I'm curious how you find Hudis' read of Marx's corpus. Have you read After Capitalism by David Schweickart? If not, I can't recommend it more highly, comrade. — 180 Proof
I finished Peter Hudis' book and found it to be a well-grounded, well-reasoned, at at times an eye-opening reading of Marx's work and perspective. Per the title of the book, Marx does not delineate concrete mechanisms or detailed institutional forms that would comprise a post-capitalist, socialist society. Rather, Marx provides some conceptual lodestars. The most concise summary I can offer is that Marx's concept of the alternative to capitalism centers on the production process and humanity's social relationship to it. Marx wishes to flip the script so-to-speak, or inverse the subject-predicate logic that infests our current socio-economic horror show. Rather than value-production dominating and alienating the wage-labor that creates it, as we see in capitalism, the "total aggregate product" of a free and democratic association of labor "is a social product", which "remains social to renew or reproduce the means of production" or is consumed by individuals as subsistence as determined by "labor-time" (crucially distinct from
socially necessary labor time, which is unique to the capitalist mode of production). The distribution and application of the social component to the social product requires conscious and democratic discussion and debate, the form of which Marx does not articulate or detail (aside from being "democratic) as the organization is up to the free association of producers.
Alternatives which fundamentally center on distribution, the abolition or alternatives to the market or private property, will continue to rely on a core constituent of capitalism, value-production, and its autonomous force that eclipses the autonomous power of free and democratic association of labor which is why (among other things) Marx wouldn't have called the USSR "socialist", "communist" etc. ("Capital without Capitalists").
Turning to David Schweickart's work, which as I said before I haven't read in about a decade and have recently just skimmed the section on the basic model of Economic Democracy. I think there are some elements that Marx would agree with and much that he would not. Focusing on the latter, most significantly, I think Marx would criticize Schweickart's "Social Control of Investment" as driven by the anarchic and autonomous force of value-production and therefore not centered of the free association of producers. As Schweickart himself states, "I use the term socialist to refer to any attempt to transcend capitalism by abolishing most private ownership of means of production". Marx would disagree on this appellative change as the abolition of private property does not entail the abolition of capital, and therefore its autonomous force of value-production remains intact. "Private property," writes Marx, "is the result, the necessary consequence of alienated labor". The "conceptual pivot" of Marx, writes Hudis, "the heart of the problem is abolishing capital itself, by ending the estrangement in the very activity of laboring."
Marx's conceptualization of the alternative to capitalism remains quite abstract, which I'm sure some might find unsatisfying. However, perhaps this is the price we pay now, for a future which will hopefully be deliberated, debated and exercised among and centered on a free and democratic association of social producers. I'll have to reread Schweickart's
After Capitalism again this winter and chew on this more.