Misinterpretations of Marx

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Hello, this is my first post here, so I'm sorry if I posted this in the wrong forum. I've been lurking for a little bit, and I've been reading a lot of Marx lately, and it seems that a lot of people have misinterpreted Marx's vision of the transition from capitalism to the higher phase of communism. Most people seem to confuse the DOTP with the lower phase of communism, which is commonly called socialism. I may not be the most well-versed Marxist, but I don't really see how someone can get this so wrong. We know that communism is stateless, and that the DOTP is a state, so how could we possibly equate the DOTP with socialism? Socialism and communism are both stateless and classless. The DOTP is a transitional stage from capitalism to socialism. This leaves us with three distinct forms:

The DOTP, which is characterized by remnants of capitalism such as commodity production, class society, money, the state, etc > socialism, characterized by statelessness, classlessness, labor being exchanged for labor time vouchers > full communism.

The DOTP is a revolutionary state; it exists only as long as the revolution is still being carried out. With it's sucess, the DOTP ceases to exist, and we have socialism. It seems that only a few people on this board have the same interpretation, and I recall a few other groups sharing this view as well. I think this is pretty significant and requires discussion if it isn't being discussed somewhere else, because unless I'm missing something, the idea that the DOTP=socialism seems to be a major misunderstanding of Marx.

[BlackCapital]

Welcome!

You are right, Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, both equating to a stateless, classless society. However, not everyone here is necessarily Marxist and do not adhere to that, and even those that do may interpret socialism differently.

When you say DOTP I am guessing you're referring to a vanguard party style state. I would personally say this has relevance in the transition from capitalism to socialism, because it isn't that simple and doesn't quite happen over night. The way some comrades on this forum and myself interpret socialism is a state in which the means of production are collectively controlled by the population (in Marx terms the transition of ownership from the bourgeois to proletariat) . To me, this is the defining characteristic of socialism. This does not precisely mean the end of class or total economic equality, as that would be nearly impossible to immediately implement, but it is paving the way towards it. So it's really just a matter of definition and we all don't envision it quite the same way.

In your capitalism>socialism>full communism model, what would you consider "full communism". after there is already a stateless, classless society?

[mikelepore]

You're right that there are misconceptions, and that Marx intended that the DOTP ceases as soon as the revolution is completed. But the rest of your post is not exactly right. The idea that the words "socialism" and "communism" refer to different phases was introduced by Lenin in his pamphlet "The State and Revolution." This distinction doesn't appear in anything that Marx or Engels ever wrote. About 99 percent of the people on this site keep getting this wrong.

[el_chavista]

As I see it, the government of the capitalist society we live in is the 'DOTB' (dictature of the bourgeoisie). The DOTP is the government of a transitional society (socialism) until we reach the material and social conditions for the communist society.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

Welcome!

You are right, Marx used socialism and communism interchangeably, both equating to a stateless, classless society. However, not everyone here is necessarily Marxist and do not adhere to that, and even those that do may interpret socialism differently.

When you say DOTP I am guessing you're referring to a vanguard party style state. I would personally say this has relevance in the transition from capitalism to socialism, because it isn't that simple and doesn't quite happen over night. The way some comrades on this forum and myself interpret socialism is a state in which the means of production are collectively controlled by the population. To me, this is the defining characteristic of socialism. This does not precisely mean the end of class or total economic equality, but it is paving the way towards it.

In your capitalism>socialism>full communism model, what would you consider "full communism" after, there is already a stateless, classless society?

Thanks.

I know everyone here is not a Marxist, but that's who this thread is targeted towards. I also know that others interpret socialism differently, which is why I made this thread. I don't think it has been interpreted correctly.

When I say DOTP, I mean the Dictatorship of the Proletariat, or the Proletariat organized as the ruling class. The reason for the existence of the state is precisely because it does not happen over night, it requires a period of transition where the means of production are gradually brought under the control of the state. When all of the means of production are brought under the collective control of the population(socialism), then everyone would have the same relation to the means of production, meaning that society is both classless and stateless.

The model is three stage: DOTP>Socialism>Communism. That's what separates it from the common understanding of the transition of capitalism to the higher phase of communism. What separates the lower phase of communism from the higher phase(full communism) is that in the lower phase, society is based on "to each according to his contribution(in the form of labor vouchers)" while in full communism society would be based on "to each according to their needs."

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

As I see it, the government of the capitalist society we live in is the 'DOTB' (dictature of the bourgeoisie). The DOTP is the government of a transitional society (socialism) until we reach the material and social conditions for the communist society.

Yes, this is the common understanding that I am attempting to argue against.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

You're right that there are misconceptions, and that Marx intended that the DOTP ceases as soon as the revolution is completed. But the rest of your post is not exactly right. The idea that the words "socialism" and "communism" refer to different phases was introduced by Lenin in his pamphlet "The State and Revolution." This distinction doesn't appear in anything that Marx or Engels ever wrote. About 99 percent of the people on this site keep getting this wrong.

I know this, I just think that distinction is useful, so I use it. This view would be shared by De Leonists then, correct?

[mikelepore]

The DOTP is the government of a transitional society (socialism) until we reach the material and social conditions for the communist society.

That's not right. The DOTP doesn't refer to a period of waiting for some conditions. It's just the policy of taking legal action to enforce socialism against reactionaries who resist it. There's no way to know whether enforcement would have to continue for a week or a month or maybe even longer. How long does it take society to apprehend some gangs of outlaws? That depends on how many there are, and how well they can hide. As soon as those who resist socialism have been required to comply with it, the DOTP is completed. There's nothing in Marx's writings to associate the DOTP with a historical period of any duration, it has nothing to do with the hypothetical transition that Marx called the "first phase" and "higher phase", and it has nothing to do with material conditions.

[mikelepore]

I know this, I just think that distinction is useful, so I use it. This view would be shared by De Leonists then, correct?

You mean how De Leonists interpret the words socialism and communism? They usually claim that Marx use the two words as perfect synonyms. I say that's not correct either. I see Marx and Engels allowing the word socialism for several "loose" references, such as utopian socialism, bourgeois socialism, and medieval socialism, but strictly reserving the word communism for two applications only, for the post-revolutionary society, and for the "primitive communism" of ancient tribal society.

As for the DOTP, most De Leonists reject the whole idea. They usually argue that no transitional actions are needed at all, except for the workers on the job physically locking their former bosses out of the workplaces. They also propose that a "stateless" condition be adopted instantly. I still call myself a De Leonist but I think their thoughts are faulty in those areas.

[Niccolò Rossi]

The OP is essentially correct. The DOTP refers to the seizure and exercise of political worker by the working class. Socialism/communism, whilst having the DOTP as its fundamental premise, only come into existence potentially given the generalisation of the DOTP across the entire globe, that is, the conditions where by the construction of socialism/communism is made possible.

[robbo203]

That's not right. The DOTP doesn't refer to a period of waiting for some conditions. It's just the policy of taking legal action to enforce socialism against reactionaries who resist it. There's no way to know whether enforcement would have to continue for a week or a month or maybe even longer. How long does it take society to apprehend some gangs of outlaws? That depends on how many there are, and how well they can hide. As soon as those who resist socialism have been required to comply with it, the DOTP is completed. There's nothing in Marx's writings to associate the DOTP with a historical period of any duration, it has nothing to do with the hypothetical transition that Marx called the "first phase" and "higher phase", and it has nothing to do with material conditions.


Yes I mostly agree except maybe for the last point. Wasnt Marx's DOTP intended precisely to promote in hothouse fashion the development of the productive forces in capitalism (as per the Communist Manifesto).

I think the whole idea of the DOTP is an incoherent one. It should be scrapped completely. The basic incoherency stems from the absurdity of an exploited class - the workers - somehow ruling over their exploiters. That doesnt make sense and never did to me. If the workers were in a position to rule over their exploiters then they would be in a postion to get rid of their status as an exploited subject status - in other words to abolish themselves as a class and ipso facto capitalism and the capitalist class.

If I am right in thinking that the DOTP was simply suggested as an expedient transition to developing the forces of production to the point where communism/socialism was possible then it would in any case be a totally redundant concept now. At least since the beginning of the 20th century we have had the technology to support a communist society straightaway. All that is lacking is mass communist consciousness

[cb9's_unity]

I have been studying Marx for some time now (even if my studies have not been as in depth if I would some time like). And I always thought that the Dictatorship of the Proletariat and Socialism to be almost interchangeable, this must have been more of what I have heard on this site.

Could someone please give me Marx's actual predicted order of events and political systems after revolution. If you could also tell me of the original source(s) that this is coming from I would appreciate it.

[ZeroNowhere]

Could someone please give me Marx's actual predicted order of events and political systems after revolution. If you could also tell me of the original source(s) that this is coming from I would appreciate it.
Capitalism -Revolution in one area-> DotP (which can then expand with further successful revolutions) -Successful international revolution-> Lower phase of socialism -"after labor has become not only a means of life but life's prime want"-> Higher phase of socialism.

[Pogue]

I'd also like to note that under anarchism its not inconceivable that there will be a DOTP. It will just be a very democratic and decentralised DOTP, and wont be a state.

[ZeroNowhere]

I'd also like to note that under anarchism its not inconceivable that there will be a DOTP. It will just be a very democratic and decentralised DOTP, and wont be a state.
Not in the Weberian definition that you seem to be referring to here, at least.

[SEKT]

Welcome!

When you say DOTP I am guessing you're referring to a vanguard party style state.

I think this is completely wrong. The DOTP refers to a class domain not a "vanguard party" domain over the working class. This is a form of new class societies: The Vanguard (mainly bureaucrats) - The Working class

The DOTP refers in the collective control, use, and determination of the means of production, but also and more important I consider is the initial state in which the society has to help in "the development of the individual capacities corresponding to the material instruments of production.” It means "the genuine and free development of individuals". If not there will be no difference between capitalism and socialism (both develop means of production and the productive forces) but if each individual does not cease to be alienated it does not make any considerable difference.

[Pogue]

Not in the Weberian definition that you seem to be referring to here, at least.

What do you mean?

I simply refer to the reality that after a revolution and before communism there will inevitably be a DOTP stage.

[ZeroNowhere]

What do you mean?

I simply refer to the reality that after a revolution and before communism there will inevitably be a DOTP stage.
I was referring to your use of the word 'state'.

[SocialismOrBarbarism]

I'd also like to note that under anarchism its not inconceivable that there will be a DOTP. It will just be a very democratic and decentralised DOTP, and wont be a state.

It'll be a state in the Marxist definition.



If you could also tell me of the original source(s) that this is coming from I would appreciate it.

Well, here's a pretty simple and recognizable quote:


Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat.If the lower phase of communism and DOTP were the same, then we would end up with the DOTP transforming into the...DOTP.

[Pogue]

I don't use the Marxist definition. But I think it'd be naive as anarchists to ignore the fact there'll be a stage which can loosely be described as some form of DOTP, except it wont have a 'workers state'. It just wont be communism, nor capitalism.

[nuisance]

I don't use the Marxist definition. But I think it'd be naive as anarchists to ignore the fact there'll be a stage which can loosely be described as some form of DOTP, except it wont have a 'workers state'. It just wont be communism, nor capitalism.
Well, Marx did state the Paris Commune was a example of his perception of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', which is widely accredited by anarchists.
It is also important to note that Marx stated that we live under the 'Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie', which means that the tools of proudction are controlled by the that class, thus the Bourgeoisie dictates society over the workers. This means once the workers control production during the fight back, it will be the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'.
So, anarchists do advocate this, just not in the form of a State but through a federation of worker councils.

[Pogue]

Well, Marx did state the Paris Commune was a example of his perception of the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat', which is widely accredited by anarchists.
It is also important to note that Marx stated that we live under the 'Dictatorship of the Bourgeoisie', which means that the tools of proudction are controlled by the that class, thus the Bourgeoisie dictates society over the workers. This means once the workers control production during the fight back, it will be the 'Dictatorship of the Proletariat'.
So, anarchists do advocate this, just not in the form of a State but through a federation of worker councils.

Yes, so we have the fundamental of no state and worker control but its still developing to communism, so there will be some problems such as wage inequality, but within the context of a worker run society.

[nuisance]

Yes, so we have the fundamental of no state and worker control but its still developing to communism, so there will be some problems such as wage inequality, but within the context of a worker run society.
Goods are unlikely to be in abundance during conflict and thus will have to be allocated according to need via rationing. This is a non-montetary system. So, if rationing is adopted, then why wouldn't goods be allocated in this way continually once the ability to produce more arises?

[ZeroNowhere]

Yes, so we have the fundamental of no state and worker control but its still developing to communism, so there will be some problems such as wage inequality, but within the context of a worker run society.
Wage inequality? Wait, so the workers are supposed to overthrow the bourgeoisie and implement capitalism?