable pursuit but one I feel is asserted more than demonstrated. For instance the book is lacking the lengthy empirical and historical chapters so important to Marx, such as his The Working Day and Machinery and Large-Scale Machinery chapters to provide two examples. Moreover, Lebowitz neglects the founding years of the Soviet Union, the 1920s and the 1930s, on the basis of a fully emerged system that he analyses differs from its emergence. However, if this is what Marx did Capital would not have included Part 8. Both of these oversights are limitations in there own right. Lastly, Lebowitz's idea of Marxism (centred on human development) and socialism (as protagonism) animating his critique contains its own deficiencies. Institutions and organisations from below are stressed but eventually in a post-revolutionary society, although it will have greatly enhanced societal engagement, it cannot maintain revolutionary style energies indefinitely, and so these institutions and organisations might not meet the standard set for them by Lebowitz.
This is a rich theoretical overview of the Soviet Union covering post WW2 stabilisation to its collapse. Lebowtiz presents a compelling and novel interpretation of the demise of Real Socialism, primarily drawing on Preobrazhensky who during the accumulation debate of the 1920s produced The New Economics, arguably the most important work of that decade. In that work Preobrazhensky presents the transition period as a struggle between two organic systems, on the one hand you had the state economy and the law of socialist accumulation, and on the other you had the market and the law of value. Lebowitz adapts this and poses a similar struggle, of 'contested reproduction,' in the mature years of the Soviet Union between what he terms 'vanguard relations' characterising party and state in its relation to the economy and society, and the logic of capital, encompassing the demands for reform among economists and managers of enterprises. Each side is sketched out in its purity, that is by way of abstraction, before analysing them as they operated in practice, with each side deforming the others, and its own, development.
The merits of the argument is it presents the Soviet Union in a dialectical manner. The well-known impurities and imperfections that emerged within socialist planning are contextualised as part of a class struggle, including its representation within Soviet society. Furthermore, the working class are incorporated within this theoretical framework in its contradictory relation to the two logics and by providing a potential alternative. Lebowitz is aware of the scale of the task of transition, approaches the history of the twentieth century in a generally productive way, and admits, refreshingly, '[t]here are no easy answers.'
There are a few issues I have with book, not least Lebowitz insistence that he is following Marx's correct method of presentation in Capital. This is an admirable pursuit but one I feel is asserted more than demonstrated. For instance the book is lacking the lengthy empirical and historical chapters so important to Marx, such as his The Working Day and Machinery and Large-Scale Machinery chapters to provide two examples. Moreover, Lebowitz neglects the founding years of the Soviet Union, the 1920s and the 1930s, on the basis of a fully emerged system that he analyses differs from its emergence. However, if this is what Marx did Capital would not have included Part 8. Both of these oversights are limitations in there own right. Lastly, Lebowitz's idea of Marxism (centred on human development) and socialism (as protagonism) animating his critique contains its own deficiencies. Institutions and organisations from below are stressed but eventually in a post-revolutionary society, although it will have greatly enhanced societal engagement, it cannot maintain revolutionary style energies indefinitely, and so these institutions and organisations might not meet the standard set for them by Lebowitz.
November 2, 2017
Answers the question; why did the socialist economy of the Soviet Union disintegrate into a capitalist economy? Well, that's not entirely accurate. His object of interrogation are the social relations within the relations of production between Soviet central planners (whom Lebowitz calls the vanguard), managers of enterprises, and workers. The central figure is the conductor who stands over and above the conducted, responding to an abstract score of perfection that determines regulatory interventions. In the absence of any structural commitment to "human development" as the basis of a socialist economy, what emerges instead is an unholy interdynamic between two contradictory economic systems; the contract between party elites in central planning (again, the vanguard) and the mass workers. Guaranteed employment, guaranteed wages, and social benefits for workers was secured while workers themselves surrendered (coercively) all participation and collective control to the vanguard. Meanwhile, coincidental to this highly reduced "socialist" arrangement, managers operated as de factor capitalists pursuing ambitions of private profit, entrepreneurialism, and artificial scarcity. In Lebowitz's words, the combination of these two systems was the worse of both worlds, "Real Socialist" and capitalist. With the contradictions naturalized and endlessly reproduced, the stage was set for the neoliberal reforms of the 1980s as the managers grew in dominance and central planning removed guaranteed employment, price controls, and social benefits under the presumption that these, and not the fundamental alienation of workers from democratic control, was the problem in need of correcting. Interesting. I learned a lot. But damn, a real slog to get through.
November 6, 2013
This book is a more intelligent critique of ''Real Socialism'' in the former USSR and Eastern Europe, than the traditional Trotskyist critique.
The author shows the conflict of interest and contradictions between the planners and the enterprice managers and how this led to shortages. He explains the ''social contract'' between the Vanguard party and the working class which guarantees full employment and jobs for life in return for the total acceptance of Communist Party right to rule.
The author criticises the system of the leading role of the Vanguard party which is at best paternalistic and at worst authoritarian, and he explains how this system never allowed or trusted the working class to develop their full potential, into what he calls ''Socialist human beings''.
The author shows the conflict of interest and contradictions between the planners and the enterprice managers and how this led to shortages. He explains the ''social contract'' between the Vanguard party and the working class which guarantees full employment and jobs for life in return for the total acceptance of Communist Party right to rule.
The author criticises the system of the leading role of the Vanguard party which is at best paternalistic and at worst authoritarian, and he explains how this system never allowed or trusted the working class to develop their full potential, into what he calls ''Socialist human beings''.
February 22, 2014
yeah, but no.
March 29, 2021
A sharp and insightful critique of Marxism-Leninism and its hierarchical structures which prevent workers from democratically running their own affairs.
January 3, 2013
I thought this was a really good read and made some important theoretical contributions to the political-economic analysis of Real Socialism. That it's grounded in an examination of concrete social relations at and around the point of production places it within the framework of where I think Marxism makes its strongest contributions. He also brings in the much needed humanist element of Marxist thought - that the imperatives of structuring the economy cannot be separated from the requirements of allowing for full human development.
The one criticism I have is that an important question he raises out of his analysis seem dated. Asking if a backslide into capitalist social relations from Real Socialism is an important question, but asking whether truly socialist social relations can still develop from it? It seems irrelevant, 20 years after the fact. Maybe it's an issue with the editing, but it bugged me.
The one criticism I have is that an important question he raises out of his analysis seem dated. Asking if a backslide into capitalist social relations from Real Socialism is an important question, but asking whether truly socialist social relations can still develop from it? It seems irrelevant, 20 years after the fact. Maybe it's an issue with the editing, but it bugged me.
May 9, 2013
Difficult to start but got a lot better towards the middle and end. Would recommend, and I'd certainly like to include it in future essays.
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews