None of those things happen outside the
economy though. And do you think the state came from? The state is a fora for the co-ordination of economic interests. Schools and so on are also economic interests, just less directly. When people say that 'economic power precedes political power', what it means is that the people who have the ability to control scarcity - be it of resources of labour or whatever - will end up running the state and thus will have political power. The political power can then be used for whatever their hearts desire.
'National Guilds and the State', S. G. Hobson, 1920, pg 109 - 111 (emphasis added) wrote:Whatever unhappy vicissitudes politics has passed through since the glory of Greece set it on its way, it is as true now as ever that successful statesmanship is founded on enduring principles and not upon the appraisement or nice balancing of material considerations. There is a practical sagacity, notably in the obiter dicta of Bacon and later in Cromwell's policy, that does not disregard the economic factors; but that sagacity turns to cunning or opportunism if it lose faith in the fundamental principles disclosed by time and circumstance. This is not to deny the main fact of modern industrialism that economic power precedes and dominates political action. There is a sense in which that aphorism is permanently true; another sense in which it is a polemic peculiar to existing conditions.
It is permanently true in that statesmanship must possess the material means to encompass its ends, precisely as one must have the fare and sustenance before proceeding on a journey. But whilst the fare must be available as a condition precedent to the journey, it remains a means to the end. Our aphorism is a polemic peculiar to private capitalism in that the fare to continue the metaphor is controlled by an interested section of the community, which can consequently decide the time and direction of the journey. But when the fare and sustenance pass from private to communal control, in the process increasing in abundance and availability, we find ourselves as a people free to embark on whatever spiritual or political enterprise we desire.
Economic power is not finally found in wealth but in the control of its abundance or scarcity. If I possessed the control of the water supply, my economic power would be stupendous; but with equal access to water by the whole body of citizens, that economic power is dispersed and the community may erect swimming-baths or fountains or artificial lakes without my permission. Not only so; but the abundance of water, which economically considered is of boundless value, grows less serious as a practical issue the more abundant it becomes.
Upon the substantial truth of this hangs our conception of citizenship and State policy. I have consistently disclaimed for the future Guilds the control of wealth, conceding to them no more and no less than the control, through monopoly, of their labour-power.
[...]
The dominance of economic power depends, therefore, upon two main considerations artificially, by the private control of wealth; fundamentally, by a natural scarcity. If the former be abolished and the latter overcome, the [socialist] State possesses the means to achieve its purposes, so far as they depend upon economic resources. In this connection, it is not without significance that common parlance often describes a propertied man as "a man of means," and never so far as I know as "a man of ends." But it is usual to refer to a statesman as one having ends to be served by political methods. These philological distinctions are at bottom instinctive citizenship, a recognition that wealth is a means to an end.
But of course, when S. G. Hobson says that he 'disclaims for future Guilds the control of wealth', where 'disclaim' apparently means 'denies', that is evidently not true because in the same sentence he grants them control of wealth through a monopoly on labour power. Therefore, they do indeed control wealth, and they do indeed gain political power because of that fact. But for some reason Hobson's writing doesn't make this clear. He alternates between a tone of almost trying to promise he is not trying to do the
very thing which he is creating a structure specifically
to do, and so it makes me wonder who his audience was that he felt the need to write that way.
So clearly the Guilds become organisations that have 'means', a 'means' perhaps to an 'end' like this, if you like:
wiki: Socialist-oriented market economy - Theoretical Basis wrote:The Communist Party of Vietnam maintains that the socialist-oriented market economy is consistent with the Marxist view of economic development, being a key step in achieving economic growth and modernization while being able to co-exist in the modern global market economy[6] (see Socialism in Marxism). The Communist Party of Vietnam has re-affirmed its commitment to the development of a socialist economy with its Doi Moi reforms.[7]
This economic model is defended from a Marxist perspective, which states that a planned socialist economy can only emerge after first developing the basis for socialism through the establishment of a market economy and commodity-exchange economy, and that socialism will only emerge after this stage has exhausted its historical necessity and gradually transforms itself into socialism.[8] Proponents of this model argue that the economic system of the former USSR and its satellite states attempted to go from a natural economy to a planned economy by decree, without passing through the necessary market economy phase of development.[9]
Proponents of socialist market economies distinguish themselves from market socialists: the view of market socialism is that markets are a central feature of socialism, and that markets are the most feasible mechanism for a socialist economy.[10]
And:
wiki: Transition to Socialism wrote:To reach the socialist stage of development, the development of the state sector was of utmost importance – the lack of which would, according to Hồ Chí Minh, lead to failure.[48] The platform of the 11th National Congress held in January 2011 stated, "This is a profound and thorough revolutionary process and a complicated struggle between the old and the new for qualitative changes in all aspects of social life. It is essential to undergo a long period of transition with several steps of development and several mixed social and economic structures."[49]
According to the party's General Secretary Nguyễn Phú Trọng, during the transition to socialism, socialist factors of development compete with non-socialist factors, which include capitalist factors. Nguyễn said, "Along with positive aspects, there will always be negative aspects and challenges that need to be considered wisely and dealt with timely and effectively. It is a difficult struggle that requires spirit, fresh vision, and creativity. The path to socialism is a process of constantly consolidating and strengthening socialist factors to make them more dominant and irreversible. Success will depend on correct policies, political spirit, leadership capacity, and the fighting strength of the Party."[50]
This general idea is almost universally applicable for any kind of socialist group that is trying to actually use a market mechanism. It seems to me to be the logical conclusion of what the idea is really about.